ERB December 2007
The Examination Review Board met on Thursday 20 December to give immediate feedback on the December 2007 examinations. This was the first meeting about the new ACCA qualification.
The terms of reference of the Board are:
1. To review the questions, answers and marking schemes after each exam session to ensure that the papers are a fair and reasonable test.
2. To recommend changes to the syllabus and format of the papers.
Members of the Exam Review Board are:
Julie Hughes Kaplan Publishing
Doug Beardon London College of Accountancy
James Rattenbury Manchester Metropolitan University
Deborah Taylor BPP (London)
Nagin Lad De Montfort University
Nick Weller BPP Learning Media
John Woodley Oxford Brookes University
Reg Callanan Griffith College, Dublin
Comments on the Papers Overall
The feedback from the ERB on the December 2007 examination papers was very positive. Overall the ERB members agreed that the majority of papers were challenging but fair. Some concerns were raised regarding individual papers – these are outlined below.
Comments on Specific Papers
Paper F4 was found to be reasonable fair, however, some concerns were raised regarding questions 8, 9 and 10 as they required a lot of reading time, however, this was validated by the extra reading time. Paper F5 was considered to be fair and reasonable, although there were less maths than expected. It was agreed that the marking guides were useful. Paper F6 was found to be a natural lead on paper 2.3. Very well thought out in terms of calculations containing a good mix of script. F7 paper was seen by most to be fair and straightforward for the well prepared student. A couple of minor queries relating to mark allocations where minor mistakes may be made by candidates in question 2 and 5. These had been covered in the markers meeting and candidates will be awarded method marks as always. Paper F8 was considered to be well-balanced and consistent. Reasonable time was allocated. Overall it contained good syllabus coverage and was felt to be more fair than the previous paper 2.6. It was agreed that paper F9 was a manageable and fair paper containing a resonable mix of analysis and discussion. A good mix of numbers and theory, however, concerns were raised regarding question 1(b). It was felt perhaps the calculations could have been explained further.
The board felt that P1 was clear and concise with an imaginative approach. A well grounded paper in a practical area. It was suggested that business risk should be included more in the future, as this paper did not contain much content in this area. Paper P2 proved to be very fair and manageable. However, it was noted that question 1 mark allocations were biased towards consolidation adjustments rather than the consolidation itself. Marks are available for the consolidation itself, but the emphasis reflects the level of examination. It was felt that paper P3 had more emphasis on IT. However, it was stressed that certain IT skills are required in the Project Management field, hence the requirement of IT questions.
The paper P4 was found to be very fair with realistic issues and good syllabus coverage. There were concerns regarding the relatively small amount on risk management or overseas international issues. Paper P5 was found to be a good paper which followed a predictable pattern and was true to the pilot paper, although rather difficult. The paper P6 was found to be rather difficult and time pressured. There also seemed to be very little IHT (just 12 marks), which had been a compulsory topic in the former paper 3.2. It was remarked that the paper was relevant to the taxpayer which is what the examiner is aiming to achieve. Paper P7 showed good coverage of the syllabus, and was said to be reasonable, balanced and fair. It was agreed the new examiner was consistent in setting papers which covered the new syllabus areas at the correct level.