1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

OCR B602 - responses to the paper?

Discussion in 'Religious Education' started by geeme01, May 18, 2011.

  1. Do you think it was a good paper. Ours didn't like the freewill question for 3 marks (how do you answer that in 3 points?!) and the science 12 marker on humanity and purpose. Any thoughts?
  2. I thought the humanity and purpose question was rather unfair; we have taught them well for two years, they have learnt their information and then they aren't given the chance to use it thoroughly. I think any half intelligent person could waffle their way through that 12 mark question and get at least a C grade having never studied RS before. I feel a little let down to be honest.
  3. I think the 12 mark question on Humanity and purpose was too demanding for GCSE and was not really reflective of the specification. Science and Religion focuses more on the relationship between Science and Religion, not Life and purpose. There is no way we could have prepared students fully for such a question and to set it as an E question is unacceptable - a complaint has been issued by us. THe OCR exam is NOT tiered and while I believe it should be academically challenging, it shouldn't forget it is open to a wide range of student abilties.
  4. ramaduds

    ramaduds New commenter

    Couldn't agree more!
  5. delahay

    delahay New commenter

    This is exactly what I said on a previous post in a different thread. One of my students said he didn't think he was prepared for the examination because of that question but I actually don't think from reading the spec I could have anticipated that question. At A level the questions are straightforward and you still get the range of responses. There is no need to ask tricky questions to differentiate.
  6. ramaduds

    ramaduds New commenter

    Let's just hope that B603 and B604 are nicer! I now keep anticipating odd Medical/Sexual Ethics evaluation questions! Surely they cannot be as hard to 'predict' - can they?
  7. Generally the B602 paper was ok. My students were instructed to not answer any questions relating to Religion and Science as I was unable to teach this unit in the time that I had been allocated. The students answered all the questions on 'Good and Evil' and 'Religion, Reason and Revelation'. Some of my less able students were thrown by the term 'Messiah' in two of the questions - if they had used any other reference to Jesus they would have been ok (e,g, Son of God; Saviour etc)!! I have checked the specification and the textbooks recommended by OCR and there is no reference to the term 'Messiah' - which I felt was a little unfair. OCR seem to to have a habit of using challenging questions that do not directly relate to the specification in the topics. The 'E' question on the unit Religion and Science seems to have caused a few problems!! In the B602 paper last year, the 'E' question on the unit 'Good and Evil' asked students to discuss the following statement: 'You should help people if you will get something in return'. I can't see what this question has to do with this topic. It seems to be more relevant to the Ethics unit of work 'Wealth and Poverty'!!
  8. brianwilson

    brianwilson New commenter

    They do refer to it in the chicken and egg books. This has way more information than the used through christianity books. having used these it made me worried about the level of knowledge that the pupils were required to know and made me go into things in much more detail. For example, the even talk about the fine tuning argument. This would suggest a higher demand. But the question remains, why have two different textbooks, with two different levels of information? The exam paper is A* - U.
  9. ramaduds

    ramaduds New commenter

    Although the concept of Messiah is important for any study of Jesus, it still remains that it isn't explicitely mentioned as something that must be studied in the specification. I was under the impression that definition questions would only refer to those in the specification. Mentioning a term in a textbook is not the same, whoever has an input in it's content. Textbooks should be useful not compulsory.
    Are the terms 'embryology', 'vivisection', 'fornication', 'priesthood' and 'chastity' coming up in B603? They are essential terms in the study of the associated ethical themes, but many pupils will not have been taught all of these terms.
  10. You're right- if it's not on the specification it shouldn't be on the exam.
  11. poppy2004

    poppy2004 New commenter

    This is why I'm off!
  12. brianwilson

    brianwilson New commenter

    Do you think they can refund us the money that we have spent on OCR resources?
  13. Thanks for your reply. I have checked the 'Chicken and Egg' books under the section 'Revelation of God in the Person of Jesus' (pages 73-74) and I can't see any reference to Jesus being the Messiah. If there is a reference to Jesus being the Messiah then fair enough but I can't see any. I may be mistaken though!!
  14. brianwilson

    brianwilson New commenter

    The reference in in unit one Nature of the Deity. I suppose OCR assume that this unit will inform the other aspects of the course
  15. matryoshkadoll

    matryoshkadoll Occasional commenter

    I have had a quick look using Jesus as Saviour from the index which leads me to page 21... It does mention in the second paragraph under Jesus as eternal that 'For Christians, the Resurrection proves that Jesus is the promised Messiah and that there is life after death" On page 74 there is a note in parenthesis that suggests that readers look back to page 21 for further information on Jesus as a 'saviour' - Suppose kids are supposed to know that messiah is just lower down on the page not under 'saviour' but 'eternal' instead.
  16. pete14

    pete14 New commenter

    Although I have no connection with OCR, I do know that any technical term used on an exam paper should be taken from the spec. If it is not, the question is unfair to candidates and should be challenged. Messiah is clearly a technical term and if the spec doesn't include it (and I haven't checked), it should not form a key part to a question.
    The QCA/Ofqual code of practice states in 3.12 that questions/tasks must be within the specification and that use of language is clear, precise and intelligible to candidates.
    It is irelevant whether it is in text books or not, it is the spec that is the determinant of what can appear on the exam. I hope this helps!
  17. Thanks for your reply. You are clearly more observant than me and I am happy to accept that I may have missed something!! I fully appreciate that their may be other references in other units of work but for me, that highlights a number of potential issues. For example: What happens if I have a limited timetable and select certain units of works to teach? Are my students expected to know every specialist term from other units just in case a question might arise in an exam?
    I just can't but feel that OCR like to complicate questions when it is not necessary. For example, instead of having the question 'Why is the Messiah important to Christians?' they could have asked 'Why is Jesus important to Christians?' or 'Why is the Son of God important to Christians?' I fully appreciate that OCR need to have a range of questions to test the different abilities of students but I do feel that sometimes the specialist terms can throw our less able students in an exam. My suggestion would be to use specialist terms in a, b, and c questions - so that if less able students doesn't know the answer then they haven't lost too many marks. I am not suggesting that the exam should be made easier, I just think that 'd' and 'e' questions should be accessable to most, if not all students.

Share This Page