just a question, obviously the students did take it seriously as otherwise they wouldn't have put in for it, but i don't think they took it as seriously as their GCSE's because they knew that the actual results would not have any influence on their future life, whereas their GCSE results would. do you think this is perhaps one of the reasons why the O level results were of a lower quality than the GCSE results?
Life's not short....its the longest thing you will ever have
i don't think they took it as seriously as their GCSE's because they knew that the actual results would not have any influence on their future life,
True. Also, after all of the study in preparation for their GCSEs, followed by the tests themselves, they were probably sick to death of exams. I think also that it is sad that those who did succeed in these GCE tests were not given any credit on television. It makes you think that these young people were simply "used" to provide entertainment and as a means of degrading their own efforts at school.
If u wanted me to eb honest, i didn't really care whether I was going to pass or fail the o level exams. As long as a proved i got something out of it I was happy (and i got a bit more). If it was going to affect my future life, of course I'd take it mroe seriously but i kept remembering that pass or fail, i'm still getting out of here a different person.
Some of us put a lot of time and effort into preparing those kids for the o'level exams and making them (the questions) as fair as we possibly could. I was genuinely disappointed when the physics results were so bad as I felt some of them had come a long way. I invested a lot of time, effort and - yes - emotional involvement in that project and I found their lack of success (and more importantly the levity with which they greeted it) very hard to take. I felt that they had let me down. Did the students take the exams seriously? maybe. Did I as a teacher? definitely.The T.V. company had a Conservative agenda of course, as do a lot of the posters to this forum. My aim, in auditioning and taking part, was to see if my belief, that good teaching is a balance of traditional and innovative styles,could be supported by such an experiment.
I was also so disappointed with the boys results in the O levels I really was led to believe they would do well with the way the revision was shown that they had learnt loads.
I am wondering if they were too harshly marked?
In the first series they had mock exams to show what was expected in the O levels and I saw no mention of any mocks in this series so if that was the case it could excuse the disappointing results.
How can a Physics exam (for example) be 'harshly marked'? Either you know the answers or you don't...
And to the OP - yes, I expect you're right in that it formulated part of the reason. I think the majority of people there were there for the experience rather than to do well in the O Levels.
**************** - It is spelt definitely, not definately, definatly or in any other equally weird ways - It is would/could/should HAVE, not would/could/should OF.
I think they were essay questions weren't they? Therefore there would have been some element of subjectivity and could well have been harshly marked.
I suppose that would be a positive of the current short answer format for (some of) the GCSE exams, they can be marked much more objectively and be fairer across the board.
I can understand your disappointment, though I expect much of the levity was a defensive reaction. After all, the pupils must have known they were being set up for a fall by the tv company, that they would be depicted as 'failing' no matter what, so how else to treat the results?
It strikes me that the whole tone of the programme was much slighter and 'in-yer-face' this time round, and I'm sure that will have communicated itself to the students.
WSmith - I'm struggling to imagine what an essay question for physics would look like...!
**************** - It is spelt definitely, not definately, definatly or in any other equally weird ways - It is would/could/should HAVE, not would/could/should OF.
Originally posted by Angelil: WSmith - I'm struggling to imagine what an essay question for physics would look like...!
Describe, with the aid of suitable diagrams and illustrative calculations, how the acceleration due to gravity may be determioned using a simple pendulum.
Compare and contrast the conduction mechanisms in metallic solids and ionic solutions.
lol...even if it is an essay question for science, surely there's still nothing subjective about it. In our hypothetical example given above, you either know what mechanisms could be constructed to make a pendulum swing or you don't...
**************** - It is spelt definitely, not definately, definatly or in any other equally weird ways - It is would/could/should HAVE, not would/could/should OF.
I think it's fair to say that all essay questions have a core of knowledge which is necessary to construct a valid discussion and this is certainly true of my examples.
You can, I hope, see that these questions also require the student to describe the experiment coherently and using appropriate technical terminology and to select features of the two conduction mechanisms which are common or unique.
(S)he would also need to be able to construct a logical plan which would enable the reader to see that (S)he understood the relationship between the measured quantities and the desired deduction.
Maybe I am just an uneducated semi-literate scientist ;-) but they seem to me to be tasks which require linguistic dexterity and a grasp of spelling, punctuation and grammar.
It's a fair point but each examiner will mark slightly differently, one may accept certain points that another will not, or require a less succinct explanation to give a mark. This will be eradicated by moderation to some extent but it is still likely to be more subjective than a short answer or MCQ answer for example.
