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?” →

The results are in, now it is time to put the examiner’s mouth to the marks…how did they arrive at these?

The examiners note how the majority of responses follow ‘fairly well – worn tracks.’ Well I felt the same about their comments. On the whole I feel that the examiners are expecting more than these 18 year olds, with three 2 hour exams and 32 topics to remember, are capable of. Does it matter if they follow ‘well worn’ tracks as this is a new cohort with different pressures? Or maybe we should teach it differently (better)?

General comments:

• Showed knowledge from other topics (synoptic links) suggesting an understanding of the holistic nature of the A level
• Lack of focus on exact wording of the Q
• Long introductions, summaries better left until the end
• Most of essay spent on A01 with A02 added at the end – resulting in insufficient depth
• Few students showed signs of having undertaken research. What do they expect? How are students meant to cover the already dense spec in the short time provided and do further research and remember it all including the main parts needed? – Very unfair expectation in my view!
• Comparing scholars is not evaluation – this is simply comparing viewpoints. Students need to justify which perspective works in relation to the Q.

Philosophy:

1. ‘The best approach to understanding religious language is through the cataphatic way.’ Discuss

Good points:

• Good use of Aquinas’ analogy of attribution and proportion, Ramsey’s Models and Qualifiers, alongside own examples or those of Aquinas’ bull/urine or Hegel’s faithful dog
• Close comparison (and therefore analysis) between the cataphatic and apophatic ways
• Symbol used effectively

Bad points:

• Description of examples with no link back to the Q
• Demonstrated more knowledge on apophatic way
• Symbol confused with myth (no longer on spec)

Check out this Mark with Me Preview where I go through an answer that achieved the overall A*:

2. To what extent does Hume successfully argue that observation does not prove the existence of God?

Good points:

• Variety of Hume’s criticisms, relating them to succinct summaries of the Teleo and Cosmo arguments. (Satisfactory answers wrote copious amounts of descriptions for Aquinas and Paley, leaving little room for Hume).
• Darwin and Tennet’s anthropic principle when used in relation to Hume.
• Analysed Hume’s criticisms, weighing up how successful they are.

Bad points:

• Juxtaposing alternatives such as Big Bang without justify any reasoning as to why applying them.
• Accepting points without question such as Hume’s Epicurean thesis.

3. Assess Boethius’ view that divine eternity does not limit human free will.

Least popular and least well done- insufficient knowledge of key theory.

Continue reading “Examiner’s Report 2018: The Highs and Lows (A Level)” →

Whilst travelling down to the NATRE conference in Cheshire on the train, what better than the examiner’s report from 2018 to keep me busy? No huge surprises (but a few concerns) from the first year Philosophy, Ethics and Christian Thought reports. So here is a summary of the best bits or the bits you need to know if you haven’t had chance to read them:

General comments:

• A significant number of essays had little to no evaluation
• Distinct lack of scholarly views
• Make sure examiners can read your handwriting!!

Philosophy

1. “Conversion experiences do not provide a basis for belief in God.” Discuss

Good points:

• Clear focus on conversion
• Developed evaluation of the effects
• Effective use of William James, Swinburne and Freud

Bad points:

• Long descriptive accounts of conversion, mostly St. Paul and Nicky Cruz
• Thinking that St Paul was an atheist before his conversion
• Not applying Swinburne’s principles to answering the question.

2. Critically discuss Aristotle’s understanding of reality.

Good points:

• Very good accounts of Aristotle’s empiricism, explanation of four causes and prime mover (who draws things to him in a disinterested manner).
• Used Plato in an evaluative way in relation to Aristotle scored higher bands

Bad points:

• Confusion between efficient and formal causes (note: this has been an issue throughout the legacy papers as well)
• Wrote all they knew about Plato and only compared with Aristotle in the final paragraph.

3. To what extent does Kant successfully criticise the ontological argument?

This section stopped me in my tracks. The report starts by saying “while a popular question, candidates struggled to produce good responses and very few recognised that Kant is critiquing the Cartesian version of the ontological argument.”

Now this annoyed me slightly. I cover Descartes in passing as I think he presents interesting links to the concept of predicate, using his example of the triangle and valley (I often find it helps students understand the concepts further). However Descartes has been completely removed from the spec and makes absolutely no appearance in the new spec (not even in the discussion pointers or recommended books).

So if you are new to the spec and don’t realise Kant’s links to Descartes and/or do not cover Descartes at all and closely follow the specific wording of the spec (as time does not allow us to cover all and everything!) then the examiners were expecting something not made clear and marked according to (I think) an old spec mark scheme not a new one. When I teach Kant I explain his views on predicates and get the students to link back to Anselm (who is on the spec) with Descartes links as a passing activity/ mention. I think the question is fine, I think the examiners marking/ report is way off!

Ethics:

Continue reading “Examiner’s Report 2018: The Highlights (first year)” →