Past Questions and Gaps PowerPoint (if you would like a copy of the ppt):
This year’s live stream:
Last year’s live stream:
Coverall PowerPoint (if you would like a copy of the ppt):
Last Minute Tips PowerPoint:
Last Minute Tips Teach-Along:
Do the exam markers for DCT need a reality check?
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*’
Essay Writing Tips (Examiner’s Report 2024)
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 Answers | What 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?)
Criminology Live Stream
Hi all,
Join me tomorrow (Thursday 28th November) on YouTube for a livestream on Unit One and Unit Three Controlled Assessment preparation.
Transforming Teaching with iPads
This year, students at my college have been loaned an iPad for the duration of their time with us. The intention is that they use them for note taking, organization, access to resources (that no longer need to be printed) and engaging learning approaches. In order to fully take advantage of this classroom resource, in my new role as an ‘iPad Champion’ I have spent the year trying out different websites and apps. Now I am no expert in iPads, or technology in general, but I love teaching and learning and believe me when I say there are so many amazing teaching resources out there to reduce your teaching workload, create interactive and engaging lessons (without students needing to access technology) and learning aids that can be used in the classroom (computers, iPads, phone) or at home. Here are a few of the best ones I have come across this year:
- Diffit (https://web.diffit.me/): Will create new teaching resources including reading, quizzes, PowerPoint slides on a given topic/ keyword.
- Suno (https://suno.com/): Enter a theme and it will write you a song.
- Hello History (https://www.hellohistory.ai/): Life like conversation with historical figures (Text message style).
- Summarize.tech (https://www.summarize.tech/): Summaries long YouTube videos into timed chunks – game changer!!
- Autodraw (https://www.autodraw.com/): You do a quick sketch or drawing and AI will improve through giving options to match what you tried to draw.
- Craiyon (https://www.craiyon.com/): AI Image Generator. Quick search ideas to be generated into art, drawings or photos.
- Classroom Screen (https://classroomscreen.com/): Add a timer, poll, randomiser, noise controller onto the classroom board.
- Bouncy Ball (https://bouncyballs.org/): Fun way to monitor noise (this could be used to detect both high noise level or if you want students to speak up or discuss ideas it can visually show low noise level)
- Future Tools (https://www.futuretools.io/): Organises all available AI apps into searchable themes e.g drawing, feedback, equations.
- Literal App (https://www.literalapp.com/edu): range of books – class commentary, set assignments, asks Q. presented like a text conversation. Can highlight words for dictionary.
See previous blog Old Dog New T&L Tricks for more website and app ideas including best quizzes.
Please get in touch (via ‘contact me‘) if you would like a copy of the full document, if you have any other app/website recommendations or if you would like teaching ideas to accompany the different methods above.
DCT 2024 Exam Predictions
For many of you this will be your final exam and I am sure at this point your brains feel like they have run a marathon (weeks of mental endurance). But we cannot limp to the finish line, we must end on a high! This means one last push for DCT exam.
My final round of predictions:
- Death and Afterlife: Most likely be heaven, hell and/ or election e.g. Assess the view that heaven is an actual place after death where a person will experience physical and emotional happiness. Or “Hell is an actual place where a person experiences eternal punishment.” Discuss My reasoning behind a death and afterlife question is because only one question has been asked in the second year (purgatory) and it was back in 2019. High likability and it might be a repeat question from the first year (check the ppt with past questions on YouTube).
- Person of Jesus: “Jesus’ relationship with God was truly unique.” Discuss No question has been asked on this area in the second year (human vs divine), so seems a large gap in the syllabus not to have been asked.
- Pluralism and Society: ‘Critically assess how Christian communities have responded to the challenge of encounters with other faiths, referencing the Redemptoris Missio (55–57)’. Or “Due to the development of contemporary multi-faith societies, Christians should have a mission to those of no faith.” Discuss. The last question from this area was back in 2020 and the only areas to have been asked are interfaith dialogue and SRM so some big gaps that are likely to come up this year.
- Secularisation: General Q e.g. ‘To what extent is secularisation an opportunity for Christianity to develop new ways of thinking and acting.’ Or specific to Dawkins e.g. “Society would be happier without Christianity, as it is infantile, repressive and causes conflicts.” Discuss The last question from this area was back in 2020 and the only areas to have been asked are Freud and a general Q (see ppt on YouTube for past questions) so some specific areas from the syllabus that are likely to come up this year.
Other possibilities:
- Moral Action: “The cost of discipleship is too unrealistic.” Discuss. Only two questions have been asked on Bonhoeffer in the second year and no question have ever been asked specifically on discipleship or grace.
- Gender and Theology: “Christianity should be changed not abandoned.” Discuss Just because we are missing it! Only two questions have been asked, one on Daly (2018) the other on Reuther (2022) and no appearance last year. I think a general question that links to both these femisitist is possible.
This is your final opportunity to shine! Good luck with your ongoing revision and don’t forget to join the last live stream on Wednesday 19th June at 6.00 for any last minute exam support.