BIOLOGY

January 2016 was the first sitting of the examination based on the revised syllabus. There was a 60 per cent decline in candidate entry. Approximately 39 per cent of the candidates achieved acceptable grades, Grades I–III, compared with 61 per cent in January 2015. Candidate performance declined on Paper 01, the Multiple Choice paper, Paper 02, the Structured Essay paper and Paper 032, the Alternate to the School Based Assessment.

The Examining Committee noted that the majority of candidates appeared unprepared for the examination, and were unfamiliar with biological concepts such as growth, osmosis in guard cells, digestion in humans, genetic engineering and natural selection.

CHEMISTRY

January 2016 was the first sitting of the examination based on the revised syllabus. In addition, Question 1 on Paper 032, the Alternative to the School Based Assessment, was examined as a practical question.

There was a decline in the overall performance of candidates this year with approximately 36 per cent of candidates achieving acceptable grades, Grades I–III, compared with 47 per cent in 2015. However, an improvement in candidate performance was evident on Profile 3, Experimental Skills, while candidate performance on Profile 2, Use of Knowledge, remained consistent from 2015. However, Profile 1, Knowledge and Comprehension, showed a slight decline in candidate performance compared with January 2015.

ENGLISH A

Performance in English A was moderate in the January 2016 examination. Sixty-one per cent of the candidates achieved Grades I–III, an improvement in overall performance when compared with January 2015 when 55 per cent of the candidates achieved similar grades. Across the two years, there was similar performance on Profile 1, Understanding, but there was a small improvement on Profile 2, Expression.

Performance on Paper 01 was fairly good while performance on Paper 02 continues to be fair. Some improvement was noted in the percentage of candidates who achieved Grades I to III on Paper 02, approximately 51 per cent this year compared with 40 per cent in 2015.

Although the questions in the three sections on this paper generally elicited moderate levels of performance, continuing weakness was observed in some candidates’ ability to organize ideas and to use grammatical English in expressing these ideas.

ENGLISH B

The performance of candidates in the January 2016 English B examination declined compared with performance in January 2015. Approximately 56 per cent of the candidates achieved acceptable grades, Grades I–III, in January 2016 compared with 68 per cent in January 2015. Overall performance on Profile 1, Drama, improved at the top three grades: A, B and C. However, performance on Profile 2, Poetry and Profile 3, Prose Fiction, declined.

Candidates continue to experience challenges responding to questions which focus on the writers’ techniques as well as the genre specific questions.

HUMAN AND SOCIAL BIOLOGY

This year, there was a notable improvement in the overall performance of candidates compared with January 2015. Approximately 53 per cent of candidates achieved acceptable grades, Grades I–III, compared with 28 per cent in January 2015. This improvement in candidate performance was evident on Profile 1, Knowledge and Comprehension, and on Profile 2, Use of Knowledge, as well as Paper 01, the Multiple-Choice Paper and Paper 02, the Structured Essay Paper.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

In January 2016, approximately 60 per cent of the candidates achieved acceptable grades, Grades I–III, compared with 63 per cent in January 2015.

There was a 12 per cent decline in the performance at Grades I-III for Paper 1 (84 per cent in 2016 compared with 96 per cent in January 2015) and a 4 per cent improvement at Grades I-III for Paper 2 (49 per cent in January 2016 compared with 45 per cent in January 2015). For Paper 032 there was a marginal decrease in the performance at Grades I-III (53 per cent in January 2016 compared with 56 per cent in 2015).

Composite profile performance for Grades I-III remained stable for Profile 2, Productivity Tools, at 64 per cent in 2016. Performance on Profile 1, Theory, and Profile 3, Problem Solving, declined by 6 and 7 per cent respectively, in January 2016 when compared with January 2015.

MATHEMATICS

Forty-one per cent of the candidates who wrote the January 2016 examination achieved Grades I to III compared with 65 per cent in January 2015 and 47 per cent in January 2014. This decline in performance was reflected in all three profiles. The performance on Paper 01, the Multiple Choice Paper, was consistent with January 2015 while there was a decline in performance on Paper 02, the Extended Response paper.

The questions on Measurement, Geometry & Trigonometry and Statistics proved the most challenging while there was an improved performance on Vectors and Matrices.

OFFICE ADMINISTRATION

Approximately 63 per cent of the candidates who wrote the examination in January 2016 achieved Grades I–III compared with 53 per cent in January 2015. While the performance on Paper 01, the Multiple Choice, remained consistent with January 2015, there was an improved performance on Paper 032, the Alternative to the School-Based Assessment. There was a decline in performance on Paper 02, the Essay Paper, which may be as a result of candidates’ unfamiliarity with the new concepts in the revised syllabus. Whereas, performance on Profile 2, Application, showed a significant improvement when compared with January 2015, there was a decline in performance on Profile 1, Knowledge and Comprehension.

PHYSICS

January 2016 was the first sitting of the examination based on the revised syllabus. In addition, there were changes in the weighting of Profile 1, Knowledge and Comprehension, and Profile 2, Use of Knowledge. In addition, Question 1 on the Alternative to the SBA, Paper 032, was examined as a practical question.

There was a 67 per cent decline in the candidate population. There was also a decline in the overall performance of candidates on January 2016 examination compared with January 2015. The percentage of candidates earning Grades I–III was 57 per cent compared with 55 per cent in January 2015.

PRINCIPLES OF ACCOUNTS

In January 2016, the overall performance in Principles of Accounts declined compared with January 2015. The percentage of candidates who achieved Grades I–III decreased to 39 per cent in 2016 from 59 per cent in 2015.

Candidates’ major strengths were their ability to identify, define and explain concepts, terms, principles and procedures, and to apply these to everyday situations. However, candidates demonstrated weaknesses in the application of principles and practices of accounts to new situations/case studies. They also experienced difficulties in assessing accounting practices in given situations and in providing recommendations for changes for more effective results.

PRINCIPLES OF BUSINESS

In January 2016, approximately 85 per cent of the candidates achieved acceptable Grades I–III, compared with 76 per cent in 2015. There was an improvement in the performance on Paper 01, the Multiple-Choice Paper, Paper 02, the Essay paper, and Paper 032, the Alternative to the School-Based Assessment. This was reflected in the performance on the three profiles: Profile 1, Organizational Principles, Profile 2, Production, Marketing and Finance and Profile 3, the Business Environment.

SPANISH

In January 2016, approximately 448 candidates wrote the examinations compared with 360 in January 2015. Sixty-five per cent of the candidates achieved Grades I-III compared with 72 per cent in January 2015. The performance on Profile 1, Listening, was consistent in both years with 82 per cent of the candidates achieving Grades A to C in 2015 compared with 85 per cent in 2015. While there was an improved performance on Profile 2, Reading, there was a decline in performance on both Profile 3, Speaking, and Profile 4, Writing.

Increased use of additional foreign language resources such as websites, articles of interest in the target language and other immersion strategies are recommended for improving performance.

SOCIAL STUDIES

In January 2016, fifty-four per cent of the candidates achieved acceptable grades compared with 36 per cent in January 2015. The decline was most evident on Paper 02, the Structured Essay and Paper 032, the Alternative to the School Based Assessment, as well as on Profile 2, Application, Evaluation and Problem Solving. On Paper 02, the percentage of candidates achieving acceptable Grades was 20 per cent compared with 42 per cent in January 2015. On Paper 032, the percentage of candidates achieving acceptable grades decreased from 35 in January 2015 to 25 per cent in January 2016. The performance on Paper 01 was consistent with that of January 2015.

SYNOPSES FOR CSEC

ADDITIONAL MATHEMATICS

This year approximately 68 per cent of the candidates achieved acceptable grades, Grades I–III, compared with 73 per cent in 2015. As in previous years, candidates did not perform satisfactorily on Section 4 of Paper 02 which tested Mechanics and Statistics. There was also a decline in performance on the Paper 032 compared with previous years.

AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE – SINGLE AWARD (SA)

Eighty-eight per cent of the candidates who wrote the SA examination in 2016 achieved Grades I–III, compared with 90 per cent in 2015. Candidate performance on Paper 01, the Multiple–Choice Paper, and Paper 03, the School-Based Assessment, remained consistent with 2015, while there was a decline on Paper 02, the Essay Paper. While there was an improved performance on Profile 01, Business of Farming, when compared with 2015, there was a decline in performance on Profile 02, Crop Production and Profile 03, Animal Production.

AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE – DOUBLE AWARD (DA)

Ninety-three per cent of the candidates who wrote the DA Examination in 2016 achieved Grades I–III, compared with 94 per cent in 2015. There was a notable improved performance on Papers 02 and 03, the Essay Papers and Paper 04, the School-Based Assessment, compared with 2015. However, candidate performance remained consistent on Paper 01, the Multiple–Choice. While performance on Profile 03, Animal Production, remained consistent with 2015, there was an improved performance on Profile 01, Business of Farming and Profile 02, Crop Production.

BIOLOGY

The performance in 2016 improved with approximately 80 per cent of the candidates achieving acceptable grades, Grades I–III, in 2016 compared with 66 per cent in 2015. Candidates performed satisfactorily on the Data Analysis question and in the area of Plant Nutrition. Performance in the areas: Living Organisms in the Environment and Reproduction was good; however, the areas: Irritability and Genetics proved to be challenging.

BUILDING TECHNOLOGY
(OPTION I – WOODS)

Seventy-seven per cent of the candidates who wrote this examination in 2016 achieved Grades I–III compared with 80 per cent in 2015. Performance on Paper 01, the Multiple–Choice Paper, was consistent with performance in 2015. Candidate performance on Paper 02, the Essay Paper, improved compared with 2015, while the performance on Paper 03, the School-Based Assessment, declined compared with 2015. In terms of profiles, performance on Profile 1, Knowledge, declined while the performance on Profile 2, Application, improved compared with 2015. Candidate performance on Profile 3, Practical Ability, was consistent with that of 2015.

BUILDING TECHNOLOGY
(OPTION II – CONSTRUCTION)

Seventy-eight per cent of the candidates who wrote this examination in 2016 achieved Grades I–III compared with 82 per cent in 2015. Performance on Paper 01, the Multiple–Choice Paper, was consistent with the performance in 2015, while the performance on Paper 02, the Essay Paper, and Paper 03, the School-Based Assessment, declined compared with 2015. In terms of profiles, performance on Profile 1, Knowledge, Profile 2, Application and Profile 3, Practical Ability, was consistent with the 2015 performance.

CARIBBEAN HISTORY

There was an improved performance in 2016 compared with 2015. In 2016, 73 per cent of the candidates achieved Grades I–III compared with 63 per cent in 2015. The performance on both profiles: Knowledge and Comprehension and Use of Knowledge, Enquiry and Communication was consistent with that of 2015.

CHEMISTRY

There was a slight decline in the overall performance of candidates compared with 2015. Fifty-six per cent of candidates achieved acceptable grades, Grades I–III this year, compared with 59 per cent in 2015. An improvement in candidate performance was evident on Paper 01, the Multiple–Choice Paper, while performance on Paper 02, the Structured Essay Paper and Paper 032, the Alternative to the School-Based Assessment, remained consistent with 2015. There was a slight decline in performance on Paper 030, the School-based Assessment, compared with 2015.

Candidates and teachers are urged to use the School-Based Assessment and laboratory exercises as a teaching tool - to reinforce, illustrate or clarify theoretical concepts.

CLOTHING AND TEXTILES

There has been a decline in the overall performance of candidates from last year. Seventy per cent of candidates who wrote the examination in 2016 achieved acceptable grades, Grades I–III compared with 82 per cent in 2015.While the performance of candidates on Profile 1, Knowledge and Comprehension, improved from 2015, the performance on Profile 2, Use of Knowledge and Profile 3, Practical Skills declined.

ECONOMICS

There was a decline in the percentage of candidates achieving Grades I–III in 2016. This year 70 per cent achieved acceptable grades, Grades I–III, compared with 84 per cent in 2014. The decline in performance was noted on Paper 01, the Multiple-Choice Paper, Paper 02, the Essay Paper and Paper 032, the Alternative to the School-Based Assessment. Performance on Paper 031, the School Based Assessment remained consistent with previous years. There was also a decline in performance on Profile 1, Knowledge and Comprehension and Profile 2, Interpretation and Analysis. Performance on Profile 3, Analysis, was consistent with 2015.

ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT PREPARATION AND MANAGEMENT

The overall performance of candidates in 2016 was consistent with that in 2015, with 90 per cent of the candidates achieving Grades I–III in both years. However, in 2016 the percentages are the Grade I and II bands were almost identical, 33 and 34 per cent, respectively compared with 17 per cent at Grade I in 2015 and 41 per cent at Grade 2.

There was an improved performance on Paper 02, the Production Paper, especially in the speed test and keyboarding skills. The performance on Paper 032, the Alternative to the School-Based Assessment, was also commendable.

ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGY

Fifty-nine per cent of the candidates who wrote this examination in 2016 achieved Grades I–III compared with 62 per cent in 2015. Performance on Paper 01, the Multiple–Choice Paper, improved with 92 per cent of candidates achieving Grades I–III compared with 85 per cent in 2015. Candidate Performance on Paper 02, the Essay Paper, declined with 14 per cent of candidates achieving acceptable grades compared with 18 per cent in 2015. There was also a decline in performance on Paper 03, the School-Based Assessment, with 87 per cent of candidates achieving Grades I—III compared with 96 per cent in 2015. In terms of profiles, performance on Profile 1, Knowledge, declined. Performance on Profile 2, Application, was consistent with 2015 while candidate performance on Profile 3, Practical Ability, declined compared with 2015.

ENGLISH A

Overall performance in English A improved compared with 2015.Sixty-seven per cent of the candidates achieved Grades I–III compared with the 60 per cent in 2015. The percentage of candidates who achieved Grade I increased from approximately 17 per cent in 2015 to 19 per cent in 2016. Improved performance was evidenced on Paper 02 for both Profile 1, Understanding and Profile 2, Expression.

ENGLISH B

The performance of candidates in the June 2016 English B examination showed a decrease in the number of candidates achieving Grades I–III. Approximately 62 per cent of the candidates achieved Grades I–III in June 2016 compared with 73 per cent in June 2015. This decline in the overall performance was reflected in all three profiles: Profile 1, Drama, Profile 2, Poetry and Profile 3, Prose Fiction.

Candidates continue to experience challenges responding to Part(c) of the questions in Paper 02 which focus on the techniques the writers use to create meaning in the drama, poetry or prose fiction work.

FOOD AND NUTRITION

Eighty-eight per cent of the candidates achieved acceptable grades, Grades I–III, compared with 85 per cent in 2015. There was an improvement in the candidates’ performance on Paper 01, the Multiple–Choice Paper. Candidates’ performance on Paper 02, the Essay paper and Paper 03, the School-Based Assessment, was consistent with that of 2015.

FRENCH

The overall candidate performance at Grades I–III improved in 2016. In 2016, 76 per cent of the candidates achieved acceptable grades compared with 70 per cent in 2015. At the profile level, overall performance at Grades I–III on all four profiles - Listening, Reading, Speaking and Writing also improved.

The overall performance for 2016 is commendable. There is still however, a need for the improvement in Listening, Writing and Oral skills and in particular analytical and comprehension skills.

GEOGRAPHY

Overall, there was an increase in the percentage of candidates achieving Grades I–III in 2016. Approximately 70 per cent of the candidates achieved acceptable grades in 2016 compared with 62 per cent in 2015. This increase was most noticeable on Module 1, Practical Skills, where the percentage of candidates achieving Grades A to C increased from 73 per cent to 90 per cent. The performance on Profiles 2 and 3, Knowledge and Comprehension and Use of Knowledge, respectively, remained consistent with that of 2015.
This year, more teacher guidance was evident in the School-Based Assessment component. However, greater attention is still needed for the field activities and the analysis of the data collected.

HOME ECONOMICS MANAGEMENT

There has been a slight decline in the overall performance of candidates compared with 2015. Seventy-nine per cent of candidates achieved acceptable grades, Grades I–III compared with 87 per cent in 2015. The decline in candidate performance was evident on Profile 1, Knowledge and Comprehension and Profile 2, Use of Knowledge, while the performance on Profile 3, Practical Skills remained consistent with 2015.

HUMAN AND SOCIAL BIOLOGY

There has been an improvement in the overall performance of candidates compared with 2015. Fifty-three per cent of candidates achieved acceptable grades, Grades I–III, compared with 45 per cent in 2015. Candidate performance improved on Profile 1, Knowledge, while a notable improvement was evident on Profile 2, Use of Knowledge.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Seventy-eight per cent of the candidates achieved Grades I–III in 2016 compared with 88 per cent in 2015. While there was a decline in the level of performance in all three papers, this was most notable in Paper 02, where the mean performance in 2016 was 45 per cent compared with 57 per cent in 2015.

Candidates continue to experience challenges with data representation and conversion (binary, hexadecimal, one and two’s complement), the application of technology in scenarios, and programming. Further, as in previous years, the Examining Committee reported that too many of the SBA samples were identical.

INTEGRATED SCIENCE

Sixty-four per cent of the candidates achieved acceptable grades, Grades I–III compared with 71 per cent in 2015. Candidate performance improved on Paper 01, the Multiple–Choice Paper but declined on Paper 02, the Essay Paper as well as on the School-Based Assessment.

MATHEMATICS

In 2016, forty-four per cent of the candidates achieved Grades I–III, compared with 57 per cent in 2015. There was a notable decline in performance on both Paper 01, the Multiple–Choice Paper and Paper 02, the Extended Response Paper, when compared with 2015. There was also a significant decline in candidate performance on all three profiles, Knowledge, Comprehension and Reasoning, when compared with 2015.

The decline in candidate performance was most notable in the areas of Problem Solving with Number Theory, Computation and Consumer Arithmetic and Algebra. Teachers are encouraged to utilize classroom “best practices” when teaching concepts in an effort to improve the performance of candidates.

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY

The results in June 2016 improved slightly when compared with those in 2015. Sixty-eight per cent of the candidates achieved acceptable grades, Grade I–III, in 2016 compared with 67 per cent in 2015. Nineteen per cent of candidates achieved Grade I in 2016 compared with 11 per cent in 2016, while 31 per cent achieved Grade II in both 2015 and 2016. There was an improved performance on Profile 2, Application, a decline in the performance of Profile 3, Practical Ability, while performance on Profiles 1, Knowledge, was consistent in both years

MUSIC

The results in June 2016 improved when compared with those in 2015. Eighty-one per cent of the candidates achieved acceptable grades, Grade I–III, in 2016 compared with 71 per cent in 2015. Ten per cent of candidates achieved Grade I in 2016 compared with five per cent in 2015, while 35 per cent achieved Grade II in 2016 compared with 24 per cent in 2015. There was a decline in performance on Profile 2, Performing and Composing; while Profile 1, Listening and Appraising, and Profile 3 Listening and Appraising and Performing show an improved performance.

OFFICE ADMINISTRATION

Approximately 71 per cent of the candidates who wrote the examination in June 2016 achieved Grades I–III compared with 87 per cent in 2015. While the performance on Paper 01, the Multiple-Choice Paper remained consistent with that in 2015, there was a decline in performance on Paper 02, and an improved performance on Paper 031 and Paper 032, the School-Based Assessment and the Alternative to the School-Based Assessment, respectively. In 2016, performance in 2016 on Profile 1, Knowledge and Comprehension, and Profile 2, Application, declined compared with 2015.

PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND SPORT

The overall performance in CSEC Physical Education and Sport remains very impressive with approximately 97 per cent of candidates achieving Grades I–III in 2016.

For Profile 1 (Theory) the performance at Grade A remains relatively low, at 6 per cent in 2016, compared with seven per cent in 2015. Candidates continue to have difficulties with the theoretical aspects of the syllabus such as Health and Nutrition, and Fitness and Performance. Overall, performance in Profile 2 (Practical) for Grades A to C was 98 per cent.

PHYSICS

This is the second year of examinations for the new syllabus. There was an improvement in the overall performance of candidates on this year’s examination compared with 2015. The percentage of candidates earning Grades I–III was 64 per cent compared with 61 per cent in 2015.

Most candidates demonstrated competence in the Experimental Skills such as plotting, reading and interpreting graphs. However, some candidates had challenges with questions involving Use of Knowledge skills such as calculations. Candidates continue to perform satisfactorily on Paper 031, the School-Based Assessment.

PRINCIPLES OF ACCOUNTS

The performance of candidates in 2016 declined compared with 2015. Sixty-two per cent of the candidates achieved acceptable grades, Grades I–III, in 2016 compared with 66 per cent in 2015. Twelve per cent of candidates achieved Grade I in 2016 compared with 16 per cent in 2015, while 17 per cent achieved Grade II in 2016 compared with 21 per cent in 2015. There was an improved performance on Profile 2, Application, but a decline on Profile1, Knowledge and Profile 3, Interpretation.

PRINCIPLES OF BUSINESS

In 2016, 89 per cent of the candidates achieved acceptable grades, Graders I-III compared with 93 per cent in 2015. The performance on Paper 01, the Multiple-Choice Paper was consistent with that of 2015. However, the performance on Paper 02, the Essay paper showed a decline from 2015. Candidates performed creditably on the School-Based Assessment but there was a decline in the performance of candidates on the Paper 032, the Alternative to the School-Based Assessment compared with 2015. The decline in performance was noted on all three profiles: Profile 1, Organizational Principles, Profile 2, Production, Marketing and Finance and Profile 3, the Business Environment.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

Candidates’ performance in 2016 was consistent compared with that of 2015. Sixty-nine per cent of the candidates achieved Grades I–III in 2016 compared with 68 per cent in 2015. Christianity (Option A) continues to be the most popular option with approximately 97 per cent of the candidates writing this option. Of the 3914 candidates who wrote the Religious Education examination, 25 of them registered for Hinduism (Option B), 39 registered for Islam (Option C) and 20 registered for Judaism (Option D). As in 2015, it was noted that the performance of candidates who wrote the Paper 02 examination for Hinduism and Islam was excellent.

Overall performance on Profile 1, Knowledge, showed a slight decline while performance on Profile 2, Interpretation and Analysis showed a slight increase. However, performance on Profile 3, Application, was consistent with that of 2015.

Candidates showed some improvement in their handling of the questions which assessed Profile 2, Interpretation and Analysis and Profile 3, Application. However, in the Paper 01 examination, which assesses Profiles 1 and 2, candidates continue to demonstrate a less than satisfactory level of performance on the ten questions which assess Caribbean indigenous religions.

SOCIAL STUDIES

Overall, performance on the 2016 examination declined when compared with 2015. Fifty-eight per cent of the candidates achieved Grades I–III compared with 63 per cent in 2015. The performance on Profile 1, Knowledge and Comprehension, was consistent with that of 2015 as approximately 68 per cent of the candidates achieved Grades A–C. There was a decline in performance on Profile 2, Application, Evaluation and Problem Solving, as approximately 44 per cent of the candidates achieved Grades A–C compared with 57 per cent in 2015.

SPANISH

Seventy-one per cent of the candidates achieved Grades I–III in 2016 compared with 68 per cent in 2015. At the profile level, performance at Grades I–III on Profile 1, Listening, Profile 2, Reading, and Profile 3, Speaking, improved, while performance on Profile 4, Speaking, declined compared with 2015.

TECHNICAL DRAWING

The results in June 2016 for Technical Drawing were consistent with those in 2015. Sixty-four per cent of the candidates achieved acceptable grades, Grades I–III, in 2016 compared with 63 per cent in 2015. Nine per cent of candidates achieved Grade I in 2016 compared with seven per cent 2015, while 23 per cent achieved Grade II in 2016 compared with 22 per cent in 2015. Performance improved on Paper 020, Plane and Solid Geometry and Paper 031, Building Drawing, and remained consistent on Paper 032, Mechanical Engineering Drawing. Performance on Paper 010, the Multiple–Choice Paper, and Paper 040, the School-Based Assessment, declined. There was also a decline in performance on all profiles.

THEATRE ARTS

In 2016, there was a three percent decline in candidates achieving Grades I–III when compared to 2015. In 2016, approximately 92 per cent of candidates earned Grades I–III compared to 95 per cent in 2015.

While this performance is not significantly different to that of 2015, it was noted that candidates’ ability to analyze the information provided needs improvement. Candidates experienced challenges understanding technical roles and using technical terminology as was required in Question 01 of Paper 01 and the critique, respectively. Improvement is needed in candidates’ ability to create and use more meaningful research questions in their research project. Additionally, there is need for the strengthening of the linkage between the rationale and findings within the research projects.

VISUAL ARTS

Sixty-eight per cent of the candidates who wrote the examination in 2016 achieved Grades I–III compared with 62 percent in 2015. This improved performance is the result of improved performance on four of the expressive forms and the Reflective Journal. The percentage of candidates achieving Grades A–C declined in four of the eight expressive forms offered: Drawing, Painting and Mixed Media, Textile Design and Manipulation and Leathercraft, compared with 2015. Performance in Graphic and Communication Design, Printmaking, Sculpture and Ceramics and Fibre and Decorative Arts improved compared with 2015. Further, performance on the Reflective Journal at Grades A–C improved compared with 2015.