Anger over AQA GCSE Higher Biology - any info?

An exam board can't be held to account for setting a question that isn't covered in a revision guide produced by a different publisher.

Schools are chasing exam success rate targets at the expense of a broader education.

If they're neglecting to teach stuff that's in the specification, then they aren't doing that very well.

Bolograph quoted from the revision guide above.

No, I quoted from the specification.

Anyone who's taking an exam who hasn't read the specification should be told: "read the specification". If there are bits you don't understand, that's a warning sign.

Word/TeaFairy, that also supports my experience with boy/girl reactions to GCSE exams.

I don't think it's because boys take it less seriously, more that they are less outwardly emotional about it. Well that's how it is in our house!

DS sat it yesterday as part of his Double Science (he is doing B1, C1, P1 this year)

He thought the questions were a bit weird compared to all the past papers he had done and felt that he hadn't done as well as he had hoped to. He thought C1 today was OK, I think.

I think what is obvious from this, last years Maths GCSE and some of the AS level exams this year, is that there is a definite push to try to make the exams more focused on how the theory is applied in real life.

Hopefully schools/revision guide producers will start to reflect this sea-change ASAP!

TheTeaFairy that supports my experience with boy/girl reaction to this.

Caveat - my DS is doing Double Science so didn't sit this paper, BUT...

From the teenagers I know who have done it, the girls are all distraught and worried they won't get the grades they need for A level (even though this is only one of three biology papers); the boys are all a bit bemused and thought it was a bit weird. Which supports the argument that girls take it all more seriously.

However, having heard the arguments and seen the email AQA sent to schools, I can't help thinking that the questions were pretty reasonable if you expect kids to be able to think laterally and apply knowledge rather than just regurgitate facts.

Perhaps that's the fault of teachers or the system as a whole that puts so much emphasis on cramming and learning by rote?

How many 15/16 year olds actually read the exam spec on the AQA website? All of them, I'd hope. They get given copies, it will be shown to them again and again over the year.

But yes, the system is wrong. Government, schools and parents are all complicit in the 'pass the exam and move on' game.

It is so entrenched that now students pay for degrees they are demanding the same from lecturers... something needs to change. Sadly the changes in the pipeline will not make anything better.

Nickname - An adult might appreciate the broader learning base for the sake of it, but a stressed student isn't usually able to see beyond what is happening over the next few weeks.

That is my point - our whole system is wrong if it teaches kids there is only value in it if it is in the exam, and not in the actual knowledge itself. The exam should just be a confirmation that you have a decent body of knowledge, not an end in itself.

Bolograph quoted from the revision guide above.
How many points did this controversial question count for, anyway?

""Evidence must be scrutinised for any potential bias of the experimenter, such as funding sources or allegiances.""

How many 15/16 year olds actually read the exam spec on the AQA website? I was referring to the CGP revision guides.

"Sad to see that the student in question sees no intrinsic value in knowing about those things - they are only valuable if they are in the exam"

We are talking about 15/16 year olds here who have spent the last 5 years being told that they must pass their GCSEs. Everything is targeted towards this.

An adult might appreciate the broader learning base for the sake of it, but a stressed student isn't usually able to see beyond what is happening over the next few weeks.

I blame the system. Schools are chasing exam success rate targets at the expense of a broader education.

it does seem to be an increasing mindset over the years. If it isn't on the exam then it is not worth the effort of knowing it.

I think exams should be far more general - not specific snippets of knowledge but demonstration of wider understanding and ability to do joined up thinking about something.

Much harder to mark though - so unlikely to ever happen.

I'm sick of university students saying "will this be on the exam", as if we can do a fifty contact hour course, with at least fifty hours of other work, and pack all of it into a 2 hour exam.

One student was furious that she’d ‘wasted the last two years learning the carbon cycle, IVF and hormones for no reason.’ - from the original link.

Sad to see that the student in question sees no intrinsic value in knowing about those things - they are only valuable if they are in the exam. :(

dd was amused/bemused but thought the outrage was overdone - so long as you kept your cool about answering the questions..
This is exactly what DD said. In relation to the definition of 'Independent' company, she had absolutely no idea, but assumed that as it was to do with drug testing, it was related to an mean to avoid bias so wrote her answer to that effect.

I do think that it is good that they are challenging kids wanting to study science at a higher level (mostly the case for those taking triple science) to be able to apply their learning rather than just recite it as ultimately, that's what science is all about. It was just more difficult for kids who don't cope as well with the unexpected/change as much as others.

My DS who has not done a stroke of revision said the exam was easy - I am praying that native intelligence wins out

Also - Ben Goldacre. He gets a platform to bang on about this stuff every week, right? I mean - this was supposed to be explicitly taught and apparently it was covered in at least one of the many revision videos DS watched (I dunno about the CGP book, DS does have it but I suspect he's never even opened it, he finds it easier to remember stuff from videos since then he doesn't have the extra issue of putting effort in just to make the damn words stop jumping round - so he gets more done by watching and listening then by gritting his teeth and ploughing through the printed word) but even if it hadn't been, it's pretty basic general knowledge in the sort of 'science space', right?

Bolograph thank you. Since the other posters DC obviously didn't remember this point I don't see how they can say categorically it wasn't taught. Since my DS did remember, I can say it was taught. No way would my DS have imagined that. Though heaven knows there's enough in the news on almost a daily basis about medical ethics around testing and research that you'd think anyone would know (Wakefield has been back in the news again recently, for example).

If it helps the other poster to feel less bitter, I highly doubt DS managed to convey on paper that he knew what they were getting at since his dyslexia and othe SpLDs mean that he finds it almost impossible to articulate his thoughts adequately in writing. If it had been an oral exam he'd have been fine. Writing sentences? That make sense? Not so much. :(

DD had mention of bias in scientific reporting as part of her geography GCSE. Biology links to medicine & medicine is obsessed with hunting for bias in medical reports.

It was never taught at DD's school, and there is nothing in the CGP guide about independent companies testing drugs.

Page 7 of the AQA specification, "GCSE Biology for certification June 2014 onwards (version 1.1)"

"Evidence must be scrutinised for any potential bias of the experimenter, such as funding sources or allegiances."

Questions on exam papers, particularly those aimed at distinguishing the higher grades, won't just be recall of facts.

It's part of the how science works unit.

"The independent company thing was definitely on syllabus and taught. I think it was in revision guides too."

It was never taught at DD's school, and there is nothing in the CGP guide about independent companies testing drugs.

However, DD made an educated guess and gave the right answer.

a can of coke with booze). I'm thinking AQA are stuck in the 90s.

Well there was an 'alcola'. Like literally like.

Mosquitos are of course very erm.. buzzy because they've already engineered some real ones with 'gene drives' using CRISPR.

Not sure where gender came from! Weird autocorrect!

DS2 sat the paper. He said that he'd told all his friends that gender thought it was unlikely that the menstrual cycle would be in the paper because it had been on the last 3 practice papers and that they should revise drugs and alcohol instead because there hadn't been any questions on that. He's now being very smug....