Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okelly5)
    i might write to the exam board and offer to do it as a substitute for coursework or somethin
    As much as i dont want to join the strange vendetta that you seem to have against people who disliked the test, i think you are viewing it wrong.

    I did not find the test that hard and im hoping for a reasonable mark. I did think that it was not a good test though. This is because it did not give me the oppertunity to show how much biology i know. Rather than giving me questions that would stretch me and differentiate the higher level students, it continually messed around with ridiculous how science works questions.

    Also, the amount of time i spent revising for the exam, i could well have spent revising for other subjects or just sitting down watching TV. I wasted time going through the nuances of the Hardy Weinberg principle, trying to understand the way it should be used and the assumptions that were made. I worked to understand genetics. And all of this was a waste of my time. I enjoyed it personally as i feel that i have gained something regardless, but it is pretty annoying that all of this stuff was not on the test.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    just looked through the paper, i think the one people think is spearmans rank actually says "explain why using a statistical test was neccessary to analyse results of the common shrew"

    - ya dont have to do the test, just know why 'one' might use one
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okelly5)
    just looked through the paper, i think the one people think is spearmans rank actually says "explain why using a statistical test was neccessary to analyse results of the common shrew"

    - ya dont have to do the test, just know why 'one' might use one
    haha is it possible for you to get hold of OCR biology unit 1 2010 paper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okelly5)
    just looked through the paper, i think the one people think is spearmans rank actually says "explain why using a statistical test was neccessary to analyse results of the common shrew"

    - ya dont have to do the test, just know why 'one' might use one
    It gave some correlation values (or whatever they were) which required a knowledge of how the spearmans rank technique worked and what it did to understand.

    Its like me saying to you that you dont need to know what acceleration is and how it works to understand values in ms^-2
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bslforever)
    As much as i dont want to join the strange vendetta that you seem to have against people who disliked the test, i think you are viewing it wrong.
    if im comin across with a strange vendetta then your probably right.
    the reason this whole situation is annoying me is because i came out of the exam feeling like id done a good job and fairly content, with all the criticism goin down im not really any more,, im not goin for a vendetta against people
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okelly5)
    no,, having an exam where content was purely from the specification would NOT distinguish between students. a thick person, or someone who doesnt even do science can go through a specification like a tick list and memorise things,, what takes intelligence is applying that to unknown situations, which i think we all agree is what the paper was on.

    someone bein like "im a high grade student and i found it hard therefore it is a stupid paper" is childish,, there are people who did understand the exam and learnt the specification in a way that meant they could apply it to the paper without trouble -- high grade students
    I'm not saying it should be all fact testing, because that would be a pretty useless test too.. but the fact is that a lot of the questions weren't actually even related to biology at all! It was more like a stats paper, so technically if people are graded on how well/badly they did, it doesnt reflecct their skills of applying biological knowledge, because the exam didnt involve any. And also, i'm not saying that that all questions should JUST be about stuff specifically on the syllabus, but don't you think the HSW questions should be related to what we've learnt? And also, the specification is there to tell students what they need to know for the exam, and some things like that spearmans whatnot and interpreting bubble graphs were not on it, and so we didn't have to chancce to aquire those skills, because basically we didnt know we needed to have them...

    /rant.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bslforever)
    It gave some correlation values (or whatever they were) which required a knowledge of how the spearmans rank technique worked and what it did to understand.

    Its like me saying to you that you dont need to know what acceleration is and how it works to understand values in ms^-2
    was it the shrew question?
    i had a look through http://www.docshare.com/doc/203893/AQA-BIOL4
    and all i could find was the shrew question saying why would you use a test,,
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    oh well, at least we know about hair index thingies, they may help
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Who's N?)
    And also, i'm not saying that that all questions should JUST be about stuff specifically on the syllabus, but don't you think the HSW questions should be related to what we've learnt?
    /rant.
    i thought the HSW were? our college did like a 2 week project on data collection and statiscal analysis before we started this unit which covered a load of that stuff?

    probably a bit of difference in how colleges did it,, i think otherwise i probably agree with ya, maybs paper shouldve got a better middle ground when it comes to application of what you know, and how well youve learnt things??
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Again, what is 'actual biology'?????

    Biology is a science and therefore actually shouldn't be about learning 'facts' at all as science is about challenging concepts and using different methods in an attempt to either prove or disprove them. Obviously there are concepts that are now viewed (and taught as) facts, such as respiration, photosynthesis etc but these could never become accepted as facts without the hard work of 'real scientists/biologists' that have strived over many years to try and find the definitive proof.

    I'm in my BSc intercalation year atm and my project is based upon looking at work that other scientists have done and doing further experiments to see if I can add weight to a particular theory or not, this is fairly typical of science work at university. It is not about reading the previous paper and memorising it for an exam!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okelly5)
    was it the shrew question?
    i had a look through http://www.docshare.com/doc/203893/AQA-BIOL4
    and all i could find was the shrew question saying why would you use a test,,
    Question 4c includes correlation coefficients.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by little_penguin)
    Again, what is 'actual biology'?????

    Biology is a science and therefore actually shouldn't be about learning 'facts' at all as science is about challenging concepts and using different methods in an attempt to either prove or disprove them. Obviously there are concepts that are now viewed (and taught as) facts, such as respiration, photosynthesis etc but these could never become accepted as facts without the hard work of 'real scientists/biologists' that have strived over many years to try and find the definitive proof.

    I'm in my BSc intercalation year atm and my project is based upon looking at work that other scientists have done and doing further experiments to see if I can add weight to a particular theory or not, this is fairly typical of science work at university. It is not about reading the previous paper and memorising it for an exam!
    You are missing the point. People are not upset because the questions were not in the "define speciation. now define eutrophication. now define mark-release-recapture" style.

    People are annoyed because huge chunks of the specification were ignored completely and the questions that were given did not accurately test our understanding (note how i say understanding here not ability to remember and regurgitate) of the source material.

    We are annoyed because it feels like the last six months of our biology learning was pointless if hardly any of it was ever going to be tested.

    And whilst its not all about grades, those of us with Uni offers can hardly say "well yes, i got a B in biology when you asked for an A, but come now, its not all about getting grades you know."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Funny timesssss
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I heard about this. Seems jolly unfair.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Erm, it doesn't seem that bad. Quite a bit of Maths, but nothing that you wouldn't have learnt during your Biology course, and the rest was directly relevant to biology/biological processes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bslforever)
    You are missing the point. People are not upset because the questions were not in the "define speciation. now define eutrophication. now define mark-release-recapture" style.

    People are annoyed because huge chunks of the specification were ignored completely and the questions that were given did not accurately test our understanding (note how i say understanding here not ability to remember and regurgitate) of the source material.

    We are annoyed because it feels like the last six months of our biology learning was pointless if hardly any of it was ever going to be tested.

    And whilst its not all about grades, those of us with Uni offers can hardly say "well yes, i got a B in biology when you asked for an A, but come now, its not all about getting grades you know."

    Some (not all) people do seem to have been annoyed by the lack of 'define this' 'define that' questions though. Is it anything new for large chunks of the spec to be missed out in a module exam? Not really, my A levels left plenty of areas untouched - From what i can remember there was no genetics on the paper I sat until it cropped up on the final synoptic paper in June. It is unfortunate as I spent a lot of time revising it over xmas BUT it did ultimately pay off as I remembered it when the synoptic paper came round. I'm sure this may well happen again here as genetics does receive a lot of emphasis in teaching...

    People that have put the work in will be rewarded with good grades and uni places, it is only one module. It also serves as a useful reminder that at some point spoon-feeding and rote-learning has to stop and people have to think outside the box for themselves.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    Point is though, AQA's markschemes aren't like what they'll be at uni. I've seen a chemistry (not bio I know) question at uni level, and it demanded an essay type response. AQA operate on a penny points system, so thats not going to work is it? And the people that are saying "it'll be fine, june re-sit" do you not realise that the same people who wrote the original wrote the resit, at the same time? it's likely to be quite similar, and thus, almost unrevisable for.
    I love essays?

    Give me a 25 marker tomorrow on all the possible aromatic reactions and my personal benzene ring will start to nitrate. :sogood:

    :woo:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EskimoJo)
    Erm, it doesn't seem that bad. Quite a bit of Maths, but nothing that you wouldn't have learnt during your Biology course, and the rest was directly relevant to biology/biological processes.
    Hey Eski, long time no see, how you been?

    :hugs:

    Last time I saw, we were top! :eek4:

    Just looked now and 2nd with a game in hand. :woo:

    :arsenal:

    And I agree now after looking at the paper, guess it was exam conditions and got a bit pressurising. :dontknow:

    For me, time was a bit of an issue, but that was because I started with the back and made sure if I ran out of time it was on 1 markers rather than 14...

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *MJ*)
    Hey Eski, long time no see, how you been?



    Last time I saw, we were top!

    Just looked now and 2nd with a game in hand.



    And I agree now after looking at the paper, guess it was exam conditions and got a bit pressurising.

    For me, time was a bit of an issue, but that was because I started with the back and made sure if I ran out of time it was on 1 markers rather than 14...

    I'm cool man! You? :kiss2: Big game tomorrow! :woo:

    I can imagine it coming as a shock, but in reality, the questions weren't that hard. I'd be pissed that they didn't contain more traditional biology questions, but I wouldn't have thought to complain because I would have done ok (I imagine).

    Good technique that. I always have to do questions in the right order, it's a weird problem. Anyway, hopefully you've done well!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EskimoJo)
    I'm cool man! You? :kiss2: Big game tomorrow! :woo:

    I can imagine it coming as a shock, but in reality, the questions weren't that hard. I'd be pissed that they didn't contain more traditional biology questions, but I wouldn't have thought to complain because I would have done ok (I imagine).

    Good technique that. I always have to do questions in the right order, it's a weird problem. Anyway, hopefully you've done well!
    Yeah, I used to be like that.

    But then I realised, i'd rather have the larger marks in the bag and plus if I did them last, by the time I got to it, i'll have been thinking of bits and bobs here, might miss out an obvious thing or two.

    Got CHEM4 tomorrow, very tough paper but hopefully i'll do well.

    :woo:

    And to Arsenal, we can do this! This year feels good. :yep:

    :hugs:
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: March 22, 2011

University open days

  • University of Exeter
    Undergraduate Open Days - Exeter Campus Undergraduate
    Wed, 24 Oct '18
  • University of Bradford
    Faculty of Health Studies Postgraduate
    Wed, 24 Oct '18
  • Northumbria University
    All faculties Undergraduate
    Wed, 24 Oct '18
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.