Farewell, Modular GCSEs

[drummer]

As someone who has just spent the last 2 months working on my daughters Geography module with her which adds up to about half of her GCSE

so which one of you is this Geography GCSE going to be awarded to?

Sorry for the flippancy but this also illustrates the problem with the current system, no?

And how about bringing back marking on a curve?

[tokyonambu]

And how about bringing back marking on a curve?

Or at least accompanying each GCSE with the centile that the student falls in. There are different reasons to want norm-based exams (the driving test, for example, or the MRCP, where the purpose is to check competence) and to want curve-based exams (academic A Levels, whose main purpose in 2011 is university admission, there being far fewer A-Level entry jobs than there once were). If all exams came with both --- and deriving a centile from a raw mark is a trivial job --- then people using the exam could use the figure that best suited their purpose.

There's no reason to believe that the proportion of As should remain constant over time in a norm-based environment: whether teaching is getting better, students are more motivated, parents are more engaged, the idea that ability at A Level maths is restricted to a specified proportion of the population because that was true in 1954 is absurd. But if you've got a fixed number of places in your maths degree, you want to be able to select the best, and whether that matches the A norm or the A* norm is neither here nor there.

[Tree]

"As someone who has just spent the last 2 months working on my daughters Geography module with her which adds up to about half of her GCSE"

sorry probably poor choice of phrase i haven't done the module for her i have just been aware of what she has been doing and how well she has learnt the subject.

"you don't make a pig fatter by weighing it more often "

Is not the point the point is that if you break a subject up into smaller parts you can test to a higher level and i would contend that you asses the students real understanding of the subject not their short term memory. (so if you told the pig you were going to test it's weight more regularly then you may well make it fatter)

It would be possible to get round the retake issue by declaring the number of retaken modules in the mark so you would get an a*(1) meaning 1 module was retaken. The real issue is how well a student understands the subject and there seems to be no evidence that this is judged better with end of course exams than with modular exams

[drummer]

"As someone who has just spent the last 2 months working on my daughters Geography module with her which adds up to about half of her GCSE"

sorry probably poor choice of phrase i haven't done the module for her i have just been aware of what she has been doing and how well she has learnt the subject.

And of course I believe you, but, truth be told, I'd be sorely tempted to 'help' my child as much as possible if a high stakes exam result was at stake.

At least final exams are all about the child and what they can do (by themselves) - a more level and fair playing field.

[ourmaminhavana]

I agree entirely Drummer. I'm in favour of bringing back the bell curve too. As for testing to a higher level if in smaller bites, I don't understand why this would be the case. If anything, it will be the opposite allowing more time for teaching and studying and wasting less on revision and constant retakes.

[scary mum]

I'm in favour of bringing back the bell curve too

I didn't know it had gone

I think in some ways they do cover things in more depth than we did. No-one ever taught me about such things as "dramatic irony" and I think they have to think more about events in history etc etc rather than just regurgitating facts, but I do have my reservations about course work and repeat re-sitting of exams. And I do think the science GCSEs have been severely dumbed down - or is it just the rosy glow of yesteryear that makes me think it was harder in my day? I have certainly been shocked at some of the things my DD hasn't covered in chemistry.

[Tree]

why are they any less "by themselves" in an end of module test than an end of whole course test it's still a closed book exam just covering less stuff ??

it seem obvious to me that if you test a subject in small parts then the overall standard is going to be higher because you have only had to learn the small part each time.

[tokyonambu]

why are they any less "by themselves" in an end of module test than an end of whole course test it's still a closed book exam just covering less stuff ??

it seem obvious to me that if you test a subject in small parts then the overall standard is going to be higher because you have only had to learn the small part each time.

Which is why we can improve the standards of driving in this country by having a separate "changing gear" test, examined on a runway like doing straight-line aero testing, "turning the steering wheel" test, done in a gearless electric car, and "using the brakes" test, done by rolling an unpowered car down a hill. After all, by testing driving in small parts then the overall standard is going to be higher because you have only had to learn the small part each time.

[Tree]

LOL tokyonambu

obviously there is a balance to be had the driving test is infact a good example because i think it probably is a better test of driving now that it is in more parts than in my day when it was all one test.

[Looking for help]

Why pointless? Are you saying bad ideas should be persisted with if they've had enough money spent on them? Why would reverting to a previous system cost so much money? Do you believe that the modular system has been a success?

No I'm saying this brave new idea has been tried before, and if you don't change the syllabus, there is absolutely no improvement to the course, therefore it is a pointless exercise designed to interest voters in an education system that hasn't actually changed, except it is examined differently, which is pervceived to be better, and I for one am not sure that it is.