23 replies to this topic

[j hewson]

Hope everyone was happier with today's paper: I thought that the topic was a good one "the threat of the labour party" and that all pupils were able to access all of the questions with more comfort than the paper on Tuesday. Only question of any issue was q4 but most of the pupils I taught were able to answer it with confidence. I know the Bolshevism source on paper 1 (Germany) was a pain but the paper 2, in my humble opinion, was much more favourable.

[Ed Podesta]

Yes - I thought it was a fair paper - enough support for all, and room for the highest attaining to shine too.

[Ian C]

I wish I had your confidence! Our pupils, particularly the Cs and Bs, found this one very tough due to the wording of some of the questions. We try to teach them formats to answer as many of the questions as possible and try to encourage a bit of flexibility of thinking for the odd one that doesn't fit. Looking back on the past papers since 2003 most questions on each paper fit fairly neatly into a category. I felt that some questions on this paper were much tougher to categorise. The brighter kids worked it out, but others struggled. Whilst I accept that this enables the brighter ones to shine I still think that, in the absence of a foundation paper, the wording of the questions needs to be accessible to a range of candidates. Brighter candidates can then still demonstrate their ability through the quality of response.

Maybe I shall have to have a look at how we teach this in future.

P.S. What is with the obsession with the Liberal Reforms on this paper...........

[Paul M]

We did the 1939-75 option but I also felt it was a fair paper overall. As with the above post though I do wish they would reflect on the wording being used in some of the questions as it can be so hard for weaker students to comprehend what they are being asked to do...

"Does Source X make you surprised by Source Y?"

Surely there has got to be a more straightforward way of asking students to compare the content and provenance of two sources?

[Martyn Ellis]

Generally ok but very difficult (as always) for the weakest students to access. Compare other subject exam papers to this one; I have seen several recently where in other subjects kids are asked to match up words and meanings and fill in the gaps from a word bank!

[Alex Ford]

"Does Source X make you surprised by Source Y?"

Yes... a lot of the wording seems utterly baffling to me... I wonder how well someone like Starkey would do on this paper - sure he might have the knowledge - but would he hit the mark scheme requirements?!?
My personal favourite has always been "Are you surprised by..."... I mean what kind of question is that?!?

On a side note did anyone notice that Paper 1 (New World 1948-2005) was essentially the same paper as Jan 2010?

[Ed Podesta]

I really like the 'are you surprised' questions! I've been teaching them that they should think 'is it weird that this source was made at this time / or said by this person or type of person'. I guess that they're asking kids to think about typicality, of opinion or perspective, mainly.

I didn't think Lib Reforms had come up for ages?

[Paul M]

I don't mind the 'Are you surprised' questions in principle, particularly on Paper 2 when, Ed says, it's all about typicality.

However, "Does Source X make you surprised by Source Y" is, for me, just far too wordy for weaker students to work out what they are being asked to do.

[Norman Pratt]

Having only just come across the OCR Exam and its "Surprise" questions, I am ...er.... surprised. The normal usage of the word invites a subjective response. So I have made a mental note - thank you Ed - to add "typicality" to my list of useful History jargon.

[Tony Fox]

I have just returned from the OCR standardisation, having done Edexcel in previous years.
I will admit that, at first, I was 'suprised' by the "suprised question", thinking it a strange term to use in History, but having seen how students approach it, and how it should be marked, I see it as a good introductory question, to give students an opportunity to describe general trends, and at the end of day, description is a lower order skill.
I totally agree that 'Typicaly' is a good teaching term, but feel that if it was used in the exam question it would not allow higher ability students to explain in detail.

[Paul M]

I agree with the above post regarding the merit of the 'Are you surprised' question but I think that "Does Source X make you surprised by Source Y?" is overly confusing.

[Tony Fox]

I think that "Does Source X make you surprised by Source Y?" is overly confusing.

I agree it can appear confusing, but is there an alternative, and as it is standard now, we can prepare students for the question, although I agree this particular one is not as accessable as the others I have seen.

[Alex Ford]

But the whole point is that you can't answer those sort of questions without specific coaching... Are you surprised by source a... Well hopefully if you have a good knowledge and appreciation of the context then it should not surprise you at all. I see what they are trying to do but it becomes ridiculous hoop jumping... No better than the old useful/reliable chestnut.

[Ed Podesta]

There's nothing wrong with a useful question either - as long as it's directed at a specific purpose for a source!

Perhaps they should just say 'how typical are the views in this source'?

[Ed Podesta]

And when does teaching become coaching? Should we avoid helping our students understand the requirements of questions?