[English] Meet the Assessors

[Douglas Mcclenaghan]

Good points Gail. I assessed English papers for the first time this  
year and found the look Both Ways question did in fact work well. It  
was one of the few topics that I marked where I read a good spread of  
work - and the best essays were very very good. The other topic which  
worked well was the one on Lake in the Woods which also focused on how  
our reading of the text is shaped by its structure. I envied the  
teachers who'd taught these texts because the topics were both  
manageable and offered real possibilities for exploration by good  
students. Other topics produced reams of Lego essays that were dull  
and superficial. My beef with the exam is this appalling inequality of  
the text topics - some were quite dismally boring. The woman who spoke  
at the assessors' meeting about setting the exam needs a reality check  
- the comparability among the text topics is dreadful and becomes a  
lottery for kids.

Douglas McClenaghan



On 18/02/2009, at 12:17 PM, Reynolds, Gail G wrote:

> I wasn't at the meet the assessor's meeting but I would like to put  
> my two cent's worth into this discussion.
>
> First, it seems to me that the discussion is centred around some  
> specifics which do not form key strategies in the marking of the  
> actual paper, but which have been highlighted out of proportion with  
> their importance.  Yes, there were a number of students who did not  
> understand the donkey reference, but in the scheme of things this  
> did not impact disasterously on their overall marks.  The mantra for  
> the marking is "reward what is there, do not penalise what is not"   
> Students will have gained fewer marks for ignoring the cartoon  
> completely, but those who made a sincere attempt were rewarded for  
> what they did do, regardless of their degree of recognition of the  
> donkey. I thought the students generally handled this graphic well  
> and most were able to make meaningful connections with a range of  
> aspects of the visual.
>
> Secondly from my observation, students handled that Look Both Ways  
> question well, without showing signs of asking the questions which  
> have been raised in this discussion. (Surely the important thing is  
> the questions the students ask?)  The question actually directed  
> students' thoughts toward the obvious connection between the cartoon  
> representations and Meryl's thoughts and also the connections  
> between Nick's flashbacks and his experiences and the question  
> appears to have empowered the students to focus on the film  
> techniques and the way they added to our understanding. I would  
> further add that the Assessors are able to make the connections to  
> the question without the cumbersome "and so the visual imagery is  
> very helpful in communicating her state of mind" being a useful  
> inclusion -- in fact only the plodding students would find this kind  
> of statement necessary.
>
> We are lucky in English as each paper is, at a minimum, double  
> marked with a question possibly marked up to 5 times to avoid  
> mishaps.  Discrepancy is low.  There are lots of things to dislike  
> about the process (the statistical fiddling for example) but this  
> angst is not something I would be sharing at this point.
>
> Gail R
>
> From: english-bounces at edulists.com.au on behalf of Malcolm Martin
> Sent: Wed 18/02/2009 10:25 AM
> To: english at edulists.com.au
> Subject: Re: [English] Meet the Assessors
>
> Hello Peter,
>
> Thank you for sharing your observations.  I agree that the exam was
> being vigorously defended and the reason for this was because it was
> rather flawed.
>
> My concern was the attitude taken towards the 'brilliant' Section
> Three.  The Chief Examiner opened by poking fun at students who did  
> not
> recognise the cartoon animal - implying that they were stupid.  I
> remember clearly thinking on the day of the exam that there was a
> culturally specific set of iconography operating that many students
> would miss - the Chief Examiner's observation would seem to bear this
> out.  If a student thinks it is warthog then the implication from the
> Chief Examiner is that they are badly taught.  I would suggest that  
> the
> scale of 'misreading' of the image shows that the stimulus material  
> was
> flawed.
>
> I (along with many others) also thought that the Context Questions  
> were
> unbalanced and were clealry more suitable to some texts than others.
> The presentation from Bob Hillman was worrying from the point of view
> that he was keen to identify what characterised a bad response but
> failed to articulate what characterised a good response except in the
> vaguest terms.  In a way he failed to heed his own advice and work  
> with
> the prompt to explore broad concepts and instead was lost in working  
> at
> a broadly conceptual level.
>
> I hope you have a good year and I appreciate your willingness to share
> your thoughts.
>
> Regards,
>
> Malcolm Martin
>
>
> Head of Senior English
> Wesley College
> 620 High Street Road
> Glen Waverley VIC 3150
> Ph: (03) 8102 6605
>
> Email: Malcolm.Martin at wesleycollege.net
>
>
> >>> PeterPidduck at caulfieldgs.vic.edu.au 17/02/2009 3:47:15 pm >>>
> Dear All
> I am glad we have the opportunity to get feedback from the assessors
> in
> English, especially as they often raise as many questions as they
> answer, which is healthy for the profession. I am particularly curious
> about what people made of the advice given by the Meet the Assessor
> panel last Thursday for VCE English with regard to some of the text
> questions asked by VCAA. When dealing with student responses to the
> question 'Does the film-maker's use of visual imagery and setting help
> or hinder the viewer's understanding of the concerns of the
> characters?', we were told repeatedly how excellent the question was
> for
> its ability to differentiate between students (actually, I think the
> more telling phrase 'discriminate between students' was used), but
> surely, even if there seemed to be a categorical determination to
> assert
> the excellence of the exam, people are right to feel that this
> question
> uncovers many problems with the expectation of the new course. We were
> lectured about the need for students to link the author's language
> choices to interpretation as though this was a new rationale for
> English, but I don't believe that this is the main thrust of the
> criticism to a question like this (the repeated defence of the
> question
> at least implies that there was criticism).
>
> To ask whether the form helps or hinders with the content is very
> difficult, because it assumes problematically that the form can exist
> independent of the content (thus the very understanding that
> apparently
> underpins the question is contradicted in the question). The sample
> response flashed all too briefly on the PowerPoint (it seemed from my
> too brief perusal) clearly examined the director's use of imagery and
> linked it to a defined understanding of the characters' concerns, but
> when looking at whether it helped or hindered, it had to be rather
> superficial because what can you say? For example, if a student were
> to
> write something like: 'By using animation to depict Meryl's anxiety
> about death, we get an insight into the way she visualises the world
> through her Art whilst emphasising the worries are taking place inside
> her head, detached from the external world, and so the visual imagery
> is
> very helpful in communicating her state of mind' , surely the last
> clause answers the question, but to what end? The meat is in linking
> the
> visual imagery to the character's concerns, not in evaluating whether
> they help or hinder, although a student would be marked down if he/she
> didn't make some sort of comment in this direction. And as such, any
> student who had looked at the link between what was in the film with
> why
> it was there could answer the question, if indeed they were not so
> confused by what they had to do with the question in the first place.
> And widespread confusion there was (at least, that seems to be many of
> the whispers I have heard in relation to many of the same styled
> questions). In a situation of widespread confusion, the fault either
> lies with a) the student, b) the teacher, c) the exam setter, and
> where
> I might be wrong to assume c), I felt the speaker at the VCAA Meet the
> Assessors strongly, and erroneously, implied a).
>
> My main point is that where it is desirable to have students forge
> their
> interpretations from an awareness of the language choices an author
> has
> made, asking questions in this way has the effect of closing down such
> an enquiry; indeed, as I formerly suggested, it treats form as though
> itr can be considered independently of the interpretation of content.
> And regardless whether or not I will find agreement with my
> observations, I am a little concerned that any honest criticism of the
> exam or exam marking process is construed as griping that is to be met
> with a blanket statement of the paper's excellence (I seem to remember
> the term 'brilliant' - or a similarly inflated superlative - being
> used
> to refer to the writing of section 3. There are a lot of words to
> describe this composition, but 'brilliant' - I'd need more convincing.
> Why did the examination need such active talking-up?).
>
> What do other people think?
>
> Regards
> Peter
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://www.edulists.com.au - FAQ, resources, subscribe, unsubscribe
> VCE English Teachers' Mailing List kindly supported by
> http://www.vate.org.au - Victorian Association for the Teaching of
> English VATE and
> http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/vce/studies/english/index.html - Victorian
> Curriculum and Assessment Authority
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>
> Sapere Aude - Dare To Be Wise
>
> Wesley College Melbourne is a world class coeducational independent  
> school
> developing the whole person through timeless principles of learning:
> - to know
> - to do
> - to live with
> - to be
> with innovation and wisdom
>
> ABN 38 994 068 473  CRICOS 00354G
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>
> This email is intended only for the use of the individual or entity  
> named
> above and may contain information that is confidential and  
> privileged. If
> you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
> dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is strictly  
> prohibited.
> If you have received this email in error, please email a reply to  
> Wesley
> College and destroy the original message.
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://www.edulists.com.au - FAQ, resources, subscribe, unsubscribe
> VCE English Teachers' Mailing List kindly supported by
> http://www.vate.org.au - Victorian Association for the Teaching of  
> English VATE and
> http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/vce/studies/english/index.html -  
> Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority
>


Important - This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening or using attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any loss, damage or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files our liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any representations or opinions expressed are those of the individual sender, and not necessarily those of the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.edulists.com.au/pipermail/english/attachments/20090218/def650a1/attachment-0001.html