1. Summative Assessment Tasks Across Criteria A–D

1.1 Criterion A: Knowing and Understanding

1.1.1 Task Design

• Written report: 1,200–1,500 words explaining anatomy, physiology, and training principles covered in course.
• Visual infographics: Create two A3 posters illustrating (a) energy systems, (b) muscle contraction process.
• Technique: Use PEE (Point–Evidence–Explanation) structure for each concept.

Criterion A requires students to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding through various tasks. The tasks include writing a detailed report about anatomy and physiology and creating visual infographics. The written report should be between 1,200 to 1,500 words and cover key topics learned in the course. Infographics should visually represent complex processes like energy systems and muscle contractions. Importantly, students should use the PEE structure, which involves making a point, providing evidence, and explaining it further.

Think of it like preparing a presentation for a science fair. You need to explain your topic clearly (the written report) while also making it visually appealing (infographics) to help others understand complex ideas, just as you would engage an audience with a vibrant display at a fair.

1.1.2 Markscheme Rubric

Level Descriptor Marks

• 7–8 Comprehensive, accurate explanations with detailed examples.
• 5–6 Clear understanding; minor omissions or inaccuracies.
• 3–4 Basic definitions; limited examples; several inaccuracies.
• 1–2 Minimal knowledge; inaccurate or incomplete.

The markscheme rubric for Criterion A outlines how students will be assessed based on their understanding and explanation of the topics. A score of 7 to 8 indicates that the work is comprehensive and accurate, with thorough examples backing up the claims. Scores in the 5 to 6 range reveal a solid understanding but may have minor inaccuracies. A 3 to 4 score suggests basic understanding but with several inaccuracies, while scores of 1 to 2 indicate a lack of knowledge or incomplete work.

Imagine grading a presentation in school. A presentation that is well-researched and filled with examples would earn an 'A' while one that has a few gaps might receive a 'B' or 'C.' Similarly, if a presentation is poorly done with clear inaccuracies, it would get an 'F,' illustrating how this rubric helps instructors fairly evaluate understanding.

1.2 Criterion B: Planning

1.2.1 Task Design

• Training plan: 8-week progressive program for improving aerobic capacity; include SMART goals, periodization, session plans.
• Risk assessment: Use provided risk matrix to evaluate hazards, control measures, emergency procedures.

Criterion B focuses on planning, where students are required to design a comprehensive training plan aiming to improve aerobic capacity over eight weeks. This plan must include SMART goals—specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound—along with details about periodization (planning training cycles) and individual session plans. Additionally, students must conduct a risk assessment using a risk matrix to identify potential hazards and outline control measures and emergency procedures.

Think about it like planning a road trip. You need to map your route (training plan), set timelines for when you want to reach each destination (SMART goals), consider potential pitfalls like car trouble (risk assessment), and have contingency plans for what to do if things don't go as planned.

1.2.2 Markscheme Rubric

Level Descriptor Marks

• 7–8 Detailed, realistic plan with clear goals, justified methods, thorough risk management.
• 5–6 Good plan; some justification and risk controls; minor gaps.
• 3–4 Basic plan; vague goals; incomplete risk assessment.
• 1–2 Inadequate planning; missing SMART goals or risk controls.

The assessment of Criterion B involves a rubric that measures the quality of the planning task. A top score (7-8) indicates a comprehensive and realistic training plan with well-defined goals and justified choices for methods and risk management. Scores of 5-6 show a good plan with some justification but may have minor gaps. A score of 3-4 for vague goals indicates that the risk assessment is incomplete. If a student scores 1-2, it reflects poor planning and a lack of essential elements like SMART goals.

Imagine planning a big event like a wedding. A well-thought-out event plan that carefully addresses timelines, budget, and potential issues (like bad weather) would score highly, while a casual plan with missing critical details might not hold up under scrutiny, similar to how this markscheme evaluates planning effectiveness.

1.3 Criterion C: Applying and Performing

1.3.1 Task Design

• Practical performance: Demonstrate three selected skills (e.g., orienteering route execution, parkour vault sequence, team-building facilitation).
• Recorded evidence: Video recordings, annotated by student, identifying technique strengths and improvement areas.

Criterion C emphasizes the application of learned skills through practical performances. Students are to choose three specific skills to demonstrate, such as a parkour move or team-building exercises, and must record their performances. These recordings should be annotated, where the student identifies both strengths in their technique and areas where they can improve.

It’s like being a chef who must demonstrate cooking techniques. You film yourself preparing a dish, showing how to slice vegetables efficiently (performance) and then reviewing the video to spot mistakes or areas to improve, similar to how students need to reflect on their skill performance.

1.3.2 Markscheme Rubric

Level Descriptor Marks

• 7–8 Exceptionally fluent and accurate performance; clear demonstration of technique.
• 5–6 Good performance; minor technical flaws; appropriate effort.
• 3–4 Satisfactory; several mistakes; inconsistent effort.
• 1–2 Poor; incorrect technique; insufficient performance.

The rubric for Criterion C assesses the quality of practical performance. A score of 7 to 8 signifies outstanding technique and fluency in performance, while a score of 5 to 6 indicates a good performance with minor errors. Scores in the 3 to 4 range signify satisfactory performances with notable mistakes, and scores of 1 to 2 indicate poor technique and lack of effort.

Think of this like evaluating a dancer's performance. An outstanding performance with no missteps earns a gold star, while a dancer who makes a few minor mistakes still impresses might get a passing but lower score. This helps to illustrate how students are assessed across various techniques.

1.4 Criterion D: Reflecting and Evaluating

1.4.1 Task Design

• Reflective essay: 800–1,000 words using a structured model (e.g., GROW or AAR) addressing personal progress, challenges, and future targets.
• Peer and teacher feedback summary: Tabulated feedback with action points and deadlines.

Criterion D is centered on reflection and evaluation, where students must write a reflective essay using a structured model like GROW (Goal, Reality, Options, Will) or AAR (After Action Review). This essay should discuss their personal progress, the challenges they faced, and future targets they want to achieve. Additionally, students must compile feedback received from peers and teachers, summarizing it in a table format, along with action points and deadlines.

It’s similar to conducting a self-review after a project. Just as a project manager would examine what went well, what didn’t, and how to improve in the future, students engage in a thorough analysis of their learning journey, paving the way for future development.

1.4.2 Markscheme Rubric

Level Descriptor Marks

• 7–8 Insightful reflection; concrete evidence; clear action plan; understanding of learning.
• 5–6 Thoughtful reflection; some evidence; general action points.
• 3–4 Basic reflection; few examples; vague action plans.
• 1–2 Limited or no reflection; no clear plan.

The markscheme rubric for Criterion D evaluates how well students reflect and plan for their future learning. A score of 7-8 indicates deep insight and clear action plans supported by evidence of learning. Scores of 5-6 show some thoughtful reflection but lack detailed evidence. Scores in the 3-4 range reflect basic reflections with few examples, while 1-2 indicates minimal or no meaningful reflection.

Imagine writing a review after a long training course. A thorough review that articulates key takeaways and outlines steps for further improvement gets top marks, whereas a brief review with no real insight or steps for future growth fails to capture the depth needed.

--