see also...

top stories

Share

Tuition providers give their feedback

16 Mar 2007

The Examination Review Board (ERB) met on 21 December 2006 to give immediate feedback on the December 2006 exams. The terms of reference of the ERB are to:

• review the questions, answers, and marking schemes after each exam session to ensure that the papers are a fair and reasonable test
• recommend changes to the syllabus and format of the papers.

Members of the ERB are: Gamel Taher, Kaplan (London); Doug Beardon, London College of Accountancy; James Rattenbury, Manchester Metropolitan University; Reidin Ni Aonghusa, Griffith College, Dublin; Tim Stewart, BPP London; Nagin Lad, De Montfort University; and Lionel Griffiths, University of Wales, Newport.

Members of the CAT ERB are: Rowena Morris, BPP; Patrick Yan, Jeff Wooller College; David Collingridge, Kaplan.

Professional scheme

The ERB felt that, overall, most of the papers were challenging and fair, and adequately covered the syllabus. Some points were raised regarding individual papers -  these are outlined below:

Comments on specific papers
It was felt that Paper 1.1 should pose no problems for well-prepared students, and was a good test of their knowledge. It was felt by some, however, that too much emphasis was placed on disclosure and accounts.

Paper 1.2 was very well received, and it was agreed that the examiner is consistent in setting papers that cover the expected syllabus areas at the correct level.

Paper 1.3 was seen to be a good paper. However, there were some concerns regarding Part (b) of Question 1 in Section A as it was felt that 14 marks was too many for a question of its nature.

Overall, Paper 2.1 was considered to be fair and straightforward, with an interesting case study. It was noted that Question 3(b) - on the V model - contained an error. Allowances were made for this during the marking process. Paper 2.2 was considered by most to be excellent and balanced. However, some felt that the wording for Question 6 could have been clearer.

Paper 2.3 was seen to be slightly narrower in focus than in previous sittings, but it tested students' knowledge comprehensively.

It was felt by the majority that Paper 2.4 was moderately difficult, clear, and unambiguous.

Paper 2.5 was agreed to have been - overall - a fair, mainstream, and predictable paper, which was marginally easier than the previous sitting.

It was agreed that Paper 2.6 was a good test of well-prepared students' knowledge. Some concern was raised over the wording in the two sections of Question 2(b), as it was difficult to distinguish between them. It was noted that this was discussed at the markers' meeting, and as a consequence, the two sections will be marked as one.

Paper 3.1 was well received and considered to be fair and consistent. However, some felt that Question 1 was too long and contained too many figures.

Paper 3.2 received a mixed response, with some ERB members considering it to be an improvement on previous sittings, and others stating that the questions were too academic in nature and too time-pressured.

It was agreed that Paper 3.3 was challenging and fair, and one at which students should excel as long as they concentrated on the basics.

Paper 3.4 was very well received and considered to be fair, but challenging. However, some thought Section A was easier than Section B.

Paper 3.5 was seen to be very fair and balanced, and one which, the ERB hoped, would have been enjoyed by students.

It was agreed that Paper 3.6 was tough, but consistent, and included no surprises. It was felt that Question 4 was more difficult than the others and that it contained confusing time frames.

Many were pleased that Paper 3.7 was more approachable than in previous sittings, but it was felt that there was too much overlap between Papers 3.6 and 3.7 in their coverage of financial management. It was agreed, however, that as the two papers approach the subject differently this should not cause problems for students.

CAT scheme

The CAT ERB felt that, overall, most of the papers were challenging and fair, and adequately covered the syllabus. Some concerns were raised regarding individual papers - these are outlined below.

Comments on specific papers
It was agreed that, overall, Paper 3 was a fair paper, and very similar in content and style to the previous sittings.

No major problems arose from Paper 4. It was thought some of the multiple-choice questions were challenging but it was agreed that well-prepared students should have no problems.

It was agreed by the majority that the questions in Paper 5 were well structured and clear, achieving good syllabus coverage.

Paper 6 was felt to be very fair, with all expected areas covered, including accounts preparation. Some CAT ERB members expressed concern about the 20-mark question on partnership dissolution, but it was within the scope of the syllabus.

Some felt that Paper 7 was very well structured with good mark allocation, but that it differed in approach and format to the previous sittings. The examinability of 'traceable profit' was questioned. In response, the examiner stated that he does not see this as a peripheral area in management accounting. It was noted that expected value was examined but was not included in the syllabus. This will be taken into account during the marking process.

Paper 8 was praised for its coverage of a wide range of syllabus areas and fair marking scheme. However, some felt that the paper may have been too challenging at this level.

Paper 9 should not have caused any problems for well-prepared students. However, it was felt that Question 1(b), testing furnished holiday letting, was very detailed for a very small area of the syllabus.

It was agreed that Paper 10 was very similar in terms of content, style, and level of difficulty - as in the previous sitting. It was considered to be a very reasonable paper which should not have presented any problems. There should have been no problems in terms of time management.

Taking all feedback into account

All comments were passed to the examiners for consideration in the marking process. ACCA thanks the ERB and CAT ERB for their helpful and constructive comments.

From student accountant magazine