Umalusi provided clarity on how the faulty question in Maths Paper 2 was marked. Image: Gallo Images/The Times/Moeletsi Mabe).
An independent panel found the error in Question 5.1 occurred at the last step in the chain of internal and external moderation and editing.
Umalusi provided clarity on how the faulty question in Maths Paper 2 was marked. Image: Gallo Images/The Times/Moeletsi Mabe).
An impossible question presented itself in Maths Paper 2 during the matric final exams in 2022. This week, ahead of the release of the results, Umalusi explained how the error made its way into the question paper and how it was marked.
READ: Maths Paper 2: DBE to review ‘impossible’ question on matric exam
READ: READ: BREAKING NEWS: All the latest news alerts from around South Africa
Umalusi appointed a three-person independent panel to investigate how the error in the problematic question 5.1. made it into the paper undetected until the final exam paper was written by learners on 7 November.
“The panel evaluated the documents provided and interviewed the examiner/s, internal and external moderators, and language editors.
“Based on that, the finding of the panel is that the error in Mathematics Paper 2 November 2022 occurred at the last step in the chain of internal and external moderation; and language editing and typesetting processes,” said the quality council.
To mitigate the impact of the faulty question on learner results, Umalusi advised that the Department of Basic Education exclude the question, which was worth seven marks, entirely.
The total marks of the paper were reduced by seven from 150 to 147 and the marks achieved were converted to a mark out of 150.
“The mainly upward adjustment of the marks for students in Mathematics has dealt with the error in the Mathematics paper. Umalusi is satisfied that it has mitigated the effect of the error in the paper through the standardisation processes. The mainly upward computer adjustment served as an additional mitigation factor,” said Umalusi.
On Wednesday, Umalusi provided further clarification on how the faulty question was dealt with.
Question 5 was worth 30 marks and since subquestion 5.1 was excluded, the total marks for question five were reduced to 27.
The following instructions were given to markers:
“To exemplify this, a candidate with a 1 mark out of 23 ended up with 1 out of 30 marks, the one whose mark was 12 out of 23 achieved 16 out of 30 marks, and the one obtaining 23 out of 23 marks ended up with 30 marks,” said Umalusi.
This is how marks were converted:
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ARTICLES BY STORM SIMPSON
READ: