Building skills in exam question responses

Why is it that I answer the question but I don’t get full marks Why is it that I answer the question but I don’t get full marks? Why is it that I know the content and I don’t get full marks???

This has to do with a few things but mainly it has to do with: Mark allocations Structure Command terms

Structure S- State your contention E- Explain what you meant by that--- flesh it out E- is there an illustrative example you could include? L- Link this back to the question/statement (this is not the same as rewriting the question)

Marks The mark allocations MUST be a guide for you. It will let you know how much discussion has to be included. Please be wary though---- fewer points in more detail is much better than a word vomit of every point you think might be relevant. So just because a question is worth 8 marks doesn’t mean you need to have 8 points

Command terms This is where stronger students break away from the weaker students---- but this is fixable! It’s all about reading the question carefully You MUST focus on your command/action terms as they will direct your focus, contention and structure

Evaluate To discuss both sides and conclude on balance This means: on the basis of what you have presented, what is the more compelling argument? Whilst a introduction will assist you in structuring your responses, a conclusion requires the bigger punch.

Evaluate State the advantage/disadvantage Explain why that is an advantage/disadvantage Illustrate that advantage/disadvantage (example or ‘what if’) Use a change of direction word REPEAT Explain which is stronger on the basis of what is written (this is the evaluation)

Evaluate the Courts as law-makers Courts’ primary role is to decide the cases brought before them, it is only their secondary role to make law (statement). Courts’ primary role is the resolution of disputes, and they are well prepared for this with impartial judges who have extensive legal knowledge and resources available to them (explanation). However (shows a change of direction and a change of thinking highlighted to the marker) sometimes courts do need to make laws by establishing a new precedent (statement). They do not do this lightly but have the authority to do so. Sometimes there is no appropriate statute or case law for a new set or circumstances and it is in this situation that a court will make law. In this situation a new precedent may be set (explanation). An example of this was in the case of Donoghue vs. Stevenson (1932) when the law of contract was insufficient to deal with the facts of the case. As a result the ‘neighbour principle’ was established which then established the tort of negligence. (example). Although courts only have a secondary role in law-making it is necessary that they have the capacity to ‘fill in the gaps’ and establish new precedents if need be. The courts have shown that they can be very effective in this secondary role (evaluation statement)

To what extent? These are becoming increasingly common Responses must be measured or self limited ie: how is this restricted? Or how far does it go? These questions are all about LIMITS

Courtesy of VCTA

Introductions and Conclusions Technically as the questions are marked globally this means it is about the whole question This means that you won’t get full marks if you don’t have a strong contention and clear conclusion, but you don’t specifically get marks for them.