Author: Aimee Horsley

I am an A Level Philosophy, Ethics and Religious Studies teacher. I have taught between 80 - 150 R.S students for the past eight years. I also manage a small team of Coaches dedicated to enhancing Teaching, Learning and Assessment. Two years ago I completed a MEd (Masters in Education) focusing on Dialogic Learning. After huge success on SlideShare, with my power points being viewed over a quarter of million times, I started to think that I have so much more to share that may be of interest to other students and teachers outside my college. So this Blog will document my on-going findings, reflections and tips for both teachers and students.

Philosophy 2025 Exam Predictions

On By Aimee HorsleyIn Exam Preparation, Philosophy New SpecLeave a comment

As I say every year, it is impossible to accurately predict exam questions due to the magnitude of questions the exam board could ask. I did however predict one topic Q spot on last year (analogy) and two other topic areas on Plato and Cosmological (not quite the right wording of the questions though)– so go me!

We have to be prepared that the exam board could ask curveball questions to avoid people like me ‘accurately’ predicting the questions. They may ask questions that have previously featured in the first-year exams (e.g. they asked a Q on Descartes in 2023 and a very similar question on Descartes appeared the year before in the first-year exam). The examiners might also repeat topics over multiple years, so just because it was asked last year does not mean the topic wont also appear this year as well (e.g. a question on Religious Experience has been asked in both 2023 and 2024). The examiners could also use the same wording (repeat the same questions), so going over my ppt on previously asked questions will help prepare you further (https://youtu.be/qUHXa_3rlhA).

With all this in mind, these predictions are just my own musings and may be completely wrong, so you must still revise all areas on the spec. But if I were going to write an exam paper this is how I would do it…

  1. Soul, Mind and Body: ‘Aristotle presents the most comprehensive view of the soul.’ Or Critically assess the view that the mind can be fully explained by material interactions. Or “The mind-body distinction is a category error” Discuss. My reasoning behind this choice is that it was not on last year’s paper and there are a number of obvious gaps from the spec that haven’t been asked before.
  2. Ontological: Critically assess the view that existence can be treated as a predicate. Or ‘The ontological argument does not justify belief in God.’ Discuss. This is a top runner for me. Ontological has not been asked since 2021! There are also a considerable number of questions the examiners have never asked. You could also get a question on Kant (only asked in the first year 2018) or Gaunilo (asked in the second year 2021 or in the first year 2024 –they like to ask similar questions from the first-year exam in the following second year exam). Also ‘predicate’ is a clear part of the spec that has not appeared in the first-year exam either.
  3. Problem of Evil: ‘Hick’s reworking of the Irenaean theodicy gives some purpose to natural evil’ Discuss. Or ‘The need to create a ‘vale of soul-making’ cannot justify the existence or extent of evils.’ Discuss. It must come up!!!! I’ve been waiting for this one for years. I think the examiners have forgotten that this is part of the spec. Poor John Hick. Is this going to be the year?
  4. Nature of God: “Swinburne successfully resolves the problems surrounding God’s omniscience and human freewill.” Discuss. Or “God cannot have divine foreknowledge and be fully benevolent.” Discuss. A number of areas of NOG that have not been asked, so two obvious questions would be Swinburne and/or benevolence. There is going to be at least one question from the second-year topics and since all areas of Religious Language 20th century have been asked (no obvious gaps) and Religious Language: Analogy was asked last year, it seems that this year NOG seems likely.

Alternative Q (I think these are unlikely but if the examiners are wanting easy question options, these are obvious gaps from the spec that have not been asked):

Continue reading “Philosophy 2025 Exam Predictions” →

RS Exam Support 2025

On By Aimee HorsleyIn Exam Preparation, Philosophy and Ethics: R.SLeave a comment

Powerpoint of Past Exam Questions:

Powerpoint of Gaps and Possible Questions (if you would like a copy of these ppts):

Predictions:

Live Streams for last minute exam support:

Links to last year’s live streams (membership exclusive):

Philosophy:

Ethics:

DCT:

Don’t forget to check out the Examiner’s Report summaries (Essay Writing Tips (Examiner’s Report 2024) and Goldilocks and the Three Exam Papers) These will give you an insight into what the examiner’s are looking for and what to avoid.

Do the exam markers for DCT need a reality check?

On By Aimee HorsleyIn Developments in Christian Thought2 Comments

Am I the only one that feels DCT is becoming like a bad dream? The harder the students work, the higher the expectations for success become (analogous to running in a nightmare and getting nowhere). There is no possible way that within the contact time allocated to cover the whole spec (all 32 units), that the depth and breadth of understanding beyond the ‘artificial’ is achievable. How is it possible to teach the nuances of a 2,000 year old religion, without dedicating hours beyond our contact time? Maybe I just can’t see the wood for the trees anymore but after reading last year’s examiner’s report (which I compared to goldilocks and the seemingly impossible task of getting the porridge ‘just right’) this year’s DCT examiner’s report is no improvement. Let’s have a closer look…

What was said in the examiner’s reportWhy I have an issue with it
For the Q on Heaven – examiners mentioned how the ‘new earth’ theology enhanced many answers! Also the consideration of the transformation of space and time (e.g. Parousia) might broaden some candidate’s repertoire. Finally how ‘some candidates lacked precision (when discussing Beatific Vision) and could have drawn further on scholarly sources.’Now I appreciate that students need to do some wider reading but when the students are already ladened down with content, how are they supposed to find the time to explore at length every aspect of the specification (to this level of detail) that contact time in the classroom just cannot facilitate? Not only this, how are the students then meant to remember all this extra information for the slim possibility it might come up in the exam. It just seems very unfair to me and does not recognise that there is only so much information students can retain. Here’s a thought, if the examiner’s want a deeper exploration, why not take out some content!
For the Q “assess the claim that love (agape) is sufficient as the only source of Christian Ethics.”– it was noted how candidates ‘seemed to answer a slightly different question’ evaluating whether any other subdivisions in the topic were sufficient as the only source and concluding that a combination is best.I was confused by this comment, as one approach that I would assume is valid, especially with the wording ‘only source’ would be to discuss other types of sources. The most obvious would be the sources within the rest of the topic on Moral Principles – am I wrong in this understanding? I’m really not sure how students would answer a whole essay just on agape without drawing heavily on ethics.
Further to the question above, it continues to say that candidates might do well to have a ‘secure breadth and depth of understanding of what agape is’ suggesting that ‘one possibility might be to begin with the NT and broaden outwards.’Is it just me or does this come across as horrendously patronising (or am I being sensitive)? Patronizing in the sense that obviously it would benefit students to have a secure breadth and depth of all tiny aspects of a massive spec but we (us teachers and students) live in reality! To then point out that the New Testament is a good place to start – who do they think we are – clearly not trained academics who have studied religion (or some variation) at high level and therefore wouldn’t think to consult the original source of agape for Christians. Totally out of touch.
Best answers were able to differentiate between denominations and the challenges they encounter with other faiths rather than as a homogeneous group (for a question on Pluralism and Society).  As with many of the examiner’s comments and my continuing problems with them, this one once again falls under expectations vs reality. We hardly have time to cover what is on the actual spec, so to have the expectation that we start to delve into denominational encounters as well, is just laughable. Once more, how much wider reading and time do you think students have?
The examiners recommended that the best answers adopted a thinking and writing style specific to success in this paper, rather than one that would work in Philosophy or Ethics.  What writing style would that be then? I was unfamiliar that there was a different style expected for DCT which deviates from the standard mark scheme on the website.
 “At the heart of successful answers was a clear understanding of the complexities of Christianity.”  And it wouldn’t be an examiner’s report for DCT without this old chestnut. Why does it never say this for Philosophy or Ethics? The reason is because it is expected that these topic areas are mostly new to students. However, for many students the study of Christianity is also new, they haven’t necessarily been brought up Christian, attended Sunday School/ Church or received a Christian education, so why is it expected that in 6 months (over two years – this is roughly the time we have to spend on DCT) it is expected that students know the ‘complexities’ of a 2,000 year old religion?
The examiners are ‘aware of the artificial nature of an exam specification’ whilst continuing that higher marks are given to students who:

1. Knew there were more than two liberation theologians,

2. Understood the Bible to be more significant than some isolated quotations,

3. Understood that relationships with other faiths goes beyond Scriptural Reasoning and inter faith dialogue.		What an odd way to describe a specification – I have never thought of it as artificial just necessary in order for students to have parameters on what to study, learn and practice. If students were only provided with topics, whilst this would be a more organic approach – isn’t this university standard? Why should the fact it might be deemed ‘artificial’ be a bad thing at this level of academia? I also found the comments regarding higher marks to be quite patronising and to be honest a bit mean. Would such comments be added to the Hinduism examiner’s report or the DIT? When the specification is designed to rein in the scope of study to make it manageable to the age of the students, why then is it deemed necessary to criticise this expectation and move the goal posts?
The most successful responses are where the students were able to think ‘like a Christian theologian.’This seems a highly questionable form of assessment – does the student think like a Christian Theologian or not? How would one make such a judgment? And why is it deemed necessary – would you say does the student think like an ‘ethicist’, ‘historian’ or ‘psychologist’ – maybe the examiner’s would? I’m once again not convinced that the examiner’s would be expecting the students to think like a Hindu Indologist (I think that is the right term) or a Buddhist scholar so why is the bar of expectation so high for Christianity?
It was also noted that some candidates were ‘rather scathing’ about Christians e.g. Evangelicals as out of date – this should be challenged by centres while teaching the nuances of religious studies.A synonym for ‘scathing’ is critical – I was under the impression that students should be critical in their analysis of all arguments being presented. Yes it is noteworthy if the students are rude, condemning without justification and thus should be challenged by centres but arguing that a perspective is out of date with justification is not something I would challenge. How are students meant to achieve the top marks for A02 f they are not allowed to be critical? I’m not sure at 18 years old students can really appreciate the nuances of a perspective (they often see Christianity no different than they see Plato or Kant).

Please check out the Shorts on YouTube (and Tik Tok) where I go through my Top Tips on ‘How to Improve your Essays’ and ‘How to achieve an A*’

Essay Writing Tips (Examiner’s Report 2024)

On By Aimee HorsleyIn Essay Tips and Techniques, Exam PreparationLeave a comment

I always find it helpful reading the examiner’s reports but in recent years I have also found them highly frustrating, vague and somewhat unfair. This year’s Philosophy and Ethics reports come with very few surprises, a selection of helpful pointers (which I summarise below) and a general repetition of previous years’ comments. However the Christian Thought section infuriated me due to the clear disparity in expectations (with the other modules of the course) and a complete disregard of the cohort of students we teach. Can I order a reality check please?

Helpful all-round pointers:

Best AnswersWhat to Avoid
Selected relevant material. Selection of material in response to Q is as much about what is left out as what is put in. Unclear why certain arguments were brought into an answer e.g. Tillich’s symbol in Aquinas’ analogy. This works but only when evaluatively.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Fs-9Rx6q9Po		Weaker students wrote everything they knew. Questions are intended to test how well candidates can use the material to respond to a specific question. Not just a recall test. Need to think and plan responses, rather than seeing a key word and launching into a pre prepared answer.
Focus directly on the Q. Most successful responses focused on the specific words in the Q e.g. the word ‘sufficient’ found in the Q can change the direction of an answer.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9VRdJjEvFes
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/KdZnPH98LNk		Evaluation was juxtaposed rather than developed. This means that arguments, such as those presented by key scholars, are simply stated (regurgitated info) rather than exploring why they are relevant and how their argument impacts your overall discussion.
Introduction included an outline of what was going to be argued with hypothesis and reasoning. Outlining thesis/ judgment in introduction.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/azNF-rVAKWg		Absence of planning was noticeable.  
Structure your paragraphs by starting with a view, rather than a name, which tends to lean to an essay that is driven by A02 rather than A01.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/QIQj6v2_a4U		Having a simplistic view of content.  
Embed discussion, use the material as a vehicle for discussion (A02). Argument driven approach rather than stating criticisms of scholars.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/RoJn9UlkVGQ		Longer essays are not necessarily better – focus can drift.  
Relevant synoptic links made.  
https://youtube.com/shorts/xstsllLKJqc		Being synoptic can lead to time wasted exploring other topics that did not significantly increase credit for the question being answered.  
Unnamed scholarly views can be credited highly – you don’t need a ‘menu of scholars’ (love this phrase, already used it two or three times in my lessons already!).  
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qwsMq8j7d3E		Unnecessary comparisons with other theories. For example in a Cosmological question contrasting with Teleological and/or Ontological – WHY would you do this?!? – unless fuelling the debate – multiple concepts can dilute the responses made – don’t ‘shoehorn’ other aspects of the course into answers.

Stay tuned for the summary of the DCT section of the examiner’s report, which needs a far more in-depth exploration. Coming soon 😊 (You can now find it here: Do the exam markers for DCT need a reality check?)