Improving Written Response

[ziaxadon]

Hey Guys,
I will be completing unit 1/2 chemistry in 2018. However, from my experiences in 1/2 physics and biology I have found out that written responses to certain phenomenons involved in the respective sciences is really important. When I completed SACs for physics and biology I have found obtaining marks in the multiple choice and sections that didn't require written responses to be quite easy. However, for biology in particular I often lost a lot of marks in written responses. I just want to ask what would be the best way to improve written responses in a SAC scenario for Chemistry.

Thanks in advance!!!!

[A TART]

I would suggest quality over quantity

Try spending time on extended response answers rather than doing a whole lot of them. A technique (when not doing a SAC) is to break down the question.

Ie: Bioethanol is a type of biofuel.
Describe what is meant by the term ’biofuel’ and explain whether biofuels are renewable. (2 Marks)

-The marks awarded indicate the quantity and quality of the desired answer. In this case, we require 2 parts.

-Highlighting key words such "describe" and "explain" indicate what you are required to do.

An answer like: "Biofuels are fuels derived from living things and are renewable" does satisfy what we need to cover, by lacks quality as indicated by "describe" and "explain".

Better answer: "Biofuels are fuels derived from living organisms as the prefix "bio" suggests. However, they differ from fossil fuels (which are also derived from organic material) in that they can be replaced by natural processes (ie: fermentation to produce biogas, or transesterification to produce bioethanoldiesel) within a relatively short period of time, hence making them renewable."

-Comparing is often a good technique even when the question doesn't ask for it. (just like comparing biofuels with fossil fuels). This clarifies and possible misinterpretations (the examiner could argue fossil fuels are also derived from plants/animals).

Another example: Comment on the efficiency of a steam turbine. (2marks)

You could say "Its efficiency is low", but relative to what? We need to compare it to something and explain the reasoning behind it

Better response: "The efficiency of a steam turbine is relatively low compared to sources like batteries due to the fact it loses a significant amount of heat through the steam that is produced and emitted as a waste product. (whereas batteries produce next to no heat, ensuring that as much chemical energy is converted into electrical energy)."

In saying all of this, highlighting and breaking down the question physically on paper is a good idea when practising, but it should happen mostly (if not all) in your head when in a SAC/Exam.