My views on exams
We're coming towards the end of our A Level exams now and I thought I'd share some of my opinions on exams, in particular A Levels.
This is entirely my opinion and I would say that whereas the structure of exams are somewhat reasonable, I do pose some objections to the ways we are tested.
The first thing I have noticed is that exams do not allow us to reach our potential when answering questions. When answering questions under a time limit we have to rely on our intuition and often write the first thing that comes to mind. I do not think we are given the opportunity to completely think about a question and answer it to the best of our ability due to time constraints. Too often we make mistakes in exams not because we do not know the answer but we simply do not have time to fully grasp the question. I understand that answering within a time limit is an important skill but it is my view that too much emphasis is placed on time and not enough on thinking. Insufficient time implies that answering quickly is one of the most important things when it comes to an exam but I disagree with this view.
Another problem is regarding grade boundaries. All too often student miss out on a grade by 1 or 2 marks and its no wonder they do when you look at the grade boundaries. Grades often go up in intervals of 4-5 marks, which combined with the time constrain seems highly unfair.
What I would change:
It may seem that I'm in favour of making everything simpler so we do better but that is far from the case. I think student should be given the opportunity to demonstrate what they do (or don't) know. The first thing I would do is increase the number of questions (maybe by about 20%) and possibly throw in a particularly tricky question. More questions means more marks and a better grade boundary interval.
I would also definitely increase the time available (by about 50%). Combined with the extra questions, this will give students more time to think and actually answer the question as opposed to over relying on their intuition. I would rather students have too much time than not enough.
I am also not opposed to possibly increasing the difficulty of a couple of questions, maybe make the exam a bit more synoptic, so long as we actually have time to think and answer.
Anyway, these are my views, feel free to agree or disagree and throw in your own ideas. What do you think?
This is entirely my opinion and I would say that whereas the structure of exams are somewhat reasonable, I do pose some objections to the ways we are tested.
The first thing I have noticed is that exams do not allow us to reach our potential when answering questions. When answering questions under a time limit we have to rely on our intuition and often write the first thing that comes to mind. I do not think we are given the opportunity to completely think about a question and answer it to the best of our ability due to time constraints. Too often we make mistakes in exams not because we do not know the answer but we simply do not have time to fully grasp the question. I understand that answering within a time limit is an important skill but it is my view that too much emphasis is placed on time and not enough on thinking. Insufficient time implies that answering quickly is one of the most important things when it comes to an exam but I disagree with this view.
Another problem is regarding grade boundaries. All too often student miss out on a grade by 1 or 2 marks and its no wonder they do when you look at the grade boundaries. Grades often go up in intervals of 4-5 marks, which combined with the time constrain seems highly unfair.
What I would change:
It may seem that I'm in favour of making everything simpler so we do better but that is far from the case. I think student should be given the opportunity to demonstrate what they do (or don't) know. The first thing I would do is increase the number of questions (maybe by about 20%) and possibly throw in a particularly tricky question. More questions means more marks and a better grade boundary interval.
I would also definitely increase the time available (by about 50%). Combined with the extra questions, this will give students more time to think and actually answer the question as opposed to over relying on their intuition. I would rather students have too much time than not enough.
I am also not opposed to possibly increasing the difficulty of a couple of questions, maybe make the exam a bit more synoptic, so long as we actually have time to think and answer.
Anyway, these are my views, feel free to agree or disagree and throw in your own ideas. What do you think?
(edited 10 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
I think most of those problems with the exception of the grade boundaries come from people not planning and trying to get everything they know on the topic down. The idea of the exam is for the student to have a thorough understanding of the entire topic and then to be able to select the most relevant information under pressure. Too many people make as many points as they possibly can but fail to fully develop them. The grades would be better if you were simply given a percentage but then they couldn't adjust the marks once the difficulty of the paper has been discovered.
Original post by Username_valid
We're coming towards the end of our A Level exams now and I thought I'd share some of my opinions on exams, in particular A Levels.
This is entirely my opinion and I would say that whereas the structure of exams are somewhat reasonable, I do pose some objections to the ways we are tested.
The first thing I have noticed is that exams do not allow us to reach our potential when answering questions. When answering questions under a time limit we have to rely on our intuition and often write the first thing that comes to mind. I do not think we are given the opportunity to comletely think about a question and answer it to the best of our abilities due to time constraints. Too often we make mistakes in exams not because we do not know the answer but we simply do not have time to fully grasp the question. I understand that answering within a time limit is an important skill but it is my view that too much emphasis is placed on time and not enough on thinking. Insufficient time implies that answering quickly is one of the most important things when it comes to an exam but I disagree with this view.
Another problem is regarding grade boundaries. All too often student miss out on a grade by 1 or 2 marks and its no wonder they do when you look at the grade boundaries. Grades often go up in intervals of 4-5 marks, which combined with the time constrain seems highly unfair.
What I would change:
It may seem that I'm in favour of making everything simpler so we do better but that is far from the case. I think student should be given the opportunity to demonstrate what they do (or don't) know. The first thing I would do is increase the number of questions (maybe by about 20%) and possibly throw in a particularly tricky question. More questions means more marks and a better grade boundary interval.
I would also definitely increase the time available (by about 50%). Combined with the extra questions, this will give students more time to think and actually answer the question as opposed to over relying on their intuition. I would rather students have too much time than not enough.
I am also not opposed to possibly increasing the difficulty of a couple of questions, maybe make the exam a bit more synoptic, so long as we actually have time to think and answer.
Anyway, these are my views, feel free to agree or disagree and throw in your own ideas. What do you think?
This is entirely my opinion and I would say that whereas the structure of exams are somewhat reasonable, I do pose some objections to the ways we are tested.
The first thing I have noticed is that exams do not allow us to reach our potential when answering questions. When answering questions under a time limit we have to rely on our intuition and often write the first thing that comes to mind. I do not think we are given the opportunity to comletely think about a question and answer it to the best of our abilities due to time constraints. Too often we make mistakes in exams not because we do not know the answer but we simply do not have time to fully grasp the question. I understand that answering within a time limit is an important skill but it is my view that too much emphasis is placed on time and not enough on thinking. Insufficient time implies that answering quickly is one of the most important things when it comes to an exam but I disagree with this view.
Another problem is regarding grade boundaries. All too often student miss out on a grade by 1 or 2 marks and its no wonder they do when you look at the grade boundaries. Grades often go up in intervals of 4-5 marks, which combined with the time constrain seems highly unfair.
What I would change:
It may seem that I'm in favour of making everything simpler so we do better but that is far from the case. I think student should be given the opportunity to demonstrate what they do (or don't) know. The first thing I would do is increase the number of questions (maybe by about 20%) and possibly throw in a particularly tricky question. More questions means more marks and a better grade boundary interval.
I would also definitely increase the time available (by about 50%). Combined with the extra questions, this will give students more time to think and actually answer the question as opposed to over relying on their intuition. I would rather students have too much time than not enough.
I am also not opposed to possibly increasing the difficulty of a couple of questions, maybe make the exam a bit more synoptic, so long as we actually have time to think and answer.
Anyway, these are my views, feel free to agree or disagree and throw in your own ideas. What do you think?
Completely agree with the BIB! I'm a slow writer and I rush so much in exams that I usually don't really think about the question, I just write whatever comes to mind and then move on. It's the panic about worrying that I might not finish that makes me careless and not answer the questions to the best of my ability.
I just think more time is needed in exams. =|
Original post by AeneasBK
Surely if Student A can answer the question fully and completely in 10 minutes, and Student B can answer the same question fully and completely in 15 minutes, Student A has the better understanding of the subject?
B might just be a slow thinker, or thinking more carefully about what he is going to write?
Original post by Maid Marian
B might just be a slow thinker, or thinking more carefully about what he is going to write?
B might just be a slow thinker, or thinking more carefully about what he is going to write?
Right so we should be awarding the same marks to slow thinkers as those who can think quicker?
The grade boundaries are set according to the relative difficulty of the papers in line with previous years. You may say it's 'not fair' for boundaries to go up by 4-5 marks, but in reality, if the paper was easier than the last session, it's not fair on the students who sat that paper in the last session to get a lower grade due to their paper being harder (decided by how many students get how many marks in each session).
In real life, you have time constraints. In nursing for example, if somebody has a blocked airway and is going to choke, you don't have 15 minutes to recall everything you know about blocked airways before the patient dies. You have a very small amount of time to put the theory you have learnt into practice, like in an exam.
In real life, you have time constraints. In nursing for example, if somebody has a blocked airway and is going to choke, you don't have 15 minutes to recall everything you know about blocked airways before the patient dies. You have a very small amount of time to put the theory you have learnt into practice, like in an exam.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by AeneasBK
Right so we should be awarding the same marks to slow thinkers as those who can think quicker?
But surely the point of the exam is to test who knows the content best, not who can think the quickest?
Original post by Maid Marian
But surely the point of the exam is to test who knows the content best, not who can think the quickest?
Knowledge alone is worthless though. Its the application of the knowledge thats important, right?
I'd rather they timed your exam and then penalty points are added to that time according to the accuracy of responses. So if I can complete my Maths A-level modules in 20 minutes and get 95% in them I'm not then sat for 55 more minutes bored waiting to get out...
Disclaimer: Facetious response.
Disclaimer: Facetious response.
Original post by wildrover
I think most of those problems with the exception of the grade boundaries come from people not planning and trying to get everything they know on the topic down. The idea of the exam is for the student to have a thorough understanding of the entire topic and then to be able to select the most relevant information under pressure. Too many people make as many points as they possibly can but fail to fully develop them. The grades would be better if you were simply given a percentage but then they couldn't adjust the marks once the difficulty of the paper has been discovered.
I understand that being consice and selecting relevant information is important but the problem is not wih how much they write because anyone can simply write anything then time will not be an issue, rather the problem lies with not having enough time to think about the question. All too often someone with a thorough understanding of the work does not have the chance to prove it. It takes different people a different amount of time to interpret a question, think about it and then give a consice response.
Original post by AeneasBK
Knowledge alone is worthless though. Its the application of the knowledge thats important, right?
But, if people had all this time, exams would just be people writing as much information as they can, and everyone getting high marks.
Original post by AeneasBK
Knowledge alone is worthless though. Its the application of the knowledge thats important, right?
I don't think it's worthless. Why do you think knowledge is worthless?
Yes, applying knowledge is important, but under the stress of an exam that's tight on time? And applying knowledge doesn't have much to do with whether you're a quick thinker or not...
Original post by Maid Marian
I don't think it's worthless. Why do you think knowledge is worthless?
Yes, applying knowledge is important, but under the stress of an exam that's tight on time? And applying knowledge doesn't have much to do with whether you're a quick thinker or not...
Yes, applying knowledge is important, but under the stress of an exam that's tight on time? And applying knowledge doesn't have much to do with whether you're a quick thinker or not...
I didn't say knowledge was worthless I said knowledge alone was useless.
EDIT: Worthless, sorry, not useless. Although the distinction is unimportant
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by AeneasBK
Surely if Student A can answer the question fully and completely in 10 minutes, and Student B can answer the same question fully and completely in 15 minutes, Student A has the better understanding of the subject?
For example I'm Student B. I'm a terribly slow writer. Although I can quickly form arguments in my head and understand the question it takes me ages to get it on paper. As a result only tend to write around 5-6 sides of A4 in a two hour exam where everyone else has written a lot more than me. Student A does not have a better understanding of the subject, he can just put an answer to paper more quickly.
Original post by Miracle Day
But, if people had all this time, exams would just be people writing as much information as they can, and everyone getting high marks.
Wha? Explain I don't understand what you meant. I'd restrict time and make it intentional that examinations are not intended to be completed, but that you should answer as much as you can in the time given... In that way you can clearly see who can access the knowledge of the subject and impart it more readily than others...
Original post by AeneasBK
Surely if Student A can answer the question fully and completely in 10 minutes, and Student B can answer the same question fully and completely in 15 minutes, Student A has the better understanding of the subject?
Answering a question quicker does not necessarily mean a better understanding. I agree that time and pressure are both important but my point is that too much emphasis is being placed on them upto a point where intuition is heavily relied on and your 'thinking' time is far too limited.
Original post by AeneasBK
I didn't say knowledge was worthless I said knowledge alone was useless.
Oh sorry. Well yes you're somewhat right there, but this has nothing to do with how much time one needs in the exam. Some people are slow thinkers or slow writers, but could be just as intelligent.
Original post by Swanbow
For example I'm Student B. I'm a terribly slow writer. Although I can quickly form arguments in my head and understand the question it takes me ages to get it on paper. As a result only tend to write around 5-6 sides of A4 in a two hour exam where everyone else has written a lot more than me. Student A does not have a better understanding of the subject, he can just put an answer to paper more quickly.
I knew a boy at my school who was a really slow writer. He was really smart as well.
Original post by Swanbow
For example I'm Student B. I'm a terribly slow writer. Although I can quickly form arguments in my head and understand the question it takes me ages to get it on paper. As a result only tend to write around 5-6 sides of A4 in a two hour exam where everyone else has written a lot more than me. Student A does not have a better understanding of the subject, he can just put an answer to paper more quickly.
You:
1. Stop whining and practice writing faster more neatly.
2. Unless you have a disability, your hand and wrist is just like everyone else's, so write faster.
Original post by Swanbow
For example I'm Student B. I'm a terribly slow writer. Although I can quickly form arguments in my head and understand the question it takes me ages to get it on paper. As a result only tend to write around 5-6 sides of A4 in a two hour exam where everyone else has written a lot more than me. Student A does not have a better understanding of the subject, he can just put an answer to paper more quickly.
Oral examinations?
I don't know, I guess it all depends on what people conceive to be the purpose of education. Is it education for the sake of education, or is education for its practical application in the wider world? If the former then I don't see a massive amount in examining it anyway. If for the latter, then certainly the speed in which you can provide answers for problems is important.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- A Level AQA English Literature B 7717 - Elements of Crime Writing [Exam Discussion]
- Psychology: A Student Helps
- OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 1 (H573/01) - 10th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- 2022 exam paper philosophy of religion,ethics and Buddhism.
- a level history corusework
- Re themes gcse question
- OCR A Level Religious Studies Religion and ethics H573/02 - 14 Jun 2022 [Exam Chat]
- is it bad to expose political views to students at school?
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3B (9PL0 3B) -16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Sofia mu entrance exam 2022
- Quicker way to see alevel exam scripts??
- AQA History coursework HELP!!!
- school a level bio and chem
- Proability question
- Will good unis accept retake grades
- GCSE Useful revision 2021
- Can someone please mark my English language Paper 2 Q5
- How to view marks for each question on pearson’s resultsplus
- Ocr religous studies
- OCR - Religious Studies
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 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 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 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 ?
