Why did MOE change the criteria for JAE Appeal, without explicitly telling students?

The 2016 JAE Appeal has just started. However if some of you have noticed, there is a new policy that one must meet the COP before being eligible to appeal. Anyone who did not meet the COP would have just wasted paper and their energy as they would have no possibility of entering the school they appealed to if they were unable to meet the COP. Why did MOE do this? Without announcing this to the students, they were met with nothing but disappointment, when they were told that they were unable to get into the school definitely after submitting the application form.

  This small sentence was small and unnoticeable amongst the large paragraph on the MOE JAE Website, but caused so much disappointment to students who eyed for another school that they preferred, including me. It is understandable that the change in ministers may have caused this policy to be made, but the inability of the MOE to inform students directly was very uncalled for. Is the new operational system of the MOE causing this inability? I think that the minister should make an effort to change this lacking areas, or else it would cause much problems in the education system just by inability to conveying these small but important information. These are not like in an army where the military must infer the in charge, but students who examinations are so important that they one must EXPLICITLY inform the students of these changes. These shortcoming must stop as it affect the future of students indirectly!

  If this is the attitude of the minister no longer priorities the needs of the students as first, then I will definitely not vote for him in the upcoming Elections where I am able to vote in if he is in my constituency. Unfortunately, he is not, and he will not lose one precious vote to the opposition.

Why not H2 Combined Humanities?

Since I had not been posting much, let me make a bold statement?

  Why not offer H2 Combined Humanities as a A Level subject in Singapore? Since O Level has it, why not A Level? Its a great way for students to have a much bigger scope of Humanities, if they are in the Science stream.

  The subject can have a mixture of syllabus from two H1 subjects and two papers that have the same assessment format as both counterparts will be examined for an overall 100%. Its the exact same idea as O Level Combined Humanities.

  If it allows the Science stream students to have the opportunity to read a wider range of subject that they can offer, why not? I sure hope that this subject can be offered for 2016-2017 A Level Subject, because I would definitely want to take up the subject...
Just a suggestion for MOE. What do you think? Comment below.

Suggestions for SEAB for fixing the major shortcoming of Social Studies Assessment

 Even though I know that SEAB is most likely not going to view this, but even if they view it, they would ignore my comments for the assessment services, I still want to voice out my thoughts regarding this issue. Worried over the possibility of irregularities or charges over such posts, I shall not disclose my identify by sending a suggestion email to SEAB.

  Firstly, I would suggest SEAB to do the following for the Structured Essay Questions or even the future Structured Response Questions which may also have a possibility of rote learning and ‘spotting’ topics.

  SEAB should have multiple setters to set the questions for the examination. There must be a mixture of questions from ALL themes (the five examinable themes for the 2204 syllabus and the three examinable themes for the revised syllabus) with equal amount of questions from each theme. After shortlisting the suitable questions, SEAB shall produce a draft copy of all of the examination question (about 25 questions). SEAB shall then inform several external personnel to help the final question paper formation. The external personnel can anyone in Singapore, be it civil servant, employees from the private sector, foreign talent, etc. The other requirement is that the external personnel must have no relationship to MOE (be it employment, kinship with personnel, etc.), SEAB or the education ministry in general. They would then be deployed randomly to pick a question from the approved list of question shortlisted by the setters.

  Upon picking, they must declare that their decision is personal and not under the influence or supervision of other parties, such as MOE teachers or friends. Any breach of this declaration would result in fining or imprisonment or both for both the person being influence and the person who influence the person to do so. This would ensure of the random picking of the question that would come out for the examination.

  This even though is considered as a harsh penalty of fine and imprisonment, it is necessary for change. If termination of one’s national examination award is considered harsh in a student’s point of view as it will ruin your reputation, then the fine and imprisonment is necessary for people trying to break the integrity of the examination and its conduct. I feel that this is an essential move to stop the idea of rote learning and ensure fair meritocracy in the education system.

  Secondly, replace typical source-based sub-questions with new quirky questions. For example, for questions such as “What is the message of the source? ”, they are usually 5-6 marks in the examination. They can replace them with other questions that are also inference basic, but add another interesting part to the question. Example of such a question is “One can interpret many messages from Source A. Does this mean that all but one are wrong in this Case Study”. By adding more concept and quirky questions (some schools call them hybrid questions), students would then find the Case Study more enjoyable and pleasant to work with, instead of just being rote learning and using formulaic approaches to answer the question.

More example of such quirky questions are

1. ‘Both sources are biased sources’. How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer. 

2. Both sources have purposes. Does this mean that both of them are unreliable? Explain your answer.

3. ‘It is impossible for two sources from different origination to be completely identical in content.’ How far do these sources agree with this statement? Explain your answer.

4. “It is impossible for a source to be completely useful.” How far does Source D support the following statement in consideration to Source E? Explain your answer.

5. USE ALL THE SOURCES.

‘The Boko Haram Mass Kidnap Act in 2014 shows the rising threat of terrorism.’ How far do these sources support this statement? Explain your answer. Your answer should include the evaluation of biasness of at least one tone.

Source Based Case Studies are meant to be entertaining and amusing to the average student, but the uniform and mundane setting of the case study has caused students to turn to rote learning to score high marks. Even if SEAB publishes a marker’s report that states that ‘Candidates who answer the question without relying on a formulaic approach were able to score the best in the Case Study’, does not solve the problem. Changes to both the Case Study and Section B is needed for objective assessment.

  I would be delighted to see meaningful changes to the Combined Humanities Assessment Scheme. It is heart-warming to see the rote-learning frequented SEQ being replaced by SRQ which aims to stop the rote learning process. But if change is wanted, changes to how questions are set and given to candidate should be in place.

  If anyone would like to comment on my suggestions given, do comment below or email to me @ littlebunniehellokitty@gmail.com. I would be delighted to discuss regarding this issue with you.

  THANKS!!!  THANKS!!!