EXAMINATIONS AND ASSESSMENT CHIEF DIRECTORATE

SECTION 1: (General overview of Learner Performance in the question paper as a whole)

 The total number of candidates that wrote the NSC Business Studies P1
2019 November Examination in the Province of the Eastern Cape is
23531 (NSC – 22850 and SC – 681).
 The performances of the candidates in the Business Studies November
2019 examinations have improved compared to 2018, although there is
a need to improve the quality of the results.
 The candidates are experiencing challenges with regards to
understanding the application of the key cognitive verbs such as advise
on the impact and questions relating to the application of facts.
 The achievement of candidates as at 09:00 on 14/12/2019 are as follows:
YEAR NO. OF L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7
CANDIDATES % % % % % % %
2019 22850 36.2 22.1 18 12.1 7.3 3.3 1

SECTION A
 Candidates performed very well in Section A, with an average of 63.4%
according to the randomly selected 100 scripts recorded.
 The decision was taken at the Marking Guideline discussion that in Section
A Question 1.1.2, C or D would be accepted as alternative responses
because the question was ambiguous. Candidates were not adversely
affected by this decision as the marking guideline made provision for
alternative responses.
 

SECTION B
 The average performance of candidates in Section B is 42.06%.
 In Section B, Questions 3 and 5 were the most popular questions, followed
by Questions 4 and 6.
 The candidates’ performances varied in Sections B from low, moderate to
high, depending on the examination centres.
 This was evident, as some candidates did not answer some of the questions
or they were unable to address the specific requirements of the questions in
Section B.
 There is a marked improvement in the quoting from the scenarios in the
paper.
 Candidates could quote in full or provide the essence of the quotes, which
is acceptable.
SECTION C
 The average performance of in Section C is 62.9%.
 In Section C, Questions 8 and 9 were the most popular questions, followed
by Question 7.
 There was an improvement in the answering of the essay questions
compared to 2018.
 Candidates however, forfeited marks for the Introduction, Conclusion and
Originality.

2019 CHIEF MARKERS REPORTS
SECTION 2:
Comment on candidates’ performance in individual questions.
(It is expected that a comment will be provided for each question on a separate sheet).
QUESTION 1
(a) General comment on the performance of learners in the specific question. Was
the question well answered or poorly answered?
Question 1:
 The candidates’ performances varied from, moderate to high in sub-section
1.1, 1.2 and 1.3.
(b) Why the question was poorly answered? Also provide specific examples, indicate
common errors committed by learners in this question, and any misconceptions.
Question 1:
 Question 1.1.2: was ambiguous, but the marking guideline made provision for
alternative responses.
 Question 1.2.3: The candidates confused the responsibility of the employer with
that of the health and safety representative.
 Question 1.3.3: Candidates confused option ‘I’ with the distractor option ‘A’.
QUESTION 2
(a) General comment on the performance of learners in the specific question. Was
the question well answered or poorly answered?
Question 2:
 The candidates’ performances were poor to moderate in most centres.
 Question 2 was not a popular choice question.
(b) Why the question was poorly answered? Also provide specific examples, indicate
common errors committed by learners in this question, and any misconceptions.
Question 2:
 2.2 – candidates could not explain role of SETA’s. They were vague in their
responses and indicated that SETA’s are responsible for training.
 2.4 – candidates confused the purpose of the LRA with the EEA and their
responses were also incomplete.
 2.6 – candidates could not identify the two pillars in the scenario, therefore
forfeiting marks for the motivation.
 2.7 – candidates could not apply how these PESTLE factors may pose a
challenge to businesses, instead they explained these two factors.
 2.8 – candidates could not explain the ways businesses may comply with the
EEA, instead they gave the purpose of the Act and they generalised facts.
 Where split marking is applied in Section B, most candidates did not achieve

2019 CHIEF MARKERS REPORTS
 two marks per fact as their responses were incomplete or vague.
 

QUESTION 3
(a) General comment on the performance of learners in the specific question. Was
the question well answered or poorly answered?
Question 3:
 The candidates’ performances were poor to moderate in most centres.
 Question 3 was a popular question among candidates.
(b) Why the question was poorly answered? Also provide specific examples, indicate
common errors committed by learners in this question, and any misconceptions.
Question 3:
 3.2 – candidates provided an explanation of unit trusts, instead of providing its
advantages.
 3.5.2 – candidates explained the term liquidation, instead of liquidity.
 3.6.1 – candidates wrote ‘under-insurance’, instead of ‘average clause’.
 3.7 – candidates explained facts on non-profit, public and private companies,
instead of the advantages non-profit companies.
 3.8 – general answers were provided, instead of facts contained in marking
guideline.
 Where split marking is applied in Section B, most candidates did not achieve
two marks per fact as their responses were incomplete or vague.
QUESTION 4
(a) General comment on the performance of learners in the specific question. Was
the question well answered or poorly answered?
Question 4:
 The candidates’ performances were poor to moderate in most centres.
 Question 4 was a popular question among candidates.
(b) Why the question was poorly answered? Also provide specific examples, indicate
common errors committed by learners in this question, and any misconceptions.
Question 4:
 4.2 – candidates confused the role of the health and safety representatives
with the responsibilities of the employer.
 4.3 – candidates could not identify the diversity issues from the scenario and
therefore also forfeited marks for the motivation.
 4.4 – candidates’ responses were vague and they confused the Delphi
technique with nominal group and force-field analysis techniques.
 4.5 – candidates’ responses were vague.
 4.6.2 – candidates discussed the impact of CSI on communities instead of the
2019 CHIEF MARKERS REPORTS
 business.
 4.7 – candidates’ responses were vague.
 4.8.1 and 4.8.2 candidates were unable to suggest strategies to deal with these
unethical practices, instead they explained them and gave punitive strategies
that only carried a maximum of two marks.
 Where split marking is applied in Section B, most candidates did not achieve
two marks per fact as their responses were incomplete or vague.
QUESTION 5
(a) General comment on the performance of learners in the specific question. Was
the question well answered or poorly answered?
Question 5:
 The candidates’ performances were poor to moderate in most centres.
 Question 5 was popular among candidates.
(b) Why the question was poorly answered? Also provide specific examples, indicate
common errors committed by learners in this question, and any misconceptions.
Question 5:
 5.2.1 – candidates confused the examples of job description and job
specification from the scenario with one another.
 5.3 – candidates discussed the advantages of the SDA, instead of its
implications on the Human Resources Function.
 5.5; 5.7; 5.8; 5.9 – these four sub-questions relate to quality – candidates
confused the answers related to the various questions on quality with one
another and their responses were vague and generalised.
 Where split marking is applied in Section B, most candidates did not achieve
two marks per fact as their responses were incomplete or vague.
QUESTION 6
(a) General comment on the performance of learners in the specific question. Was
the question well answered or poorly answered?
Question 6:
 The candidates’ performances were poor to moderate in most centres
 Question 6 was not a popular question among candidates.
(b) Why the question was poorly answered? Also provide specific examples, indicate
common errors committed by learners in this question, and any misconceptions.
Question 6:
 6.2.3 – candidates’ responses were generalized and vague.
 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 – candidates could not identify the two types of business
investment opportunities; for shares they mentioned the different types of
shares which is not an acceptable response.

2019 CHIEF MARKERS REPORTS
  6.5 – candidates wrote facts on democratic leadership style, instead of
situational leadership theory.
 6.6 – candidates could not state the two criteria for successful team
performance.
 6.8 – candidates responded to the advantages of creative thinking.
 6.10 – candidates could not identify the reason for termination of the
employment contract from the scenario and therefore also forfeited the mark
for the motivation.
 6.11 – candidates gave the aspects and advantages of induction, instead of
the purpose of induction.
 Where split marking is applied in Section B, most candidates did not achieve
two marks per fact as their responses were incomplete or vague.
QUESTION 7
(a) General comment on the performance of learners in the specific question. Was
the question well answered or poorly answered?
Question 7:
 The candidates’ performances were poor to moderate in most centres.
 There is an improvement in the performances of the candidates in the essays
compared to 2018.
 Question 7 was popular among candidates.
(b) Why the question was poorly answered? Also provide specific examples, indicate
common errors committed by learners in this question, and any misconceptions.
Question 7:
 7.2 – candidates’ responses were vague and incomplete, e.g. formulate,
implement and evaluate a strategy, which was awarded one mark each.
 7.4 – candidates could identify Porter’s Forces, but its applications were poorly
answered.
 7.5 – candidates elaborated on the steps in problem-solving, instead of steps in
evaluating a strategy.
 In all the essays, most candidates forfeited marks for the introduction and
conclusion.
 Originality remains a challenge as candidates forfeited two marks as they
could not provide current examples.
 Where split marking is applied in Section C, most candidates did not achieve
two marks per fact as their responses were incomplete or vague.

2019 CHIEF MARKERS REPORTS
QUESTION 8
(a) General comment on the performance of learners in the specific question. Was
the question well answered or poorly answered?
Question 8:
 The candidates’ performances were moderate in most centres.
 Question 8 was a popular question among candidates.
(b) Why the question was poorly answered? Also provide specific examples, indicate
common errors committed by learners in this question, and any misconceptions.
Question 8:
 8.3 – candidates could identify some of the principles of insurance, but the
explanations were vague.
 8.4 – candidates responded to general facts on presentation, not focusing on
impact of a PowerPoint presentation.
 8.5 – candidates confused the ways to improve on the next presentation with
the handling of feedback, as they were confused by the preamble in the table
of Question 8 in the question paper.
 In all the essays, most candidates forfeited marks for the introduction and
conclusion.
 Originality remains a challenge as candidates forfeited two marks as they
could not provide current examples.
 Where split marking is applied in Section C, most candidates did not achieve
two marks per fact as their responses were incomplete or vague.
QUESTION 9
(a) General comment on the performance of learners in the specific question. Was
the question well answered or poorly answered?
Question 9:
 The candidates’ performances were poor to moderate in most centres.
 Question 9 was a popular question among candidates.
(b) Why the question was poorly answered? Also provide specific examples, indicate
common errors committed by learners in this question, and any misconceptions.
Question 9:
 9.2 – most candidates could identify the stages of team development, but
they swopped the explanations for the various stages and some could not
explain them (description).
 9.4 – the handling of conflict answers was linked to the causes of conflict
identified in 9.3, instead of the facts stated in the marking guideline and some
candidates gave the steps in problem-solving.
 9.5 – vague statements were given by candidates instead of relating facts.

2019 CHIEF MARKERS REPORTS
  In all the essays, most candidates forfeited marks for the introduction and
conclusion.
 Originality remains a challenge as candidates forfeited two marks as they
could not provide current examples.
 Where split marking is applied in Section C, most candidates did not achieve
two marks per fact as their responses were incomplete or vague.
QUESTION 10
(a) General comment on the performance of learners in the specific question. Was
the question well answered or poorly answered?
Question 10:
 The candidates’ performances were poor in most centres.
 Question 10 was not popular among candidates.
(b) Why the question was poorly answered? Also provide specific examples,
indicate common errors committed by learners in this question, and any
misconceptions.
Question 10:
 All aspects of the essay on Total Quality Management remains a challenge,
especially the impact of TQM elements on a large business.
 In all the essays, most candidates forfeited marks for the introduction and
conclusion.
 Originality remains a challenge as candidates forfeited two marks as they
could not provide current examples.
 Where split marking is applied in Section C, most candidates did not achieve
two marks per fact as their responses were incomplete or vague.
QUESTION 1 – 10
(c) Provide suggestions for improvement in relation to Teaching and Learning
 Teachers must be guided by the CAPS and the Examination Guidelines when
teaching a topic. The Examination Guideline must always be consulted.
 Chief Marker’s Report must be discussed with all teachers to avoid repeating
mistakes.
 Subject Advisors and teachers involved in the marking processes of the grade
12 final examinations must provide feedback sessions on the marking guideline
and marking processes in their districts, e.g. the use cognitive verbs and
questions that require application must be clarified.
 Teachers must remind learners that incomplete/vague facts will result in the
forfeiture of marks.
 Model scripts that are issued to learners should also form part of this discussion
so that teachers could prepare learners for their final examinations.

2019 CHIEF MARKERS REPORTS
  Provide resources, e.g. Mind the Gap in English and Afrikaans to all under-
performing schools.
 Workshops must be conducted by subject advisors on the Quality of
Performance Topic to narrow gap experienced by teachers.
 Essays questions, e.g. facts for introduction and conclusion and originality
examples must be brainstormed.
 A common, prescribed resource is recommended.
 Previous Question papers and Marking Guidelines must be used by teachers
when preparing learners for the final examinations, e.g. classwork and
homework should be taken from previous questions papers to familiarize
learners on how questions are set.
 The Examination Guidelines for 2020 onwards should be streamlined for essays
in a three-year cycle, i.e. topics and content to be taught for essay assessment
should be indicated, e.g. Legislation – five Acts must be assessed for essays
and four Acts for Section B only.
 For Originality, teachers must brainstorm relevant and recent examples with
the learners, e.g. allowing them to Google recent examples on the internet.
 Make teachers and leaners aware that lower cognitive questions are assessed
in Section B and that under-performing learners should study concepts and
headings as well to obtain marks, e.g. principles of insurance (headings only)
and Porter’s Five Forces (headings only).
(d) Describe any other specific observations relating to responses of learners and
comments that are useful to teachers, subject advisors, teacher development
etc.
 Facts that are vague or incomplete are of huge concern. Learners must be
reminded that incomplete/vague facts will result in them forfeiting marks.
 In the essay questions, it is noted that candidates could not be awarded any
marks for originality because of a lack of current examples or trends.
 The Quality of Performance topic remains a challenge, as candidates are
confusing the facts to the various questions.

2019 CHIEF MARKERS REPORTS