National External Moderation Summary Report for 2008, Semester 1

Prescription: 242/642 Marketing Research

Introduction

This report provides a national perspective on the moderation of 242/642 Marketing Research .

Assessment materials from 12 Tertiary Education Organisations (TEOs) were moderated for this prescription. Eleven submissions were for the 242 prescription, the remaining submission was for 642.

As most of the points noted by the moderators apply to submissions for both prescriptions, a single report covering both prescriptions has been written.

Six submissions (50 percent) met the national standard.

For all submissions that did not meet the national standard:

• insufficient detail was provided in the allocation of marks to enable consistent marking
• consistency of assessor decisions was unable to be verified.

Other areas where the standard was not met included the following, with numbers of submissions affected shown in parentheses:

• all learning outcomes not assessed (4)
• learning outcomes not assessed at the appropriate level specified by the prescription (2)
• prescription weightings not adhered to (5)
• lack of clear and appropriate assessment conditions and instructions (1)
• assessments not consistent with current good industry practice (2)
• marking schedules not allowing for a range of appropriate student responses (1)
• marking schedules not consistent with the requirements of the prescription and assessment materials (2)
• inconsistent marking of student work (6).

Of the six submissions not meeting the national standard, five did not meet four or more requirements.

Presentation of assessment materials

Most submissions were well presented, bound and clearly divided and identified according to the checklist. It was also helpful when material presented was in the same sequence as the checklist, with assessments in chronological order.

In one case, neither assessments nor marking schedules were submitted. In a few cases, the assessment information in the assessment grid did not match the assessments presented.

It is not necessary to include other material not listed in the checklist (such as additional student work samples or internal moderation forms).

Assessment grids

All providers submitted assessment grids. These ranged from simple indications of the weighting for each topic across the assessment programme, to detailed spreadsheets identifying the specific question and detailed marks for every assessment criteria or key element.

In some cases, assessment grids presented were inaccurate and did not reflect the content and/or actual weightings in the assessment material. It should be noted that an accurate assessment grid is a useful tool to ensure assessments are correctly designed in relation to prescription learning outcomes and weightings.

Learning outcomes

Moderators looked for evidence that assessments evaluated student understanding of the learning outcomes, rather than a mechanical coverage of each individual criterion. Some submissions showed evidence of a fragmented approach to assessment of learning outcomes. This approach misses the multi-dimensional nature of marketing research and the interactive nature of some learning outcomes.

Assessment criteria for the 242 prescription are defined as either 'key' or 'non key'. Only one assessment criterion, 3.3, is deemed to be 'non-key' as it is not critical to achieving the applied learning outcome 3. In addition, the theory is partially covered by criterion 1.2.

Submissions were normally judged not to meet the national standard when more than three key assessment criteria, from across any of the learning outcomes, were not assessed. However, the omission of more than one key criteria from the same learning outcome would indicate that the learning outcome itself is unlikely to be achieved.

Note that, for prescription 642, all learning outcomes must be assessed and assessment must include evidence of all key elements.

The most common omissions were from learning outcome one:

• 1.2 - describe the different types of marketing research and their applications
  
  
• 1.3 - describe the marketing research process
  
  
• 1.4 - describe the structure and services of the marketing research industry with particular reference to New Zealand

Level of assessments

A few assessments were at a low level, requiring recall and comprehension only, and could often be answered by direct reference to a text. This was evident in marking schedules. Both 242 Marketing Research and 642 Marketing Research prescriptions require assessment to include evaluation, application and problem solving.

Prescription weightings

A number of assessments did not adhere to the prescription range of weightings. Minor variations from the 242 prescription ranges were accepted by the moderators if the learning outcome was adequately assessed. Some assessments did not reflect the prescription weightings at all. For prescription 642  Marketing Research there is a 10% aggregate variance allowed.

Assessment conditions and instructions for students

In general, most submissions met the requirements of the prescription. A common problem was the lack of detailed instructions when students were asked to design a research questionnaire.

Consistency with industry practice

In general, most submissions were consistent with industry practice. One submission did not require students to conduct marketing research. Therefore the degree of application to current situations could not be determined.

Marking schedules

Lack of detail in marking schedules and the resulting difficulty in determining whether work had been consistently marked was a significant issue. Moderators sought clear information on how marks within questions were to be allocated. It was not considered sufficient to provide a model answer and the mark total only.

Marking schedules are expected to allow for alternate answers where appropriate. These were often not made explicit, but generally were allowed for in the marking process.

Student work samples

Student work was checked for consistency with the marking scheme. If the answer to question 6, 7 or 8 in the moderation report on marking schedules was 'no', it was difficult to make an informed judgment on whether student work was marked consistently according to the marking schedule.

Consistency of marking was also difficult to judge if only a mark total was given and no individual marks shown against answers on student scripts.

Conclusions

Not assessing all learning outcomes/key criteria, not adhering to prescription's weightings, breakdown of marks, flaws in marking schedules and inconsistency of marking were the main issues identified that assessment materials did not meet prescription requirements.

Careful use of assessment grids is required to ensure that both the learning needs of students and the prescription outcomes are effectively met.

Page updated: 27 January 2009