CSSA 2013 MX2 Trial Discussion (1 Viewer)

[iBibah]

Which begs the question - why don't some teachers get off their ass and design their own paper instead of relying on a paper which, honestly, has never been up to scratch, and always seems hastily pieced together?

Some teachers have no idea what constitutes a good paper, buying one makes things easier for them.

 

[Carrotsticks]

I think some people don't realise the time needed to set an Ext 2 trial. First there is selecting questions that kids haven't seen before, making sure there is good coverage of the syllabus, a good spread of difficulty, trying out ideas of your own and discarding most of them, and especially trying to fit the questions into 6 groups of 15 marks. Then when you present your draft to the other teachers there are always issues raised, which again cause you to spend hours getting everything to fit into 15 mark groupings. This doesn't include the actual typing, typesetting, and especially drawing diagram. And finally typing up a good set of solutions. When I have set an Ext 2 trial in the past, I reckon I have spent 40-50 hours in total getting it right (and this is all done by one person). And its not like teachers have a whole lot of spare time at their disposal.

Compare this to the setting HSC exam where they can draw on the time of countless individuals. I'm not sure what is meant by saying that these exams are of low quality. If you are setting the HSC exam itself as the standard, then what do you expect?

The thing is, CSSA have an entire YEAR to write the exam paper and do relevant research. Many students know that the last Q there in this year's CSSA paper was from 2009 HSC, so surely an experienced teacher would know this too?

I'm going to have to disagree with some points that you have made. Typing, typesetting, drawing diagrams takes less than 3 hours. Typing up a good set of solutions also should take at MOST 8 hours. I personally typed solutions (albeit with a few minor corrections) to the 2012 HSC in less than 3 hours (with no marking guidelines etc) and I highly doubt that adding in marking guidelines will take an extra 5 or so hours. When I did it for other exams I've written (with syllabus references and outcomes), it took about 4 hours in total to do. However, this was with 2 extra monitors, which did increase productivity I guess.

However, I do empathise with the amount of frustration and time required to make a complete paper. The BOS Trial for 3U and 4U took me over 80 hours of work, 6 completely filled exercise books (experimenting and generalisations) and at least 6 drafts.

CSSA actually make pretty decent papers compared to most other Trials offered out there. I've noticed this has only been happening recently ie: 2010 onwards. However, this blunder with Q16 was completely avoidable.

But I do have to say that CSSA Q16/Q8 is still often far from the level of difficulty involved in HSC Q16/Q8.

 

[Carrotsticks]

Which begs the question - why don't some teachers get off their ass and design their own paper instead of relying on a paper which, honestly, has never been up to scratch, and always seems hastily pieced together?

I wish all teachers would do this... and you are one of the few who actually care enough to do so.

If you've seen the bos trials for maths, you'll see that not many marks are attained by luck of doing the question before, but rather purely skill and understanding in that topic area. Sure it took the writer a while, but he achieved the goal of a good examination.

As much as I appreciate the mention, I actually think that by HSC standards, my paper is a very POOR paper. It was made with a specific intention to target higher achieving students, which already makes it a poor paper if you define 'good' as being 'close to HSC standard'.

So really, students have the right to be annoyed at CSSA or school trials if they don't do their job properly. If someone thinks another schools trial is bad, but it suited the cohort there, that's a different story. But every person here has the right to criticise CSSA, because they were paid to produce a product which had a purpose, and that purpose wasn't fulfilled for some schools.

When a plumper makes a mistake in a building, he can't say "you don't know how hard this is". It doesn't matter how hard it is, they were trained to do it, and are being payed to do it. Do right or don't do it at all and get someone else to do it.

I completely agree with this part. Even moreso considering that there were several 'plumbers' working on the building.

=========================

Also, whilst I'm at it, I'd like to make a special mention of Independent papers with regards to its poor quality.

Seriously Independent, what are you guys doing?

 

[seanieg89]

Agree that more teachers should write their own exams, but I don't have much faith in the quality of paper that the average high school maths teacher could put together...

 

[Carrotsticks]

Agree that more teachers should write their own exams, but I don't have much faith in the quality of paper that the average high school maths teacher could put together...

I think that by having teachers actually write their own exams, it will also 'keep their knowledge up to date' and also help develop a more in-depth knowledge of how things work.

 

[seanieg89]

I think that by having teachers actually write their own exams, it will also 'keep their knowledge up to date' and also help develop a more in-depth knowledge of how things work.

Yeah, unfortunately in my experience not that many are willing to invest that time.

 

[Trebla]

Haha you have no idea how much harder the BoS trial could've been last year...too many upper band questions lol. I hope this time it is more in line with HSC level Carrot

 

[Carrotsticks]

Haha you have no idea how much harder the BoS trial could've been last year...too many upper band questions lol. I hope this time it is more in line with HSC level Carrot

Toned it down a bit =)

 

[seanieg89]

Toned it down a bit =)

.

 

[Fred2013]

Decent paper. 2012 Q16 was MUCH better.

However, in regards to some ideas raised,
Right now, as a HSC student, one may think that a good examination to differentiate ranks are of immense importance.
But once we all complete our HSC, get our ATARs and head off into University, when one reflects back on these things, they will seem trivial.
We have to consider about being in the shoes of teachers and examiners. They have long passed this stage and their life is not dedicated to produce a 'good' exam. Most will have families, friends and other dedications that they rather invest their time in. Working as a teacher is just a means of earning an income, which is the reason that most, if not all, people work.

So, taking all these into account, you can't blame examiners for an easy exam.
Furthermore, 2009, 2010 both had a question in their Q8s ripped from past HSC (circle geo involving locus, the induction question with validity of statement), yet people are still saying it was good. So, just because this year had taken a question from a past HSC, why are we all fussing over it?

 

[billym]

As an Extension 2 teacher, I feel compelled to give my 2 cents here.

I write all of my assessment tasks from scratch, and as braintic and Carrotsticks mentioned earlier, there are a LOT of ideas that get thrown around in the development of a question that will never see the light of day.

I have personally spent 3+ hours working on a single question, only to eventually scrap it as it didn't fit well with the rest of the examination. Over the course of the year, 5 assessment tasks have to be written, and the process of trying ideas and discarding 90% of them happens for each assessment task. It's worth pointing out that many Extension 2 teachers (myself included) also teach Extension 1, so will go through a similar process for the Extension 1 course - although to less of an extent as questions are much easier and "routine".

I don't know a single Extension 2 teacher that doesn't want the absolute best for their students, but some people on this thread seem to failing to recognise that teachers typically teach 4 or 5 different classes - each of which require their own preparation and assessment. Teachers also have countless other day-to-day duties that students do not see.

I have no problem with people criticising independent organisations that produce papers, but I really feel that people who criticise teachers for PURCHASING said papers really have no idea or perspective as to how much work goes in to producing a quality assessment task.

Try not to judge a teacher that purchases an assessment task - Extension 2 teachers are often passionate and dedicated professionals. The preparation for delivering the content in Extension 2 alone is extensive. They are not 'lazy' and should not be criticised for relying on a purchased assessment task. What you don't realise is that many of these teachers were also disappointed by the assessment.

 

[RealiseNothing]

toned it down a bit =)

WHAT?

NO!

(caps)

 

[tywebb]

Some are complaining that those who wrote the current CSSA papers aren't as good as those who wrote HSC exams in the past.

I would like to point out that some of the people who wrote this year's CSSA papers were also on HSC exam committees in the past.

So people making such complaints are going to have to make a better argument in future.

 

[iBibah]

Some are complaining that those who wrote the current CSSA papers aren't as good as those who wrote HSC exams in the past.

I would like to point out that some of the people who wrote this year's CSSA papers were also on HSC exam committees in the past.

So people making such complaints are going to have to make a better argument in future.

If anything, that should make them produce a better paper, not copy past questions.

 

[obliviousninja]

Tad late, I've just gotten half of the paper back, but am I the only one who thought it was hard? Or was it just me, as my school hadn't covered all of mechanics, and the replacement questions were ridiculously hard? (ie Q15/16 difficulty, resisted motion question replacing a Q13 polynomial)