Check this out…Quiz Time

Check out the first ‘Test Your Knowledge’ Quiz to see how well you are doing: Annotation 2019-11-21 144814

Don’t forget to share the post with your friends to see who does the best!

Plus you can join me on FB, Twitter and Instagram for regular updates, ideas, articles and more:

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/s6fphilosophy/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/i_think_therefore_i_teach/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/S6FPhilosophy
images

Examiner’s Report 2019: Any surprises?

I felt very uninspired by this year’s set of questions. We are only into the second round of linear exams but I found the questions very ‘samey’ from the previous year. I am not sure that the questions enabled the students to show a depth and breath of knowledge and understanding or gave them the opportunity to really shine and show off the tireless amount of work and revision they all do.

So I turned to the examiner’s report to grasp an understanding of what is expected from our students. I unfortunately found them to be quite brief, not always that insightful and quite repetitive in parts (which is fine as it just means students are making the same mistakes across the board.) I like how they have provided samples of answers this year to back up the points made but this seemed to replace a lot of the depth found in previous reports.

So here are the main highs and lows of this year’s exams.

General (fairly predictable):

Good points:

  • Evaluation throughout
  • Focus directly on question not general topic
  • Outlined line of argument at the beginning (often in introduction) and followed this throughout answer (AO2 driven). Those that added evaluation near end of each paragraph often did not score into higher brackets.
  • Relevant material used

Bad points:

  • Write everything I know on that topic (pre prepared formulaic answers)
  • Evaluate through juxtaposition of different views. In other words putting one name against another name and thinking this is evaluation. You need to say which view is stronger/ more convincing ect.
  • Lack of planning leading to long rambling answers- paragraphs are your friend!
  • Lack of awareness of Q’s/ language used on Spec.

Philosophy:

1. How successfully does the language game concept make sense of religious language?

Good points:

  • Varied examples
  • Critical dialogue with Wittgenstein
  • Contrasted views e.g. Ayer, Flew and Hare’s bliks
  • Effective evaluation including whether language allowed for inter-faith dialogue (seems like a very clever synoptic link to me!), was prone to fideism (belief that faith is independent of reason or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths) and whether or not you can escape language games.

Bad points:

Continue reading “Examiner’s Report 2019: Any surprises?”

Messages from Above: OCR Updates

With tight budgets, it is not always possible to attend a lot of conferences, courses and training but I always keep an eye on the OCR CPD feedback sessions, especially when they are more local to Scarbados (e.g. Leeds – London or Manchester make it a very long day!). So I couldn’t wait to attend the session run by Hugh Campbell on ‘Understanding the Assessment’ and really get into the minds of the examiners…until my train was delayed by nearly two hours and my body was finally shutting down with every bug going. I ended up in bed. Worry not though, as a very kind colleague of mine sent me all the information in the post!

The Headlines:

  • Better responses showed a holistic approach – wide ranging knowledge from the whole course (synoptic links are good but make sure they are linked back to the argument/ question).
  • Effort was made to read around the course material and demonstrated assessment of primary sources (I use a few primary sources and often have students take a quote or snippet of information from them but assessment of these or wider reading…who has the time with such a full spec?).
  • Still evidence of ‘Blue Peter’ answers – problem with showing model answers (is there an alternative for demonstrating essay technique?)
  • Prevalence of ‘comparing’ rather than evaluating/ assessing (I think this is a really good point. I think sometimes students think that comparing thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle equates to evaluating, when actually they are just comparing A to B. Assesment needs to take place as to why A is more convincing than B etc).
  • Still issues of asserting rather than assessing – X says this Y says that and therefore X is right with no sense of why X is right (again I think this is a really valid point. Students often state the views of thinkers and if the view of that thinker is negative e.g. Dawkins this means it counts as evaluation. In fact all you are doing is asserting the view of someone else. Assessing means weighing up why their view works or does not work.)
  • Better responses sustained a line of reasoning. Thread the argument from paragraph to paragraph – building from one point to the next.

Overall Tips:

Continue reading “Messages from Above: OCR Updates”