HKDSE Liberal Studies

Independent Enquiry Study

Seminar cum Group Meeting
11 October 2014

Rundown
Time

Event

9:30 am 9:35 am

Introduction

9:35 am 10:35 am

Review on 2014 IES

10:35 am 11:05 am

Structured Enquiry Approach Sample

Illustration
Administrative Arrangements for 2015
IES

11:05 am 11:20 am
11:20 am 11:30 am

Break

11:30 am 12:30 pm

SC Group Meeting
2

Review on 2014 IES

Issue of Plagiarism

General Performance of 2014 IES and

Suggestions for Improvement
2014 IES Moderation Results

Issue of Plagiarism

What constitutes serious plagiarism?

Serious cases (P) cases in which nearly
the whole or the whole SBA
task/assignment is plagiarised, with very
little or no contribution from the student.

What constitutes serious plagiarism ?

(illustrated by proven cases)
It is a serious plagiarism case when the student
making no effort in doing the IES
Copying the whole work from source/sources
without making any acknowledgement
as seen in a 2014 (P) case

Presenting the whole work completed by

others as ones work
as seen in a 2012 (P) case

Punishment of the (P) cases

Public Examinations Board (PEB)decide on
the penalty to be imposed on the proven (P)
cases
The levels of penalty are as follows:
Zero marks will be given to the task. An additional
penalty of downgrade by one level on the subject
result
For extreme cases, e.g. repeated offence of
plagiarism, disqualification from the subject(s)
concerned or the whole exam may be imposed
7

Other plagiarism cases (non (P)

cases)
The student made some contribution to
the work but
a major part was copied
the claimed personal analysis /
conclusion being copied materials
Lack of proper acknowledgement

Handling of the other plagiarism

cases
Other plagiarism cases are to be handled
by schools.
Mark penalty on the task is suggested to
be imposed.
The marks given should reflect the
performance of the student who has made
slight contribution to the task.

How to properly acknowledge

the sources?
Properly acknowledged the sources with
footnotes, endnotes and annexes
Proper citations
Also refer to HKDSE Information on Schoolbased Assessment
(http://www.hkeaa.edu.hk/en/sba/) for a
correct format of citations and
acknowledgement

10

General Performance of 2014 IES

and Suggestions for Improvement
(Mr Cheung Yui Fai, IES Supervisor)

11

2014 IES
Moderation Results

12

Hybrid Approach
Task marks (80%) which is subject to:
Statistical Moderation
Determination of a schools IES performance level
with reference to the performance of the school in
public examination (reliability)

Supplement with sample re-assessment

Determination of a schools IES performance level
by re-marking a sample of student work from the
school (validity)

Process marks (20%) which is not moderated

13

Some Statistics
Correlation between school exam mean and school raw
SBA mean is 0.71
499 participating schools
Overall moderated Task mean: 47.9/80
Raw school mean vs. Final moderated school mean
59.3% of the schools were within expectation
17.8% higher than expected
22.8% lower than expected
Compared with last year, more schools were in the
within the expected range (2013: 56.8%)
It is supposed due to that teachers have a better
understanding of the marking standards
14

IES Sample Review

Outlier Detection: Checking the validity of statistical
moderation results on Task
Major Features:
Re-assessment by external assessors
Discrepancy marking: 9.7%
Correl. between raw mark and the sample review result is 0.77
Sampling variation (6 samples selected): School Sample Raw Mean
is closely aligned with School Overall Raw Mean in most cases
For some 90% of schools, the differences (between School
Sample Raw mean and School Overall Raw Mean) are some 5
marks (out of full marks = 80)
Adjustment applied due to such kind of sampling variations
(Ratio estimation method)
Case (i): Sample mean < School mean Sample review results adjusted
Case (ii): Sample mean > School mean Sample review results adjusted

15

IES Sampled Product Review Exercise

Comparing sample review result of each school
with the corresponding one from statistical
moderation, two possible scenarios:
If two sets of results are largely in line, then
statistical moderation result will be adopted
OR
If two sets of results are prominently different,
then statistical moderation result will be
adjusted
Statistical moderation results of some schools are
subject to adjustments with different magnitudes
16

School Feedback Letter

Comment on adjustment applied to mean

Comment on adjustment applied to spread

17

Comment on Adjustment Applied to

School Mean

18

Comment on Adjustment Applied to

School Spread
R, the ratio is compiled as:
= (Moderated spread of Task marks) / (Raw spread of Task marks )

19

An Example: Derivation of a Students

Final Moderated Mark of a School
School A:
Raw mean = 30
Raw spread = 10

Moderated mean = 28
Moderated spread = 9

R = 0.9

Student John:
Raw mark = 40
Final moderated mark= 28 + (40 30) x 0.9
= 37
Student May:
Raw mark = 20
Final moderated mark = 28 + (20 -30) x 0.9
= 19
Note: The difference in SBA performance between John and May

changes from 20 to 18.

20

Structured Enquiry
Approach of Independent
Enquiry Study

21

Highlights of the Implementation

of the Structured Enquiry
Approach of IES
(Mr Cheung Yui Fai, IES Supervisor)

22

Structured Enquiry Approach

Sample Illustration

23

Four Steps for Conducting IES

Step 1

Problem Definition

Relevant Concepts and Knowledge/

Facts/ Data
Step 2
Step 3

Step 4

In-depth Explanation of the Issue

Judgement and Justification

24

SAMPLE 4

25

Sample 4
Title: Should Functional Constituency
elections in the Legislative Council be
abolished?

26

A. Problem Definition
Mainly on What and Why
Identification

Background info (e.g. brief history of FCs)

Controversies & Differences
It is arguable whether the FCs are
incompatible or compatible with
universal suffrage divided views in
the community (Para 1)
p. 3

Issue of
compatibility

27

A. Problem Definition
before handover as a buffer now is
ready for directly elected legislature
aware of their political rights and
freedoms in recent years. (Para 3)

Keeping abreast
of latest
development?

existing tradition Functional

Constituencies are still undemocratic
analyzing the relationship between the
principles of universal suffrage and
functional constituencies (Paras 4 & 5)

Making inference
by contrasting
some principles
further analysis

p. 3

pp. 3-4
28

A. Problem Definition

Focus Questions (pp. 3-4)

(1) analyzing the relationship between the
principles of universal suffrage and FC
(2) the arrangement and electoral base of the FCs
(3) the performance and popularity of FCs
lawmakers
(1)
p. 3

(3)

(2)
p. 4

29

B. Relevant Concepts and Knowledge/

Facts/ Data

Explaining the current

arrangements
degree of democracy/
democratic
ingredients (pp. 5-6)
Voting system, number
of electors (unable to
compare the
composition of the
bases of electorate of
different FCs)

p. 5

p. 6
30

Relevant Concepts and Knowledge/

Facts/ Data

Contrasting with the election arrangement of

LegCo stipulated in the BL (pp. 6-7)
Article 68 (ultimate aim universal suffrage)

p. 6

Direct Quote
from BL
31

B. Relevant Concepts and Knowledge/

Facts/ Data

Identifying key concepts

Balanced participation
wide acceptance, political stability, sustainable and
orderly democratization, freedom of choices, consensus,
etc.
Relevant but
more
elaboration is
needed
p. 7

32

B. Relevant Concepts and Knowledge/

Facts/ Data

University and equality

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 25)
BL Article 39

p. 7

Universal suffrage (p. 8)

Right to vote and opportunities to vote
Granted in the BL

Related the BL to
an international
covenant
relevancy of the
concepts to the
study should have
been articulated

Appropriate
concept, but
relevance to the
topic should have
been pointed out
33
directly

Marking Domain: Problem Definition and

Identification of Concepts/ Knowledge

General Comments
Defined the objective of the enquiry study clearly
Elaborated clearly on some concepts/ basic facts related to
the study but the role of the concepts in the enquiry was
not well articulated
Explained the importance of some of the concepts (e.g.
the principle of balanced participation) to the discussion of
Functional Constituencies (FC), but seemingly biased to the
concepts related to the abolition of FC. The concepts such
as principles of gradual and orderly progress (Article 68,
Basic law of the HKSAR) and populism or welfarism
could have been included in the report
34

Marking Guidelines
Performance
Level
(Marks)#

Outstanding
Achievement
(7 9 marks)

Problem Definition and Identification of Concepts/

knowledge
(Weighting: 3)

Defines and explains clearly the focus and scope of the

enquiry, the enquiry plan (e.g. perspectives for enquiry)/
data collection method; articulates clearly the significance
of the issue

Clearly identifies necessary and highly relevant

concepts/ knowledge and explains the relevance
and applicability to the enquiry

8
35

C. In-depth Explanation of the Issue

Mainly on What and How
More details on the nature, significance,
controversies and dilemma of the issue

Situation
Divided views (e.g. concerns, interests, etc.)

Explanation
Principles in terms of interpretation
Concepts/ values in conflict

Information
Facts/ Figures (as evidence)
36

C. In-depth Explanation of the Issue

Imbalance representativeness between FCs and GCs

Electoral base comparison (238022 vs 3471423) (facts)
Franchise/ elites/ sectoral interests (concepts) 12
Representativeness issue unequal (concepts)

Nomination requirement (eligibility/ qualification

of voters)
Corporate vote vs individual votes (facts) 15 & 16
Unrepresentative/ elitism/ inequality (concepts)

Lack of Competition

Good
comparison
Heading not
clear
More elaboration
is needed

Uncontested candidates: 16 out of 30 seats of FCs (facts)

18

Narrow electoral base (Agriculture and Fisheries FC)

(facts) 17

Strong
evidence

Support abolition of FCs (pp. 9-11)

37

C. In-depth Explanation of the Issue

Realizing balanced participation

Voices of business and professional sectors
(source) 20
Hong Kong context (uniqueness/ prosperity
and stability) (source) 20
HK is an Special Administrative Region (BL)

Performing safeguarding function 21 (source)

Welfare society
Bicameral voting system

Avoid too political in the council (source) 22

Postpone the effectiveness of the government
effectiveness of the executive must be affected

Keeping FCs (p. 12)

More
evidence is
needed

Good point
but more
evidence is
needed

Evidence is
needed
38

C. In-depth Explanation of the Issue

Using secondary sources to explain WHAT and HOW

39

D. Judgement and Justification

Judgement: Support to abolish the FCs

Justification

Evidence:
Constitutional
Convergence of the BL 23
BL: Ultimate aim Universal suffrage of the LegCo Documents &
historical Facts
Mainland: 2020 universal Suffrage24 (p. 13)

Violate the principle[s] of universal

equality 25, 26 & 27

[suffrage] and
(pp. 1314) (e.g.)
against the idea of equal suffrage
Views from HK Bar Association & HK
Govt
Counter argument rebuttal
(performance of FC legislators)

Evidence: Three
perspectives:
1. Principles/ values
2. Important Views
3. Criterion:
Performance of
Legislators from
FCs
40

D. Judgement and Justification

Performance based
Judgement: Support to abolish the FCs
evidence:
1. (no. of questions
Justification
raised by
Poorer performance from FCs (pp. 14-16)
legislators as a
Weak in upholding the duty and supervision of the criterion)
government (facts: a table) 28
2. Opinion Survey
Weak in popularity (survey results: a table)
data

p. 14

p. 16
41

D. Judgement and Justification

Judgement: Support to abolish the FCs

Justification
Veto by minority in LegCo (p. 16)

Good point but

more
elaboration is
needed

FC members minority voice (in terms of

electoral base)
Split voting distort the representativeness
of general public

Proven with
facts

Application of
principles/
values to argue
42

D. Judgement and Justification

Using secondary sources from different perspectives as evidence (e.g.

principles, views, facts, opinion survey data, etc.) to make justification

43

Marking Domain: Explanation and

Justification

General Comments
Showed a good understanding of the controversy of the
abolition of FC
Provided an in-depth analysis of the need to abolish functional
constituencies with regard to the crux of the contention
discussed in Part C, e.g. the Basic Law, equality and the
functions of FC, demonstrating multiple perspective thinking
and profound knowledge of relevant concepts
Was able to substantiate his/her arguments logically with
evidence from various sources
Could have scored higher if the discussion of the abolition of FC
was extended further to other impacts (e.g. the impact on the
society and livelihood)

44

Marking Guidelines
Performance
Level
(Marks)#

Explanation and Justification

(Weighting: 5)

Outstanding
Achievement
(7 9 marks)

Deploys highly useful information

Provides a highly relevant linkage between the analysis, justification
and the information
Sharply identifies, clearly and logically articulates factors/ impacts/
relationships/ major viewpoints of key stakeholders, dynamic
relationships/ disagreements/ embedded values in the issue, with
highly relevant concepts and knowledge/ facts/ up-to-date
information
Fully and logically justifies the standpoint/ choices/ decision with
highly relevant concepts and knowledge/ facts/ up-to-date
information, showing strong logical reasoning and high level of
multiple-perspective thinking
Provides insightful ideas/ views, which are relevant to the issue
concerned and the enquiry question, with supportive arguments
Addresses well the issue and the enquiry question with a
comprehensive analysis from multiple perspectives
45

Marking Domain: Presentation and

Organization

General Comments
Was able to express his/her ideas clearly
throughout the report, with clear paragraphing,
logical and well-supported arguments
Acknowledged the sources in detail
The organisation of Parts A to D is coherent and
well structured

46

Marking Guidelines

9
Performance
Level
(Marks)#

Presentation and Organisation*

(Weighting: 1)

Outstanding
Achievement
(7 9 marks)

Communicates ideas in a concise and well-organised

manner, with a coherent structure
Uses data effectively (e.g. in the form of tables,
photographs, charts and figures)
Clearly and accurately acknowledges sources of
information

47

48

7
A

Facebook

P.1

1. Facebook
2. Facebook
3. Facebook

Jeffrey Butts (2009)

12 Facebook
Facebook

49

7
B

P.2

//
1. (The Wall)

2. (Status) Facebook

3. (Like)
4. (Share)
5. (Messages)

Facebook

50

7
B

P.2

//

17
1.
2.
3.
(:
)

51

7
B

//

Facebook
P.3 Facebook
Facebook

52

53

()#

(:3)

(4 6)

54

7
C

P.4

-(1)

a.
1

5
()0
()0

Facebook
(P.9)

55

7
C

Facebook (

P.9 )

56

7
D

P.10

a.

72

23

113
12

53
4

12
0

3
1

23
0

Facebook

57

7
D

P.10

( 1 4 14 1
4) ( 2) ( 4 4) 4

Facebook

58

P.11

Facebook
( 2)
( 3)
Facebook

Facebook
( 7) Facebook

59

7
D

P.11

Facebook Erik Erikson
(sensitive) (responsive) (consistent caretaking)

P.11

Facebook
Facebook Facebook
Facebook
Facebook

60


CFacebook

Facebook

FacebookFacebook
P.11

Facebook
Facebook
Facebook

61

()#

(4 6)

(:1)

62

Facebook

63

()#

(:1)

(4 6)

(
)

64

CALENDAR OF EVENTS

S4

By July Schools
to
finalise
the
2013
assessment requirements in S5
and S6

65

S5

September Schools
to
provide
the
following
2013
information to the HKEAA:
Names and relevant information of S5 IES
teachers
March
May 2014

Students to submit the Project Proposal

Stage Tasks to their IES teachers by
March 2014
Teachers
to
hold
within-school
standardisation meeting(s) and mark the
Project Proposal Stage Tasks from March
to April 2014
The S5 Task mark of Project Proposal
Stage to be properly kept by the school.

66

S6

September
2014

November
2014
January
2015

Schools to provide the following information to the

HKEAA:
Names and relevant information of S6 IES
teachers
Students to submit the Product Stage Tasks to
their IES teachers by November 2014*
Teachers to hold within-school standardisation
meeting(s) and mark the Product Stage Tasks
from November 2014 to December 2014
Schools to submit students Process marks and
Task marks of Project Proposal and Product to
the HKEAA in January 2015
Schools to submit the Product Stage Tasks for
sample review to the HKEAA in January 2015

(2-23 Jan 2015)

July 2015

Release of 2015 HKDSE Examination Results

October
2015

Schools to receive feedback on the outcome of

moderation
67

68