- #36
pbuk
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
- 4,703
- 2,970
Oops sorry, I meant to provide a link https://www.ocr.org.uk/Images/273311-command-verbs-definitions.pdf - but now I look again I see this is for OCR 'Cambridge Technicals' not A-levels so there may be some differences. There will be an equivalent somewhere on the OCR site - you will get access to more materials if you register as a teacher, and even more if you pay for the teachers' pack.ChrisXenon said:I did not know there were board definitions for action verbs or any other part of Enligh language. I will need to obtain them an use them in my teaching, and I will have to be on my guard for defficiencies like this in the future.
Fee-paying schools in the UK are usually very good at this aspect of getting students through exams, but almost all schools are having difficulty with recruitment for Physics in particular - this is and has been an increasing problem over the past decade.ChrisXenon said:HOWEVER I agree that this is a DREADFUL way to conduct education. My student clearly did not and does not have any knowledge of these special verb usages, and so I imagine, neither do his teachers. Whatever the intended outcome, the actual outcome is shambolic in a way which could fail him. My student, by the way, is attending a very expensive public school (which in the UK means one you pay to go to, outside of taxes).
I have to disagree with you there, I think that defining terms clearly enables the examiner to communicate what is required more effectively than would otherwise be the case. They are not out to trick you, and if they present you with a graph and and ask you to justify an answer then it is clear that they want you to justify your answer by reference to the graph.ChrisXenon said:Any system which finds the need to redefine the English language is, in my view, idiotic. What is wrong with using the existing language effectively? Why not say "justify by reference to the graph"? I can confidently say that there is a hell of a lot wrong with saying "Justify*" and then - in some place no student will ever see, have this:
* Note: Any and all words may not have their normal meaning. The OCR board reserve the right to re-define English to the utter bewilderment of humanity. No responsibility accepted. Your mileage may vary. My dad's a policeman.
I see for 1(c)(i)2 either 'constant deceleration' or 'constant negative acceleration' is allowed so that is not at issue. However I agree that for 1(c)(i)1 'The object is accelerating at a constant rate' should be an acceptable answer, and the mark scheme implies that it is not. In situations like this, further insight can often be gained from the examiner's report (remembered to link it this time!). Here he says "The correct way to have used rate to score the mark would be to write 'increasing rate of change of velocity', which a few candidates did." Further insight into the examiner's point of view is in the comment to the first part of this question: "A noticeable incorrect answer was 'the rate of change of velocity per unit time';candidates need to be aware that in dynamics the term 'rate' includes per unit time." This examiner clearly has a bee in their bonnet about the use of the word 'rate', and like you I think he is taking it too far. However now you know this you know that you need to be careful when talking about rates in OCR A level Physics exams (assuming this situation persists - check more recent exams).ChrisXenon said:
As someone mentioned further up the thread, top schools and crammers finish teaching the syllabus by the end of the autumn term (assuming a 2 year cycle - AS's are a very unwelcome distraction). The rest of the time before the exams is spent making sure through practice that students know how to read questions to find out what the examiner wants, and know how to turn their knowledge into an answer that gives it to him.
Because (i) there is a graph in front of you which you are expected to use and (ii) semiconductor physics is not part of the syllabus.ChrisXenon said:I still don't se ehow it can't mean "present a reasoned case in terms of semiconductor physics".