Different exams for boys and girls

[OrigamiYoda]

www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jun/18/boys-girls-different-gcse-course

What do you think ?

I agree Sammy. The graphics coursework my son has just completed for A level has required him:
*to organise a 'dissertation', and make it look good
*to write concisely
*to see a project through from beginning to end

• to use different genres of writing

In order to complete the project, he had to research about sustainability, he had to write reports about his practical work, he had to include technical drawings and photos, and then write conclusion and evaluations.

Surely this is more relevant to the workplace than the 2 hour psychology exam he is sitting on Monday, when all they've been doing in lessons is past papers for the last 3 months?

When I was at school (many moons ago) the only subjects that had course work/continual assessment whatever you like to call it - were things like art/woodwork etc. As I recall (hazy memory) you had to produce something over a given period (serveral weeks), but there were also written exams as well. Music was slightly different - practical exam (same as for languages) 'on the day' and written exams as well...

"But then teaching without taking note of the individuals who may need different techniques would be unfair to those students also.

Anyway if they were to do different teaching styles it is the way they teach boys that would change not girls they would still be the same as it is now and in general they fair better."

I see what you're getting at, I do, but again what you are saying comes back to segregation.

You say that it would be great to be able to teach students as individuals, then in the next breath say that there should be one way for teaching boys and another for teaching girls.

That comes back, again, to a problem for the girls who "learn like boys" (I really hate saying that sort of thing) and vice versa.

Blackduck it was the same for me. I was at the end of the 'O' level generation, before GCSEs came in.

claig

with ref to job interviews, I have encountered many people who could "talk a good job" but have been completely useless at the job itsself, unfortunately exams like job interviews don't give the full picture.

Claig we must be about the same age then (I won't tell if you don't). I personally can work either system (and have), and just don't buy this gender distinction. And as others have said in the real world you have to be able to do both - pull it out under pressure, and produce long coherent, thought out pieces. Worries me that I work with academics who can't spell!

I did O levels and in Physics and Chemistry we did a practical exam,and a written exam.(There was one practical exam however that no-one could get to work,even the science staff at the neighboring selective boys' school who'd had a go - so how useful that was as a method of assessment,who knows?)

DD has done for GCSE,amongst other things,ICT, which was entirely coursework based and completed in school,and two art/design subjects,which were part cousework part final exam,and for those subjects I think coursework probably works fairly.Except that there is still a lot of teacher input - but that does sort the students who will take on board the teacher's comments and act on them from those who won't.....still not sure how I feel about that.
With regard to different learning styles I have no problem with teaching with this in mind as long as there isn't an assumption that this split will be gender based.

BoneyBackJefferson, I agree with you about people who can act and "talk a good job". Over the years I have myself mastered the art of turning it on and giving them what they want to hear. But that is why employers also ask technical questions that test real knowledge, where spin and waffle are of no use. It may turn out that a person is useless at a job for a variety of reasons, but the employer wants to make sure that the person at least has a good understanding of the concepts that will be required to do the job.

Blackduck, I agree with you that clever girls amd boys will both excel at traditional examinations, and therefore there should be no reason to create gender differentiated exams. The important thing is to create high quality exams that the whole nation takes. Coursework is not cutting it and that is why there is a slow movement away from it.

I did GSCE in chemisty and physics ( as a comparison to pogleswood) and we had practical exams and written exams. I don't remember there being any coursework.

Do we even know how "coursework heavy" these qualifications are now? I am well aware (as I keep saying ) that I am prejudiced against coursework and tend to agree with the "dumbing down/hell in a handcart/copy and paste from internet/doing it 100 times til it's an A/it's the end of the world" stuff, but I don't actually know what is really involved. If it turns out that say chemistry is only 5% coursework then TBH I can't see what all the fuss is about. If it's 40%, then yes. Does anyone know what we're actually looking at here?

BoneyBackJefferson, as an aside I have also known managers who did not even have 'A' levels. They interviewed PhD candidates who had little understanding of fundamentals and who were much worse than lesser qualified candidates. So I agree with you that exams are not the be all and end all, and even more so nowadays since standards have declined.

For our course it's currently 33% for Triple, Core and Additional, 50% for Additional Applied (a voacational course). And of course 100% for level 2 BTEC, but that isn't a GCSE.

ISNT, with you 100% on
"tend to agree with the "dumbing down/hell in a handcart/copy and paste from internet/doing it 100 times til it's an A/it's the end of the world" stuff, but I don't actually know what is really involved".

To find out what is really involved, the best thing to do is to throw the Guardian away and start perusing that organ of veracity, the Daily Mail

I belive the graphics A level is 80% coursework, 20% exam (including AS)

But, as I said, the coursework has taken hours and hours and hours and hours. And it hasn't been cut and paste, as much of it was an account of the 'making of the product' and conclusions/evaluations, specific to the product. To write this, you had to KNOW about the materials and their properties, and the processes being used.

He was given it back with the teacher's comments once, over a weekend, and then it was submitted 'forever' on the Monday.

So a normal GCSE is 1/3 coursework.

hmmmmm

I know the thing that I get irked about is this idea that students can try, try and try again until they get the desired grade. That just seems really silly.

In real life, you get one stab at things, you have to make your first go as good as you possibly can.

I wonder if the way that coursework is run/managed were changed, if people would feel more comfortable with it. Maybe do it like a project that has to be worked on in classroom hours, and marked once at the end.

How does coursework work, when some children have parents who are more helpful than others?

I think the reason standards have declined is because teachers teach to pass the exam rather than truly teach their students the subject matter.

I remember sometime ago in one of my A level exam for Chemistry a topic came up that none in my class had been taught i also remember everyone looking up with a baffled look on their face. After the exam everyone went to ask our teacher about that question and he simply said that he never thought to taught it because it never come up before. (Besides that he was a brilliant teacher and made the most complicated sounding things seem to simple)

It's not teachers fault to be honest there is a lot of pressure to meet quotas for exam results etc they can't afford to be seen as underachieving.

RollaCoasta, it does sound like a lot of hard work and he did a good job of it. However, the system is open to abuse. I am sure that rich parents can hire private tutors who can help children with the hours and hours and hours and hours of work. There may be cleverer poorer children who are placed at a disadvantage by this. That was the advantage of testing on the day, then it was really down to what you knew.

Actually, they can't. We are not supposed to mark and re-mark. Which is why I said the current system is open to bad practice. Because who would know? The word is that the exam boards are moving towards what you describe for the nerw specs, which is what our A level students do, but as I said at the beginning, we don;t know because all the new specs have been rejected, so we still can;t plan for the course we need to start teaching in September 2011

In a subject like graphic design, CBT, photography, then surely the only sensible thing to do is a big project ie coursework. Computer programming would be another good one. Art. Loads of things require a long process from inception to completion, and need to be examined that way.

I think that certainly the way/s a subject is examined should be the way/s that best test the students knowledge of the subject and ability to apply that knowledge.

So maybe the problem (if we can move away from teh boys / girls thing, I think everyone has said it's cobblers now) is that coursework has become discredited.

And certainly the consensus is that qualifications have become easier overall, that is not a consequence of courework, the syllabus and exams are easier too.

is coursework a scapegoat in all of this?

Yes that idea that people with interested parents will get better marks than those who have to work alone is a miserable idea.

TFM it certainly sounds like things are changing anyway. As long as they don't change in the way the OP linked to, I think everyone will be happier.

Agree that the exams and syllabuses have also become easier. But I don't think that coursework is a scapegoat, it really is a problem, which is why we are now beginning to see more and more people questioning it and top public schools moving away from it.

Asking these questions and exposing the problem to sunlight can only be a good thing, and hopefully changes will be made that will improve our education system.

"TFM it certainly sounds like things are changing anyway. As long as they don't change in the way the OP linked to, I think everyone will be happier."

The new government is fantastic so far, but they do not have enough courage. I fear that things may change the way the OP states because the govt. may not have the courage to do what is necessary and reinstate a traditional examination system in order to halt the dumbing down process. There is a danger that they will take the easier route of creating a half-way house and a two-tier system, where clever girls and boys will do traditional exams and the rest will do coursework.

Presumably they still have projects in subjects for which it is the only sensibe method of assessing ability. It is possible (likely?) that the top schools do less of the "project" style subjects and more of the traditional subjects. But still, they must do some. I went to a v good girls school and we had CBT and drama and art and stuff.

I don't think it would be a good idea to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

A traditional two tier system like O levels and CSEs you mean?

I think coursework and homework has always been done at all schools, so all of these skills were developed in children. The only difference with the past is that this coursework didn't count for 33% of the examination result.