What bos said about the sor 2009 hsc exam (2 Viewers)

[icola]

I'm aware english is different, I am just pointing out that a lot of people were not prepared for the one related text, and it affected a lot of their essays, some people not even reading the word ONE and using two. The change to their essays and the stress of having to extend their response obviously upset a lot of people as well - while I know it is different, you are saying that the stress of not understanding what the question was asking of you caused you to perform under your normal standard and affected the way you performed in modules. It is essentially the same thing.

I know that the wording threw a lot of people off but saying that 'you simply can't think under that stress in the hsc exam' is completely wrong. For a lot of people, including me, the HSC is very stressful. English paper one was extremely stressful for a lot of people who had to adapt their entire essays however they managed to do so. Stress is an inevitable aspect of the exams and being able to perform well even under the toughest of conditions is an indicator of how confident a student is with their knowledge of the content.

I have no doubt that a lot of people would get better marks if they 'knew what they were being asked to do' but you have to understand that the ambiguity of the question was intentional. It was designed to test the students knowledge on a range of aspects of the religion, rather than one part which could easily have been a prepared response, and also to stop the speculation on what topic it would be on based on the questions of previous HSC papers.

I understand that the question has caused a lot of people to worry about their HSC performance but obviously if everyone found it hard the marking criteria will be adjusted. The BOS are already aware of the issues it has caused students, which is evident through their response to the article you linked and the statement on their website and I doubt students continually calling will have any more impact.

I actually think the way they marked could act in the favour of SOR students who attempted to question as they will be incredibly lenient. I know it's hard not to worry but they have the measures in place to ensure that the HSC is in relation to the performance of the cohort in general. As long as everyone else found it difficult, and the majority did, there won't be issues with the marking.

 

[chaldoking]

I have now officially failed studies of religion.I thought I did well in that essay for Christianity in Section 3 - but I said how the continuing discourse amongst feminist theologians, adherents and figures of authority in the church, make christianity a dynamic and thus "living tradition".That quote for me had absolutely nothing at all to do with Christian ethics, and certainly nothing at all to do with Marriage. They were highly inconsiderate.But then again...it is a instituition that prizes itself on the basic tenets of bureaucracy.

 

[spazamataz]

The question was way too vague.I wrote about every aspect of Christianity: bioethics, baptism and Martin Luther.I linked this to the quote, and demonstrated a thorough understanding of Christianity and why it is a 'living religion'.For example, saying that Martin Luther is an example of an adherent who demonstrates that it is a living religion, that baptism promotes the idea blah blah blahWhat the BoS is saying is that my section on Martin Luther is being discounted.My only problem with the question now is that it was not specific enough. It would have been a great question if it had of been more specific.I seriously do not know where the BoS is getting this information about whether students loved or hated the exam.Anyway, its too late to do anything now, and it is every schools right to appeal against the question. By the sounds of it the BoS has a lot of explaining to do. Well they've totally screwed me for early entry now, looks like i will just have to get in through the main round.

 

[icola]

I have now officially failed studies of religion.I thought I did well in that essay for Christianity in Section 3 - but I said how the continuing discourse amongst feminist theologians, adherents and figures of authority in the church, make christianity a dynamic and thus "living tradition".That quote for me had absolutely nothing at all to do with Christian ethics, and certainly nothing at all to do with Marriage. They were highly inconsiderate.But then again...it is a instituition that prizes itself on the basic tenets of bureaucracy.

I think, though I'm not sure like every one else, that the link was in the relation of the passage to the principle beliefs of Christianity. The divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ was evident with the quotes "He sat at the table with them" and then "He suddenly vanished" (I don't have the exam so they're not the direct quotes!) And I did Sat/Sun worship so the breaking of the bread was related to the Eucharist which then gave the opportunity to talk about the other practices of SS worship without referencing the quote.
The BOS said that the passage was just a stepping stone, so your entire response didn't have to focus around it. Also, I thought that "He spoke to them" or something along those lines related to the belief of revelation, and the death, resurrection and ascension was in the entire passage as it related to the post-resurrection account.
Hmm I just think that the quote was supposed to be a small reference and not the body of your response. Drawing the key points out, and then relating how they are indicated in your practices is the most important thing, I think. But then again I didn't do marriage so I have no idea if that would be relevant to your study!

 

[chaldoking]

I personally think that if the question was to vague (like Christianity in Section III)then at least leave it open for different interpretation. My interpretation of Lukes post-resurrection account had NOTHING to do with Ethics, let alone significant practices. And also, the bible passage was not generic - it would've helped those who did sat/sun worship and not those who did marriage I think.

 

[icola]

I wrote about every aspect of Christianity: bioethics, baptism and Martin Luther.I linked this to the quote, and demonstrated a thorough understanding of Christianity and why it is a 'living religion'.For example, saying that Martin Luther is an example of an adherent who demonstrates that it is a living religion, that baptism promotes the idea blah blah

That sounds right to meee. Although I guess no one really knows, I wouldn't be worried if I was you though.

 

[chaldoking]

I just realised..They prob got the "living religion" from the name of that studies of religion I and II textbook. LOL

 

[-K-I-E-R-E-N-]

Hey guys i also do religion 2 unit listed as my 10 units i had studied painfully by passed papers awarethat i was to enter choose christianity and study all 3 aspects as studied and listed in syllabus bioethics,feminis,baptismyes this relates to issues which are question moral which are provided and challenge of text ensure it living but what was that quote sayin we still break the bread as they fundamentally did in the bible and when have we concidered it. If it was a great exam why did everyone walk out unaware whether they did the write thing it would be gud if it said refer and topics you may have studied but if you were handed that question alone know knowledge of it has to be this question cause religion and peace is the other 20 marks etcwould you really know it was asking put all you knowledge of 3 texts. If your like me i looked in reading time thinking ooo is it baptism or bioethics oo i hope its that i studied that with a set mind it can only be one and then was compelled to write what ever knowledge i my self as a christian and exploring baptism and bioethics to little extent think is this right maybe this is right il write a bit about this with no confidence as the question was genral and know warning or destinction about it yeh its a great way to make the full 3 factors i had put devoted effort into and be acknolwedged but how could we be expected to do so when know one knew whether they were on the right track. also i looked at islamic to know whether it wud be a choice um muhammad our significant person was alghazali who ever wrote this paper was not baseing it on knowledge rather it will be a lack of luck and who wrote this paper with the response that a signal minded person wanted !!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[.N.]

in regards to "was there a warning that there would be one related text for the english paper" umm yes. if you look at past papers there have been some with one and others with two.. with the SOR question there has never been anything like it.and it's not like we're lazy, unmotivated students... our teachers have never, not once, ever gone through those outcomes, never heard the phrase "living religious tradition" (in SOR), never ever been taught that. if even the teachers overlooked it then surely it's understandable that students didn't recognise it as a syllabus dot point and hence failed to meet the necessary criteria.

lol i agree with rain. If they wanted us to talk about all 3 aspects of the religion we chose well then they should clearly state that like they've clearly stated 'significant person' or 'significant pracice' in previous years. Seriously for christianity 'asses christianity as a living tradition to the life of adherents?' you can interpret that in many different ways... they needed to be more precise in what they exactly want us to do. Besides the quote they had given were totally random, especially for christianity.... which has nothing to do with what we've studiedI honestly don't understand how some students didn't have any problem and thought it was 'easy'.

 

[atm1991]

1. READ THIS Board of Studies News. They did examine what was on the syllabus. You've learnt three different aspects of the religion you studied, if you couldn't work out that they were asking you to talk about them you don't deserve the marks anyway. 3. You can't appeal an exam because you found the question hard. Evidently a lot of people didn't. If you could do that we would appeal every exam. Don't you realise how stupid it is to say "test us on what we already know"?

The question was way too vague.I wrote about every aspect of Christianity: bioethics, baptism and Martin Luther.I linked this to the quote, and demonstrated a thorough understanding of Christianity and why it is a 'living religion'.For example, saying that Martin Luther is an example of an adherent who demonstrates that it is a living religion, that baptism promotes the idea blah blah blahWhat the BoS is saying is that my section on Martin Luther is being discounted.My only problem with the question now is that it was not specific enough. It would have been a great question if it had of been more specific.I seriously do not know where the BoS is getting this information about whether students loved or hated the exam.Anyway, its too late to do anything now, and it is every schools right to appeal against the question. By the sounds of it the BoS has a lot of explaining to do. Well they've totally screwed me for early entry now, looks like i will just have to get in through the main round.

+1 to the above two posts. If people seriously couldn't figure out what you were supposed to do, and how much range for discussion the question was offering, you don't deserve the marks. I personally did Christianity for that question and managed to link the quote to cremation (bioethics), the influence of Martin Luther and the practice of marriage. It probs wasn't the greatest answer in the world, but even I could see what the question was allowing for.

 

[X-terc]

+1 to the above two posts. If people seriously couldn't figure out what you were supposed to do, and how much range for discussion the question was offering, you don't deserve the marks. I personally did Christianity for that question and managed to link the quote to cremation (bioethics), the influence of Martin Luther and the practice of marriage. It probs wasn't the greatest answer in the world, but even I could see what the question was allowing for.

I found the exam utterly bullshit, never in my life have ive been taught that. Can i just point out, cremation is NOT part of bioethics? This is only because my class has a huge debate whether it is or not because the MACQ study guide said it was, but my teacher said it is not definately not part of the bioethics range. but i dunno. I did Buddhism for that sect.

 

[ekoolish]

This is what happens when you are too one dimensional and can't break down what a question is looking for from you, this is the same reason a lot of you hate English. Most people went in expecting one out of three possible questions. To me that seems quite ignorant considering nowhere in the syllabus does it state that the questions can only dervive from one of the dot points. Obviously the questions were unorthodox compared to previous years but it wasn't that difficult to realise that they were aiming at combing two or more of the dot points.

I studied Islam and Christianity and can only comment on those two. As far as i am aware the questions did follow the syllabus. You seem to all complaining over the fact that it didn't follow the syllabus when it clearly did. The question in my opinion was far easier than in the last two years. They gave us the option of discussing ethics, personality and practice. That is a gift. The question could be manipulated in so many ways.

Personally, i think it just shows that it is safer to study around the syllabus dot points, than assume a certain type of question will appear from previous papers.

I found the exam utterly bullshit, never in my life have ive been taught that. Can i just point out, cremation is NOT part of bioethics? This is only because my class has a huge debate whether it is or not because the MACQ study guide said it was, but my teacher said it is not definately not part of the bioethics range. but i dunno. I did Buddhism for that sect.

Regardless if it is or not, you could still talk about euthanasia, IVF, surogacy and abortion and the way in which Christianity is a 'living tradition' through the actions of Christians and the Christian values in which they uphold through their treatment of these bio-ethical issues. And that is just one way of attacking the question.

 

[.N.]

This is what happens when you are too one dimensional and can't break down what a question is looking for from you, this is the same reason a lot of you hate English. Most people went in expecting one out of three possible questions. To me that seems quite ignorant considering nowhere in the syllabus does it state that the questions can only dervive from one of the dot points. Obviously the questions were unorthodox compared to previous years but it wasn't that difficult to realise that they were aiming at combing two or more of the dot points.

I studied Islam and Christianity and can only comment on those two. As far as i am aware the questions did follow the syllabus. You seem to all complaining over the fact that it didn't follow the syllabus when it clearly did. The question in my opinion was far easier than in the last two years. They gave us the option of discussing ethics, personality and practice. That is a gift. The question could be manipulated in so many ways.

Personally, i think it just shows that it is safer to study around the syllabus dot points, than assume a certain type of question will appear from previous papers.



Regardless if it is or not, you could still talk about euthanasia, IVF, surogacy and abortion and the way in which Christianity is a 'living tradition' through the actions of Christians and the Christian values in which they uphold through their treatment of these bio-ethical issues. And that is just one way of attacking the question.

You're correct in a way. However, the question was still not clear enough. Besides not everyone is great at english... so really that's unfair. As you're saying... you're meant to incorporate all three aspects of the religion to tackle the question.... well if you only speak about bioethics for example... thats still answering the question that Christianity is a living religion. I still disagree. The question was just all over the place. We got taught to memorise 3 essays for Christianity and that's what I did.... came in there... didn't know whether to incorpoarte all three or just discuss one. Really they need to be more precise in what they want.... this is religion not 4unit English.

 

[teagan101]

1. it is in the syllabus - the last dot point says to use all your knowledge of the things you have learnt to assess impact on lives of adherents and the religious tradition2. you did not have to explicitly explain teh quote or the people it referenced in it aka Mohammad you just had to use it as a stimulus so you would mention other important people 3. stop complaining it gets moderated you dont get your raw mark for the exam its moderated according to how everyone did so if everyone did bad you might still get a band 6 and get your 97 UAI but you wont if you stay on here and complain and not study for your other exams4. its your own fault if you let your nerves and stress screw you up for taht exam and the others because of one question

 

[ekoolish]

You're correct in a way. However, the question was still not clear enough. Besides not everyone is great at english... so really that's unfair. As you're saying... you're meant to incorporate all three aspects of the religion to tackle the question.... well if you only speak about bioethics for example... thats still answering the question that Christianity is a living religion. I still disagree. The question was just all over the place. We got taught to memorise 3 essays for Christianity and that's what I did.... came in there... didn't know whether to incorpoarte all three or just discuss one. Really they need to be more precise in what they want.... this is religion not 4unit English.

Yeah, well there is your problem right there. You memorized your essays. Did your teacher actually tell you to memorise them? If so go and slap them after you finish your final exam.

 

[echolalia89]

Just shut up. Stop fucking complaining about it, it's over.
And for the record I'm one of the people who loved the exam. I answered the Islam question, and if anyone else had have read it properly they wouldn't be complaining about it. It's your own fault you canned it if you didn't read it properly. Don't blame the Board Of Studies, everyone did the same exam and if you weren't wily enough to answer the questions they set then too bad.

 

[Giselle92]

Yes, i also don't think section 3 should be discounted... because what f some students spent l0onger on that section, and can get the marks, at the expense of others in the exam?I guess, as has been said, everything will sort itself out in marking...

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "what if other students spent longer on that section". From the time the exam officially starts, every student is given the same amount of time and furthermore, the advised times for each section are on the paper. If some people chose not to do it or chose to only write a line or two simply because they did not like the question, whilst others attempted it, then that is, unfortunately, bad luck. However in other cases, such as at my school, one supervisor said it was "probably a terrible error" and advised we write "a couple of lines". You can see how this differs from someone making a conscious decision not to spend time on it. In my opinion, that's where the problem really lies. Differing advise, inconsistent exam conditions (I heard one school waited two hours to commence after reading time due to distraught students, which is of course, nobodies fault), ambiguity of the question, etc etc Then there's the argument that, if they discount Section III, what about the people who spent the suggested 35 minutes on it whilst others ignored the section and therefore had more time to go over the other sections of their paper? You see what I mean? It's not a fantastic situation. And what's worse is The Board of Studies should at very least recognise the confusion that it caused instead of their obvious unsympathetic nature.

 

[Giselle92]

And furthermore, can we all just be a little more sympathetic to each other at the moment? Sure, this thing has polarised many students, from those who were distraught by it to those who really didn't care and had a go anyway, and we're all entitled to our opinions but I think it's important to recognise that different people reacted in different ways and if they feel the need complain, let em. Let's try not to rip each other's heads off about it.

You require your head to do the HSC...

 

[thismodernage]

It would be like asking a question about the "english language" in an english exam and then not telling anyone what texts to refer to.

 

[t0m91]

I chose Islam and I personally liked the question. I understand that alot of people are upset because they werent prepared for it and it was completely unexpected but I liked how it was quite a broad question and there were many ways in which it could've been answered. Also, why is everyone saying the questions were hard to understand, I don't know about the other questions but I thought the Islam question was pretty fucking straightforward.