Tag: Exam

Predictions for Christian Thought 2018 (First and Second Year)

On By Aimee HorsleyIn Developments in Christian Thought, Exam PreparationLeave a comment

Last year we were all well and truly in the dark whenhqdefault approaching the first Christian Thought paper. A year on (and maybe a year wiser) we can certainly learn from two areas: the examiners report (see: Examiner’s Report 2017: What can we learn?) and last year’s questions:

img_1208.jpg

Now so far in the first year exams it seems that the areas that were asked last year have been avoided so far this year. OCR are very clever though – they will know this too, which means they might throw a curve ball in and ask the same topic again but a different area.

However going by the pattern so far this means that Augustine, Natural and Revealed Knowledge of God and Moral Principles has not been asked. My gut instinct is that the examiners will not ask a question on both Natural and Revealed and Moral Principles as these are very similar topics (in my view) and both quite dry.

deniswaitley1-2xI think if the examiners asked you a question on Natural and Revealed (such as ‘Knowledge of God can only be revealed.’ Discuss – wording would obviously be a little better) and then a question on the Bible (such as ‘The Bible is the only authority for Christian ethical practices.’ Discuss – wanting you to discus the different denominational approaches) I think that would be a really mean paper!

But….your Philosophy and Ethics so far has been pretty nice. My mantra: Prepare for the worse and hope for the best.

Worst case predictions:

Continue reading “Predictions for Christian Thought 2018 (First and Second Year)” →

Panic “My Exam is Tomorrow!” Must Read for Christian Thought 2018 (1st and 2nd Year)

On By Aimee HorsleyIn Developments in Christian Thought, Exam PreparationLeave a comment

My tips for last year’s first DCT exam consisted of:

  • Use the words in the question throughout your answer
  • Add critical words with ‘because’ throughout to emphasize evaluation
  • Add as many glossary/ key words as possible and link back to the question.

I can’t promise that I have much more than I did last year as far as advice but this is what I have learnt about the six DCT topics (first year):

  1. Use the overlap between topics to your advantage e.g. Moral Principles topic on the different interpretations of scripture is very similar to Natural and Revealed Knowledge of God
  2. Learn 3 quotes (one for a Pope) that can be used in multiple different answers
  3.  Summarize your revision notes into 4-5 main themes per topic (e.g Augustine – Original Sin, Before and after the Fall, Grace and the role of women etc.)
  4. Learn some extra names that can be used as evaluation (e.g. Dawkins compares belief in God to a teapot in space or belief in the tooth fairy). Don’t forget it is only evaluation when you say who presents the most convincing argument.
  5. Work out which topic the question is from and how much you can write for that topic area. Do you have enough for at least 2 sides?

Remember the style of questions and material for the DCT topics is different 41+uCCAOoHLfrom that of Philosophy and Ethics (well I certainly think it is!) It is more descriptive and presents less arguments to really sink your teeth into. However that is not an excuse to not engage with evaluation. What this means is you have to work harder for it. What I found after last year’s DCT exam was that students tended to do better because they were so aware of the question and the need to evaluate, that they actually emphasized it more than they did in Philosophy and Ethics. Good news!! So don’t stress out, focus on what you are asked and try think of any relevant quotes, names, ideas that you have covered in the DCT topics that you can use in relation to the Q.

Pointers for 2nd year DCT:

Continue reading “Panic “My Exam is Tomorrow!” Must Read for Christian Thought 2018 (1st and 2nd Year)” →

Predictions for Philosophy 2018 (First and Second Year)

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

untitled.pngI am starting to think that my students think I am Mystic Meg and have God on speed dial giving me inside tips. Because if I had a pound for every time I have been asked for my predictions over the years I could have paid for a luxury holiday to Barbados with a yacht…and cocktails.

The simple answer is – “I have no idea!” Why? Because this is the first time the full A Level has been sat. This means there are no previous questions to rule out and no lessons to be learnt. We are all going in blind!

First Year:

It is slightly easier this year as we have one round of questions and the examiner’s feedback  (see: Examiner’s Report 2017: What can we learn?).

Last year’s question paper:

philosophy

Now don’t get excited! This does not mean that Cosmological, Problem of Evil and Soul, Mind and Body won’t be on this year but it certainly is quite unlikely. However examiners love curve balls so they might throw one in just to catch you off guard. So you might for example get a question specifically on John Hick’s POE for example.

However I am thinking:

Continue reading “Predictions for Philosophy 2018 (First and Second Year)” →

Panic “My Exam is Tomorrow!” Must Read for Philosophy 2018 (1st and 2nd Year)

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

32468058_10156606003370809_779382825869639680_nIt’s that time again! This is my tenth exam season and let me tell you it doesn’t get easier. Every year is a manic scrabble to get the A2 students ready with all their revision materials, last minute tips (and endless mock exams) and final words of wisdom (hopefully!) For the first years it is now a mad rush to finish the spec in time for the first exam. So here are my last minute tips for Philosophy…

Evaluation panic you can always use:

  • God of Gaps: Having a gap in knowledge and filling it with God. This could even be used more creatively with Plato and Aristotle e.g. what sustains the four causes (potential to actual) = Prime Mover. Prime Mover is used to fill a gap in knowledge
  • Leap of Logic: Drawing conclusions with limited or no logic/ evidence
  • Reductio ad Absurdum: reducing logical statements to illogical conclusions (e.g. design in world = God designer)
  • Burden of Proof: whoever is making the claim must back up with proof. So does Plato provide enough proof for WOF – yes/ no discuss in answer
  • Ockham’s razor: go with the simplest solution E.g. St Theresa had a vision or was it just caused by malaria? What is the simplest solution?

Evaluation:

  • You must use critical words throughout your answer to emphasize your evaluation (see to help: Adding the ‘critical’ to your critical analysis: Developing A02). If you don’t use critical words you are only stating perspectives not evaluating them. And you cannot ‘name dump’ e.g. “Stephen Fry questions how can God exist when he allows children to die of cancer. This is a convincing argument.” This is not evaluation! You must use the special word of ‘because’.
  • I recommend that my students do not use ‘I think’ as it does not read academically. Instead channel your views/arguments but use other language such as ‘one might argue’
  • Don’t forget you get a lot of marks for evaluation (15 marks first year and 24 marks second year). Have you put 15 different evaluative points in your essay using critical words with ‘because’? Have you defended against the criticism and then weighed up whether the original criticism or defence is stronger?

General:

Continue reading “Panic “My Exam is Tomorrow!” Must Read for Philosophy 2018 (1st and 2nd Year)” →

Revision Guides: Which ones are worth your money?

On By Aimee HorsleyIn Exam Preparation1 Comment

The Revision Guides I purchased where Libby Ahluwalia’s Oxford A Level Religious Studies (one book) and Chris Eyre and Julian Waterfield’s My Revision Notes for Religious Studies (separated into three books).

I have to admit straight away I am biased towards both books, so when ordering them I knew it was a done deal as far as quality. Ahluwalia’s text books have been an invaluable support over the last two years in preparing and teaching the new spec material. I trust Ahluwalia’s experience with OCR and her keen yet fair eye when it comes to assessment. I have also worked closely with Julian Waterfield over the years, so I know first hand his love for the subject, his honed skills for marking essays and his understanding of the reality of teaching. Neither of the Revision Guides let me down!

However I know with tight budgets purchasing a class set for both guides is unrealistic. Also bombarding students with lots of different books can sometimes over complicate revision rather than make it easier. Therefore as I am not a fence sitter, here is a rundown of my views of both guides:review 1

So my overall verdict:

Continue reading “Revision Guides: Which ones are worth your money?” →

Predictions for A2 Ethics (Old Spec)

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

I am not a gambling sort of person but I would bet money that you will be asked two 714583-exam-1401318461-908-640x480.jpgapplication questions. But what about the other two questions? Well, as with my previous predications, all I have to go on is the patterns, links to the specifications and gut instinct (call it my ‘intuition’ if you like).

Meta Ethics: even though this came up last year I still think there is a possibility of it re- appearing. At the end of the day it is not a popular topic therefore it often rears its head repeatedly. If so, my predications are either: Ethical Naturalism specifically or a question worded with Cognitive or Non Cognitive e.g ‘Critically assess a cognitive approach to ethical language’ or ‘A Cognitive approach is the only way to understand ethical language.’

VE: I do not think virtue will come up as a specific question this year but it is worth revising as you might be able to use it in an application answer. If a question on virtue does come up I think it will be quite a specific question e.g. ‘Evaluate the agent centred approach of Virtue Ethics’ or ‘Critically assess the main principles of virtue ethics’ or ‘The concepts of eudaimonia and the Golden mean are flawed.’

Conscience: Very likely! There are a lot of gaps when it comes to conscience questions. There has never been a question on (going back as far as 2007 anyway): Conscience as God given, conscience as innate, conscience as instilled by society, parents ad authority figures, views of Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, Freud, Fromm or Piaget. Gosh that is a lot of potential questions! My sneaking suspicion is going to be an open question that warrants a number of these areas in one go e.g. ‘Critically assess the view that conscience is instilled by society, parents and authority figures’ or ‘ Believing that conscience is God given is flawed.’

Freewill and Determinism: Possibility but it is unlikely you will get a conscience and FW together on the same paper. If this topic does come up I think it will be a hard determinism question angled at Theological Approaches such as ‘Theological determinism is more convincing than religious ideas of Freewill.’ You might also get a question on Darrow, Honderich, Hume or Locke (I doubt it though, these seem very specific and just too mean!) Genetic determinism has also not been on in the past.

Sex and Relationships: Contraception has never been asked and there has never been a specific question on Kant = ‘Kantian ethics is the best approach to issues surrounding contraception.’

Environment and Business: This is a popular area for questions and does come up in the exam quite often. There are still a number of questions you could get asked on this topic. No question has been specifically worded to ‘environment, resources and species’, there has also not been a question specifically on globalisation. Utilitarianism is the only topic that has not been specified in a previous exam. So I would not be surprised with a ‘Utilitarianism is the best approach to business and globalisation.’ I also think you might get a question that asks for the relationship between environment and business (combining both questions last year) so ‘Businesses are not ethical towards the environment. Discuss’.

So my money is on:

  1. Conscience (aimed at Freud, Fromm and Piaget)
  2. Kant and contraception
  3. Meta ethics (worded cog or non cog)
  4. Either FW if the examiners are nice or Utilitarianism and Globalisation or Environment with Business combined.