[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-620963-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":80,"doc-detail-620963-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":73,"head_meta":75,"extra_data":77,"updated_unix":79},105,"en","extended-project-cohort-3-project-qualification-level-1-2-student-evaluation","EXTENDED PROJECT (COHORT 3) - PROJECT QUALIFICATION (LEVEL 1 & 2) - Student Evaluation","","Student Evaluation for the Extended Project (Cohort 3) and the Level 1 & 2 Project Qualifications summarizes pilot performance using entry data, grade outcomes, and available project proposal information. It reports low student questionnaire response rates aggregated across pilot cohorts and explains differences in EPQ vs PQ questionnaires. The report details Level 1 and Level 2 entry characteristics, including proposal volumes, attrition to final certification, grade award rates, and student age distribution, plus qualification patterns and topic tendencies.",{"@graph":14,"@context":72},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/extended-project-cohort-3-project-qualification-level-1-2-student-evaluation/620963/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/extended-project-cohort-3-project-qualification-level-1-2-student-evaluation/620963.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Taylor Morgan","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-10-20",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":33},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"What data sources were combined to evaluate EPQ and PQ performance?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"Entry data were combined with grade outcomes and, where available, project proposal information to provide deeper insight into EPQ and PQ performance.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"How did the report handle low questionnaire response rates?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"Coordinators administered questionnaires and the response rate was low; quantitative student responses were combined across each pilot cohort for analysis.",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"What were the key entry and certification attrition findings for Level 1 and Level 2 PQ?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"Both levels showed high attrition between project approval and final certification, with only just over a third of proposal submitters awarded grades (Level 1: 35.9%, Level 2: 38.5%).","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":74,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":76,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":78,"site_id":7},620963,1792525537,{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":82},"success",[83,87,91,95,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":84,"show_sort_weight":85,"slug":86},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":88,"show_sort_weight":89,"slug":90},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":92,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":96,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":131},{"doc_id":78,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":33,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":117,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":143,"read_time":103},1099523885336,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","EXTENDED PROJECT (COHORT 3) & PROJECT QUALIFICATION (LEVEL 1 & 2)  \nStudent Evaluation  \nINTRODUCTION  \nAnne Pinot de Moira & Kate Tremain  \nIn summer 2008, the third cohort of students were awarded grades for the pilot Extended Project Qualification (EPQ) . At the same time, awards were made to the first, and only, pilot cohort for the Level 1 & 2 Project Qualifications (PQ) . As with the EPQ, it is planned that the PQs should be offered as a stand-alone qualification but will also form a key component of the appropriate level Diploma.  \nIn a continuation of the pilot evaluation, entry data has been combined with grade outcomes and, where available, project proposal information, to provide a deeper insight into the EPQ and the PQ. For the EPQ, where appropriate, comparisons have been made between the first and second cohort entry and performance.  \nStudent questionnaires were sent to the EPQ & PQ coordinators for all of the centres with registered entries. The coordinators were asked to administer their distribution and subsequent return to AQA. As with the questionnaire sent to students in the first and second cohort EPQ, the response rate was low and a decision has been taken to combine all quantitative student responses across each of the pilot cohorts for analysis. These data are reported herein.  \nA copy of the EPQ questionnaire is included in Appendix C. The PQ questionnaire was almost identical although the wording was slightly altered to make it appropriate for the PQ students and Section C was omitted altogether. Section C was also absent from the questionnaire sent to the first cohort of EPQ students.  \nTHE LEVEL 1 & 2 PQ CHARACTERISTICS  \nEntry Details  \nFor the Level 1 PQ pilot there were 39 project proposals received from 3 centres and, for Level 2, there were 65 project proposals from 7 centres (Table 1 & Table 2) . At both levels the attrition rate between project approval and final certification was high, with only just over a third of the students who submitted a proposal finally awarded a grade. There were 14 Level 1 PQ grades awarded to the 39 students who submitted a project proposal (35 .9%) and 25 Level 2 PQ grades awarded from 65 project proposals (38 .5%) . Including the considerable proportion of entries that did not submit a project proposal, an overall total of 25 grades were awarded to Level 1 students and 33 to Level 2 students.  \nOne Level 2 centre entered project proposals but submitted no work for certification and, across the two levels, several made formal entries for students for whom there was no accompanying project proposal.  \nTABLE 1 Summary of student entries (Level 1)  \n\n| Final Status Level 1 | Project Proposal & No Formal Entry | Project Proposal\u003Cbr>& Formal Entry | No Project Proposal & Formal Entry |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| Grade Awarded No Grade Awarded | 0\u003Cbr>24 | 14 11 1 9 |  |\n| Level 1 Total | 24 | 15 20 |  |\n\nTABLE 2 Summary of student entries (Level 2)  \n\n| Final Status Level 2 | Project Proposal & No Formal Entry | Project Proposal\u003Cbr>& Formal Entry | No Project Proposal & Formal Entry |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| Grade Awarded No Grade Awarded | 0\u003Cbr>31 | 25 8\u003Cbr>9 2 |  |\n| Level 2 Total | 31 | 34 10 |  |\n\nBoth the Level 1 & 2 PQ attracted entries from a special school which regrettably experienced a high drop-out rate between submission of the project proposal and final entry, perhaps due to the sometimes short term nature of attendance (see Pinot de Moira, 2008b for further details) . The remaining centres were mainstream comprehensive schools and further education establishments.  \nThe Students  \nStudents awarded the Level 1 PQ ranged between 15 and 18 years of age on certification and those awarded a Level 2 PQ between 16 and 18 years of age (Table 3) .  \nTABLE 3 The age distribution of Level 1 & 2 students on certification  \n\n| Age at certification | Level 1 | Level 2 |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| 15 | 20.0% |  |\n| 16 | 56.0% | 9.1% |\n| 17 | 16.0% | 78.8% |\n| 18 | 8.0%","cbCaifZ1pHeqFmi7","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaifZ1pHeqFmi7","pdf",563544,"English","# Introduction\n## Level 1 & 2 PQ characteristics\n## Entry details\n## The students","[{\"question\":\"What data sources were combined to evaluate EPQ and PQ performance?\",\"answer\":\"Entry data were combined with grade outcomes and, where available, project proposal information to provide deeper insight into EPQ and PQ performance.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the report handle low questionnaire response rates?\",\"answer\":\"Coordinators administered questionnaires and the response rate was low; quantitative student responses were combined across each pilot cohort for analysis.\"},{\"question\":\"What were the key entry and certification attrition findings for Level 1 and Level 2 PQ?\",\"answer\":\"Both levels showed high attrition between project approval and final certification, with only just over a third of proposal submitters awarded grades (Level 1: 35.9%, Level 2: 38.5%).\"}]","EXTENDED PROJECT (COHORT 3) - PROJECT QUALIFICATION (LEVEL 1 & 2) - Student Evaluation | PDF",1792464803]