Introduction to Health and Safety at Work

19.11 
The examiners’ reports
19.11.1
A few points from the 
examiners’ reports
The latest reports available at the time of going to press 
are for March and June 2006. As in previous years, the 
examiners acknowledge the achievements and hard 
work of candidates, but they point out that avoidable 
mistakes are still being made and marks lost, simply 
through lack of examination technique.
The examiners advise that while acquisition of 
knowledge and understanding across the syllabus are 
clearly a prerequisite for success, examination technique 
is an essential. They defi ne this as ‘the skill of reading 
a question, identifying the breadth of issues relevant to 
defi ne that question and putting them down on paper in 
a logical and coherent way and to the depth required’.
Effective time planning is also emphasized. 
The fi nal 
page of each of the examiner’s reports gives a clearly 
worded guide to examination technique
.
Here are some examples from the reports that show 
how good examination technique could have improved 
candidates’ chances of gaining higher marks:
Paper A1 March 2006 asked candidates to 
outline the issues that should be included in a training 
programme … on the emergency action to be taken in 
the event of fi re. Some candidates lost marks by includ-
ing irrelevant information such as the fi re triangle and fi re 
risk assessment, others concentrated exclusively on the 
content of a training programme. In another question, 
asking about the physical features of traffi c routes, 
some candidates did not restrict their answers to this 
but included irrelevant material about vehicles and their 
drivers.
There are a number of examples of answers being 
limited to one or two topics when writing about a range 
of issues could have gained a lot of extra marks. For 
example, again in March 2006, a maximum of eight 
marks could have been gained by describing four 
personal factors that may place young persons at risk 
and outlining four measures that could reduce accidents 
to them. Some candidates concentrated only on one or 
two topics, thus losing several marks.
Misreading the question crops up year after year and 
2006 was no exception. Asked to outline ways to help 
ensure the effectiveness of a health and safety commit-
tee, several candidates gave answers relating to a safety 
representative. Asked to identify symptoms in another 
question, several people concentrated on diseases. 
The report on the June 2006 paper says of one question 
‘those who read the question with care and focused 
closely on what was being asked … generally provided 
good answers’. And later ‘again, many candidates