- Joined
- Feb 16, 2005
- Messages
- 8,403
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2006
My school's English faculty always seem to make up their own wild marking criteria for exams. For the trials (CSSA), I compared the criteria that they used to the criteria used in the HSC. I found that they were quite different. Firstly, they differ by the actual criteria itself and secondly they do not take the response as a whole but rather break it into components and give parts of marks for each component. For example for AOS Trials Section II/III their marking criteria was:
Section II:
- demonstrates an insightful understanding of the concept of the journey (__/4)
- exhibits a highly developed ability to use stylistic devices with precision, as per form, purpose and audience (__/4)
- demonstrates sophisticated ability to draw upon the imagination, to transform ideas into text with originality and flair (__/4)
- demonstrates sophisticated control of language (__/4)
- responds to stimulus, utilising it as an integrated element throughout the response (__/4)
Section III: (NB: we use Skrzynecki poems as prescribed text)
- Synthesises ideas to develop a critical thesis (__/5)
- Set text 1 - demonstrates understanding of the concept of Physical journey in the text and examines techniques which relate back to central thesis (__/5)
- Set text 2 - demonstrates understanding of the concept of Physical journey in the text and examines techniques which relate back to central thesis (__/5)
- BOS text - demonstrates understanding of the concept of Physical journey in the text and examines techniques which relate back to central thesis (__/5)
- Own text 1 - demonstrates understanding of the concept of Physical journey in the text and examines techniques which relate back to central thesis (__/5)
- Uses language appropriate for audience, context and form of response (__/5)
I find the criteria for section III particularly mean because no extra credit is given if someone uses more than one related text or uses more than two Skrzynecki poems. I also don't like the extra emphasis on structural elements of the response (particularly for section II). I also find it absurd that the idea of "assumptions" (which was a key word in the question) was not mentioned in this criteria (where it only focused on 'concept'), hence the rote learners could easily score well with this criteria. I know for a fact that part of the HSC marking criteria is built around the key words of the question.
I reckon that a response that scores well by focusing on the elements mentioned in the above criteria would not score as well in the HSC, whereas a response that excludes some of those mentioned in the above criteria (thus scoring lower according to that) but focuses on other elements (notably those mentioned in the HSC criteria) would score better in the HSC exam. I personally think that different marks (and different distributions of marks/ranks) would arise if the HSC marking criteria was applied.
Anyway those are my views, but I would like to see your views...
My question is, for the same response to the same question, (i.e. only difference is marking criteria) would the same mark/rank result when applying the HSC marking criteria compared to the school's marking criteria, or would a different mark be awarded? (NB: this applies to both AOS and modules)
Section II:
- demonstrates an insightful understanding of the concept of the journey (__/4)
- exhibits a highly developed ability to use stylistic devices with precision, as per form, purpose and audience (__/4)
- demonstrates sophisticated ability to draw upon the imagination, to transform ideas into text with originality and flair (__/4)
- demonstrates sophisticated control of language (__/4)
- responds to stimulus, utilising it as an integrated element throughout the response (__/4)
Section III: (NB: we use Skrzynecki poems as prescribed text)
- Synthesises ideas to develop a critical thesis (__/5)
- Set text 1 - demonstrates understanding of the concept of Physical journey in the text and examines techniques which relate back to central thesis (__/5)
- Set text 2 - demonstrates understanding of the concept of Physical journey in the text and examines techniques which relate back to central thesis (__/5)
- BOS text - demonstrates understanding of the concept of Physical journey in the text and examines techniques which relate back to central thesis (__/5)
- Own text 1 - demonstrates understanding of the concept of Physical journey in the text and examines techniques which relate back to central thesis (__/5)
- Uses language appropriate for audience, context and form of response (__/5)
I find the criteria for section III particularly mean because no extra credit is given if someone uses more than one related text or uses more than two Skrzynecki poems. I also don't like the extra emphasis on structural elements of the response (particularly for section II). I also find it absurd that the idea of "assumptions" (which was a key word in the question) was not mentioned in this criteria (where it only focused on 'concept'), hence the rote learners could easily score well with this criteria. I know for a fact that part of the HSC marking criteria is built around the key words of the question.
I reckon that a response that scores well by focusing on the elements mentioned in the above criteria would not score as well in the HSC, whereas a response that excludes some of those mentioned in the above criteria (thus scoring lower according to that) but focuses on other elements (notably those mentioned in the HSC criteria) would score better in the HSC exam. I personally think that different marks (and different distributions of marks/ranks) would arise if the HSC marking criteria was applied.
Anyway those are my views, but I would like to see your views...
My question is, for the same response to the same question, (i.e. only difference is marking criteria) would the same mark/rank result when applying the HSC marking criteria compared to the school's marking criteria, or would a different mark be awarded? (NB: this applies to both AOS and modules)