Academics have slammed errors in a matric question paper that was set by the Gauteng education department for this month’s preparatory exams.
Three multiple-choice questions carrying six marks in total in the physical sciences paper 1, which was written last Friday, were found to have serious mistakes.
As a result of the exam bloopers, teachers were asked to award pupils full marks for all three questions irrespective of the option they chose.
According to the suggested answers, which TimesLIVE Premium has seen, this was because there was “no correct answer” for the first question in the paper which dealt with weight on a slope.
For the second problematic question about the movement of a block sliding over a rough, horizontal surface, pupils were asked to indicate which one of the four options were false but teachers were asked to mark all responses correct because all options were “true”.
Teachers were also asked to give all candidates full marks for the third wrong question dealing with the amount of energy needed to “excite” an electron because it was not part of this year’s syllabus.
Commenting on the error in the first question, Emmanuel Mushayikwa, a senior lecturer in science education at the Wits School of Education, said it was “inexcusable and unacceptable” because pupils are denied the opportunity to demonstrate what they know as all the answers are wrong.
“The student can as well pass in ignorance just by guessing any option without thinking. Others will waste time agonising over the ‘correct’ answer and may therefore become disadvantaged in terms of not having enough time to complete the rest of the exam.”
He said it was clear that the first two questions were not reviewed before being released for the exam.
“There seems to have been a lapse of attention on the part of those who selected these items from the item bank.”
He also questioned why pupils were being awarded marks for the third question that was based on work that was not part of this year’s syllabus.
“It looks as though the examiners only reviewed the questions after the exam was written.”
Mushayikwa said these errors could have been avoided had due process been observed.
“The Gauteng department of education is a competent organisation with a track record in provincial exam setting. It is therefore inconceivable that such glaring errors and amateurish solutions to the errors were allowed to see the light of day. These solutions suggested for marking are not educationally sound and do not portray the ethics of assessment.
“Pre-matric provincial exams are the barometer by which educational players within the province gauge the success or failure of their initiatives. It is important they be treated with the seriousness that they deserve.”
Irene Muller, a senior lecturer in the school of maths, science and technology education at North West University, said it was a concern that the three questions “lacked correct answers and/or information”.
“The mistakes should not be in the paper if the process of setting it, working out the answers based on the questions, moderation of the paper internally and externally and discussion about possible problematic questions and answers, were followed.”
She said usually expert teachers were involved in the setting of provincial papers and that the mistakes “which slipped through in the process is perhaps due to not having enough time between the setting of the paper and the submission date”.
“I agree with their suggestion to allocate all learners the marks for the questions.”
She proposed that there should be continuous training of examiners on the formulation of questions and the format that questions should take.
Prof Deonarain Brijlall from the faculty of applied sciences at Durban University of Technology said there is no reason for any of the mistakes to have been made.
“The first question in the paper had no correct answer, and this meant learners would have been stumped early in the exam.
“Giving the learners the benefit of the doubt with two marks does not compensate for the extra time learners would have spent on the question.”
He said the examiner needed to write up the solutions for the multiple-choice questions, and in this way the examiner and moderator would have picked up the errors.
A grade 12 pupil said he knew the correct answer for the first question but did not see it among the four options given and assumed the examiner made a mistake “because the four were clearly incorrect”.
“I chose the one that seemed the ‘most right’ to me and moved on. When I got to the last multiple choice question, I immediately didn’t recognise it because the question they asked isn’t in our syllabus.”
He said he had no idea which answer to choose, and “I guessed”.
A physical sciences teacher said pupils were “really frustrated” as the first question in the paper was wrong.
“Some pupils came to me after the paper asking what was the correct answer for question because they had struggled to find the answer.”
He said there should have been no errors because the paper had been moderated.
Umalusi spokesperson Biki Lepota said stakeholders were encouraged to consult the handbooks Umalusi had produced and uploaded on the website to guide the process of setting quality questions.
Gauteng education department spokesperson Steve Mabona said “anomalies can occur at any stage of the setting process”.
“At the marking standardisation meeting, a unanimous decision was taken to adjust the marking guidelines to ensure that no candidate is prejudiced.”
He said the exams were subjected to internal and external moderation. An exam panel comprised two examiners, a translator and an internal and external moderator.
Mabona said no complaints about the paper were received.
“The department implements stringent measures to ensure the production of quality exam material.”
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.