8436 Thinking Skills June 2005 CONTENTS FOREWORD 1 THINKING SKILLS 2 GCE Advanced Subsidiary Level 2 Paper 8436/01 Multiple Choice 2 Paper 8436/02 Paper 2 3 FOREWORD This booklet contains reports written by Examiners on the work of candidates in certain papers. Its contents are primarily for the information of the subject teachers concerned. 1
8436 Thinking Skills June 2005 THINKING SKILLS GCE Advanced Subsidiary Level Paper 8436/01 Multiple Choice Question Number Key 1 E 2 E 3 B 4 C 5 A 6 D 7 A 8 D 9 B 10 E 11 C 12 C 13 A 14 C 15 A 16 D 17 C 18 A 19 B 20 E 21 D 22 C 23 A 24 A 25 A 2 Question Number Key 26 B 27 C 28 B 29 C 30 D C 31 32 B B 33 34 B 35 A E 36 B 37 C 38 D 39 40 D C 41 42 D E 43 B 44 45 C 46 A C 47 C 48 49 A 50 E
8436 Thinking Skills June 2005 Paper 8436/02 Paper 2 General comments The paper appeared to have the same level of difficulty as last November's paper. Most candidates were able to complete answers to all three questions, a few performed extremely well, and there was a wide range of scores. Again performance varied between Centres, with candidates from some Centres demonstrating a clear understanding as to what constitutes good critical thinking, and candidates from a few Centres either limiting their answers to summaries of the stimulus material or discussing the topic of the argument in question, rather than analysing and evaluating the argument itself. What is needed is careful analysis and evaluation, leading to a considered judgement. It is not the length of the answer that is crucial, but the clarity, consistency and accuracy of the reasoning. Hence a short succinct answer can gain more marks than a long and elaborate one. All questions appeared to discriminate well between candidates, in that for each question the range of marks awarded was wide. There was no question for which marks were consistently low, but marks for Question 3 were probably, in general, slightly lower than those for Questions 1 and 2. Comments on specific questions Question 1 This is the question where candidates are most likely to write at unnecessary length, for example by telling the story over again before getting down to the business of evaluating the evidence. This means that they are writing maybe a page or two for which no marks can be given, and that they are wasting valuable time that could be spent on other questions. Also some candidates give a brief introduction listing the various sources of evidence that they will discuss, and saying what the task is. This is fine if it helps the candidate to think more clearly, but it is not necessary as part of the evaluation. A good way to introduce the topic, used by