Tutor Niedino: Pri Science Questions and Concepts

[caroline3sg]

[quote]Incidentally, brown stem can also carry out photosynthesis because if we scrape away the external brown layer, there is chlorophyll behind it.[/quote]
atutor,
I didn't know that, thank you for sharing.

[Niedino]

Hi Starlight,


Great of you to clarify the phloem’s directions. Atutor, I agree that some questions are not set well indeed and they often are a result of existing misconceptions. Leanne, Richard Paul is a famous author on Critical Thinking. Google and you’ll find the titles of his books.

Hope it helps

[starlight1968sg]

Why kids usually do not do well in sect b of the pri Sc papers? Is it the way they answered the questions?

[Niedino]

starlight1968sg:

Why kids usually do not do well in sect b of the pri Sc papers? Is it the way they answered the questions?

Hi Starlight,

I usually see kids not doing well for a variety of reasons.

1. Lack of Knowledge.
They don't know what the question is asking them.

2. Lack of Understanding
They know what the question is asking them, but their basic concepts are wrong.

3. Lack of Accuracy
They do not craft their answers to answer to the question. They answer in a broad manner (too general) or do not explain the theory behind their answers clearly.

E.g. Where does the water on the outside from a cup of cold orange juice come from?

Example 1: From the ice in the orange juice (Lack of knowledge so the child guesses)

Example 2: The orange juice evaporate and condense on the outside of the cup (Misconception of orange juice evaporating before condensing)

Example 3: The water comes from the water vapour in the air. (Does not talk about condensation of the water vapour so too broad)

[Tang]

Niedino:

starlight1968sg:

Why kids usually do not do well in sect b of the pri Sc papers? Is it the way they answered the questions?

Hi Starlight,

I usually see kids not doing well for a variety of reasons.

1. Lack of Knowledge.
They don't know what the question is asking them.

2. Lack of Understanding
They know what the question is asking them, but their basic concepts are wrong.

3. Lack of Accuracy
They do not craft their answers to answer to the question. They answer in a broad manner (too general) or do not explain the theory behind their answers clearly.

E.g. Where does the water on the outside from a cup of cold orange juice come from?

Example 1: From the ice in the orange juice (Lack of knowledge so the child guesses)

Example 2: The orange juice evaporate and condense on the outside of the cup (Misconception of orange juice evaporating before condensing)

Example 3: The water comes from the water vapour in the air. (Does not talk about condensation of the water vapour so too broad)

Hello,

\"Example 3: The water comes from the water vapour in the air. (Does not talk about condensation of the water vapour so too broad)\"

You meant 'incomplete' rather than 'too broad'?

Expected answer?

The water vapour from the surrounding air comes into contact with the cool outer surface of the cup and condenses into water droplets.

[Niedino]

Tang:

Hello,


\"Example 3: The water comes from the water vapour in the air. (Does not talk about condensation of the water vapour so too broad)\"

You meant 'incomplete' rather than 'too broad'?

Expected answer?

The water vapour from the surrounding air comes into contact with the cool outer surface of the cup and condenses into water droplets.

Hi Tang,

Your answer is definitely the ideal answer. What I was trying to show in the example was that pupils often answer either without explaining clearly or in a general manner. It can be termed as an incomplete answer, and the child would not get full marks.

[atutor2001]

Niedino:

Tang:

Hello,


\"Example 3: The water comes from the water vapour in the air. (Does not talk about condensation of the water vapour so too broad)\"

You meant 'incomplete' rather than 'too broad'?

Expected answer?

The water vapour from the surrounding air comes into contact with the cool outer surface of the cup and condenses into water droplets.

Hi Tang,

Your answer is definitely the ideal answer. What I was trying to show in the example was that pupils often answer either without explaining clearly or in a general manner. It can be termed as an incomplete answer, and the child would not get full marks.

The problem that the students are really facing, is the \"incompleteness\", of science question.

\"Where does the water on the outside from a cup of cold orange juice come from?\"

If the above question is from an English comprehension paper, marks will be deducted (or even zero mark given) if a student provides explanation in the answer on how the water droplets were formed because the question specifically asked for \"where\". By including the \"how\" in the answer, it would deem that the student does not understand the question and is trying his or her luck by covering all angles.

However, in science, marks will be deducted for not explaining \"how\" and \"why\", although the question only asked for \"where\".

What an irony, poor kids having to tackle the same question in 2 different ways for different subject.

It would be good if schools add the word \"explain\" after each question.

[starlight1968sg]

atutor2001:

The problem that the students are really facing, is the \"incompleteness\", of science question.


\"Where does the water on the outside from a cup of cold orange juice come from?\"

If the above question is from an English comprehension paper, marks will be deducted (or even zero mark given) if a student provides explanation in the answer on how the water droplets were formed because the question specifically asked for \"where\". By including the \"how\" in the answer, it would deem that the student does not understand the question and is trying his or her luck by covering all angles.

However, in science, marks will be deducted for not explaining \"how\" and \"why\", although the question only asked for \"where\".

What an irony, poor kids having to tackle the same question in 2 different ways for different subject.

It would be good if schools add the word \"explain\" after each question.

I too think that the major culprit for not doing well in sect b for Science is the incompleteness of the answer given by the students. Writing too much may also attracts penalty.

[Niedino]

atutor2001:

The problem that the students are really facing, is the \"incompleteness\", of science question.


\"Where does the water on the outside from a cup of cold orange juice come from?\"

If the above question is from an English comprehension paper, marks will be deducted (or even zero mark given) if a student provides explanation in the answer on how the water droplets were formed because the question specifically asked for \"where\". By including the \"how\" in the answer, it would deem that the student does not understand the question and is trying his or her luck by covering all angles.

However, in science, marks will be deducted for not explaining \"how\" and \"why\", although the question only asked for \"where\".

What an irony, poor kids having to tackle the same question in 2 different ways for different subject.

It would be good if schools add the word \"explain\" after each question.

Hi atutor,

I like to differ from your opinion. Although I agree that not all Science questions are set equal and set very well, having set Science papers before, the difficulty lies in setting questions which trigger pupils' thinking. Having marked quite a few Science papers, the sad thing is that pupils often have the knowledge but lack the finesse in presenting their answers. If we were to stick to the English way of marking Science work, then I believe more pupils will not do well as they will be penalised for grammar, spelling and irrelevant answers.

[Tang]

Tang:

Niedino:

[quote=\"starlight1968sg\"]Why kids usually do not do well in sect b of the pri Sc papers? Is it the way they answered the questions?

Hi Starlight,

I usually see kids not doing well for a variety of reasons.

1. Lack of Knowledge.
They don't know what the question is asking them.

2. Lack of Understanding
They know what the question is asking them, but their basic concepts are wrong.

3. Lack of Accuracy
They do not craft their answers to answer to the question. They answer in a broad manner (too general) or do not explain the theory behind their answers clearly.

E.g. Where does the water on the outside from a cup of cold orange juice come from?

Example 1: From the ice in the orange juice (Lack of knowledge so the child guesses)

Example 2: The orange juice evaporate and condense on the outside of the cup (Misconception of orange juice evaporating before condensing)

Example 3: The water comes from the water vapour in the air. (Does not talk about condensation of the water vapour so too broad)

Hello,

\"Example 3: The water comes from the water vapour in the air. (Does not talk about condensation of the water vapour so too broad)\"

You meant 'incomplete' rather than 'too broad'?

Expected answer?

The water vapour from the surrounding air comes into contact with the cool outer surface of the cup and condenses into water droplets.[/quote]Hello,

Question - Where does the water on the outside from a cup of cold orange juice come from?

Answer - The water vapour from the surrounding air comes into contact with the cool outer surface of the cup and condenses into water droplets.

My Personal Comment - The given answer will be marked wrong because of regurgitation from memory. It is 'too broad'.

Correct answer should have been \"Water vapour from the surrounding air.\"

If there is a need for 'How', normally the question will include \"Explain.\" behind the origin question or it will be given as part (b) of the question.