This would be the review for the Combined Humanities Subject for year 2015 for Social Studies and Elective History.
For Social Studies,
General Comments
Social Studies, unlike English Language, was highly predictable and of a expected format. Social Studies unsurprisingly...
International and Regional Relations and Conflict (Theme 4) for the Source Based Case Study and
Understanding Governance (Theme 2)
Conflict in Multi-Ethnic Societies (Theme 3) and
Sustaining Economic Development in a Globalising World (Theme 5) for the Structured Essay Question.
For Section A (SBCS)
It was a doable case study that featured the significance of the killing of Osama bin Laden. No hybrid question were set for the case study and everything can be done easily based on templates and formulaic approaches that are thought in student. It is an important note, however, that us students should not fully rely on these formulas as this has been highlighted in the Examiner's Report as been a way of penalising students to differentiate between the good and the best students in the Case Study Answering Techniques.
All questions can be done based on pure inferential skills to allow candidates to see what are the hidden messages to the sources. An important note is that, there are numerous messages that one can infer from the source, but the best messages (main message) of the source should be one that answers the overarching issue. For example "What is the significance of the killing of Osama bin Laden?" for the 2015 O Level. Pure inferences on the source for each sub-question and the keyword would be enough to award students partial credit for every question. So, if you want to pass the Case Study and not spend too much time on the Case Study to spend for the Essay, then just infer the source and write the keyword of the sub-question in one paragraph that is logically written. This would be enough to help you pass the entire section of Case Study.
For Section B (SEQ)
It was a highly anticipated section with 60% of schools 'spotting' these exact same three themes to come out for this year of examinations. Many of the students in my schools were happy to see these theme come out and many wrote wonderful essays for the section.
Comments on Social Studies
I would like to question the effectiveness of assessment of Social Studies if the SEAB continues to follow this trend. Students now can score well for their essays, even just 'spotting' and studying one theme. This is highly unfair to those who want to play it safe and put in more effort to study even more of the syllabus, like for 3,4 or even 5 of the examinable themes. If it is so simple to identify the themes that will be tested, then this is not meritocracy, where hard work will be rewarded duly! Students who work harder would still be able to score the same mark as one that work lesser for the Humanities subject and makes it unfair. This would naturally make it redundant for assessment as it does not fully assess the abilities of students in the National Examination and the syllabus.
Source Based is mostly the same as the year, and that's the problem, it will get boring at times to do the same question again and again in the TYS. That's the only problem.
For Elective History,
General Comments
This paper tested the abilities of student in a Humanities subject and its objectives more effectively than the Social Studies paper. With a new hybrid question rising and the surprising setting of case study for Section A, it was a more meaningful and enjoyable paper for the subject.
For Section A (SBCS)
The Case Study was based on Stalin's Industralisation Policy on the USSR, which was very unexpected as more than 70% schools in Singapore set preliminary examination for Elective History that had case studies set on topics on the Cold War, such as the Korean War and especially the Cuban Missile Crisis. This made the paper interesting and meaningful for this year's candidature.
QUESTION 1(a)
This question cleared a misconception that the mark range for Elective History is between 5-8 marks only. This is only applicable for Social Studies SBCS, not for History Elective, based on 1(a) which had only 4 marks to be awarded.
QUESTION 1(d)
This question was a Hybrid Question that was of the "Right Wrong Discrimination" Genre. It would be excepted of many candidates to use the formulaic approach that schools have taught for such question, with practice from 2002 and 2003 O Level SS SBCS on "Both source differ in their view. Does this mean that one of them are wrong?" Candidates who did this would be heavily penalised and even would not even pass the question as they are not Answering the Question (0 Marks). Candidates should have stated that these two sources are based on different Five Years Plans and hence does not show. NO RELIABILITY statements are needed and may cause L1/1m to be awarded if candidate did so as the concept is wrong.
AGAIN...Pure inferences on the source for each sub-question and the keyword would be enough to award students partial credit for every question. So, if you want to pass the Case Study and not spend too much time on the Case Study to spend for the Essay, then just infer the source and write the keyword of the sub-question in one paragraph that is logically written. This would be enough to help you pass the entire section of Case Study. (An example of illogical Carving of answers is the usage of Formulaic Approach for Q 1(d) for History Elective)
For Section B (SEQ)
The New Essay Questioning Format acted as a deterrent for candidate to spot topics. This made SEQ of History Elective which only has two questions more meaningful than SS which has three questions. This is rather peculiar as History Essay has a much higher weightage than SS. It is very meaningful for the Essays to be set on the following topics:
Hitler's Germany
Cold War and its Manifestation (Start of War and Cuban Missile Crisis)
which is very different from what many schools thought would come out:
Impact of World War I
Stalin's Soviet Union
Such meaningful assessment makes History more effective in assessing Humanities than Social Studies.
An important note is that there are misconception that Cold War topics is more harder than than of Crisis topics. This is brainwashed to students by teachers and convincing them not to study Cold War for the O Level. This SHOULD depend on the students and their choices and not forcing them to study the Crisis which is easier in the Cohort. Some advice:
Crisis topics are more flexible and can be set on anything and endpoint. The issue can change any time for Cambridge Exams. So, if you like, you can always study the description first where you can write in the paper, and then spend 10 minutes to plan and write the explanation after the description.
Cold War topics have a field more similar and close to Social Studies. The issues are more predictable and the links can be prepared and memorised and written in the exam more easily than Crisis topics. The links however are longer and complex than Crisis topics.
Both books have their boons and banes, so the decision of which one to study should depend on the student own free will and not forcing.
Hope that my comment for the History Paper syncs in effectively with the general comments...
Comments on this year's paper
I am rather disappointed by MOE for the Social Studies Paper. The Question was too predictable and meritocracy is not seen or reflected in the paper. Hard Work cannot be seen in Combined Humanities if one half of the weightage of its marks is based on 'spotting' and laziness. Singapore setters should learn from the Cambridge Setters and set paper that are meaningful as seen in the History Papers.
I was impressed by Cambridge Assessment for History Elective, the paper showcased their professionalism and experience in setting papers. The paper was much more meaningful and far better than the Social Studies paper in testing the skills in Humanities.
Tips for 2016 Cohort
I cannot provide much tips on what will come out for next year's examination. However, the GOLDEN RULE IS:
Whatever your SS teachers tell you to study for SS, study and will come out one.
Whatever your History teachers tell you to study for History Elective, study everything else.
Specifically for History Elective, spend at least 15 minutes for the Evaluation question that will definitely come out for the exam based on the syllabus. Evaluate all sources given for the statement of whether you support or not support and 8 marks is a giveaway to you. Your must evaluate ALL SOURCES SET.
All in All
Based on reliable sources (my teachers), the Combined Humanities is being revised of its syllabus and the pilot SBCS and SEQ are being phrased out as separate section for SS and a slight change for History. I hope that through the changes, 'spotting' and hence unfairness will not be seen in Humanities and make it more meaningful and less redundant.I hope that MOE would make the subject that it invented uniquely for Singapore meaningful and not be unfair of its candidates and uphold meritocracy, which is one of the learning objective of SS as well.
LAST BUT NOT LEAST
If you have any questions for the Combined Humanities paper this year or need your assignments for Combined Humanities or ANY OTHER SUBJECT to be marked, reply by commenting on this post or email me!!
THANKS
No comments:
Post a Comment