General Comments

The paper compared favorably with previous years. The questions were clear, distinctive and devoid of ambiguity. The modification in the paper was a welcome development in the sense that, the question and answers were housed in one booklet as compared to previous years that had separate booklets. Also, the performance of candidates compares favourably with previous years. However, the performance as usual separates the candidates into the good, the bad and the ugly.

The rubrics were clear and in simple language. The marking schemes were adequate with no ambiguity. The various domains of assessment were adequately covered.

The candidates’ raw mean score of 15 out of 50 and a standard deviation of 07.28 with a candidature of 77,990 indicate a better performance than that of Nov/Dec 2015 WASSCE, when a raw mean score of 12 out of 50 marks and a standard deviation of 05.74 with a candidature of 106351 was recorded.