[English] Meet the Assessors

[stephen at melbpc.org.au]

Thanks Peter for this interesting point of view, as you say it can appear
that this exam methodology may 'treat form as though it can be considered
independently of the interpretation of content.' And, so, one might guess
that students well-drilled in forms can appear to shine at this. So Peter
and everyone, I'm wondering what your thoughts are regarding methodology?

> Dear All
>
> I am glad we have the opportunity to get feedback from the assessors in
> English, especially as they often raise as many questions as they
> answer, which is healthy for the profession. I am particularly curious
> about what people made of the advice given by the Meet the Assessor
> panel last Thursday for VCE English with regard to some of the text
> questions asked by VCAA. When dealing with student responses to the
> question 'Does the film-maker's use of visual imagery and setting help
> or hinder the viewer's understanding of the concerns of the
> characters?', we were told repeatedly how excellent the question was for
> its ability to differentiate between students (actually, I think the
> more telling phrase 'discriminate between students' was used), but
> surely, even if there seemed to be a categorical determination to assert
> the excellence of the exam, people are right to feel that this question
> uncovers many problems with the expectation of the new course. We were
> lectured about the need for students to link the author's language
> choices to interpretation as though this was a new rationale for
> English, but I don't believe that this is the main thrust of the
> criticism to a question like this (the repeated defence of the question
> at least implies that there was criticism). 
> 
> To ask whether the form helps or hinders with the content is very
> difficult, because it assumes problematically that the form can exist
> independent of the content (thus the very understanding that apparently
> underpins the question is contradicted in the question). The sample
> response flashed all too briefly on the PowerPoint (it seemed from my
> too brief perusal) clearly examined the director's use of imagery and
> linked it to a defined understanding of the characters' concerns, but
> when looking at whether it helped or hindered, it had to be rather
> superficial because what can you say? For example, if a student were to
> write something like: 'By using animation to depict Meryl's anxiety
> about death, we get an insight into the way she visualises the world
> through her Art whilst emphasising the worries are taking place inside
> her head, detached from the external world, and so the visual imagery is
> very helpful in communicating her state of mind' , surely the last
> clause answers the question, but to what end? The meat is in linking the
> visual imagery to the character's concerns, not in evaluating whether
> they help or hinder, although a student would be marked down if he/she
> didn't make some sort of comment in this direction. And as such, any
> student who had looked at the link between what was in the film with why
> it was there could answer the question, if indeed they were not so
> confused by what they had to do with the question in the first place.
> And widespread confusion there was (at least, that seems to be many of
> the whispers I have heard in relation to many of the same styled
> questions). In a situation of widespread confusion, the fault either
> lies with a) the student, b) the teacher, c) the exam setter, and where
> I might be wrong to assume c), I felt the speaker at the VCAA Meet the
> Assessors strongly, and erroneously, implied a).
> 
> My main point is that where it is desirable to have students forge their
> interpretations from an awareness of the language choices an author has
> made, asking questions in this way has the effect of closing down such
> an enquiry; indeed, as I formerly suggested, it treats form as though
> itr can be considered independently of the interpretation of content.
> And regardless whether or not I will find agreement with my
> observations, I am a little concerned that any honest criticism of the
> exam or exam marking process is construed as griping that is to be met
> with a blanket statement of the paper's excellence (I seem to remember
> the term 'brilliant' - or a similarly inflated superlative - being used
> to refer to the writing of section 3. There are a lot of words to
> describe this composition, but 'brilliant' - I'd need more convincing.
> Why did the examination need such active talking-up?).
> 
> What do other people think?
> 
> Regards
> Peter
> 
> _______________________________________________
> www.edulists.com.au - FAQ, resources, subscribe, unsubscribe
> VCE English Teachers' Mailing List kindly supported by
> www.vate.org.au - Victorian Association for the Teaching of English and
> www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/vce/studies/english/index.html 
> Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority 


Message sent using MelbPC WebMail Server