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!!!

Notes for Combined Humanities (Social Studies/Elective History)

  Hi, if you want model essays for Social Studies and Elective History that is approved and provides guaranteed high marks for the examination, send me an email @ littlebunniehellokitty@gmail.com and I shall send you a sample model essay that you can judge. If you want it, then I will send you the billing details and post you the hard copy of the notes within 7 working days.
   If you are unsatisfied with the product and you want a refund, please send me an email and I will send a refund as long as the reason is justified and reasonable. I reply all my email within 1 working day.

HOW TO DO AN O LEVEL ELECTIVE HISTORY PAPER. (Confirm plus chop A1)

Hi, this is a suggested way of doing an Elective History Paper. Using this way, I had mastered the skill of doing the paper and scored a massive 45/50 for my Prelim Paper this year!

  This is ONLY for Prelim Papers and the Actual O Level Paper, where you have ALL five skills learnt and examined for that examination.

CONFIRM PLUS CHOP A1!

Time	Description	Use
0 to 7.5 mins	Start on the Source Based Case Study. Analyse the case study and infer ALL set sources based on the Evaluation judgement. Write it all CLEARLY on the question paper.	This is to help you gain the minimal passing marks for the Case Study. This will help you TREMENDOUSLY.
7.5-10 mins	Do the inference question, be it the Inference Basic, Inference Purpose or Inference Tone question.	This question is the easiest to score a distinction. Just infer the source with the keyword, like ‘tell’, ‘message’, and you will score at least 3-4 marks guaranteed.
10-25 mins	Using a spare blank foolscap. Do the EVALUATION question. Infer ALL source set. Do ensure that each paragraph has the keyword and an inference of one source ONLY. For example if 6 sources are set “Khrushchev was responsible for the Cuban Missile Crisis.” Using all the sources, how far do these sources support the statement? Explain your answer.” Paragraph 1: Source _The sources that support support the statement. Paragraph 2: Source __ support as it tells me that…message… (Evidence and Explanation) Paragraph 3 and beyond: Follow the same format for the ‘support’ sources. Paragraph 4: Source _The sources that do not support do not support the statement. Paragraph 5: Source __ does not support as it tells me that…message… (Evidence and Explanation) Paragraph 6 and beyond: Follow the same format for the ‘does not support’ sources. Last Paragraph (Only if you have time): Question reliability of one source based on Contextual Knowledge Cross Reference ONLY	These fifteen minutes are the most important 15 minutes in the entire examination. The evaluation question is an 8 mark question that is easy to score by sacrificing a bit of time.   Just evaluating 5 sources would allow you to gain the maximum 8 marks. The Last Paragraph is a backup 1 marks if one source fails to be successful in evaluation.   The keyword is essential, or else 0 marks will be awarded. ALL sources must be evaluated for backup purposes. That way, 8 marks will definitely be yours. BTW, now 11 marks will be yours now.
25-40 min	For the remaining sources, answer ALL the other sources by inferring all the sources in the questions.   Just use the keyword of each question and then infer the source.	Like previously in the blog, it is said that pure content will be able one to score partial credit for the question. The remaining questions are worth 22-24 marks. Just inferring the score will allow one to get another 11 marks, making the grand total 22 marks!
40-80 min	Answer the Structured Essay Question. Write at least a 1.5 page essay for part (a), with no leaving line for both paragraph, with 50% of the essay explanation of both paragraphs. (20 min) Write at least a 2.5 page essay for part (a), with no leaving line for two paragraph, one for each stand (AGREE and DISAGREE, etc.), with 75% being explanation of both paragraphs. (20min)	Explanation is key in the SEQ, worth 14 mark in total (4 marks in (a), 10 marks in (b).) Explanation clearly and long windily to gain exceptional explanation of factor AFTER elaborating the point with evidences. This will allow one to gain at least 16 marks, with your total marks now at least 38 marks.
At this point of time, the timing of the examination may vary due to your speed of writing. Do not be too obsessed with the length of your essays because your handwriting may be very small. The main concern is the clarity of factor explanation.   Do remember to use the keyword of SEQ (b) question to not risk failing the question due to lack of assertion.
80-95 min	Answer the rest of the source based question. For all the question except inference question and evaluation question, go into depth and interpretation of the source and question, writing the further interpretation as your second paragraph of each question. Example reliability question: How reliable is Source B? Explain your answer. Paragraph 1: Source B may be reliable in telling me that Khrushchev arrogance caused the Cuban Missile Crisis. (Evidence and Explanation) Paragraph 2: However, I can conclude that it is not reliable as it has a hidden motive. As it was from an American newspaper, the two countries were under the state of Cold War during the Cuban Missile Crisis and hence I would have expected the source to discredit and criticise Khrushchev. This is because of USSR being their opponent and hence Khrushchev, the leader of USSR at that time, discredit by USA. As the source meets my expectation of criticising Khrushchev, it decreases the reliability of the source, making it unreliable.	This helps you to gain the extra marks that allows you to gain extra marks for a higher A1.
95-100 min	Write a brief, but clear and elaborated conclusion of the Essay (b) question. (IF YOU HAVE TIME)	This helps you to gain the extra marks that allows you to gain extra marks for a higher A1.
Lowest possible score: SBCS: 22 marks SEQ: 16 marks Total : 38 marks (A1)