Section 1 will not be double marked (1 Viewer)

[Rafy]

http://www.smh.com.au/national/educ...sh-paper-raises-concerns-20141030-11e6pd.html

The first section of the compulsory HSC English paper will not be double marked this year, prompting concern from teachers that the scaled-back approach could result in unfair marks because the answers are not "black or white".

Previously, all English papers were marked by two markers to ensure quality control.

The three questions in the first section, which are worth 15 of the paper's 45 marks and assess students on how well they "describe, explain and analyse the relationship between language, text and context", will only be marked once, in a similar way that mathematics and science are marked.

Head English teachers and exam markers have told Fairfax Media that some students write long, detailed answers in that section and to mark once was "undervaluing" that section, but the Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards defended the move.

"Properly trained markers are able to determine the correct mark for every response they are presented with," a Board of Studies spokesman said. [...]

 

[mreditor16]

An absolutely wrong move, especially in such a subjective subject.

A teacher once told me that one out of every 10 essays would have a mark discrepancy of 4 or more, and then such essays would be looked at by the senior marker for that Q, who would then determine a mark taking into account the comments and marks of the two markers. Now, if all responses are only being marked by one marker, such checks and balances won't be able to happen, and you will be getting people awarded as much as 2 or 3 marks lower or higher than they truly 'deserve', and that can have quite an impact.

So a wrong move, not hesitating to criticise it. Detracts from the integrity of the marking system, which is quite fair in general, but this move is definitely not in the right direction.

 

[teridax]

An absolutely wrong move, especially in such a subjective subject.

A teacher once told me that one out of every 10 essays would have a mark discrepancy of 4 or more, and then such essays would be looked at by the senior marker for that Q, who would then determine a mark taking into account the comments and marks of the two markers. Now, if all responses are only being marked by one marker, such checks and balances won't be able to happen, and you will be getting people awarded as much as 2 or 3 marks lower or higher than they truly 'deserve', and that can have quite an impact.

So a wrong move, not hesitating to criticise it. Detracts from the integrity of the marking system, which is quite fair in general, but this move is definitely not in the right direction.

+1 BoS went to a whole new level of stupid.

 

[mreditor16]

*BOSTES.

Their 'teaching and educational standards' are certainly being reformed.

And what's annoying me most is not just that this is the most subjective subject there is (like even history and stuff have facts, but English honestly just doesn't) but also that there's been a whole new structure to follow. Essentially, now the paper is comprised of 1.5 essays + 1 creative. Offering 36 marks that can potentially be given unfairly, thus changing the outcome of someone's hsc. Someone who wanted a state rank and worked all year may not get it. Someone who didn't give a shit about English could suddenly be given an 18/20. A marker may be tired (they're humans) or lazy, and may not read the full essay. A student with bad handwriting but exceptional calibre may miss out.

Shame on BOSTES.

just reminding you that double marking has only been removed for section 1 of paper 1. only the belonging short answer will be marked by one marker only. in a way, it is good that BOSTES is only making this change for belonging section 1, because it is the most black and white section of either paper to mark imo. if they implemented this change for any of the long response sections (essays/creatives), it would be even more outrageous and there would be more outcry from students and teachers.

 

[teridax]

*BOSTES.

Their 'teaching and educational standards' are certainly being reformed.

And what's annoying me most is not just that this is the most subjective subject there is (like even history and stuff have facts, but English honestly just doesn't) but also that there's been a whole new structure to follow. Essentially, now the paper is comprised of 1.5 essays + 1 creative. Offering 36 marks that can potentially be given unfairly, thus changing the outcome of someone's hsc. Someone who wanted a state rank and worked all year may not get it. Someone who didn't give a shit about English could suddenly be given an 18/20. A marker may be tired (they're humans) or lazy, and may not read the full essay. A student with bad handwriting but exceptional calibre may miss out.

A hsc marker I know will probably give half the state 20/20 l0l she's so lenient (I'm exaggerating a bit but you get the point). Quality control means nothing, only 1 in every 10 or so essays will be subject to such 'controls'. But what about everyone else?

Shame on BOSTES, all for cost cutting. They could have saved those costs by not printing so many "this page has been intentionally left blank" in our exams ffs

Thank god I'm not doing the new exam structure, but even then I will still play the game (i.e. memorise essays), and I don't give a shit whether BOSTES says it's not the purpose of HSC English because it's already crap in its current form.

And yeah, English is subjective as fuck.

 

[mreditor16]

Something interesting is the article says:

The spokesman said the section was single marked last year and "proved a very successful initiative with very reliable marking".

So it happened last year as well :/

Then, why weren't students and schools told last year? So much for transparency....

 

[mreditor16]

Thank god I'm not doing the new exam structure, but even then I will still play the game (i.e. memorise essays), and I don't give a shit whether BOSTES says it's not the purpose of HSC English because it's already crap in its current form.

And yeah, English is subjective as fuck.

What so you mean by the "new exam structure"? It is staying the same, no?

 

[teridax]

What so you mean by the "new exam structure"? It is staying the same, no?

soz, brain has gone retarded

 

[mreditor16]

Hoping that at least they will retain this:

What happens is that the senior marker will mark one out of every 10 responses marked by each marker, and if the mark discrepancy is too great, the senior marker and the other marker in question will sit down and discuss their marking etc, and try to resolve it. i.e. some investigation is done and a resolution is reached etc.

hopefully, this remains, as it will pick up a lot of discrepant marks....

 

[mreditor16]

thats only 1/10 students that can feel confident that they have been marked fairly and without bias.

What if the other 9 students had discrepancies too?

true true, but something is better than nothing.

 

[mreditor16]

bump

 

[Machiavelli1]

Wow, wouldn't have thought they would take cost cutting to this extent to jeopardising student marks.... But at least they only did for S1 and also they kept it at a minimum of 11 markers. But that also brings the question, whether those 11 markers can mark 70,000 scripts consistently and accurately as the BOSTES claim they can.

 

[enoilgam]

The first section of the compulsory HSC English paper will not be double marked this year, prompting concern from teachers that the scaled-back approach could result in unfair marks because the answers are not "black or white".

Previously, all English papers were marked by two markers to ensure quality control.

The three questions in the first section, which are worth 15 of the paper's 45 marks and assess students on how well they "describe, explain and analyse the relationship between language, text and context", will only be marked once, in a similar way that mathematics and science are marked.

Head English teachers and exam markers have told Fairfax Media that some students write long, detailed answers in that section and to mark once was "undervaluing" that section, but the Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards defended the move.

"Properly trained markers are able to determine the correct mark for every response they are presented with," a Board of Studies spokesman said. [...]

"As a cost cutting measure, we have decided to compromise on marking quality by putting one marker on section 1". If they are going to pull bullshit moves like this, they should at least have the balls to call it what it is.

 

[mreditor16]

so true, assuming they're marking an equal number of scripts, thats roughly 7000 papers per marker (almost 77000 students in the state). I doubt the markers would be completely interested, fresh and productive for every single paper

at least the majority will be marking from the comfort of their homes due to on-screen marking, instead of the pig sties of Sydney Showground.

 

[futuremidwife]

How many markers on the other sections? Im curious.

 

[mreditor16]

The Board of Studies' website says double marking is usually "applied to questions requiring an extended response (e.g., essays, creative writing, projects and performances) and not to short answer questions of the kind commonly used in mathematics and the sciences."

Does this then mean that the humanities (e.g. Economics, Legal Studies) haven't had their short answers double marked in recent years? :O

and if they have kept it, could this be a sign of double marking being stripped from short answers in the humanities in the not-too-distant future? :/

In fact, could this be part of the gradual move to eliminating double-marking for all short answers in all examinations? :/

who knows what BOSTES are planning or thinking! :?

 

[Master Singleton]

An absolutely wrong move, especially in such a subjective subject.

A teacher once told me that one out of every 10 essays would have a mark discrepancy of 4 or more, and then such essays would be looked at by the senior marker for that Q, who would then determine a mark taking into account the comments and marks of the two markers. Now, if all responses are only being marked by one marker, such checks and balances won't be able to happen, and you will be getting people awarded as much as 2 or 3 marks lower or higher than they truly 'deserve', and that can have quite an impact.

So a wrong move, not hesitating to criticise it. Detracts from the integrity of the marking system, which is quite fair in general, but this move is definitely not in the right direction.

#LAZYBOSTES wow smooth move BOSTES I hope your marker is not bias and why would you cut corners for the most subjective subject that is compulsory and if we don't receve the ATAR we need because of this cost cutting measure and the bias which maybe involved and when you recieve your English mark which is below what you expected then BOSTES has just screwed with you and say goodbye to your ATAR that you are aiming for.

 

[futuremidwife]

This is single-handedly the most stupidest, biased and unethical decision the BOSTES has ever made. I can't believe this. It raises so many equity issues my goodness!

 

[Master Singleton]

I recommend that if you recieve your English mark which is below what you expected then everyone must appeal for a remark then BOSTES will realise the scope of the problem caused by this unethical decision they have made and then revert back to double marking Paper 1.

 

[Tink]

Gg, BOSTES.