Mock Exams, are they worth it?

teacherhead

Follow from the maths thread and some comments on Liveline yesterday I'm wondering about the effectiveness and value of mock exams generally.

corrections are expensive at 8€ per paper or so and can be poor

If teachers mark their own there is a significant Workload.

The standard of some questions often leaves a lot to be desired, others are copied directly from past papers from the sec and therefore not unseen

The only advantage really is that students spend up to three hours working in exam like conditions.

There is also a loss of teaching time while exams are held.

thesimpsons

tbh I think the best use of the mocks is in the students getting an idea of the timing and the whole experience of a "foreign" exam set by someone other than the "teacher who hates me anyway". The correcting of the exams has always been iffy (and I did LC in 1980s and it was the same back then) and a well practised student will have little enough unseen questions and topics. The mocks is often the kick up the backside that some students need - whether its the sudden realisation that the real exam is not that far way, or sometimes the results give the kick needed to the student that they don't really know as much as they thought they did.

Powerhouse

teacherhead wrote: »

The only advantage really is that students spend up to three hours working in exam like conditions.

I don't think this is the only advantage. For many students it provides a focus that would otherwise not be there at a relatively early stage. For other students it provides a timely reality check. And it also often gives the teacher an insight into the student's preformance under conditions and pressures they would not normally face or cannot otherwise be simulated. In that sense I think they inform teaching greatly. And certainly I haven't too many students that have such an encyclopaedic knowledge of past papers that they wouldn't get quite an eye-opener from even a regularly re-heated question on a Mock paper!

I think there's a significant value in them - quite what that is in monetary terms is another matter.

solerina

I also think that mock exams are very valuable to both student and teacher. The student gains by learning hor to time the paper properly...and many leave out bits of questions, sections ect...if they do it or hear of their friends doing it in the mocks its a real wake up call and they are unlikeley to do it in June. For the teacher it gives a real focus point to get the students to work early in the year...some think June is so far away that they have loads of time, also it show up students who dont perform well in exam conditions who can be helped by the teacher before the real thing. As others have sais its a real wake up call for those who havnt been doing enough work all along. Yes the exams are expensive but the ' are worth it' (thank L'Oreal).

joebloggs32

From a teachers point of view they help to get the students working towards their exams. Also as stated they are a dress rehearsal for timing and mistakes. And thirdly there is the feedback.
As regards the expense, it will vary. Where I teach there is only a charge for the actual paper, so the cost for each student was quite low. This means that as a teacher I must correct them. I don't have too much difficulty with this as you can see an individual student's strengths and weakness.
However from a workload point of view it is a tough time of the year as it is clashing with Leaving and Junior Cert projects, along with preparations for orals etc, and as a result the quality of lesson planning and teaching would fall a little at this time.

implausible

I think they're very valuable, providing a timely kick up the arse for a lot of student. Mock time is the time to make mistakes like leaving questions out and poor timekeeping. When done properly, they also provide an insight into marking schemes and answer length required from someone who isn't their teacher.

€8 per paper is ridiculous, considering the frequent dodgy standard of the corrections. I swap mine with a teacher in another school, it works out well and no money changes hands.

happywithlife

As others have said, I think they are invaluable at gaining experience re timing and it helps some to knuckle down
Gave mine back today and they were well marked. Bit tough and some inexperience showed by the external examiner, but overall well marked.
But gezz I felt like hitting one of them when she very vocally protested against her lack of marks ... All for lack of expansion, which I'm blue in the face telling her to do. She was completely deaf to it all and sure it was only a boll***s of a paper anyway & she'll be grand in June... August and its justly deserved kick up the a$$ can't come fast enough :pac:

RealJohn

I think the mocks are a good idea in theory but I think their effectiveness is diluted by having what almost amount to mocks at Christmas and summer in the preceding years. I think that the effectiveness of mocks is related to their being a big deal and in my (relatively limited) experience, when they sit down in a room together under exam conditions twice a year it makes the mocks more routine which has the knock on effect of them being less like the actual state exams. The state exams feel different because the students know that this is the big one - no do overs. The mocks only feel like that if it's a new experience and if they've had the same treatment every Christmas and summer in the preceding years it lessens that experience.

I'm fully in favour of mocks but I think that big Christmas and summer exams dilute the effectiveness of the mocks. I'd much sooner see those go than the mocks.
(and I realise that they probably don't happen in all schools but they've happened in every school I've worked in and when I asked about it here before it seemed to be the more common practice)

Powerhouse

RealJohn wrote: »

I think the mocks are a good idea in theory but I think their effectiveness is diluted by having what almost amount to mocks at Christmas and summer in the preceding years. I think that the effectiveness of mocks is related to their being a big deal and in my (relatively limited) experience, when they sit down in a room together under exam conditions twice a year it makes the mocks more routine which has the knock on effect of them being less like the actual state exams. The state exams feel different because the students know that this is the big one - no do overs. The mocks only feel like that if it's a new experience and if they've had the same treatment every Christmas and summer in the preceding years it lessens that experience.

I'm fully in favour of mocks but I think that big Christmas and summer exams dilute the effectiveness of the mocks. I'd much sooner see those go than the mocks.
(and I realise that they probably don't happen in all schools but they've happened in every school I've worked in and when I asked about it here before it seemed to be the more common practice)

I'm surprised at this as in my experience anyway students see a clear distinction between mocks and Summer/Christmas exams from previous years. In fact I don't see the Christmas and Summer ones as being all that 'big' anyway to be honest. In my school, for younger students especially, the exam would last an hour or an hour and a quarter - not a whole lot longer than an in-class test to be honest.

For someone sitting a JC mock paper and having to stay in the one place without communicating with others for maybe three hours is a serious shock to the system, incomparable with anything they've previously experienced at Christmas or Summer in my school anyway.

It might be a bit different at Senior level since they'll have done the JC so recently anway but still they'd do just one set of Christmas and Summer exam between the JC and LC Mocks.

spurious

I don't find them of much use at all, but then I would teach groups who are straining to go after less than 40 minutes in most exams, saying they are done.

I find them very disruptive to the year as a whole.

RealJohn

I'm not saying that they don't see any difference, just that they see less difference since the experience isn't that dissimilar to their Christmas/summer exam experience. It's not just about the length of the exam but the exam hall experience. My preference would be that the mocks would be their first experience of that (though given how widespread it seems to be, I'm assuming that there's some sort of research to suggest that big Christmas/summer exams are better for students.

Stronger, more motivated students will take them seriously anyway of course but average students and especially weaker students don't take them as seriously in my experience.

teacherhead

I really think that theyre a waste of time and money. Poor papers, shockingly bad marking if sent away, a massive workload if teacher marked.

A two paper exam for 30 students in JC and the same in lc is no joke to mark. As for the wake up call thing, I dont buy it. The kids who do well in the mocks will do well in June, the others may improve but I think this is more down to the exam preparation nearer the end of the year.