April - June 2015

Examiners Report
NEBOSH
International
Certificate in
Construction Health

Examiners Report
NEBOSH INTERNATIONAL
CERTIFICATE IN CONSTRUCTION
HEALTH AND SAFETY
UNIT ICC1:
MANAGING AND CONTROLLING HAZARDS IN
INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
APRIL JUNE 2015

CONTENTS
Introduction

General comments

Candidate performance

Learning outcomes

Examination technique

Command words

Conclusion

2015 NEBOSH, Dominus Way, Meridian Business Park, Leicester LE19 1QW
tel: 0116 263 4700

fax: 0116 282 4000

email: info@nebosh.org.uk

website: www.nebosh.org.uk

The National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health is a registered charity, number 1010444

Introduction

NEBOSH (The National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health) was formed in 1979 as
an independent examining board and awarding body with charitable status.
We offer a
comprehensive range of globally-recognised, vocationally-related qualifications designed to meet the
health, safety, environmental and risk management needs of all places of work in both the private and
public sectors.
Courses leading to NEBOSH qualifications attract around 50,000 candidates annually and are offered
by over 600 course providers, with examinations taken in over 120 countries around the world. Our
qualifications are recognised by the relevant professional membership bodies including the Institution
of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) and the International Institute of Risk and Safety
Management (IIRSM).
NEBOSH is an awarding body that applies best practice setting, assessment and marking and applies
to Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) regulatory requirements.
This report provides guidance for candidates which it is hoped will be useful to candidates and tutors
in preparation for future examinations. It is intended to be constructive and informative and to promote
better understanding of the syllabus content and the application of assessment criteria.
NEBOSH 2015

Any enquiries about this report publication should be addressed to:

NEBOSH
Dominus Way
Meridian Business Park
Leicester
LE19 1QW
tel:
0116 263 4700
fax:
0116 282 4000
email: info@nebosh.org.uk

General comments

Many candidates are well prepared for this unit assessment and provide comprehensive and relevant
answers in response to the demands of the question paper. This includes the ability to demonstrate
understanding of knowledge by applying it to workplace situations.
There are other candidates, however, who appear to be unprepared for the unit assessment and who
show both a lack of knowledge of the syllabus content and a lack of understanding of how key
concepts should be applied to workplace situations.
This report has been prepared to provide feedback on standard date and on-demand ICC1
examinations sat between April to June 2015.
Feedback is presented in these key areas; examination technique, command words and learning
outcomes and is designed to assist candidates and course providers to prepare for future
assessments in this unit.
Candidates and course providers will also benefit from use of the Guide to the NEBOSH International
Certificate in Construction Health and Safety which is available via the NEBOSH website. In
particular, the guide sets out in detail the syllabus content for ICC1 and tutor reference documents for
each Element. Please note that this examination period covers both the May 2010 and the November
2014 specifications.
Additional guidance on command words is provided in Guidance on command words used in learning
outcomes and question papers which is also available via the NEBOSH website.
Candidates and course providers should also make reference to the ICC1 Example question paper
and Examiners feedback on expected answers which provides example questions and details
Examiners expectations and typical areas of underperformance.

Unit ICC1
Managing and controlling hazards in international construction
activities
Candidate performance
This report covers all examinations, both standard and on-demand examination sittings during April to
June 2015.

Learning outcomes
Candidates performed well in these areas of the syllabus:
4.2

Explain the hazards and control measures that should be considered when assessing
risks from manual handling activities

Due to the amount of manual handling carried out on construction sites, most candidates were able to
relate to the subject matter from their own experience. It was noted that most offerings concentrated
on the hazards, with suggestions of control measures not moving very far from elimination or training.
More than one candidate suggested robotic automation on construction sites that would indicate a lack
of practical application of the question.
12.1 Identify the main hazards of demolition and deconstruction work
As with previous reports of performance, candidates related to questions regarding demolition
hazards reasonably well. Although the questions in this period related to basic knowledge of
demolition hazards, candidates were able to find enough breadth in their answers to attract good
marks.
Although usually the domain of the specialist demolition contractor, many candidates were able to
demonstrate a basic knowledge of the hazards presented by such activities on a construction site and
provided satisfactory answers.

The following learning outcomes have been identified as being the most challenging area of the
syllabus for candidates in this period:
1.3

Outline key aspects for the successful management of safe construction activities

During this period candidates were required to provide details of the roles of two parties involved in the
management of construction projects and most could not identify key aspects of their duties.
As with previous reports, there was some evidence within answers of the duties of these parties in line
with the UK Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 (CDM). These regulations
were not specifically
referred to in the question and it also asked for roles rather than duties. This
would indicate misinterpretation of the question or limited preparation on the part of course providers.
The syllabus makes specific reference to the ILO code of practice, convention and recommendations
that detail the roles asked for by the question. As this is an international award, it would not be fair or
equitable to examine candidates on UK legislation and exclude the international requirements.
It would appear that many candidates are UK-based by the responses, but course providers must
ensure they teach the international requirements for managing construction activities rather than just
UK legislation.

5.3

Describe the main mechanical and non-mechanical hazards of machinery

The syllabus requires candidates to describe the mechanical and non-mechanical hazards defined in
BS EN ISO 12100-1 in relation to a range of office, workshop and site machinery.
The first challenge for course providers is to ensure that candidates are clear with regard to the
difference between mechanical and non-mechanical hazards in order that they can answer a question
that relates to them in separate parts of the question with accuracy. Many candidates mixed the two
categories and therefore could not demonstrate to Examiners that they had the required level of
knowledge.
There was also a reliance on single-word, often bullet-pointed lists, to provide the depth of answer
required. This is a common weakness detailed later in this report.

6.2

Outline the control measures that should be taken when working with electrical systems
or using electrical equipment

This area of the syllabus demonstrated a common mistake by candidates in misreading and
misinterpretation of the requirements of the question.
In this period the requirement was to provide the contents of an electrical permit. Many candidates
offered details of procedures and safe systems of work to carry out the task. Therefore, Examiners
were unable to award marks for how the work should be carried out rather than the specific contents
of the permit.
Candidates must concentrate on the questions and answer the actual requirements. Each question
goes through a rigorous process of checking and approval to ensure that the requirements have
sufficient sign posts to ensure that there can be little misinterpretation by candidates. Course
providers must ensure that candidates are sufficiently prepared before the examination.

Examination technique
The following examination techniques were identified as the main areas of improvement for
candidates:
Candidates misread/misinterpreted the question
From Examiners comments and analysis of the results, this was the examination technique that
provided candidates with the largest challenge.
Responses to questions by some candidates did relate to the relevant general syllabus area and
subject matter, but did not answer the question as set. There were some new questions in this period
that seemed to be confused with previously reported responses. This has previously been attributed
to rote-learning as a learning or preparation style. This would indicate a lack of knowledge on the part
of the candidate or poorly prepared candidates by the course provider.
There were some approaches where, for example, the question could ask for details of the contents of
a lifting plan for lifting operations that was interpreted as a manual handling risk assessment. This
gained no marks for the candidates.

Candidates did not respond effectively to the command word

This is by far the examination technique that challenges candidates on a regular basis. Almost every
Examiners report highlights this problem.
It is not only a requirement to answer the question correctly but also to provide the depth of response
indicated by the command word to maximise the number of marks that can be awarded.
Some candidates could clearly differentiate between the command words and provided responses of
the appropriate length. However, the general approach by many candidates was to provide responses
of two or three paragraphs in length with multiple answers contained within the paragraphs. This style
of response leads to repetitions of the same point and can lead to wasting time during the
examination.
Without sufficient breadth to the answer, candidates were often not awarded the full marks available.
The level of such detail is indicated by the command word, of which more detail is provided below.

Candidates provided the same answer to different questions

Examiners have reported that there appears to be a trend by candidates for providing an opening
paragraph for a range of questions that is the same in all cases. Phrases such as carry out a risk
assessment, method statements, information, instruction, training and supervision, competent
workers, PPE, intrinsically safe tools, inspected and maintained are common. Although a short
paragraph containing these phrases may appear to be a quick way to attract marks, if they are not
appropriate then precious time has been wasted under strict examination conditions and time scales.
As reported later, the technique of listing answers rather than providing relevant context that the
command word requires means that these almost generic phrases are usually out of context with the
question being asked and do not provide enough detail to convince the Examiner that the candidate
has sufficient knowledge to gain a mark.
Marks will not be awarded simply for mentioning what is perceived to be a key word without sufficient
depth, content or detail to justify the mark. Candidates and course providers must prepare for the
examination appropriately and practise this examination technique.

Command words
The following command words are listed in the order identified as being the most challenging for
candidates:
Outline
As with previous reports, the command word outline was by far the most challenging for candidates
during this period. Referring to the NEBOSH guidance on command words available on the NEBOSH
website, outline means To indicate the principal features or different parts of.
Several candidates did not give sufficient detail in order to warrant an outline answer. The NEBOSH
guidance on command words states that: an exhaustive description is not required. What is sought is
a brief summary of the major aspects of whatever is stated in the question.
Therefore if a question asks for an outline of the hazards of demolition activities, referring to services
and falling objects would not be sufficient on their own to gain the marks available. An outline will be
required that will include a little more relevant information for each of the points raised, such as what
services would present a hazard and how objects could fall on the work site.
As previously reported above, course providers must prepare candidates sufficiently to provide
answers in sufficient detail to attract marks.

Identify
To identify something will require reference to an item that could be its name or title. Therefore when
the command word identify is used in a question the answer can be brief, usually limited to one or
two words.
However, in contrast to outline answers being too brief, many candidates felt obliged to expand
identify answers in too much detail, with the possible perception that more words equals more marks.
This is not the case and course providers should use the NEBOSH guidance on command words
within their examination preparation sessions in order to prepare candidates for the command words
that may arise.

Give
Give is usually used in a question together with a further requirement, such as give the meaning of
or give an example in EACH case. Candidates tend to answer such questions satisfactorily,
especially where a question might ask to identify something and then give an example. Even
though command words are emboldened, candidates appear to miss the command word when it
appears within the question for giving an example of something. Candidates must read the entire
question and respond accordingly.
For additional guidance, please see NEBOSHs Guidance on command words used in learning
outcomes and question papers document, which is available on our website:
www.nebosh.org.uk/students/default.asp?cref=1345&ct=2.

Conclusion
The feedback from Examiners highlighted that candidates taking the ICC1 examinations in April to
June 2015 needed most improvement in the areas of key aspects for the successful management of
safe construction activities (learning outcome 1.3); machinery hazards (learning outcome 5.3); and
control measures when working with electrical systems (learning outcome 6.2).
With regard to examination technique, candidates sitting this examination should take care to read the
question and respond to the command word stated. Particular attention must be given to preparing
candidates for outline questions.
Course providers must prepare candidates to ensure that they can write legibly, interpret the questions
correctly to ensure that the responses provided by candidates reflect their knowledge in the subject
matter and meet the requirements of this award.

The National Examination

Board in Occupational
Safety and Health
Dominus Way
Meridian Business Park
Leicester LE19 1QW
telephone +44 (0)116 2634700
fax +44 (0)116 2824000
email info@nebosh.org.uk
www.nebosh.org.uk