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 report | Why 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*’
What I love most about religious studies is how it inspires both personal growth and a deeper connection to others. It’s a beautiful reminder that faith is universal, even when expressed in countless unique ways.
Could you suggest a writing style which would be conducive to DCT?