Should we stop using exams for assessment permanently?

[hexagon789]

Again, that entirely comes down to how the exams are set. Too many are set so that they will be be easy to mark.

Or are made such a mess of that the pass mark is reduced well below 50%...

 

[Domh245]

Or there's only so many things that can be examined/ways to ask a question. Once you've hit that limit and start reusing them, anyone with access to past papers (which is pretty much anyone sitting an exam) can just learn the solution rather than the material

 

[najaB]

Once you've hit that limit and start reusing them, anyone with access to past papers (which is pretty much anyone sitting an exam) can just learn the solution rather than the material.

If they've managed to learn the solutions to a large bank of well set questions, then they've... erm... learned the subject. Which is rather the point, no?

 

[JohnMcL7]

This is a fascinating topic because it's something I've been thinking about quite a bit recently because I've recently been sitting exams for the first time in 18 years after finishing my degree. When I was younger I was used to sitting exams regularly as it's part of life from standard grade up to the end of my degree (seven year's worth) and obviously I didn't have much work experience but now at least in a technology field I feel they're a poor measure of ability. I've never had to cram in information to be able to pour onto paper like an exam at work nor did the stress in any way help with dealing with stress at work either even though I do work in a job that can be highly stressful. I've been surprised how much harm the amount of stress the exams caused and the effect they've had, the course itself was incredibly useful and finishes with practical tests where you have to put all you've learnt to use but the exams were focused much more on being able to memorise certain facts instead which is no use in the real world.

There's no easy alternative but I think the technology available now means it's much more viable to test people in a standard way which can measure ability. Or assess in a way appropriate to the subject, at university we had a module where we worked in groups of 10-12 for something like ten weeks with each group given a set of requirements we had to formally specify then implement and unlike most of the university courses I did was very similar to a real work environment.

 

[Domh245]

If they've managed to learn the solutions to a large bank of well set questions, then they've... erm... learned the subject. Which is rather the point, no?

Not necessarily. There are plenty of derivations and 'crank-the-handle' type solutions that I've memorised before exams by doing past papers and checking the mark schemes whilst I've been at university. Can I remember those derivations or 'standard' solutions now? Absolutely not

 

[Jozhua]

Thought this worthy of a thread in its own right away from the COVID19 context.

As I posted there:

I'd say it should be enough that there is some sort of appeals process. Exams are a terrible way of assessing someone anyway, and I say that as someone with good exam technique who can pass an exam on something he barely knows anything about.

The useful skill in the 21st century is research and critical thinking. Remembering facts by rote is pointless when you've got every fact you could ever want on a device in your pocket. Exams shouldn't come back now they've gone, in my view.

Thoughts?

It is true someone with good exam technique can pass an exam on something they know nothing about, in fact, coursework has the ability to be more challenging.

I'm inclined to agree, though there is always the risk with assessment on coursework of how much help the child may have had. Perhaps coursework for qualifications should be done on the school premises and not allowed to be removed?

This is what happened for my GCSEs and I believe it is done for A-levels too. You sit in a quiet/silent classroom and write it out, it's essentially an extended exam, but with a bit more time and you're allowed a certain set of resources. Plus, if you're sick on one day or week, you can just pop in at another time, either after school or over lunch and catch up.

I agree, closed book exams are unrepresentative of the real world and in effect just promote memorising facts which is not a particularly useful skill. Of course, not all exams are cases where you have to regurgitate information, but for my last set of in-person exams in January, by going through past papers I was able to establish most types of question that would come up and they'd either be stating facts that you've committed to memory or 'crank the handle' type answers where you memorise a process but change the values that you put in.

Interestingly, one of my modules currently had recognised this problem and whilst we were going to still have a 'closed book' exam on it (albeit with supplementary information such as thermodynamic constants and energy densities), the convener was trying to make it more 'real-world representative' by having more open ended questions that required more analytical thinking using the information given rather than remembering a calculation we'd learnt in lecture 4.

This is what we do on my university course. I really like it actually! They ask basic questions which you regurgitate the answers too, but most of the time you spend is on analysis and opinion, aka, you have said situation, how do you for example ensure consistent loudness levels on a broadcast?

Which was precisely my point. The skillset needed in the 21st century, even from a very, very early age, is research and critical thinking - that is, how to weed out the rubbish from the facts.

Learning by rote, other than basic skills of literacy and numeracy, really isn't an appropriate or useful modern day skill.

True, a lot of the time at school, it felt like they were teaching you to do the exam, not about the subject. It also really sucked the interest out of many subjects. Instead of diving into and understanding some details, that may be off spec, but were interesting and gave a fuller understanding, we just learned the answers to the exams.

In fact my GCSE geography teacher wrote the exams, she couldn't give us any clues, but definitely stuck to the basics of what areas the exams could potentially cover. The moments she actually went off topic and into more detail about something, were the ones I was actually engaged and enjoyed learning, the rest of the time I spent staring at the clock...

Or to put another way:
The benefit of exams is that they are stressful - which is what happens in real life.
The disadvantage of exams is they are stressful.

I do agree there is probably not a perfect solution. On balance I prefer a mix of coursework, oral presentation and exams - both open and closed book. Of course oral presentation gives an advantage to people who love public speaking.

Yeah, I think that a balance of everything is important. Because exams can be useful for assessing certain skills, but are useless for assessing research ability, project/time management and to an extent problem solving.

I think having modules be 30-50% examination and then 50%+ coursework, project work, presentations, etc gives so much more of a well rounded view. It's fine if you have a fantastic memory and can roll into an exam hall half drunk and regurgitate knowledge on the page (hopefully not last nights takeaway), but if you can't manage your time for a project, then it's not very representative of the real world.

This also works the other way round, if you assess something on loads of group work, someone can be sh*t and still pass the course simply from grouping up with people who know what they're doing. But then group work also has the ability to expose people's inability to work with others effectively and be a useful group member.

This is why you need group-project work, individual project work, exams, presentations to get a full idea of someone's abilities and knowledge. But most examiners are lazy so...

Still can't believe most A-level courses are based on two exams in July, with maybe a small bit of coursework. A lot of people who are otherwise good learners with strong resolve, crack under the pressure of having all their abilities measured within the space of perhaps two weeks. I did a BTEC which was entirely coursework, which was good, but sometimes felt a bit repetitive and not like I was showing my deeper understanding very effectively. I'm at uni, about 25% of my course is exam, then it's presentations, coursework and individual work. I think the balance is quite good, although the over-presence of group work makes it harder to focus on bettering your own skills. That said, I do appreciate having all aspects of my learning and abilities measured, rather than just one and some group work is important to ensure you can work and time-plan with others effectively.

 

[Bletchleyite]

FWIW I'm quite a fan of the Open University's TMA (Tutor Marked Assessment) system. You get something very much like an exam paper but you do it at home open book. Accordingly it's rather more challenging and longer (typically I think 8 hours work).

There is scope for plagiarism but because it's quite structured it works well against a plagiarism detector.

 

[najaB]

There are plenty of derivations and 'crank-the-handle' type solutions that I've memorised before exams by doing past papers and checking the mark schemes whilst I've been at university. Can I remember those derivations or 'standard' solutions now? Absolutely not

Then the exams weren't well set.

 

[Typhoon]

Again, that entirely comes down to how the exams are set. Too many are set so that they will be be easy to mark.

As a former Assistant Examiner for GCSE Mathematics and ICT I can endorse this. 'Easy to mark' for three reasons - easier to ensure consistency, need to get the marking process done quickly, and easier to mark by those not totally familiar with the subject (there always seem to be an examiner shortage). There is also the requirement to cover all parts of the syllabus in the exam, so questions tend to be short as the exam will cover (in possibly 90 minutes) two years work. So answer right. tick, '1' in the margin, answer wrong, cross, '0' in the margin. Set multiple choice exams and you don't even need to pay an examiner.

I first took an open book examination around 1969 as part of my degree. Up to six hours, take your notes in (but not textbooks) as well as food, fifty years later, we haven't moved much further on. Both the Open University and the universities with which I worked as a college lecturer used different methods of limiting the reliance on students learning facts with most credit being given to the application of techniques - candidates being able to bring in annotated handbooks, supplied with relevant scenarios, diagrams, formulae (or the equivalent). The aim was to assess not what the candidate knew but what they could do. If I was employer that's what I would want, If I am writing a program, and I can't remember a particular structure, I would look it up rather than guess, so why not do the same in exams. Also, with one of the universities with which I collaborated we were encouraged to work out how long the exam should last and add a third, to ensure that no candidate had full scope to demonstrate what they could do and was not penalised for lack of time.

Positively, I've looked at an A level Maths paper and there seems to be a comprehensive set of formulae, much as there was when I started teaching in 1970+.

 

[Jozhua]

One of the funniest exam situations was when the government changed english literature exams so you couldn't take the text-book in to the exam!

You didn't know what the question asked would involve, so were expected to remember loads of quotes in the chance that one of them would be appropriate.

We studied Romeo and Juliet and I couldn't remember any of the lines for **** because A - It’s in funny old English, B - I'm bad at remembering specific lines and C - How the hell are you supposed to remember the specifics like certain words/punctuation (These things are important when evaluating a text)?

I literally only used "Romeo, Romeo, where for art thou Romeo" and somehow got a B!
God only knows how? My theory is that the grade boundaries must have been lowered significantly that year.

 

[Typhoon]

Or are made such a mess of that the pass mark is reduced well below 50%...

That really depends on what you mean by 'pass'. For some years we had this artificial boundary of a grade C as a pass (at GCSE). If I was looking at potential A Level students in, say, Physics, I would be less interested in whether they had 12 GCSE passes, than if they had, say, 10 GCSE passes which included A* in Physics, Mathematics and Chemistry but narrowly failed in Citizenship and Religious Education.

I agree that we have dozy 'pass' marks though, as a result of trying a wide range of students into one exam to stretch the best but encourage the average.

 

[Typhoon]

One of the funniest exam situations, was when government changed english literature exams so you couldn't take the text-book in to the exam!

You didn't know what the question asked would involve, so were expected to remember loads of quotes in the chance one of them would be appropriate.

We studied romeo and juliet, I couldn't remember any of the lines for S**t because A) it's in funny old english, B)I'm bad at remembering specific lines and C)How the hell are you supposed to remember specifics like certain words/punctuation (These things are important when evaluating a text!!!!!!!!!!!)

I literally only used "Romeo, romeo, where for art thou romeo" and somehow got a B. God only knows how, my theory is the grade boundaries must have been lowered significantly that year

Remembering quotes, another useless skill. You probably passed because you remembered one more quote than those that didn't (or the marker regarded learning quotes as a pointless requirement). I used to know the English translation of Caesar's Gallic Wars, Book 1, Chapter 1 off by heart, I can still quote chunks of it half a century later. Have I ever used it? Only to demonstrate how useless learning quotes is!

 

[Jozhua]

That really depends on what you mean by 'pass'. For some years we had this artificial boundary of a grade C as a pass (at GCSE). If I was looking at potential A Level students in, say, Physics, I would be less interested in whether they had 12 GCSE passes, than if they had, say, 10 GCSE passes which included A* in Physics, Mathematics and Chemistry but narrowly failed in Citizenship and Religious Education.

I agree that we have dozy 'pass' marks though, as a result of trying a wide range of students into one exam to stretch the best but encourage the average.

That's true. Passes in certain subjects are required to move on to almost anything in Further Education, which you have to continue studying for until you are 18. If you can't get on a L3 BTEC or A-levels, you have to re-take GCSEs or study a level 2 course, spending an extra year in education, or wasting two years for nothing. Plus, you can't get a BTEC or A-level at all unless you have a C in English or Maths. So if you need a C to get almost anywhere in at least a couple of subjects, maybe having it at 50% isn't so ridiculous. Plus, many of the answers are supposed to be high-level to push the highest achievers. Majority studying for GCSEs might not even learn the last couple of questions on the paper.

I believe some subjects also have a low grade and high grade paper, I think the low is capped at a C, but has more appropriate questions for that skill level, the higher paper allows you to get A*. Of course, this has all been changed to numbers to confuse everyone even more... Also the boundary for passing has been raised to equivalent of between a B/C for the old GCSEs I believe.

Don't really understand the concept of harder exams = better quality of education, with no other variables being changed. But there you go...

Remembering quotes, another useless skill. You probably passed because you remembered one more quote than those that didn't (or the marker regarded learning quotes as a pointless requirement). I used to know the English translation of Caesar's Gallic Wars, Book 1, Chapter 1 off by heart, I can still quote chunks of it half a century later. Have I ever used it? Only to demonstrate how useless learning quotes is!

Very true! I probably did remember one more than everyone else, although everyone made it sound like they knew the books off by heart

I also hate that toxic "I revised for 30 hours yesterday", I found it really hard to concentrate on revision and half an hour felt like a success to me. Then I'd go into school and people would ask how much I did, just to roll their eyes...

At uni, now I'm out of that kind of environment, I have started to revise a lot better. I feel like every 15-20 minutes added, is 15-20 minutes of progress forward, rather than catching up 15-20 minutes I'm behind everyone. I also actually feel like I'm learning for myself and it will benefit me, rather than being forced to. Plus, my mental health is in a better place, making concentration easier.

 

[Jozhua]

Oh also the government recently changed the following with exams;

- GCSE Chemistry students now need to memorise the whole periodic table, because that's not something you can easily google IRL, and there definitely isn't one hanging on the wall of probably every science lab in the world, even if it's for decorative purposes.
-Formulas have been removed from every GCSE/A-level science paper I believe.

Just seems like a memory game vs anything else lol.

Beyond a certain point, simply remembering facts and being able to reel them off isn't good enough. I know once I got to uni, we could have open-book exams with access to the internet, but some of the questions were so specific, no quick Google search would help anyway. Knowing the right places to look, and some context around the specific issue to resolve is far more valuable.

I study video/audio production technologies, including broadcast standards, distribution over IP, recording video/audio content. For me, I don't need to know every detail of every single format or codec in existence, but knowing where to look for them is the important thing. I understand if I wanted to deliver a file to a broadcaster, I'd look for the AS-11 spec. I know some basic details (1080p50i 10-bit .mxf file) but I also know what I don't know and therefore would need to double check (Color subsampling,required metadata,timecode/clocking information), and where to find said information.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

- GCSE Chemistry students now need to memorise the whole periodic table, because that's not something you can easily google IRL, and there definitely isn't one hanging on the wall of probably every science lab in the world, even if it's for decorative purposes.
-Formulas have been removed from every GCSE/A-level science paper I believe.

Wow. I still know it off by heart but then I do use regularly. I still need a mnemonic for the Lanthanides (4f series). I assume this is tongue-in-cheek?

 

[Typhoon]

Oh also the government recently changed the following with exams;

- GCSE Chemistry students now need to memorise the whole periodic table, because that's not something you can easily google IRL, and there definitely isn't one hanging on the wall of probably every science lab in the world, even if it's for decorative purposes.
-Formulas have been removed from every GCSE/A-level science paper I believe.

I am surprised. I've looked at sample papers for RSA and there are sample data sheets for GCSE Chemistry (https://ocr.org.uk/Images/261355-data-sheet-gateway-science-suite-chemistry-a.pdf). It could be that they are going to be removed or the sample papers are dated, or maybe @GRALISTAIR is right!

 

[Jozhua]

I am surprised. I've looked at sample papers for RSA and there are sample data sheets for GCSE Chemistry (https://ocr.org.uk/Images/261355-data-sheet-gateway-science-suite-chemistry-a.pdf). It could be that they are going to be removed or the sample papers are dated, or maybe @GRALISTAIR is right!

Sorry, I'm wrong, they no longer supply the reactivity series or ionic charges or formulas. They do supply the periodic table.

I did my GCSE Chemistry exam about 4 years ago, no idea what reactivity series or ionic charges are

I did it just before the exams changed, so guess I must have been provided them.

 

[theblackwatch]

I sat the last year of 'O' levels back in 1987, which was entirely exam-based apart from, for some reason, English language which was based on coursework. The following year was GCSEs, which - if my memory is right (it was 30+ years ago after all!) - were based on a combination of coursework and final exams. The 'bit of both' actually seemed the fairest system to me, even though I missed out on it, apart from French which I re-took the following year, having initially got a D, which I managed to improve to a B. (Can't remember much French now, in hindsight German would have been more useful!)

 

[DarloRich]

No. close thread.

Exams are easy. You just need to understand how they work. I have 12 GCSE, 4 A levels, an AS level and a proper degree. I have sat a lot of exams. Revision is hard but you simply need a proper plan and mature approach to question spotting and identification.

Edit: Also exams are so easy these days you basically get an A for showing up. Not like when i did them. Kids today

 

[Jozhua]

No. close thread.

Exams are easy. You just need to understand how they work. I have 12 GCSE, 4 A levels, an AS level and a proper degree. I have sat a lot of exams. Revision is hard but you simply need a proper plan and mature approach to question spotting and identification.

Edit: Also exams are so easy these days you basically get an A for showing up. Not like when i did them. Kids today

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not loll

But the problem with exams isn't that they're hard, it's just if they're actually suitable for assessing every aspect of someone's learning. The fact you find them easy because you simply understand how they work, shows they might not be so fit for purpose.

Plus, I can assure you exams are NOT easy today. My friends at A-level were revising for 12-15 hours a day to get C's and B's...

Many left and just did foundation years for their degrees instead. Out of 8 of my friends, 6 went to do A-levels, 2 of which dropped out, 1 of which got B, E and D and the other who didn't get the grades they needed to go on to their desired university. (This person scored very highly on Oxford computing tests, but the school didn't have enough money to run a computing A-level.) Only two out of six were A-level "successes", and my group was full of fairly academically capable people. As long as the government continues to put so much emphasis on students going to university, but also making the exams harder to filter out the "bad" ones, the more clearing, unconditionals and foundation years will become a thing. Record numbers of clearing and unconditional offers seem to be set every year! If the government is not careful, people will start to either bypass their broken education system, or rely on a lucky roll of the clearing dice to hop onto a half empty course.

There seems to be so many issues with further education and A-levels in particular. So few students are taking them at some schools, they've shut their 6th forms. Seems to be a feedback loop of less students = cutting courses = students going elsewhere, until you're left with the basic subjects and no-one taking them. The fact the government seems obsessed with STEM and Computing, yet most schools don't even have the resources to run a computer science A-level seems crazy to me.

Oh and don't even get me started on the state of ICT or computing education in schools...

So much noise is put on advertising it, and giving kids computers to play with, but as soon as they become teens (and start to develop those useful logical skills needed to program), the funding disappears and the choices become almost non-existent.

 

[Bletchleyite]

ICT

They could start by stopping calling it that. It's an invention of the education sector, similar to "CDT", "Food Tech" and the likes. We are the IT industry. They are the manufacturing or engineering industries, or the food production or catering industries. Start calling the subjects what they actually are in the real world and stop running petty little isolated fiefdoms.

 

[underbank]

Fully agree to scrap the traditional exam system. I'd love to see schools move towards the university module approach. Have lots of modules, each lasting a term, where pupils pick, say, 8 modules per term, some compulsory, some choice. Like Unis, there'll be some you need to do in order before you can do other more advanced ones. Some modules will be exam tested, others coursework, some a mix, etc. Then you accumulate points to go towards some kind of school certificate, more points for more advanced modules, resulting in higher grades being given for the most points achieved, etc. That allows pupils to re-do an entire module if they struggled. Forget the "year" approach where kids have to drop/chose entire subjects at particular times. Yes, it's a revolution, but it would provide flexibility for a changing world and has the ability to give kids some proper modern skills such as research, critical thinking, etc., rather than rote learning of dates and being forced to read & dissect Shakespeare. We've spent 60 years faffing around with the education system, but the more they change it, the more it stays the same - it's been re-arranging deckchairs on the Titianic. It's now time for some real change, root and branch reform of the whole thing.

 

[Typhoon]

You just need to understand how they work.

Now that is so true. When I was an examiner you would know which centres knew how to answer the questions (possible because a staff member was an examiner). They didn't necessarily know more, it was the way the candidates picked up the interim marks (for 'working out' if you like) and for ensuring the answer was of the required depth. No use this year but students used to ask me for the 'answers', what is more use is the marking scheme and examiners reports. They will clearly indicate what is required to get the marks.

 

[underbank]

You just need to understand how they work.

This is what floored me all those years ago. We were never "taught" the tricks to steal marks and barely even saw past exam papers. It was back in the day when teachers taught the subject and the exams were like an after thought, even with teachers willfully teaching topics they know wouldn't be on the paper! Nowadays, teachers teach to the test, so good teachers know the tricks and teach the pupils how to scrape marks. I've been amazed by what my son has told me - he was due to do his A levels this Summer. Compared to the amount I did (ended up with a load of Ds), he got a string of grade 9s in his GCSEs with hardly any revision - just the odd hour here and there - he had been taught to "game" the system. Like in Maths, there were long questions he hadn't a clue about, but he put down lines of equations which related to each other so tricked the examiner into thinking he knew where he was heading, even though it wasn't going anywhere and he could get at least half marks - whereas another pupil may just leave the answer sheet blank and get nothing. Back in my day, I seem to remember most exams having all or a large amount of multiple choice which you couldn't "game" - the best you could do was ignore the options obviously wrong and make a guess on the couple of viable options, so a 50:50 chance really.

 

[JohnMcL7]

Oh also the government recently changed the following with exams;

- GCSE Chemistry students now need to memorise the whole periodic table, because that's not something you can easily google IRL, and there definitely isn't one hanging on the wall of probably every science lab in the world, even if it's for decorative purposes.
-Formulas have been removed from every GCSE/A-level science paper I believe.

Just seems like a memory game vs anything else lol.

Beyond a certain point, simply remembering facts and being able to reel them off isn't good enough. I know once I got to uni, we could have open-book exams with access to the internet, but some of the questions were so specific, no quick Google search would help anyway. Knowing the right places to look, and some context around the specific issue to resolve is far more valuable.

I study video/audio production technologies, including broadcast standards, distribution over IP, recording video/audio content. For me, I don't need to know every detail of every single format or codec in existence, but knowing where to look for them is the important thing. I understand if I wanted to deliver a file to a broadcaster, I'd look for the AS-11 spec. I know some basic details (1080p50i 10-bit .mxf file) but I also know what I don't know and therefore would need to double check (Color subsampling,required metadata,timecode/clocking information), and where to find said information.

That reminds me of an interview I had where they asked me a lot of very specific technical facts which I hadn't expected nor revised for and I was quite honest in telling them I didn't see the point in memorising that information when I could look it up if needed, being able to use the information was more important.

When I was doing training for my recent networking exams they had online virtual labs which could simulate a range of different scenarios and they had three sets of increasing difficulty. The first set of labs handheld you through the process telling you the exact commands to type and how to verify it had worked then the second set of labs would give you the generic command references but you'd have to work out the right commands and sequence to complete the task. The final set of labs gave no help at all and would present a scenario with a general problem and you'd have to use the techniques and technologies you've learnt up to that point to find what's wrong and fix it. I expected this is mostly what the official exam would be as this ensures you have properly learnt the information not just memorised but its practical sections were brief and there were a lot of multiple choice questions that expected you to pointlessly remember certain facts.

What amused me was there was a question on what register setting to use to recover a password on a switch offering four choices but when I had to go through the process on a switch from the same vendor, the exact setting was different on this model but the overall process was similar so knowing the exact setting was pointless but understanding the general process was useful.

 

[cactustwirly]

Sorry, I'm wrong, they no longer supply the reactivity series or ionic charges or formulas. They do supply the periodic table.

I did my GCSE Chemistry exam about 4 years ago, no idea what reactivity series or ionic charges are

I did it just before the exams changed, so guess I must have been provided them.

Reactivity series isn't really that much use, and you can work out ionic charges anyway, except transition metals, but those shouldn't be tested anyway.

 

[gg1]

That's one option. Another one is that you don't have specific assessable items, but instead you assess performance throughout the course.

That sounds a lot like the modular science GCSE I did in the early 90s where you covered a topic for around 4 weeks, there was an assessment (some as exams, some as assignments) at the end of each topic and the overall grade was derived from all the assessments.

All well and good unless you went on to do one of the sciences at A-level which is where it became evident you couldn't remember most of what you'd 'learnt' because there was never any cause to revisit (ie revision for final exams) areas you'd covered earlier in the course. All the other local schools at the time taught the sciences the traditional way, as 3 separate subjects with most of the mark dependant on final exams. At 6th form all the kids from my school who did a science A-level (of which I was one) were well behind those from other schools in terms of subject knowledge.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I did modular A level maths and there was an issue with "learn and forget", same with OU. However at university I found that things like the final year project/dissertation worked well to bring things together.

So could a workable structure perhaps be modular learning but brought together, for each subject (or even some combinations), in a large coursework project at the end in some way, with your GCSE/A level marks (or whatever replaced them) derived from that as well as module marks?

Isn't that (might be wrong) how the likes of the International Baccalaureate work?

 

[Typhoon]

This is what floored me all those years ago. We were never "taught" the tricks to steal marks and barely even saw past exam papers.

Its not 'stealing' marks really. I can only go on papers that I marked, Maths and ICT at GCSE, and, as part of my job, setting and marking papers at Higher National and Foundation Degree Computing, but Examiners are trying to credit ability so 'the right answer' is only worth one mark, but, if the question is worth 3 marks, 2 will be given for particular steps, including, perhaps, choosing the right equation to use and putting the right values into the equation. It is intended to give some credit to the student who presses the wrong button on the calculator and gets the wrong answer. If your son put in lines of equations, I would question whether a mark should be awarded with my Team Leader, depending on how many lines there were. Its not tricking the examiner, the examiner has to follow the marking scheme, they have no discretion, they are probably only too aware of what is going on and would probably stress it in their report. The worst situation is the student who doesn't leave the answer sheet blank but writes down the right answer. They may only be awarded 1 mark. This occurs where a question (or paper) states that working must be shown.

One reason why it is different now than in your day (probably) is that past examination papers, marking schemes and examiners reports are available on-line. The marking schemes will tell you how the marks are awarded, the examiners reports are useful because they indicate which types of question are answered badly, examiners tend to persist with them, they will also indicate where candidates lose marks.

Back in my day, I seem to remember most exams having all or a large amount of multiple choice which you couldn't "game" - the best you could do was ignore the options obviously wrong and make a guess on the couple of viable options, so a 50:50 chance really.

Can't stand them, easy to mark, unreliable test of ability (the monkey gets 25%). When I started teaching, we had multiple choice with 5 answers, 4 marks for a right answer, -1 for a wrong one!​

 

[najaB]

They could start by stopping calling it that. It's an invention of the education sector, similar to "CDT", "Food Tech" and the likes. We are the IT industry.

There's more to ICT than Information Technology - IT doesn't include the Communications side of things.