[Elliott]

I was wondering if anyone who teaches this topics had any thoughts on the paper yesterday. We were very disappointed with the ( questions. The 40 mark question on the Boer War regarding military censorship was very narrow and did not appear reflective of the bullet point / clarification of content whatsoever or the suggested SOW. The topic also only occupies a few lines in the Edexcel textbook, and as a consequence we did not focus on this area in depth at all. The 40 mark question on women also appeared badly worded, as it did not specifically state that it was regarding the First World War. Although this was obvious to myself on reading the question, for students under exam conditions this could have been made explicit. This problem was compounded by the 'weak' sources which did not really give the students anything concrete to work with, and you could only tell it was related to the First World War from the attribution of Source 8.

For the first summer examination of a new specification we were certainly hoping for a paper that was more reflective of proposed examination content, and judging from the comments of several students, they do not think they have done well at all. We will be writing to Edexcel to complain about this paper and then make a decision based on their response how we will proceed...

With a new principal, deputy principal and OFSTED coming in next year all we wanted was a paper that gave students the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge and we do not think this was the case

Any comments in agreement or otherwise would be much appreciated

[Emma_Kramer]

Hi Elliot,

I have not actually seen the exam paper yet. I'm hoping to have a look today. My yr 12 class came to see me afterwards and they seemed quite happy. They did the women question on the choice part. They realised it was WW1... but from what they told me, it seems they could probably bring in other information from other wars too.... (although I'm yet to read the question).

What concerned me was the WW1 for both the compulsory and the choice. For both the SAM and Jan 09 all three wars came up, and that it what I thought would happen this year.

I wonder how they'll mark this as it seemed Jan 09 was slightly lower marks for our units, probably because the text book was not available.

I don't know about you but the Edexcel textbook seems to give more weight to Crimea and WW1 rather than the Boer....there are very few (thin) chapters....

Emma

[Elliott]

Emma_Kramer, on Jun 9 2009, 08:06 AM, said:

Hi Elliot,

I have not actually seen the exam paper yet. I'm hoping to have a look today. My yr 12 class came to see me afterwards and they seemed quite happy. They did the women question on the choice part. They realised it was WW1... but from what they told me, it seems they could probably bring in other information from other wars too.... (although I'm yet to read the question).

What concerned me was the WW1 for both the compulsory and the choice. For both the SAM and Jan 09 all three wars came up, and that it what I thought would happen this year.

I wonder how they'll mark this as it seemed Jan 09 was slightly lower marks for our units, probably because the text book was not available.

I don't know about you but the Edexcel textbook seems to give more weight to Crimea and WW1 rather than the Boer....there are very few (thin) chapters....

Emma

Hi Emma,

I think the WWI question was ok, although the wording was a little 'clunky'. I'd checked with Edexcel on the choice of question and the questions could be drawn from three of the four points, so there is always going to be a WWI question, but could miss Boer or Crimea out. If you get a chance to look at the paper, could let me know what you think of the Boer question?

Thanks
Elliott

[Emma_Kramer]

Hi Elliot,

Ah right, well I didn't realise that!

Still haven't been given the exam paper back. When I do I'll have a read and see what I think.

I really do wonder how it'll be marked as we didn't get the textbook until late, and there are some mistakes in it! (Frances Nightingale!)

Other than the exam, how do you feel the course went? I think I spent too long on Crimea to start with, as in the book Crimea seems to be in lighter depth.

Emma

[Lucy Harris]

I agree with all of these points!

I also didn't realise that there was a chance the Crimean or Boer wouldn't come up - to be honest, you'd have thought they could have at least used a question which encompassed SOME relevance to all 3 wars - otherwise, really, what was the point of teaching all 3? This really doesn't come across in the spec so needs to be made more specific, don't you think?

Ideally - yes - teach a wider context etc etc BUT in reality we are all short for time and could do without 'extra stuff'

I also agree that the wording was not particularly helpful to AS students - my kids tentatively guessed ( (ii) was WW1 -I think the wording could have been fairer

ALSO - I was equally miffed that they set a 'women' question when the other option in that block is the changing role of women - it seemed a little unfair to focus our course on such a similar topic

As for the Boer War question - it would be good for the higher abilities that could have identified the impact of Imperialistic support/most journalists (eg Churchill) were from the upper/ruling classes therefore self-censored to a certain extent etc etc HOWEVER I don't have many of those types of students & it took me a moment of pondering to work this one out - there was not much on this in the textbk - and although there's stuff out there on the internet we simply can't cover all the requirements of the course in that much detail - especially if a whole section is taught & then not on the paper!! (By the way, I also spent ages on the Crimean - and probably still didn't cover enough!!)

OVERALL - my main gripe is that I truly expected the questions to be more supportive of the fact that this was the first paper of its kind - this paper did nothing to help 'bridge the gap' between GCSE & A Level

[Elliott]

Lucy Harris, on Jun 10 2009, 11:44 AM, said:

I agree with all of these points!

I also didn't realise that there was a chance the Crimean or Boer wouldn't come up - to be honest, you'd have thought they could have at least used a question which encompassed SOME relevance to all 3 wars - otherwise, really, what was the point of teaching all 3? This really doesn't come across in the spec so needs to be made more specific, don't you think?

Ideally - yes - teach a wider context etc etc BUT in reality we are all short for time and could do without 'extra stuff'

I also agree that the wording was not particularly helpful to AS students - my kids tentatively guessed ( (ii) was WW1 -I think the wording could have been fairer

ALSO - I was equally miffed that they set a 'women' question when the other option in that block is the changing role of women - it seemed a little unfair to focus our course on such a similar topic

As for the Boer War question - it would be good for the higher abilities that could have identified the impact of Imperialistic support/most journalists (eg Churchill) were from the upper/ruling classes therefore self-censored to a certain extent etc etc HOWEVER I don't have many of those types of students & it took me a moment of pondering to work this one out - there was not much on this in the textbk - and although there's stuff out there on the internet we simply can't cover all the requirements of the course in that much detail - especially if a whole section is taught & then not on the paper!! (By the way, I also spent ages on the Crimean - and probably still didn't cover enough!!)

OVERALL - my main gripe is that I truly expected the questions to be more supportive of the fact that this was the first paper of its kind - this paper did nothing to help 'bridge the gap' between GCSE & A Level

Thanks for the comments on this, I will give Mark Battye a call at Edexcel about this tomorrow to raise concerns on this exam paper.

On the selection of questions Edexcel will pick three questions from the four bullet points, and as WWI compromises two, there should always be a question on WWI. Therefore, there could be a scenario where both B questions are on WWI (Western / Home Front), although Geoff Stewart has said this would be unlikely (he actually described the situation as it appeared in the paper - the questions on WWI split across the A / B sections).

On the issue of all three wars being included, I agree that it would make more sense to do this - we were also annoyed that the Crimean War was not included. The paper was also not reflective of the exemplar or the January paper in that both of these focused on all three wars, and in the absence of past papers, it is natural to work towards this formula. The textbook is also confusing on this issue as P203-05 refers to 'thematic review' and how to answer thematic review questions eg 'To what extent had the reporting of war changed in the period 1854-1918'. Geoff Stewart indicated that questions would not span the three wars, but after this paper I am now unsure!

With regard to the women question, in view of the fact that the paper revolves around three wars, to word the question 'Do you agree with the view that 'the war changed very little for women', is simply inviting confusion, allied with the fact that the sources (except implicitly for S8) do not expressly state WWI. Therefore, a number of students could arguably include material about the Boer or Crimea. This is certainly an issue to be raised on the mark-scheme. I also think it was a 'narrow' question, as it is not exemplified as a potential question area and the clarification of content refers to 'the ways in which men and women were mobilised to contribute to the war effort'. Therefore, there is potential confusion over the demands of the question in terms of the role of women during the war and the extent to which this should be examined after the war itself. In my opinion, the wording of the question is not exactly clear in its requirement in relation to the specification.

On the Boer War, I just considered the focus on military censorship is again not reflective of the clarification of content. Drilling through the bullet point on propaganda, it states 'consider the nature of propaganda and the ways in which Empire was glorified, together with the impetus provided by Winston Churchill's reportage'. So naturally we focused on the newspapers, reporting, support/opposition and Churchill, but military censorship was not highlighted (explicitly or implicitly in my opinion) in the specification, draft SOW or textbook as a significant area, and certainly not the focus of a 40 mark question!!

As the first significant examination on the new specification, I was envisaging a fair, accessible paper that covered topics clearly highlighted in the specification, and I do not think this paper did this at all. I can already see the students crossing out History at A2 and swapping it for Media Studies

I will write a letter to Edexcel about this paper highlighting my concerns in more detail and it will be interesting to determine their response. I have never previously had a problem with their examination papers and the administration side with Mark is really good. However, I am already under pressure within the college to move to WJEC as they are perceived as 'ten times easier' (to quote SMT) (which I do not want to do) and this paper has not helped the situation.

I will update any feedback on here accordingly

Thanks
Elliott

[Lucy Harris]

Thanks for this Elliott

I'm also going to write to Edexcel as our concerns/grievances are similar & clearly need addressing

I accept the issue of which war/which question could easily be an oversight on my part

I agree that the textbook is misleading & clearly doesn't represent what the exam board are going to set questions on - the 'themes' section was completely misleading as it doesn't look like that's actually what the board are focusing on - and yet this course lends itself very well to a thematic question

All very interesting when the exam board & the book publishers are all owned by the same company now

I'll post any feedback info I get too

[Pauntley]

Hello

Thank you for your feedback on this question paper and I'm sorry you have concerns.

I have made the senior examining team aware of the comments on this thread but please feel free to write to us to formally register your views.

With regards to the question about how the war changed very little for women...

All three sources dealt with issues which are specific to WW1. Source 7, from which the quotation was taken, refers to ‘the war’ but does not identify it explicitly. In the light of this, if candidates have knowledge of the impact of other conflicts and have deployed it they will be given for credit for that.

It is always the practice at examiner standardising meetings to take account of ways in which candidates have interpreted questions in order to ensure that they are fully rewarded for positive achievement. Any issues are always considered when setting grade boundaries to ensure that candidates are not disadvantaged.

If you want to write to us regarding this paper please address your letters to the following person:

Lizzie Firth
Qualification Delivery and Award Manager, History
Edexcel
190 High Holborn
London
WC1V 7BH

Thanks

Mark Battye
History Subject Advisor
Edexcel

[Lucy Harris]

Thank you Mark

I'll be in contact soon, but suffice to say, it'll be pretty much what I've already outlined on this forum

I have spoken to a student today who did indeed talk about all 3 wars in the women question, so she will feel pleased to know this will be taken into account

Lucy

[Elliott]

Pauntley, on Jun 11 2009, 01:51 PM, said:

Hello

Thank you for your feedback on this question paper and I'm sorry you have concerns.

I have made the senior examining team aware of the comments on this thread but please feel free to write to us to formally register your views.

With regards to the question about how the war changed very little for women...

All three sources dealt with issues which are specific to WW1. Source 7, from which the quotation was taken, refers to ‘the war’ but does not identify it explicitly. In the light of this, if candidates have knowledge of the impact of other conflicts and have deployed it they will be given for credit for that.

It is always the practice at examiner standardising meetings to take account of ways in which candidates have interpreted questions in order to ensure that they are fully rewarded for positive achievement. Any issues are always considered when setting grade boundaries to ensure that candidates are not disadvantaged.

If you want to write to us regarding this paper please address your letters to the following person:

Lizzie Firth
Qualification Delivery and Award Manager, History
Edexcel
190 High Holborn
London
WC1V 7BH

Thanks

Mark Battye
History Subject Advisor
Edexcel

Thanks Mark, the letter has been drafted and will be sent to the person indicated in the next day or so. I did ring earlier today, but ended up speaking to a 'customer relations' person who also advised to complete the 'Form 10' on the JCQ website for all candidates, so we have completed this as well. It is good to know that students will gain credit on the women question, as there was scope to write about Nightingale, Seacole, Hobhouse etc, which was why we thought the wording needed to be more explicit if the focus was WWI only. Our main concern, which is highlighted previously, was the Boer question and the issue of military censorship. It is concerning for this paper, and of course, is concerning for future papers should similar 'obscure' questions arise, particularly as a 40 mark question (the problem was compounded on this paper by the wording of the women question, which would affect choice). Perhaps some adjustments can be made to the Edexcel SOW to reflect the intended focus of some topic areas, that have perhaps not been suggested in the clarification of content?

[Elliott]

Emma_Kramer, on Jun 10 2009, 07:49 AM, said:

Hi Elliot,

Ah right, well I didn't realise that!

Still haven't been given the exam paper back. When I do I'll have a read and see what I think.

I really do wonder how it'll be marked as we didn't get the textbook until late, and there are some mistakes in it! (Frances Nightingale!)

Other than the exam, how do you feel the course went? I think I spent too long on Crimea to start with, as in the book Crimea seems to be in lighter depth.

Emma

Just realised reading over this I missed your question on the course itself. As I did this as the second topic, I was a little more pressed for time. We spent about 8 weeks on Crimea and Boer combined and about 8 weeks on WWI, which is roughly in line with the hours for SOW from Edexcel (I teach 4.5hrs per week). The difficulty came in teaching content (most had never heard of Crimea or Boer) alongside the source skills for the A and B question.

[Emma_Kramer]

I spent alot of time teaching the content, then did a few lessons at the end on source skills. I wrote my own answer to the compulsory question which I asked the students to mark.

In terms of revision I made a table which looked at themes across all wars. As it looks like no question will be theme based, I might scrap that idea.

I finally got to look at the paper last week. I too feel that the Boer War question was extremely unfair, and I do hope that they avoided it at all costs!
It is also nice to know that they'll be credited by mentioning other wars, not just WW1 in the choice question.

I'll be interested to see the mark scheme!

Emma

[David_Blanchard]

Hello,

Is the mark scheme available for this exam paper yet?

Regards

David

[David_Blanchard]

Hi,

I would just like to add some concerns with regard to papers that have been remarked. Two boys from my history group asked for a remark about 1-2 days after the results of the exams came out. They were had no change from the original mark.

Another boy asked for a remark some two weeks after AS results came out. His new marks were roughly 25% higher than the original.

A number of very bright boys in my History set got relatively low marks in comparison to the marks they achieved on Unit 1, and some boys who I thought would achieve substantially lower marks in some instances obtained higher marks than the potential Oxbridge candidates in the group. I am puzzled by all this.

Additionally another history group who studied parliamentary reform for Unit 2 achieved marks which were more consistently in line with their ability.

I would like to echo concerns with respect to no questions on the Crimean War. I guess this is the risk you run, but I think it needs to stated again that this was the first year the course was taught and the textbook did not appear until some months into the course. As a result I would have thought the exam board would have taken the two concens expressed above and produced a much fairer eexamination.

Regards

David