[Design and Technology] FW: New SAT marking criteria sheets

[Robin Panousieris]

Excellent points made by Melissa about the lack of clarity and confusion
around the SAT marking criteria and my concerns are similar. 

 

I spoke up loud and often at the PD in December (and heard a number of
groans from teachers present because I could have been perceived as too
vocal).  

 

The SAT marking criteria did need to be changed but I was hoping that the
changes would improve it and even give more marks to the product as the
number of marks the product receives was reduced with the new study design.
Instead we now have a marking criteria that still is poorly aligned to the
study design, doesn't follow the product design process (4 stages and 11
steps in the circle graphic shown in the study design) and lacks the
clarification we as Product Design teachers thought it needed. 

 

Are we acting as a VCAA free editing service picking up obvious errors ?
Are our students now bound by these mistakes because we will have to mark
using this criteria ? 

 

Robin Panousieris

 

 

 

From: destech-bounces at edulists.com.au
[mailto:destech-bounces at edulists.com.au] On Behalf Of Treverton, Melissa J
Sent: Monday, 10 February 2014 12:14 PM
To: Design and Technology Teachers' Mailing List (destech at edulists.com.au)
Subject: [Design and Technology] FW: New SAT marking criteria sheets

 

 

 

Hi all,

 

Does anyone know when the correct copies of the SAT Assessment criteria
marking sheets, with the food descriptions removed, will be uploaded. 

 

I have just tried to use Criteria 1 to mark the drafts of the Design Brief
and can see some issues.  

 

The use of the word "Applies" is incorrect.  The students are "writing or
creating" evaluation criteria at this stage.  They "apply" the criteria
during the design, production & evaluation stages.  I noticed on my notes
from the PD I have written the word "writes" here, so it was obviously
discussed at the PD.

 

There is no mention of constraints and considerations, yet they are clearly
stated in the scope of task.

 

There is not a statement regarding the four part ev. Criteria in levels of
performance 1-5.  This is a requirement of the criteria, so why is there no
descriptor for this level.

 

I understand we were given a chance to provide feedback at the PD session at
the end of last year, but to be fair there was not enough time, or the
correct environment to thoroughly read the document.  

 

I like the idea of breaking the criteria down to 10 levels, but the
performance descriptors MUST relate directly to the scope of task. 

 

What does everyone else think?

 

Regards

Melissa

Melissa Treverton 

Technology Domain Leader

Textiles & Art teacher

 <http://www.parkdalesc.vic.edu.au/index.php>
http://www.parkdalesc.vic.edu.au/templates/parkdale/images/logo.png

Warren Road, 

Mordialloc East             3194

Ph: 9580 6311

Email:  treverton.melissa.j at edumail.vic.gov.au

 

 

 

Important - This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received
in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening or using
attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any loss,
damage or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or
not, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files our
liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any
representations or opinions expressed are those of the individual sender,
and not necessarily those of the Department of Education and Early Childhood
Development.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.edulists.com.au/pipermail/destech/attachments/20140210/340c866c/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 16297 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.edulists.com.au/pipermail/destech/attachments/20140210/340c866c/attachment-0001.png