The end of modular examinations - thoughts?
Scroll to see replies
Having one big exam at the end of two years is obviously going to be harder then modular exams, because you have to remember a lot more stuff that you learned a year or so back. It doesn't mean you have learned more, that you understand more, or that your more intelligent. It just means that your better at revising and remembering stuff that you will forget after your exam. I always thought modules made more sense, you learn a topic, your tested on that topic, and you move on to another topic, so that that exam shows what you have learned. There obviously need to be massive reforms to GCSEs, they are far too easy, and its getting ridiculous, but I don't think linear exams will improve anything.
Original post by munazic483
There is nothing worse than people working hard to get good grades after all (end sarcasm)
But seriously? It depends how you view the point of our education system. There seems something inherently fairer about the end of the modular system in that everyone has two years and then that is it. On the other hand, if we compare it to the world of work, people don't just do nothing that counts for two years and then do all their important work at once.
Personally I believe there is license for people to coast through their first year of GCSE/equivalent either way so it won't really make a difference, though I am in favour of keeping a modular system at A level in preparation for university.
But seriously? It depends how you view the point of our education system. There seems something inherently fairer about the end of the modular system in that everyone has two years and then that is it. On the other hand, if we compare it to the world of work, people don't just do nothing that counts for two years and then do all their important work at once.
Personally I believe there is license for people to coast through their first year of GCSE/equivalent either way so it won't really make a difference, though I am in favour of keeping a modular system at A level in preparation for university.
I can't tell if you take a particular side based on this post. Obviously there are positives and negatives to both systems. However the bit I bolded is a MASSIVE problem-viewing the "important work" as just exams. I entirely disagree! The "important work" should be getting an education and learning skills. The exams are just a necessity to prove you've gained the skills, and having them as modules defeats the point of education-in my opinion-because they foster the attitude of "Yes, I passed C3, now I don't need to work on it/remember the content because I've already jumped through the hoop".
Original post by Hypocrism
That's exactly why we need a shift to final-year examinations instead of modules. Lazy but intelligent people can succeed in modules. Only hard-working decently intelligent people succeed in final-year exams, especially if its a 2-year system.
what if they are having a bad day or something personal effects their study
Original post by Hypocrism
Perfect example of laziness. Students just want to learn and then forget. If we want to move forward in UK education, we need to foster an environment where students are learning for themselves and not taking this ridiculously slack approach to their education.
its seriously not bout beiong lazy i worked really hard , when i refer to it being too much to learn i mean the content you couldn't possibly revise 2 years worth of a-levels for 3/4 subjects
Original post by ndubz4lyf
what if they are having a bad day or something personal effects their study
It effects modules exactly the same. In fact if you have the exams on fewer days in total, there's less chance of hitting a bad day in linear systems.
Plus, it shouldn't affect a good student too much, and illness is obviously taken into account.
Original post by ndubz4lyf
its seriously not bout beiong lazy i worked really hard , when i refer to it being too much to learn i mean the content you couldn't possibly revise 2 years worth of a-levels for 3/4 subjects
You're lazy!! Every IB student does it. I had 6 subjects all sat at the end of 2 years.
Original post by ndubz4lyf
its seriously not bout beiong lazy i worked really hard , when i refer to it being too much to learn i mean the content you couldn't possibly revise 2 years worth of a-levels for 3/4 subjects
CIE offers linear A-Levels, and I know many people who came out with AAA+ from that exam board, so surely it's possible?
Original post by LadyHaha
GCSE grades have been inflating and the standard has been slipping. We are not being competitive enough internationally. I did well at GCSE, but I no longer feel that it was an achievement. A big exams at the end will force students to revise thoroughly and so it is more likely to go in and stay in. I agree with you, however, that it is more important to learn skills 
Based on what statistics, pass rates rising does not imply standards have been slipping.
Moving down international tables does not imply a slipping of standards, perhaps and increase in the standards of other nations?
Why be such Negatrons, be more Optimus Primes.
Original post by AeroLB
We have no modules in Scotland - that's why our qualifications are worth more in the long term, and in terms of UCAS points.
So advanced Highers are done over two years and then examined?
Original post by Mumzi
So advanced Highers are done over two years and then examined?
Advanced Highers are over one year, the Higher in the preceeding year (usually at minimum B) normally being the entry requirement.
The AH in say maths appears to require both knowledge and a fair degree of analytical skills. There appears to be a need to both determine which maths tools need applied to the problem and in what order i.e. the problems set can often be multistep.
My comment is however not based on having sat any A H courses but instead observing my children taking them over the last four years.
Other subjects can and do have far more coursework, e.g. Geography involves a hefty piece of research with conclusions plus, if memory serves me right, a further written submission.
The arguments about exam difficulty have run , it appears, as long as there have been exams; I perceive my children's Highers as , in the main, rote learning with less original thought or construct than my own, they appeared spoon fed. My father considers those I took as easy as in his day if you sat four Highers you had to pass them all, a fail in one meant no award for any. (The Higher Leaving Certificate)
I have concerns about modules as an approach to learning and do worry about the long term consequences of cramming then forgetting rather than learning.
Material which is both learnt and understood sticks for a long time (I can still remember physics and maths formulae learnt thirty five years ago despite not requiring to use them since) , I am not so sure about crammed material.
However Universities themselves appear to be moving to modular course structures. University finals in Scotland certainly used to examine over a minimum of two years work in fourth year, however even this appears to have changed as honours modules now appear to be examined at the end of each module through third and fourth year rather than the previous splurge of final exams which, combined with dissertation, made up the final degree classification.
To my eye this restricts the value of University as surely one of the aims ought to be be the ability to combine skills and knowledge from complementary courses studied; to segment knowledge into pigeon holes for particular exams appears to defeat the aim of University.
The one feature of the Scottish system that might be worthy of adoption in England is the different pathways we have to the Highers. Whilst the more able students may take Intermediate 2 exams in fourth year, Highers in fifth year and AH in sixth year, those who need longer can progress Intermediate 1 in fourth year, Intermediate 2 in fifth year and Higher in sixth year and then progess to college or University. This does allow later developers to not miss out on the progression route into further education and the dovetailing of the progression of difficulty from Int1 to Int2 to Higher is worthy of analysis.
Also, although the problems with using exams as a indication of ability is obviously still an issue with modular exams (if your ill, something bad is happening in your life, if you just have an off day or if the questions where not what you were prepared for), the fact that modular exams mean there is more than one exam over different times, this means that your entire accedemic career is not being based on one day. Also the stress of just having one exam which is so vitally important is going to be much worse than for modules. I think linear exams are ridiculous really.
Original post by DJKL
Advanced Highers are over one year, the Higher in the preceeding year (usually at minimum B) normally being the entry requirement.
The AH in say maths appears to require both knowledge and a fair degree of analytical skills. There appears to be a need to both determine which maths tools need applied to the problem and in what order i.e. the problems set can often be multistep.
My comment is however not based on having sat any A H courses but instead observing my children taking them over the last four years.
Other subjects can and do have far more coursework, e.g. Geography involves a hefty piece of research with conclusions plus, if memory serves me right, a further written submission.
The arguments about exam difficulty have run , it appears, as long as there have been exams; I perceive my children's Highers as , in the main, rote learning with less original thought or construct than my own, they appeared spoon fed. My father considers those I took as easy as in his day if you sat four Highers you had to pass them all, a fail in one meant no award for any. (The Higher Leaving Certificate)
I have concerns about modules as an approach to learning and do worry about the long term consequences of cramming then forgetting rather than learning.
Material which is both learnt and understood sticks for a long time (I can still remember physics and maths formulae learnt thirty five years ago despite not requiring to use them since) , I am not so sure about crammed material.
However Universities themselves appear to be moving to modular course structures. University finals in Scotland certainly used to examine over a minimum of two years work in fourth year, however even this appears to have changed as honours modules now appear to be examined at the end of each module through third and fourth year rather than the previous splurge of final exams which, combined with dissertation, made up the final degree classification.
To my eye this restricts the value of University as surely one of the aims ought to be be the ability to combine skills and knowledge from complementary courses studied; to segment knowledge into pigeon holes for particular exams appears to defeat the aim of University.
The one feature of the Scottish system that might be worthy of adoption in England is the different pathways we have to the Highers. Whilst the more able students may take Intermediate 2 exams in fourth year, Highers in fifth year and AH in sixth year, those who need longer can progress Intermediate 1 in fourth year, Intermediate 2 in fifth year and Higher in sixth year and then progess to college or University. This does allow later developers to not miss out on the progression route into further education and the dovetailing of the progression of difficulty from Int1 to Int2 to Higher is worthy of analysis.
The AH in say maths appears to require both knowledge and a fair degree of analytical skills. There appears to be a need to both determine which maths tools need applied to the problem and in what order i.e. the problems set can often be multistep.
My comment is however not based on having sat any A H courses but instead observing my children taking them over the last four years.
Other subjects can and do have far more coursework, e.g. Geography involves a hefty piece of research with conclusions plus, if memory serves me right, a further written submission.
The arguments about exam difficulty have run , it appears, as long as there have been exams; I perceive my children's Highers as , in the main, rote learning with less original thought or construct than my own, they appeared spoon fed. My father considers those I took as easy as in his day if you sat four Highers you had to pass them all, a fail in one meant no award for any. (The Higher Leaving Certificate)
I have concerns about modules as an approach to learning and do worry about the long term consequences of cramming then forgetting rather than learning.
Material which is both learnt and understood sticks for a long time (I can still remember physics and maths formulae learnt thirty five years ago despite not requiring to use them since) , I am not so sure about crammed material.
However Universities themselves appear to be moving to modular course structures. University finals in Scotland certainly used to examine over a minimum of two years work in fourth year, however even this appears to have changed as honours modules now appear to be examined at the end of each module through third and fourth year rather than the previous splurge of final exams which, combined with dissertation, made up the final degree classification.
To my eye this restricts the value of University as surely one of the aims ought to be be the ability to combine skills and knowledge from complementary courses studied; to segment knowledge into pigeon holes for particular exams appears to defeat the aim of University.
The one feature of the Scottish system that might be worthy of adoption in England is the different pathways we have to the Highers. Whilst the more able students may take Intermediate 2 exams in fourth year, Highers in fifth year and AH in sixth year, those who need longer can progress Intermediate 1 in fourth year, Intermediate 2 in fifth year and Higher in sixth year and then progess to college or University. This does allow later developers to not miss out on the progression route into further education and the dovetailing of the progression of difficulty from Int1 to Int2 to Higher is worthy of analysis.
Thanks for this,it is very informative.my daughter is considering St.Andrew's as one of her options and I was wondering how the Ah's fitted into the system.It is all very confusing particularly as Universities such as Gladgow allow A level students to start on the second year of their degree course.
I agree that different pathways to university benefit different students, we have some options in England but in the main it is A level driven.I suppose different types of learners benefit from different assessment opportunities.This s of course echoed in the variety of assessment methods at University level.
What I do wish we saw more of at A level level is more personal in depth study with individual research and presentation.It is such a valuable skill and removing coursework from the system will not allow those skills to be developed.
Original post by Mumzi
So advanced Highers are done over two years and then examined?
Nope. One year. And they're on the same UCAS level as first year uni modules.
It is the worst idea ever simply because it will cause massive divides between schools. Some schools are simply not up to scratch and modular exams are the only chance for many students in these schools to get a decent grade. I am a good example. My school was on special measures, our teacher told us to our faces that she cba to plan lessons for us, another teacher gave us a total of four lessons, one of which was on the life and times of Ludwig Boltzmann. Luckily I was very good at science so just bunked off and taught myself. In January I got a B because I had no guidance from teachers and was doing it all by myself. In the resits I learnt from my mistakes and got A*. This was physics. Incase you're all thinking the whole class just took January as exam practice and retook and easily got their grades up the rest of the class got grades ranging from D to U in June. Therefore at the risk of sounding arrogant, I had the potential to get an A* but was being let down by a terrible school. The modular exam system gave me the chance to realize my full potential. Obviously it's inescapable that what I say just validates the belief that modular exams make life easier. They do but this is needed because I don't believe half the schools in the country could cope with a non modular system. The cons are just doing their usual "look tough on crime/slacking students" routine to get votes.
Original post by marshymarsh
Based on what statistics, pass rates rising does not imply standards have been slipping.
Moving down international tables does not imply a slipping of standards, perhaps and increase in the standards of other nations?
Why be such Negatrons, be more Optimus Primes.
Moving down international tables does not imply a slipping of standards, perhaps and increase in the standards of other nations?
Why be such Negatrons, be more Optimus Primes.
That is one thing that has cross-party agreement. If our standards are not slipping, then they are not increasing at the same rate as our international competitors, or are simply stationary and therefore the gap is more noticeable, either way, there's room for improvement...
Not usually a 'Negraton', I tend to be more 'Optimus Primes', it's just on certain issues...
Anyway, I like those terms, so I may nick them off of you :P
Original post by liamb109
Nope. One year. And they're on the same UCAS level as first year uni modules.
So how does that work when A level students from England can enter Scottish degrees in year 2? This is very confusing!
Original post by Mumzi
So how does that work when A level students from England can enter Scottish degrees in year 2? This is very confusing!
Advanced Higher students can too.
Original post by liamb109
Advanced Higher students can too.
Now that makes sense!
Original post by Mumzi
Thanks for this,it is very informative.my daughter is considering St.Andrew's as one of her options and I was wondering how the Ah's fitted into the system.It is all very confusing particularly as Universities such as Gladgow allow A level students to start on the second year of their degree course.
I agree that different pathways to university benefit different students, we have some options in England but in the main it is A level driven.I suppose different types of learners benefit from different assessment opportunities.This s of course echoed in the variety of assessment methods at University level.
What I do wish we saw more of at A level level is more personal in depth study with individual research and presentation.It is such a valuable skill and removing coursework from the system will not allow those skills to be developed.
I agree that different pathways to university benefit different students, we have some options in England but in the main it is A level driven.I suppose different types of learners benefit from different assessment opportunities.This s of course echoed in the variety of assessment methods at University level.
What I do wish we saw more of at A level level is more personal in depth study with individual research and presentation.It is such a valuable skill and removing coursework from the system will not allow those skills to be developed.
By chance my children are both at St Andrews. My daughter got her unconditional on the back of her fifth year highers alone so sixth year became by March somewhat academic as she did not need to pass her AH courses. To her credit she did but probably took her foot of the gas a little. The universities in Scotland do not appear to get that worked up over AH courses, my son's conditional for St Andrews was not based on the two AH courses he was taking in sixth year but was on achieving a particular grade in the extra higher he sat in sixth year coupled with the highers he had already passed in sixth year. St Andrews certainly appeared to value the highers.
I am not convinced by the direct second year entry, to me it has two drawbacks:
1. Social- jumping straight into second year means that most of the other students in lectures/tutorials already have friends from first year.
2. Second year is the key year in Scotland re honours entry in third, most courses require merits in second year to advance into honours. The possible benefit of shortening the course by a year needs to be balanced with possible transition difficulties from a school style of teaching/learning to a University style approach. I suspect the extra year helps with this as certainly my son did not have a great first year (I suspect becoming eighteen and freedom from home played its part) and he really only got down to working after the first Semester. If that had been his second year then I suspect he would not have managed to get into honours.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- What happens if you fail 3rd year of a Masters?
- Computer science a level nea help
- Would taking AS Level mean taking fewer papers in A Level next year?
- Cambridge resit?
- Special considerations due to death of my aunt.
- Which exam boards are easiest to take Chemistry and Biology A-levels with?
- QS 2023 ranking Art Degrees
- Do you think A-levels should be structured differently?
- .
- question numbering wrong
- Physics
- Pearson Edexcel or CIE for self-studying A- Levels?
- Can examiners read cursive writing?
- Aqa Alevel Economics Remark 2023
- GCE vs AS vs A-Levels
- Doing more A-Levels than required?!
- Am I in the wrong for trying to explain something to my driving examiner
- Forgot to check box
- Driving Test Anxiety
- advice on OSCE
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
