The new VCE system

[alondouek]

Gotta say, very annoyed at VCAA and the government as a whole.

This new study design seems to me to be something of an act of utter stupidity, specifically in regards to the restructuring of the science courses. The cancellation of midyears is one of the most moronic things I could have envisioned VCAA doing.

Why? Because it comes at the cost of educational depth. For me, biology was a passion; it was a way for me to learn more about life and the world around me. Going into the mid-year exam last year, I saw it as a way to personally test my knowledge of the subject; I viewed the exam as simply a part of learning about an area that I cared about.

Ostensibly, the fact that mid-year examinations have been axed is, to say the least, disgusting. The reasons behind this were purely economic ones; VCAA wanted to save money for allocation on behalf of the government. By removing midyears, all the subject matter in an entire year of learning will be tested in one exam. Not only does this reduce the margin of error that can be allowed before an individual's grades are affected, the amount of knowledge that could be examined on is greatly reduced.

What does this mean for students? A great deal. I know that under these circumstances, I would be far more selective in which topics I choose to study, rather than aiming for the breadth of knowledge that the subject is supposed to offer me.

VCAA has put forward "solutions" that I find markedly ineffective. They make the examination longer - but do not account for the fact that a longer examination does not necessarily allow for breadth in an examination, especially in a subject that has so much examinable material such as biology. They amend the study design to reduce the potential workload - thereby reducing the opportunity for learning that should be afforded to all who undertake such a subject.

The fact that economic benefit has overtaken a responsibility to providing excellent education in an organisation such as VCAA is depressing.

Thoughts?

[CH3ezEC4KE]

It is pretty crazy, but personally as someone who did humanities subjects I find it hilarious

[michak]

Gotta say, very annoyed at VCAA and the government as a whole.

This new study design seems to me to be something of an act of utter stupidity, specifically in regards to the restructuring of the science courses. The cancellation of midyears is one of the most moronic things I could have envisioned VCAA doing.

Why? Because it comes at the cost of educational depth. For me, biology was a passion; it was a way for me to learn more about life and the world around me. Going into the mid-year exam last year, I saw it as a way to personally test my knowledge of the subject; I viewed the exam as simply a part of learning about an area that I cared about.

Ostensibly, the fact that mid-year examinations have been axed is, to say the least, disgusting. The reasons behind this were purely economic ones; VCAA wanted to save money for allocation on behalf of the government. By removing midyears, all the subject matter in an entire year of learning will be tested in one exam. Not only does this reduce the margin of error that can be allowed before an individual's grades are affected, the amount of knowledge that could be examined on is greatly reduced.

What does this mean for students? A great deal. I know that under these circumstances, I would be far more selective in which topics I choose to study, rather than aiming for the breadth of knowledge that the subject is supposed to offer me.

VCAA has put forward "solutions" that I find markedly ineffective. They make the examination longer - but do not account for the fact that a longer examination does not necessarily allow for breadth in an examination, especially in a subject that has so much examinable material such as biology. They amend the study design to reduce the potential workload - thereby reducing the opportunity for learning that should be afforded to all who undertake such a subject.

The fact that economic benefit has overtaken a responsibility to providing excellent education in an organisation such as VCAA is depressing.

Thoughts?

I totally agree with you. i can totally see the exams being very superficial now because they need to cover a whole lot more content. I hardly see the being any questions that show a great and through understanding of the topic and leaning more towards just memorising information. The reason these subjects were given mid years in the first place is because they had so much content, and yet these new study designs don't have much of the original cut out of it only revisied.
All this is going to do is place a whole lot more pressure on students. And your right in saying that people are going to be a lot more selective in their subjects choices. I'm telling you know I would not be happy at all if i knew i had to do a chem exam based off the whole year.

[Lasercookie]

What do you make of other Year 12 curriculum's that didn't have midyears, HSC in New South Wales etc.

What does this mean for students? A great deal. I know that under these circumstances, I would be far more selective in which topics I choose to study, rather than aiming for the breadth of knowledge that the subject is supposed to offer me.

Why? You could argue that there's more time to study in depth, you could view midyears as a distraction - since time has to be allocated to teach to that exam sucking up time in the latter half of Term 2. Just like previous years you can't predict what's going to be on the exam and being selective could just be screwing yourself over. That's not a problem with VCAA, that's a problem with the way you proposed to study.

I don't think it's fair to say that the because of this change VCAA will begin pushing out low-quality exams that only test things to a superficial extent. 

[alondouek]

What do you make of other Year 12 curriculum's that didn't have midyears, HSC in New South Wales etc.

Honestly not a fan. As stated above, I believe the benefits of having mid-year examinations are wide-ranging. However, I believe that the HSC system is far better structured than the incoming VCE study design (based on information here: http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllabus_hsc/).

You could argue that there's more time to study in depth, you could view midyears as a distraction - since time has to be allocated to teach to that exam sucking up time in the latter half of Term 2. Just like previous years you can't predict what's going to be on the exam and being selective could just be screwing yourself over. That's not a problem with VCAA, that's a problem with the way you proposed to study.

I haven't come across anyone who has found midyears to be a distraction; rather, all those (at my school, at least) who undertook midyear examinations found it to be:

• Good practice/pacing for the end of year exams, which are often considered more difficult due to the sheer number of exams, and
• Positive due to the segmenting of knowledge between units 3 and 4.

I would argue that the retention of knowledge gained from a subject is better under a system with midyears; I'm sure that if I were expected to remember a year's worth of biology at one time, and then apply all that knowledge in one paper, both my marks and my comprehension of the subject matter would be adversely affected.

I don't think it's fair to say that the because of this change VCAA will begin pushing out low-quality exams that only test things to a superficial extent. 

I think you may have partially misunderstood me here. I do not believe the exam papers produced by VCAA under the new study design will be of "low-quality"; rather, precedent is on the side of those who write these exams to create exams that are of the calibre that they usually are.

However, I do believe that these papers will be, unavoidably, more superficial. Surely you agree that more information relating to units 3 and 4 of a subject would be more specifically examined upon in an exam for each of these units (totalling 3 hours), rather than condensing all this information into one 2.5 hour exam?

[Michelle94]

i agree its the worst idea, glad i finished vce this year!

[thushan]

I'm actually a supporter of this idea, altogether I think the exam should be 3 hours long and 50+100=150 marks for biology rather than 2.5. That said, it will reward breadth of knowledge over depth, which may be good for some, not so much for others. One of the good things about that is that knowledge can be tested across units, so knowledge from both units 3 and 4 can be addressed in an integrated manner. Having seen the sample exam for biology and chemistry and having written a number of exams in chemistry for my study guide, I believe that the exams won't be more superficial. 

[Professor Polonsky]

I know that in Physics there's less content. Only one detailed study rather than two.

[slothpomba]

I honestly think chem will cope OK. It's so watered down compared to university level chemistry that its ridiculous. Looking back, it is fairly easy.

There are plenty of humanities subjects that cover an absolute shitload of wide areas and only also have one end of year exam.

Biology i worry about though. A lot of it isn't chopped down much from first year general uni bio and theres some stuff in there thats even true in 2nd year. It touches on everything from evolutionary biology...immunology...cell biology...biochemistry...bit of developmental biology...genetics and i'm sure i'm forgetting much more. It's a really massive compression of a lot of things that encompass the modern field of biology. Remember, a lot of guys dedicate their whole lives to one disease or animal, let alone an area like "physiology".

These are really important areas in modern biology and i've always thought of VCE courses as a mini-taster of what the subject is like in detail and at a uni level. I worry we might have to lose some of the breadth here by design.

[Edward21]

Why? Because it comes at the cost of educational depth. For me, biology was a passion; it was a way for me to learn more about life and the world around me. Going into the mid-year exam last year, I saw it as a way to personally test my knowledge of the subject; I viewed the exam as simply a part of learning about an area that I cared about.

I totally agree, I am so so so so so happy I did biology last year, it may well have been the best decision of my life to get such a massive subject out of the way before Year 12, but wow so much content in one exam  I have a feeling VCAA may put out never before seen tricky questions that amalgamate various parts of Units 3/4 that obviously we never had to do. In Unit 3 we were only tested on Unit 3, and for Unit 4 that knowledge plus Unit 3 as a support (biochemistry --> DNA Replication) The only actual papers to practice off will be new LisaChem, NEAP, TSFX, Insight and the sample exam pretty much, not exactly pumped for a 2.5hr exam that determines my chemistry fate in November, but keep calm and carry on I guess?