- UID
- 223356
- 帖子
- 574
- 主题
- 96
- 注册时间
- 2011-7-11
- 最后登录
- 2016-4-19
|
So it seems as if the key is to answer in short bullet points filled with key words.
Does this mean that those marking are better able to mark a shorter bullet point format than longer sentences with key words and explanation interspaced? The latter would take more time and would require the market to spend time integrating the points into a bullet point format: if markers have time constraints then this will favour the bullet point format. Markers may not have time to process the larger content of a longer answer while optimising their own marking objectives.
If this is the case the probability of failing with the correct responses is higher if you answer in a format which is not optimal for the marker. Two to 3 paragraphs with explanation and content versus 4 bullet points with the same differently organised content.
If correct, this would imply a bias towards certain presentation formats which is a strategic but non curriculum outcome.
In this case, the answers provided by the CFA in EOCs and their sample exams etc should also be in a buller point format to capture the outcomes required.
The marking process may therefore be an important determinant of the result, which will result in a skewed exam marking process.
I wonder if the CFA do a quality control on this issue? What is the % of passes with bullet points versus the % of passes with essay type written content? What is the distribution of the PM answer outcomes with the AM for essay written versus the AM/PM for bullet points? Do they select a sample of AM essay format answers with AM fails but high PM marks and remark the exams to check whether the markets are marking for content and not for format?
There is so little we know about the marking process and the quality control of that process. |
|
发表于 2011-8-27 01:51
|