Reviewing RP results
Building on last year's performance
Like any subject, understanding the reflective project and how it should be delivered needs consistent yearly review. Sometimes it can feel like you've cracked it, only to have marks change in moderation and be left wondering why. Whilst it is good to embrace this as part of a bigger picture of being a lifelong learner, what is arguably more useful is a list of tips to help you review your current practice. Keep reading ...
1. Make sure the question works
Last year, successful reflective projects had research questions that tended to begin with 'should' and centred on issues with a clear and deep ethical dimension. They also were designed to lead to multiple viewpoints thus communicating the nature of a dilemma is one of complexity with no easy answers.
What does this mean in terms of the criteria? To score highly in criterion A, you need to maintain sharp focus on the research question throughout the project. Achieving highly in criterion B depends on exploring multiple perspectives on a clear ethical dilemma.
2. Don't describe, explore
If a question starts with 'to what extent' or 'why' then the reflective project is set up to describe rather than explore and suggest solutions. It may well be that a student can do justice to criterion B and show their knowledge and understanding this way, but they are setting themselves up to explain and not solve.
What does this mean in terms of the criteria? If you are not exploring a genuine ethical dilemma then you cannot get into the top markband for any of the criteria and, more specifically damaging, criterion C - critical thinking. Successful critical thinking here demands an interrogative approach with the student presenting a coherent and sustained argument so they can make perceptive connections and conclusions.
3. Connect the local to the global
The criterion does say use local OR global examples - this is true. However it is important if focusing on the local, not to limit it to a single stakeholder and not consider the scope of this local example on a more global scale. Give a greater sense of the 'so what?' It is worth considering extensively the merits in keeping the focus to just local significance; consider the possibility that reflective projects with a more multicultural dynamic apporach, are more internationally-minded and nuanced in how they explore the ethical dilemma.
What does this mean in terms of the criteria? To score highly in criterion B, you want to be considering the impact of the ethical dilemma on communities as well as the influence cultural factors can have specifically.
Word and time limits
Whilst there is no minimum for the reflective project, there certainly is a maximum. This is particularly pertinent for students who go for Option 2 - they must ensure that they do not exceed the maximum of 7 minutes for 4 of the 5 Option 2 formats. Moderators will not listen further and this can really impact a student's final mark.
What does this mean in terms of the criteria? Quite simply, if a student runs far over in the word or time limit, they will not have not communicated their knowledge and understanding or argument to its fullest extent and they will hinder their marks. A moderator will not read beyond the word limit. Nor watch or listen beyond 7 minutes.
Focus and Method
To score highly in criterion A, you need to maintain sharp focus on the research question throughout the project.
Knowledge and Understanding in Context
All examples should be of high quality which means relevant, real and well referenced. Less is more when it comes to the reflective projects - better to have a few really well chosen and appropriate examples than lots that are only developed superficially.
Critical thinking
To present a coherent argument, weigh up the strengths and weaknesses of key points of argument. Let the student voice come through - if the student has presented a balanced argument looking at multiple perspectives, then they should be able to put their perspective and address the 'so what?' With confidence students can push themselves to suggest solutions, using a question that stems from 'what if ...? can help.
Communication
A huge amount can be achieved in terms of smoothness of transitions between paragraphs and correct use of terminology and concepts, by getting students to read their reflective project out loud and to self assess through proof reading this way. If students have an additional format, they must ensure that no material is repeated in both pieces. The same goes for Option 1 or 2, and making sure that you do not repeat in the RPPF.
Engagement and Reflection
To achieve well in the RPPF, students must clearly reflect continously through their whole reflective project journey. More specifically they must discuss the refinement of their research question and the setbacks they faced along the way. It is interesting to note that you can only really get into the top mark band for Criterion E, if you discuss setbacks rather than just a smooth, successful reflective project journey.
Reflect on this year's cohort
Take a small sample from your cohort this year, after you have received the moderated marks. With a critical friend (this can be from your CP team or a CP colleague outside of your school context), discuss the reflective project against the advice given on this page. Use this key word list as a prompt for your discussion:
1. Make sure the question works
2. Interrogative not descriptive
3. Connect the local to the global
4. Word and/or time limit
5. Sharp focus on the question sustained
6. Relevant, real and well referenced examples
7. Strengths and weaknesses of multiple perspectives explored
8. The student's voice is present
9. Clear, coherent structure with no repetition
10. Setbacks as well as successes in the RPPF
Grade boundaries 2022
E- 0-10
D - 11-16
C - 17-22
B - 23-26
A - 27 - 36
Remember, a student needs at least a D to obtain the CP certificate*
These mark boundaries suggest there is a grade parameters of 10 marks for an A: as much as B and C combined.
*(along with at least a 3 in their minimum of 2 DP subjects and completion of the rest of the core and a CRS component).