Dear Malcolm,
Just a short response on your reply to the question papers as you wrote to Prem:
Malcolm Bowie wrote:
Dear Helene, Prem or whomsoever it may concern,
Memorandum query for grade 12 Biology Prep Paper 1, 2005
Sorry for catching you in a meeting. I tried to phone again at 15h00 as had a client arrive at 13h00 when I was to phone you.
I received the e-mail and the fax.
I have read and studied the query and noted the contents. I find that some issues require a response in order to understand the educators context and concern.
The learners are not disadvantaged through the examination paper. The marks are overall in the tolerance range of 10% (6% for the paper 1 performance and 3% for the subject). Therefore the learners will not be disadvantaged.For the distinction candidates this will not affect their their A’s if the educator practiced a marking method that tolerates learner and reader interpretations. The educator’s professional discretion needs to be practiced with the learners in her care.
To draw attention to small problems within a tolerance range is undue
concern. However, I do feel that the following needs to be noted as per e-mail fax copy received addressing the complaints:
- Q1.3.3 ‘Koolsuurgas’ is currently still in the textbooks and there has been no writ that states it is unacceptable. Biological terms and household terms are considered at all times. The examination panel insisted on including this term due to the fact that many learners use such texts. This is a consideration that the educator needs to make as their own judgement call in marking. No problem with the question and memorandum.
REPLY: As regards this “koolsuurgas” answer, in the pasrt during marking @ end of year, for SG, we have been told to disregard the usage of the term as it is regarded as a colloquialism, as we would disregard the use of any “non-biological” word from other languages.
- Q 1.5.2. The graph reading of weights The question requires the learner to measure the difference between the two points at a certain age of a child (2 years old). The scale, measurements and grid are provided for easier reading. The answer is correct and these skills are important as part of CASS. No problem with the question and memorandum.
REPLY: Please go and have a look at the question paper again, and then read the question, which asks for the difference, i.e. a subtraction sum. The answer can never be 12 as from the graph the kids got.
Q 1.5.3. Here it is clear that there may be more than one answer. The educator is correct that there are more than one answer. A single answer requires 2 marks by the examination panel. Therefore, only one answer is marked. The memorandum has to provide more than one answer, which it does.The educator is to mark a single answer with 2 marks. No problem with the question and memorandum.
Q 1.5.4. The memorandum provides two answers. There are many. If an educators context shows more correct answers then in her professional capacity this should be included and marked correct if appropriate. No problem with the question and memorandum.
REPLY: Please then at least in brackets add in something like “or similar from textbooks”….
- Q1.5.5. This question requires professional open answers. This issue is based on the educator marking according to misconceptions. Kwashiorkor is a name given to a protein deficiency disease. The learner may write either and they are correct. No problem with the question and memorandum.
REPLY: Problem exists actually in the interpretation of the question by the learner.
>
>
“Characteristics” and “Properties” are terms which educators mix up. A
memorandum needs to be broadly interpreted in such a question. The
examination panel felt that the learner will be biased if these words were strictly adhered to in their traditional meanings as teachers do not always understand them correctly. Therefore, it was felt it necessary to provide a description of functions as a clarity to the statement required by the question. This was done in order to enable the educator to determine the reason for the word chosen. This was added to the memo. The panel then debated whether if a learner provides its function as clarity and not a correct feature, would they receive a mark. It is thus the reasoning that provides the marks as stated. The educator has the discretion. If the educator feels that this question is a problem, then only two marks are affecting the learner. That then, is not a problem.
REPLY: How can you catagorically state that loosing two marks is “not a problem”. We are here solely to look out for the welfare of the children under our care, and if they see such things happening, as they would when we go through the paper with them at the end of the prelims, they will loose all faith in us as educators. The two marks add up to a percentage. A repeated loss of two marks as in other problem areas, could result in a child actually receiving results in a symbol group below that which they could have achieved.
As for the whole “characteristics” and “properties” debacle. Please look into the translations from english to Afrikaans, as the term used in the English paper if “feature”, which into Afrikaans translates as “Kenmerk”, of “eienskap”. Neither instance suggests a “Funksie”, not even in the English paper is the word “Function” used, how then can you require a function as the answer?
/From a Dictionary; Function = Biology./ The physiological activity of an organ or body part.
From a Dictionary; Characteristic = A feature that helps to identify, tell apart, or describe recognizably; a distinguishing mark or trait.
From a Dictionary; Properties = A special capability or power; a virtue: the chemical properties of a metal.
I do believe in all honesty that the educators should practice their
professional decisions and not pass their concerns like this on to other persons.
REPLY: These concerns are passed onto other persons who are supposed to support us in our capacity as educators. Not all educators in all areas of the society have the gumption to change a memorandum received from the Department of Education, as I have done with my kids. I have expressed these concerns in the hope that in future, our superiors will actually firstly think of the kids, and then of educators, and in doing so they will inadvertently supply others with “in-job-training”.
In so noting the educator should be advised to mark the paper with their integrity as a professional educator. The memorandum needs to be adjusted by adding and refining its contents according to a justified context. If the paper is moderated on marking then these issues would also be checked by other teachers in a cluster. There would then be a similar response to that which I am providing.
REPLY: As a cluster leader I have supplied the corrections that I feel are necessary to my relevant teachers, and they will be following their own discretion.
There is not need for concern but to communicate to the educator that they need to mark according to their professional interpretation and context and to use the memo as a suggested guide.
REPLY: When checked in a Thesaurus, nowhere are the words “guide” synonymous with “Memorandum”, “Memo”, or “Memoranda”. For years also the assumption has, probably mistakenly, been made by educators that the Memorandum received from the Department of Education is written by a person, or group of people, who are actually supplying the correct set of answers to a question no matter the interpretation. Herein lies another problem, should the questions not be stated in such a way as to avoid all possible differing interpretations? A question should immediately lead a learner to a direct answer. Yes, in HG the questions should lead the learners to think more for themselves, and in this is the problem. Some kids actually are intelligent, and can interpret a question in multiple ways which you do not allow for.
I hope I have assisted.
Glad to be of service to you
Yours in education and training
Malcolm Bowie (Biology Internal Moderator Paper 1)
(011) 477-2826
082-3864220
m.bowie@mweb.co.za
Regards, and thanx for actually looking into this matter
Laurette Seddon
Hoërskool Edenvale
Makes you wonder what BEELD would pay to know all this os going on, and how little the GDE actually cares.
Anyhooooo, hope I will be blogging again soon, I’ll keep the blog updated with this whole tired typical story.
Not that anyone really reads it………
Wonder, how can I get more ppl to read this?
>
