New SMH Article: Changes to English/SOR leaving students vulnerable (1 Viewer)

[04er]

New SMH Article: Changes to English/SOR leave students vulnerable (inc BOS interview)

Higher School Certificate | Board of Studies | Anna Patty

"Good Lord, Exams Flummox Students"

ANNA PATTY EDUCATION EDITOR
October 25, 2009

A RELIANCE on prepared answers is leaving Higher School Certificate students vulnerable to changes in exam styles, examiners said yesterday.

Changes in the format of last week's English and studies of religion exams caught many students off guard, sending internet chat rooms into overdrive.

Some students and Catholic schools complained to the Board of Studies. But the board's president, Tom Alegounarias, was unrepentant, saying students had to think on their feet in the exam room.

''The HSC is not a memorising test,'' he said. ''The HSC is about applying knowledge.''

He said exam preparation had become increasingly narrow, which ''may be a danger when students don't get the question they expect''.

In the studies of religion paper, students had expected section three to follow the same formula as previous years. And in the English paper, students were asked to refer to one additional text instead of two, as was the case last year.

St Ignatius' College student Adam Smallhorn, 18, said the English paper appeared to ''nut out the students who prepare their answers in advance and vomit them out in the exam''.

''The Board of Studies should have put out a memo about the studies of religion paper to say it would be more encompassing,'' he said. ''I'm glad they did it, though. The brighter students can think on their feet and adapt.

''I think it is abhorrent for kids to go to coaching colleges and not read the texts and vomit out essays without having to think.''

Thursday's studies of religion exam was delayed by 10 minutes at Abbotsleigh School for Girls in Wahroonga while exam supervisors called the Board of Studies after students raised concerns.

This year's questions made no reference to previously familiar concepts such as ethical codes and practices and significant people associated with different religions.

Mr Alegounarias said the board took all complaints seriously but defended its right to deviate from previous exam formats.

''If there is a systematic problem that goes to the syllabus that is [a valid complaint],'' he said.

''But I have been given every assurance that isn't the case. The structure of the question was not what students expected.''

Abbotsleigh headmistress Judith Poole said the question was worded differently to exams in the previous two years. ''Examiners tried something a little different,'' she said. ''Question three was tricky.''

St Ignatius' College headmaster Shane Hogan said: ''Like a number of other Catholic schools, we are extremely disappointed with the studies of religion papers. The questions were worded in such a way that students were not able to express their full knowledge on topics. If the examiners are going to change their emphasis, teachers should be made aware.''

 

[lyounamu]

Very spot-on response. I totally agree with Board of Studies this time. HSC is truly about applying knowledge and students must learn to read the question seriously.

 

[dolbinau]

I can't believe anyone would complain about changing to ONE text...have your teachers really deceived you into believing that they ask the same amount of questions each year? (I thought there have been examples of this)

But, for the people that did write two texts, was it because:

1. They didn't care and wrote what they had practiced

2. They wrote their essay without properly reading the question

(I can't be bothered to read the other threads to see...but it seems strangely a lot of people did write two texts judging by the other thread topics).

 

[shoutoutloud]

Hello all, From my point of view, the AOS question was not a issue. If candiates read the question and NOT prepared answers then there should NOT have been a issue. For the people that prepared answers they should have only omited the related text not relvant. Romours are that the critea will change. Is this correct?

 

[Jay-Tee]

I will be pretty disappointed if the Board of Studies favor those who did two texts because they cant read specific instructions which were written in capital letters. I used my initiative in the exam (imagine that) and decided which text i could better relate to the question. I have no sympathy for those who were 'caught by suprise' as their was only one text, and did two.

 

[cem]

When the Supervisor of Marking and the Senior Markers begin their briefing/pilot marking (which may already have begun) they will discuss any issues with the question. They will also be briefed by the Senior Examiner. If there are any issues then the criteria may be adjusted to meet that issue but any change will not be able to disadvantage students who answered the set question

e.g. a couple of years ago the Modern History paper used the terms 'Rise to Prominence' in the personality question. That is a section of the syllabus but many students went beyond that list of dot points in their answer - they were not disadvantaged for using a more generic understanding of the term rather than the list specified in the syllabus. Any student who stuck to just the list in the syllabus could get full marks so a student who stopped writing about Leni with the film Victory of Faith could get full marks but students who went further could do so as well.

It is probable that there will be some discussion of the issues that have been raised in this year's papers by the markers and they will come up with a way to deal with it without disadvantaging those students who did the question asked so a student who did two texts will still be able to get full marks but their chances of doing so will be reduced as they probably won't have the depth needed on one text. They certainly won't lose marks for using two texts but mightn't get as many marks as if they had done all the work on one text.

 

[Jay-Tee]

I still dont think it would be fair, that in a year 12 paper, a person is advantaged by writing two texts because they one, cant follow instructions, or two, cant read given instructions. The second related material and any links established with that related material should be ignored and not marked.

 

[absorber]

Very spot-on response. I totally agree with Board of Studies this time. HSC is truly about applying knowledge and students must learn to read the question seriously.

.

 

[atal.love]

very spot-on response. I totally agree with board of studies this time. Hsc is truly about applying knowledge and students must learn to read the question seriously.

+1

 

[jet]

I agree with BOS as well. That SOR question got people to think, instead of just mindlessly regurgitating an essay. Requiring the students to think logically and synthesise information is (imo) a much better skill than just treating it like a memory game.

 

[tku336]

Nobody deserves to complain for AOS, since the question was in fact far easier than if they had asked two; and everybody from our school in religon found the paper fine. It's in the syllabus apparantly, it just differed from previous years questions.

Obviously, you shouldn't try to second guess the exam. Just know your stuff, not just the bits you THINK are going to pop up in the exam in the exact format you expect.

 

[Aerath]

Just thought I'd say that that Iggies guy sounds like a complete and utter moron, with a stick up his butt.

 

[Aerath]

adam is a top bloke - don't rip on him on the basis of a news article which contained a quote which was probably edited lol

Hence I said 'sounds like' - although, the quote was probably edited. Sucks to be him if it was. Article made him sound like the evangelical darlingof the Board of Studies. =P

 

[cutemouse]

Yeah but English is a compulsory subject. I'm sure that many people, if they had the choice not to, wouldn't do it. So it's a fair call in my opinion that they would be complaining about the exam.
SOR on the other hand is another story.
I think it'd be fairer if they made at least 2U maths a compulsory subject as it'd obviously disadvantage those that aren't good at maths (ie. most that are good at HSC English), like how the people not good at English (ie. literature) are forced to do it.
But I think that it would be even more fair if they didn't make such a literature based subject compulsory. I know it stems out of the fact that people should do the language they speak etc... but looking at the grammar of some top English students at my school shocks me (ie. not being able discern whether to use "your" or "you're" etc).
I think that they should introduce a course that actually tests your actual English ability, instead of this stupid course.

 

[mystiques4]

I didn't find it that much of a problem.
Although I did miss out on the ONE related text for AOS

 

[tku336]

The whole point of the HSC is to seperate people in terms of marks. English and Religon have presumably been able to do that. Everyone from our school found it fairly straightforward - if those from schools below, say, 10 or 20 or 50 found it hard, then that's a good thing.

I have a problem with exams that are so easy that you lose distinction between the top and the middle, so that people can feel good.

 

[alex.leon]

Very spot-on response. I totally agree with Board of Studies this time. HSC is truly about applying knowledge and students must learn to read the question seriously.

Normally I would agree on this, but did you SEE the SOR1 paper?! I don't even do the subject, but the question seemed ridiculously worded. I have a few friends doing it, really intelligent, and even they were baffled. I mean, they did eventually answer the question, but only in some obscure, ambiguous way that seemed irrelevant to their core knowledge..!

 

[lyounamu]

^As a matter of fact. I did sit the exam and I am fairly happy with the way in which the question is worded. I think you found it way more confusing as you didn't sit SOR. The question explicity mentioned (in case of Judaism) that we should make connection with the daily practice + the sources of truth. The question wasn't very difficult to interpret. I think the reason why people got thrown up by the question is becaue they expected something else. ..like my friend who was going on about how we will get Bioethics or Martin Lurther or whatever

Yeah but English is a compulsory subject. I'm sure that many people, if they had the choice not to, wouldn't do it. So it's a fair call in my opinion that they would be complaining about the exam.
SOR on the other hand is another story.
I think it'd be fairer if they made at least 2U maths a compulsory subject as it'd obviously disadvantage those that aren't good at maths (ie. most that are good at HSC English), like how the people not good at English (ie. literature) are forced to do it.
But I think that it would be even more fair if they didn't make such a literature based subject compulsory. I know it stems out of the fact that people should do the language they speak etc... but looking at the grammar of some top English students at my school shocks me (ie. not being able discern whether to use "your" or "you're" etc).
I think that they should introduce a course that actually tests your actual English ability, instead of this stupid course.

There is no fairness in making people good at english sit maths exams. It is just unfairness in terms of BOS making us sit English.

 

[absorber]

Yeah but English is a compulsory subject. I'm sure that many people, if they had the choice not to, wouldn't do it. So it's a fair call in my opinion that they would be complaining about the exam.
SOR on the other hand is another story.
I think it'd be fairer if they made at least 2U maths a compulsory subject as it'd obviously disadvantage those that aren't good at maths (ie. most that are good at HSC English), like how the people not good at English (ie. literature) are forced to do it.
But I think that it would be even more fair if they didn't make such a literature based subject compulsory. I know it stems out of the fact that people should do the language they speak etc... but looking at the grammar of some top English students at my school shocks me (ie. not being able discern whether to use "your" or "you're" etc).
I think that they should introduce a course that actually tests your actual English ability, instead of this stupid course.

You neglect to mention that 1) English must be compulsory to allow scaling to occur and 2) English skills are really essential in Australia, and the analytical skills you learn from English help in almost any profession in training your mind. Maths, while also important, is not as crucial. At the least people should have to do ESL imo, if their English isn't good enough to string a few sentences together. The problem, of course, lies in the fact that English no longer develops analytical skills where prepared answers apply; hence what the board decided to do this year.

 

[possessionless]

i agree with the BOS.the SOR exam wasnt that difficult, just required a little more thinking.and why the hell would you complain about 1 related text?? its 1 less thing to write about!!