Q&A - PSLE Science

[Alarmchain]

Thank you so much to both atutor and cimman. Really appreciate you guys taking the time to fully elaborate the minor nuances that makes the difference between a right and wrong answer.


I do get the point about superficial and main reasons behind an answer and about answers that fulfil the context of a question.

However, I am indeed very worried about such methods of examining science, especially to kids 12/13 years of age. Unless this is the type of question that separates an A from an A* student, it would indeed not only confuse most kids (as well as parents and teachers, I might add!), it may actually turn them off!

Much as heat from friction is not the main reason and is only technically correct, I do believe that if a child is able to reason it that way, it should not be marked wrong. Unless the reasoning was way off, or concepts were wrongly interpreted, we should be teaching our children this reasoning technique and not give them the impression that there is only 1 answer. Yes, I do agree that in this instance, the main reasoning should be the intense heat from the hot desert sand. However, I wonder if in the actual exam papers, the words \"hot sand\" was in bold to capture the child's attention. Even so, under exam conditions, how does one expect a normal 12 year old to be able to realise that and also be able to phrase the answer in the way we did! Indeed, I may even argue that it is precisely because of the hot sand that the minute heat from friction becomes an even more important factor, versus when the 2 reptiles were moving in the cool of the night.

This question would have been an ideal one for the school science workbooks, which I am sure many will agree, is grossly lacking in such application questions (and yet they expect our children to tackle such questions during exams, to such minute details too!). It would indeed generate good discussions in class on how concepts are applied in various ways. But under exam conditions??? (unless it is one of the few that separates the A from the A*)

It is such narrow interpretations of answers and marking schemes that have now resulted in science being taught in a very narrow manner in schools, unfortunately (we all must know of the keywords way of teaching science today). If science for 12 year olds is about exciting the kids to explore things around them, I wonder if stressing NARROWLY on being scientifically and technically correct answers is the right way to go. We are not talking about being way off, of course.

My apologies for straying off. Just wonder if there are parents out there who feel the same way.

Once again, my gratitude to both for your inputs. At least, I can now \"correctly\" explain this question to my daughter.

Cheers!

[atutor2001]

Hi Alarmchain


In my opinion, such questions are to "prevent" students from getting full mark. Generally, such type of questions will add up to only about 5 marks of the whole paper. So even if they get it wrong, A* is still attainable.

[Alarmchain]

Ha ha ha … good to know!


But I guess it is the bigger implications on the schools … since they will teach based on the way the subject is assessed … as they have KPIs to meet.

And we will have another generation of young who only knows 1 answer … and not the reasoning techniques behind it.

Cheers!

[elkniwt]

Hi Alarmchain,


My dd also did this qn in the PSLE booklet and her answer is almost the same your dd’s answer and she got it correct. Hmm… honestly I don’t really understand why your dd’s teacher mark her wrong. (I guess I have a lot to learn …)

My dd’s ans is : There is lesser friction between the lizard and the sand and thus it can move a longer distance.

Regards.

[Alarmchain]

Thanks elkniwt.


My daughter is taught by the science HOD in her school and the class was told that for PSLE that year, friction as an answer was marked as wrong for this question!

Which is what worries me most. Teachers are PSLE exam markers. We are told that should the markers get answers which are plausible, they will raise it to the supervisors, who will discuss and then decide if such answers are to be included in their marking schemes.

Honestly, how many teachers will, upon marking, realise and then raise this question for further discussions? (You are already the 2nd person to say that the teachers accepted the child’s answer of friction during their practice / revision.)

It is not the marks that matters, since every child in that PSLE, with friction as the answer, would probably be marked wrong for that question, I suppose.

But it is the implication on these teachers, who will then go back to school and teach science thereafter. Teachers are generally a caring lot and would want our children to do well. I can imagine them, having experienced how narrow SEAB can be in what constitutes a correct answer, returning to schools and teaching our children in the very same narrow manner, or even narrower! Is this preparing our children with 21st Century skills?

Pardon my ranting, its just that this has been the way with science for so long, it is getting very frustrating. Not just for the parents, but I’m sure for the teachers and most importantly, our children as well.

Thanks anyway, appreciate your sharing.

[Winx5015]

Hi, anyone know the answer for the following questions? Thanks!

http://i50.tinypic.com/353bgww.jpg\">

[kitty2]

kitty2:

charsen:

[quote=\"kitty2\"]Series or parallel circuit is brighter?Circuit with series battery is bright or with parallel battery?Circuit with series bulb is brighter or with parallel bulb?


Please help as my nephew is very confused with the above.

Thanks

It depends on the arrangement of batteries or the arrangement of bulbs of the circuit.I can tell what the brightness of the bulb is when you say the arrangement of batteries is in series or parallel or the arrangement of bulbs is in series or parallel.
Cheers

Please let me know your answers for the above.Thanks[/quote]Anyone can help :?

[rains]

charsen:

kitty2:

Series or parallel circuit is brighter?Circuit with series battery is bright or with parallel battery?Circuit with series bulb is brighter or with parallel bulb?


Please help as my nephew is very confused with the above.

Thanks

It depends on the arrangement of batteries or the arrangement of bulbs of the circuit.I can tell what the brightness of the bulb is when you say the arrangement of batteries is in series or parallel or the arrangement of bulbs is in series or parallel.
Cheers

Please let me know your answers for the above.Thanks[/quote]

Hi,

MOE syllabus stipulates that only bulb arrangements be tested. Battery arrangement is out of the syllabus.

Bulbs in a parallel circuit are brighter than bulbs in a series circuit.

Hope this helps.

[rains]

Alarmchain:

Thanks elkniwt.


My daughter is taught by the science HOD in her school and the class was told that for PSLE that year, friction as an answer was marked as wrong for this question!

Which is what worries me most. Teachers are PSLE exam markers. We are told that should the markers get answers which are plausible, they will raise it to the supervisors, who will discuss and then decide if such answers are to be included in their marking schemes.

Honestly, how many teachers will, upon marking, realise and then raise this question for further discussions? (You are already the 2nd person to say that the teachers accepted the child's answer of friction during their practice / revision.)

It is not the marks that matters, since every child in that PSLE, with friction as the answer, would probably be marked wrong for that question, I suppose.

But it is the implication on these teachers, who will then go back to school and teach science thereafter. Teachers are generally a caring lot and would want our children to do well. I can imagine them, having experienced how narrow SEAB can be in what constitutes a correct answer, returning to schools and teaching our children in the very same narrow manner, or even narrower! Is this preparing our children with 21st Century skills?

Pardon my ranting, its just that this has been the way with science for so long, it is getting very frustrating. Not just for the parents, but I'm sure for the teachers and most importantly, our children as well.

Thanks anyway, appreciate your sharing.

I think we have too little faith in either MOE or our teachers.

Generally, our teachers are a professional lot. They are allocated very few (1 or 2) questions to mark at PSLE to ensure specialisation and consistency. Contrary to what many believe, these markers do want to 'give' marks wherever possible, so most of the time, they do raise their doubts with their supervisors and check if they could allocate marks for that unique answer.

I am for the idea that the teachers would have clarified on why the answers could not be accepted and not just teach the students 'Just know that 'friction' is not accepted'.

[Alarmchain]

I do agree that MOE has done an excellent job with the primary science framework. Arranging the syllabus into the 5 themes of Diversity, Cycles, Systems, Interactions and Energy will allow our children sufficient breadth for them to understand most things around us, I feel.


However, I often wonder if the implementation of this framework has caused the true essence of it to be lost. And I do not think it is because of a lack of commitment nor professionalism on the part of our teachers. Personally, I think it could be systemic issues which, indeed, may be causing a lot of angst for our good teachers and ultimately, to our children.

Allow me to elaborate. Perhaps, in the move away from rote learning to ability to apply what one learns (a move in the right direction, I feel), the infrastructure necessary to support this move may not be there yet. A great example would be our school textbooks and workbooks. Without sufficient application type examples, it is very difficult for an average 12 year old to be able to readily see the link between concepts learnt and its application to practical scenarios. Just like the patterns in most IQ or General Ability Tests, the more exposed a child is to such scenarios, the more familiar and confident he/she becomes with such questions.

Another “infrastructure” necessary is teacher training to support such form of learning. Some of us may have experienced school exam questions which were ambiguous in nature. Whilst these may be the “noise” we will have to go through in this phase of “learning” for the teachers as well, as they themselves get more experience in setting thinking questions, I suspect they are equally at a lost as to what constitutes an acceptable answer for thinking questions. This end goal is usually what shapes a question, just like how teaching techniques are geared towards achieving education goals via passing exams.

And so, do we then wait before the infrastructure is ready? No. Unfortunately, the world does not wait for us. What we can do is to proceed, but in phases, I feel.

Personally, this is where I think SEAB has a big role to play here, since the assessment method will dictate how everything else falls into place. If pen and paper assessment is the most practical way to go for the moment, then set questions which are more general in nature first. And allow greater breadth for what constitutes a correct answer. As everyone gains more exposure and experience, and the infrastructure is in place, we can then proceed to more detailed assessment, if that is what is necessary.

As it stands now, it would seem we are expecting our children, and teachers, to run even before they can walk. How many of us have had to meet up with our children’s teachers to understand why a certain science question was marked wrong? Mind you, we are not talking about getting that extra mark here, but trying to understand the “why” so that we can better guide our children. And how many of us have had the experience of teachers then agreeing that the answers given were possibilities as well, or that whilst they agree with our reasoning, based on PSLE marking experience, it will be marked wrong! Can you imagine the stress our science teachers have to go through meeting us the parents after every exam! Indeed, I have so much sympathy for my daughter’s science HOD teacher that I refrained from approaching to clarify the answer for this particular question. They have sufficient stress trying to prepare our children for the PSLE as it stands. (Thankfully, I have helpful parents here who helped me and my daughter understand the answer.)

And whilst using keywords may have started out as a means towards helping our children understand concepts, it would appear that it has become an end in itself, with children’s answers being marked wrong because it did not have these keywords. (Those who have experienced this, "kee chiu" – raise your hands!) Has it really reached this stage? I wonder? Perhaps more parents can share their experience. If yes, why? Is it because with each passing PSLE, our teachers are seeing narrower and narrower marking schemes that they have no choice but to help our children prepare for such “realities” ?

That is why I say I suspect we have a systemic problem here, based on the above. Unless I’m wrong, how can something that has been going on for so long, go unnoticed? Or is there another systemic problem that has prevented our teachers on the ground, from escalating this matter? (A case of “see broken already”? So, just try my best to help the kids in the best way I can?)

Anyway, with the Education Minister now tasked to lead a team to review what are the needs necessary to survive the future, I do hope that if my analysis is right, this matter be given a closer look as well.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Would appreciate more though, for I may be wrong here.

Cheers!