'Conciseness' and it's effect on extended responses (1 Viewer)

[d1zzyohs]

In my physics trial my teacher literally took like 15 marks off of me for 'not being concise'.
Yet, when I look at HSC marking guidelines, it's more like a checklist of considering enough points on the syllabus.
I enjoy writing out long elaborate answers for like 9 markers - will I be punished for using lots of extra paper?
Seems idiotic to me that students could be punished for wanting to extend their extended responses...

 

[MJRey]

Yeah, I agree. Students should be getting marks for how well they answer the question, and depending on the question, sometimes you need more space to put down all the information that will get you the marks.

 

[carrotsss]

You shouldn’t be marketed down for it but you should aim to be more concise, I assume your teacher is just trying to help you become more concise

 

[wizzkids]

You definitely should not be marked down for taking more space to give your answer. However, in my experience, the longer the answer, the greater the chance that a student will write something that is contradictory. As soon as a marker sees contradiction, the marker is likely to believe that the student is just regurgitating as much of the syllabus as possible, using the "shotgun approach", whereby something is bound to hit the mark. Being concise is a skill, and it generally indicates that a student really understands the essence of the subject, and the essence of the question, and doesn't waste space (and time) on irrelevant facts.

 

[Masaken]

In my physics trial my teacher literally took like 15 marks off of me for 'not being concise'.
Yet, when I look at HSC marking guidelines, it's more like a checklist of considering enough points on the syllabus.
I enjoy writing out long elaborate answers for like 9 markers - will I be punished for using lots of extra paper?
Seems idiotic to me that students could be punished for wanting to extend their extended responses...

one of the chem teachers (i think he's also a physics teacher so it applies here too) had a talk with my class a while back (and the other classes) and said band 6 responses had to have both - answered everything on the marking criteria that was relevant to the syllabus (i think the band indicators on the nesa website also says smth along the lines of being succinct and concise), because having a brief response that simply answers what's needed > a really long one that answers what's needed but also has extra unnecessary stuff.

he also said something along the lines that (science) teachers marking the hsc don't want to spend more time than they have to on a page (they get paid per page iirc, so i remember he said something like the faster they get through qns, the more pages they're able to mark -> more money get paid -> so keeping it concise benefits them too so they don't waste time having to look through the jumble of words just for the small tidbits of info that get you the mark

 

[d1zzyohs]

one of the chem teachers (i think he's also a physics teacher so it applies here too) had a talk with my class a while back (and the other classes) and said band 6 responses had to have both - answered everything on the marking criteria that was relevant to the syllabus (i think the band indicators on the nesa website also says smth along the lines of being succinct and concise), because having a brief response that simply answers what's needed > a really long one that answers what's needed but also has extra unnecessary stuff.

he also said something along the lines that (science) teachers marking the hsc don't want to spend more time than they have to on a page (they get paid per page iirc, so i remember he said something like the faster they get through qns, the more pages they're able to mark -> more money get paid -> so keeping it concise benefits them too so they don't waste time having to look through the jumble of words just for the small tidbits of info that get you the mark

I believe that the pay for teachers marking was changed because of this mentality. I'm pretty sure it's hourly now, because teachers would just smash through papers without giving too much thought into the answers.
I could be wrong though?
That's a fair statement though.

 

[Masaken]

I believe that the pay for teachers marking was changed because of this mentality. I'm pretty sure it's hourly now, because teachers would just smash through papers without giving too much thought into the answers.
I could be wrong though?
That's a fair statement though.

i searched it up and nesa's website does pay per hour for 'corporate marking' (whatever that means) but 'external (oncscreen) markers' (also whatever that means) are paid per 3-hour paper (then it goes on to show pay rates for different qns of varying marks). so i think they do both (correct me if i'm wrong pls). it was recently changed though, only introduced when the new syllabi for the newer courses were published so i guess the mentality was a more prevalent thing that's still around

and if i recall correctly it's not just one marker, it's a group of markers that discuss how many marks should the answer be awarded, led by a senior marker, so smashing through the paper isn't an option anymore (or at least much less), and moreso the amount of time spent discussing the quality of the response