The Caribbean Examinations Council (CXC) has been made aware of the concerns of stakeholders regarding the provision of extra answer sheets to candidates for its examinations. CXC wishes to state the following;
- The issue of the extra answer sheet for candidates whose responses to questions may exceed the norm, only applies to the booklet in which candidates are required to write their answers to the questions.
- The new design booklets provide space for a response after each question. The space allocated for each response was determined based on a careful review of the space used by candidates in responding to similar questions over the years, plus an extra allocation for above-average responses.
- In an effort to ensure that no candidate is disadvantaged, the new answer booklets, also provide a general area, at the back of the booklet to facilitate the candidate who, for a particular response writes significantly more than the typical candidate.
- On the five previous occasions when these booklets were used, CXC has not received any complaints about candidates requesting or needing additional answer sheets for any of the papers offered in the Caribbean Advanced Proficiency Examination (CAPE) and the Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate (CSEC).
- CXC is confident that the space provided for the response to each question is more than adequate for the expected response, and wishes to advise all stakeholders that all steps have been taken to ensure that candidates are not disadvantaged from the use of these booklets.
- The matter of extra answer sheets was dealt with in Paragraphs 81 and 105 of the Supervisors and Invigilators Manual issued in 2015.
The Caribbean Examinations Council wishes to assure the region of its commitment to excellent service and providing examinations of the highest quality.
For further information, please contact Cleveland Sam, Public Information Officer at (246) 227 1892 or via e-mail @ CSam@cxc.org.
The space provided should assist students in making their responses as precise as possible thus removing any room for rambling. Additionally, the likelihood of sections of scripts being lost is totally removed. This is a move in the right direction.
For e-marked scripts, additional pages also increase the likelihood of responses not being properly scanned, and/or marked.
I think this is a move in the right direction , partircularly as it relates to additional answer sheets been lost, accidentally or erroneously removed.
The focus should over the next few years be in assisting tutors to empower candidates write more consice responses to questions. despite my view that rambling is something that will always be with us but any reduction would be welcomed.
True about rambling. Sometimes the same answer is given in several ways. Sometimes time is spent giving three examples to explain one idea when one example is all that is necessary.
The focus should be to get students to answer the questions asked as precisely as possible.
I remember a while back when I had to assist the Chief Invigilator in a royal run-around to recover a few relevant loose pages a candidate had accidentally departed with.
Problem now solved.
I cannot think of any inconsistencies or areas of inadequacy for the system of the answer booklets with sufficient space for students’ responses.
I support the present system fully ….. in mathematics of course the spaces provided for responses are more than adequate.
The number of sheets provided in the booklet is more than adequate. In many instances, some of the allotted are not even used. Good job CXC.
Finally! Candidates now have the opportunity to ‘see’ that expected typical response of 400 – 450 words should be confined to 3 pages, or at most, 4 pages. A blessing for the eyes of markers!!
This will help candidates to determine the length of response expected by examiner.
The new format allows for extension of answers. There are also extra pages.
What if a student realizes that he/she wrote a wrong response(s) and wishes to redo the par(s) of the question(s) but has no more space, what provision is made in such a case?
What if they made an error in answering a question and wants to make amends?
I totally agree with the six reasons given. There is absolutely more than the required space for all responses.
There are very good reason for this move – but not for the suddenness. The period of notification is too short for candidates to understand how to re-style their answers more briefly if necessary. What is required is that all students and their teachers should be comfortable with any changes and this does not seem to be the case.
Good move.
1. In mathematics, the graph paper being in black and white rather than blue or green makes it difficult to see the graph, when the student draws in pencil.
2. Writing without lines, and drawing the patterns in sequences, present challenges for some students.
3. Overall I do prefer this format and I agree that the space is more than adequate.
What if i write an essay and i make a mistake that would require me to write over the essay. Would I not need extra paper
I do not think this is a move in the right direction. Having studied mostly essay subjects for CSEC and CAPE, I understand the importance of needing space to write. This new policy is restrictive and forces students to write less (which may decrease the amount of actual information in the answers), which adds more pressure to them. My handwriting is large when I am writing exams and I have a tendency to cross off answers I don’t agree with. I am fortunate that my current institution allows for extra booklets to be given.
Granted, I don’t know what the new booklets look like and how much space is allotted. But I do know that there are students who can write pages upon pages and they would be severely affected. I myself would not like to be told that I have to write less. The message being inferred here is that I must edit my line of thinking in order to make it fit into the space given. This would restrict my thinking and possibly decrease its value to the examiner.
Call me biased, but I see a lot of flaws here.