Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So this years A-Level results have been released (it's a series of exams sat at 18 years old for those non-UK Dakkites) and as expected, they show yet another rise in pass rates and percentage of A grades attained:

The Guardian wrote:A-level pass rates today rose to another record high of 97.6% while an unprecedented 27% of entries achieved an A, in results which will sharpen the intense battle for places at university this year.
Just over 8% of the entries were awarded the A* grade, which was introduced this year and is meant to help the most competitive universities select the best candidates.

So without wishing to denigrate the hard work of this years examinees, what say you Dakka? Does the increasing homogenisation of grades and pass marks mean that there is less of a distinction between a 'good' and a 'bad' student? Are exams easier? How are future employees / universities supposed to pick on merit if everyone is deemed to pass? Surely the whole purpose of an exam is to separate the degrees of excellence and show who is better than others? Isn't our society supposed to be a meritocracy? Discuss!

Funny how when exam grades rise, it's because they got easier, and when they drop, it's blamed on the Teachers.

Could it possibly be that in the Digital Age, it is far easier to do research etc for your course, thus leading to a greater opportunity to learn, resulting in better grades across the board?

I know if I'd had a PC when at school (we got ours after I left school aged 18) my grades would almost certainly have been better.

I strongly believe they are not getting easier. I believe it to be as difficult work-wise as it's always been, however it appears as though the resources, teaching and arguably intelligence has improved.

Also, these days its often a case of 'survival of the fittest', whereby in order to maintain a high standard/ average/ pay-check/ appearance poor performing students are dropped, preventing a blemish on their records.

I also agree, they are not getting easier. I think Dave hit the nail on the head there, alot of money has been pumped into the Education of this country and is obviously showing.

I found A-levels to be much more difficult than university. Once you are at uni things get a lot more focused on one general topic so it is a lot easier to manage. Cant imagine them getting easier every year to be honest, and they say the same thing every time there are record results.

Hey, both of my Physics groups did badly, so I am thinking the exams must have been harder this year!!

Mr Mystery wrote:Funny how when exam grades rise, it's because they got easier, and when they drop, it's blamed on the Teachers.

Could it possibly be that in the Digital Age, it is far easier to do research etc for your course, thus leading to a greater opportunity to learn, resulting in better grades across the board?

I know if I'd had a PC when at school (we got ours after I left school aged 18) my grades would almost certainly have been better.

I agree with the skewed view of what causes and cures poor gradework. This could well just be a result of all that hard work.

Grades have nothing to do with how smart/capable someone is. They're an abstraction just like rolling dice to see if a space elf can shoot a ninja star into super space man.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Grades have nothing to do with how smart/capable someone is. They're an abstraction just like rolling dice to see if a space elf can shoot a ninja star into super space man.

Although Unbearable, Cannerus speaks truth.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Grades have nothing to do with how smart/capable someone is. They're an abstraction just like rolling dice to see if a space elf can shoot a ninja star into super space man.

They're an abstraction thats meant to be representative of required learning. Intelligence isn't something that can really be measured, but knowledge certainly can be. Schooling is designed to make children knowledgeable in fields commonly considered important.

I don't think it's an entirely accurate representation admittedly, my results (exams = ) are tbh typically worse than my knowledge (it appears) but they're the best for the job it seems, but yes it's a bit more accurate than a dice roll IMHO.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Grades have nothing to do with how smart/capable someone is. They're an abstraction just like rolling dice to see if a space elf can shoot a ninja star into super space man.

They're an abstraction thats meant to be representative of required learning. Intelligence isn't something that can really be measured, but knowledge certainly can be. Schooling is designed to make children knowledgeable in fields commonly considered important.

Explain liberal arts...

I think it can be measured more accurately. You can study for a 10 question test and memorize nearly an entire chapter of a book, then find the ten questions are over those 10 things you did not study and someone who studied only those 10 things would look really smart in comparison. Hyperbole I know, but I'm trying to make a point. I always said if I became a teacher/professor my students would have the option of taking tests or writing down everything they've learned from that segment that they could fit within an hour (or however long the testing period is) and get graded on completeness with a degree of subjectivity thrown in like any paper. It just seems a more real measure, if not time consuming to grade.

In my opinion you would have to be fething stupid yourself to believe that an exam board can make exams easier by 0.something of a percent each year for god knows how many years running.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Grades have nothing to do with how smart/capable someone is. They're an abstraction just like rolling dice to see if a space elf can shoot a ninja star into super space man.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Grades have nothing to do with how smart/capable someone is. They're an abstraction just like rolling dice to see if a space elf can shoot a ninja star into super space man.

They're an abstraction thats meant to be representative of required learning. Intelligence isn't something that can really be measured, but knowledge certainly can be. Schooling is designed to make children knowledgeable in fields commonly considered important.

Explain liberal arts...

Thats college. Students select their areas of study in college. This topic is about a standardized highschool prelim exam designed to test for the knowledge ascertained in highschool. Honestly, college teaches business as a major. Thats about the biggest nothing you can ever try to teach.

Just Dave wrote:I strongly believe they are not getting easier. I believe it to be as difficult work-wise as it's always been, however it appears as though the resources, teaching and arguably intelligence has improved.

Also, these days its often a case of 'survival of the fittest', whereby in order to maintain a high standard/ average/ pay-check/ appearance poor performing students are dropped, preventing a blemish on their records.

nail on the head comes to mind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I think it can be measured more accurately. You can study for a 10 question test and memorize nearly an entire chapter of a book, then find the ten questions are over those 10 things you did not study and someone who studied only those 10 things would look really smart in comparison. Hyperbole I know, but I'm trying to make a point. I always said if I became a teacher/professor my students would have the option of taking tests or writing down everything they've learned from that segment that they could fit within an hour (or however long the testing period is) and get graded on completeness with a degree of subjectivity thrown in like any paper. It just seems a more real measure, if not time consuming to grade.

BTECs are essentially what you put for the 2nd half here. Don't know if they exist in america.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Grades have nothing to do with how smart/capable someone is. They're an abstraction just like rolling dice to see if a space elf can shoot a ninja star into super space man.

They're an abstraction thats meant to be representative of required learning. Intelligence isn't something that can really be measured, but knowledge certainly can be. Schooling is designed to make children knowledgeable in fields commonly considered important.

Explain liberal arts...

Thats college. Students select their areas of study in college. This topic is about a standardized highschool prelim exam designed to test for the knowledge ascertained in highschool. Honestly, college teaches business as a major. Thats about the biggest nothing you can ever try to teach.

You said schooling. You statement lacked precision.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Grades have nothing to do with how smart/capable someone is. They're an abstraction just like rolling dice to see if a space elf can shoot a ninja star into super space man.

They're an abstraction thats meant to be representative of required learning. Intelligence isn't something that can really be measured, but knowledge certainly can be. Schooling is designed to make children knowledgeable in fields commonly considered important.

Explain liberal arts...

Thats college. Students select their areas of study in college. This topic is about a standardized highschool prelim exam designed to test for the knowledge ascertained in highschool. Honestly, college teaches business as a major. Thats about the biggest nothing you can ever try to teach.

You said schooling. You statement lacked precision.

The statement had a pretty obvious context, being in a thread about highschool placement exams and all.

I feel for this poor lad

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11023939

Gets mega grades and cannot get a spot in the Uni of his choice.

Says himself he didn't write the best personal statement and I suppose, with record results over the last few years, Unis have very little to choose between students.

Academics are not everything.

http://sexyalevels.tumblr.com/

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Grades have nothing to do with how smart/capable someone is. They're an abstraction just like rolling dice to see if a space elf can shoot a ninja star into super space man.

They're an abstraction thats meant to be representative of required learning. Intelligence isn't something that can really be measured, but knowledge certainly can be. Schooling is designed to make children knowledgeable in fields commonly considered important.

Explain liberal arts...

Thats college. Students select their areas of study in college. This topic is about a standardized highschool prelim exam designed to test for the knowledge ascertained in highschool. Honestly, college teaches business as a major. Thats about the biggest nothing you can ever try to teach.

You said schooling. You statement lacked precision.

The statement had a pretty obvious context, being in a thread about highschool placement exams and all.

Only in your head.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Grades have nothing to do with how smart/capable someone is. They're an abstraction just like rolling dice to see if a space elf can shoot a ninja star into super space man.

They're an abstraction thats meant to be representative of required learning. Intelligence isn't something that can really be measured, but knowledge certainly can be. Schooling is designed to make children knowledgeable in fields commonly considered important.

Explain liberal arts...

Thats college. Students select their areas of study in college. This topic is about a standardized highschool prelim exam designed to test for the knowledge ascertained in highschool. Honestly, college teaches business as a major. Thats about the biggest nothing you can ever try to teach.

You said schooling. You statement lacked precision.

The statement had a pretty obvious context, being in a thread about highschool placement exams and all.

Only in your head.

I just made it a quote sandwich!

Actually Shuma, the intended purpose of modern schooling, at least in Europe, is not to impart knowledge, but to ensure that pupils acquire skills necessary to acquire knowledge and further skills for themselves. If a subject is properly assessed, whether that be by examination of other alternatives, it will test not how much they have learned, but also how much they can learn, and how much they can do.

There is a hierarchy in education (as well as many less famous ones) called Bloom's taxonomy that ties in loosely with the following ideas:

Recall (reciting facts more or less verbatim, or reciting times tables, the alphabet, etc...)
Knowledge (describing something - a chain of events, an object, a process)
Understanding (explaining why that chain of events is necessary, inevitable, explaining why the object has that feature, etc...
Application (applying the knowledge and understanding learnt in one place to explain something else)
Synthesis (taking several ideas and putting them together in a new way to explain something not previously encountered)
Evaluataion (self-reflection - looking at what has been achieved and analysing whether it could have been done better, to improve things next time)

Actually Shuma, the intended purpose of modern schooling, at least in Europe, is not to impart knowledge, but to ensure that pupils acquire skills necessary to acquire knowledge and further skills for themselves.

So in european classes students are taught how to learn, and not taught things like math and geography? Fascinating.

If a subject is properly assessed, whether that be by examination of other alternatives, it will test not how much they have learned, but also how much they can learn, and how much they can do.

Somehow I don't think that comes across well in the multiple choice and one essay, but it's a nice theory (just as it is here).

I somehow thought you'd take that stance.

You might not want to argue the practicalities of classroom teaching with a practising teacher. Especially one who, despite disppointments at A-Level this year, has an excellent track record as a teacher and beyond excellent results this year as a GCSE teacher. On top of that, someone who was Head of Learning last year for a year group that graduated with his school's BEST EVER results.

Fifty wrote:I somehow thought you'd take that stance.

You might not want to argue the practicalities of classroom teaching with a practising teacher. Especially one who, despite disppointments at A-Level this year, has an excellent track record as a teacher and beyond excellent results this year as a GCSE teacher. On top of that, someone who was Head of Learning last year for a year group that graduated with his school's BEST EVER results.

So how do you teach the skills required to learn how to perform mathematics without teaching mathematics? How do you teach the skills required to learn geography without teaching geography? I took the stance because what you said doesn't line up to reality. Perhaps you should explain yourself with practicalities rather then theorem next time.

Fifty wrote:I somehow thought you'd take that stance.

You might not want to argue the practicalities of classroom teaching with a practising teacher. Especially one who, despite disppointments at A-Level this year, has an excellent track record as a teacher and beyond excellent results this year as a GCSE teacher. On top of that, someone who was Head of Learning last year for a year group that graduated with his school's BEST EVER results.

Head of Learning? if you had that and James Earl Jones' voice you'd be like wow.

"Yes I AM Head of Learning, fear mymighty wrath muaahahahaa!"

For someone who loves semantic arguments, Shuma, you are not having a good thread.

I never said that schools do not teach knowledge, nor that pupils do not acquire knowledge; I said that it imparting knowledge is not a school's intended purpose. The acquisition of knowledge is both the by-product of acquiring skills, and one of the intended final uses of those skills.

Look closely at the hierarchy I posted there. It starts with very low-level tasks of recall and "knowing". Recalling a list of dates, or the names of capital cities (Recall/Knowledge) is not as useful as the skills of using of libraries and the internet to look dates and places up. This is still not as useful as being able to explain why a particular city is situated where it is (understanding). This is STILL not as useful as being able to use what you know about why Paris, London and Berlin are situated where they are to explain why Madrid is where it is (application and synthesis). But of course, you start your sequence of lessons by making sure that your young pupils can identify some cities, and pick out capitals from that list. Next, with the same class or when they are a bit older, you might check they understand what a capital city is, not just simplistic definitions, but what it really means to be a capital city, or to live and work in one. Once you have done that, you'll start to look in depth at what capital cities have in common, and then maybe use that to decide what makes a "good" capital city. I am not a geography teacher, and have never taught the subject, but I know enough to know that is how it works. At the end of a subject you want pupils with skills to analyse populations, movement of those populations, make economic and environmental predictions. These are skills, and they require you to use knowledge, but knowledge alone is not enough.

Similarly, nor is knowing a bunch of boiling points as useful as having the skills need to design an experiment to find a substances boiling point, nor the use of chemical tables and the like to estimate boiling points.

This year, I explicitly taught my maths pupils how to work with improper fractions. I also explicitly taught them how to work with mixed numbers. (I would still argue they have learnt skills, not knowledge, but I'm willing to concede that it is a grey area of terminology outside of education circles). However, when I give them questions that can only be solved using their knowledge of both improper fractions and mixed fraction, I have never taught them that. I expect them to take what I have taught them, and do something useful by combining those skills to do something no-one has ever taught them. Because they are used to me expecting them to use their own brains rather than being spoon fed a bunch of processes to memorise, they are both well-motivated to figure it out, and confident in their own ability to do so. They have the skills needed to improve their own maths skills without my input, and that is why my group ( group 6 out of 8 groups) beat group 4 and 5 in the last state exam we have results for. As I have now taught many of those pupils both science and maths in their time at school, and I know that several of my colleagues (not as many as I would like) take a very similar approach, when they get to 6th form, they will use those skills to do the extra work that is essential when they reach that level.

I would go so far as to say that the reason my A-Level students did so badly is because I know who taught them in previous years of school, and those teachers taught to the exam, rather than teaching the pupils how to actually think for themselves. It is an issue of control. It has taken me some time to relinquish it, but I have come to realise that I am better off giving my students skills and letting them get the knowledge for themselves, rather that trying to cram more knowledge into their heads than I can possibly achieve in the lesson time available to me.

Oh, and Frazzled, I think it is a ridiculous job title too! I am also Head of Physics, but that doesn't carry the extra 12 grand a year that Head of Learning for Year 9,10 or 11 does!

Sorry I just foresee a Thulsa Doom striding the Hallway belching lightnight and shooting flames out his ass bellowing "Move aside scum! no one gets between the Head of Learning and his prey!!!!"

So awesome.

To be fair, I am considered quite scary by most of the kids, and I am not a small man...

I wouldn't quite compare myself to Thulsa Doom, but I reckon I could pass for one of his henchmen if I put on a ludicrous 70s wig.

Excellent. Remember tomorrow to grab one by the colllar and shout at them Marine Corps DI style "WHAT IS THE RIDDLE OF STEEL BOYYY!!!!"

Can you tell its my Friday?...