We can continue this discussion off list if you like, Steven, since it may
not be of general interest.

The point about learning or experience in the context of sprinting and
applying that analysis to A level exams is that they are essentially the
same thing. We have better spikes, better tracks, better dietary advice ...
simply because athletic man has learned through trial and error, science and
technology ... when I put the 100 m times onto a learning curve type graph I
was initially shocked at the result but then it makes sense when you think
about it.

In the same way, students have a greater choice and variety of books now and
together with web sites, revision courses and goodness knows what, we can
ascribe at least some of the improvement in A level results to the learning
that teachers and students have done in terms of preparing for, taking and
passing exams.

A fascinating discussion for a learning curve wallah like me!

 Duncan

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steven Wheat" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 5:17 PM
> Subject: Re: Analysis of A level results
>
>
> A belated reply - agree with some of what you say but your comparison with
> sprinters - they have better equipment (better spikes, better tracks -
> tartan, better diets) so it's not surprising sprinters can get better
> timings c.p.. Compare with A level students - there's a much, much better
> bank of resources available courtesy of technology that students over 20
> years ago did not have.
> I think exam boards are much clearer in what they are looking for (mark
> schemes have alot of information) and the teachers  and students can
benefit
> alot from that.
> I don't think students are that much brighter than say 20 or 30 years
ago -
> but I don't have statistics to back up that. I will say that in the
classes
> I get, we have a mixture of mature students and those say 17 or 18 doing A
> level Business. The younger ones are often a little lacking in numerical
> skills and are unable to question if, say, their calculator comes up with
a
> figure which is patently wrong.
> steven
>
> >>> Duncan Williamson <[log in to unmask]> 08/16 8:20 am >>>
> Excellent, Richard. Send that to Sky News, BBC News, ITN, all the National
> newpapers, the Institute of Directors (take a look at their site and see a
> feeble attempts at what you have said so well: www.iod.com) and the rest
of
> them.
>
> What people are missing is that things are DIFFERENT now!
>
> If I had the data I would take the point you made about the four minute
mile
> and demonstrate the learning curve, or experience curve, effect of all of
> this. If you take, eg, the times of all Olympic gold medal results for the
> men's 100 metre race and plot it on a learning curve, you'll see an almost
> perfect fit. This reflects EXACTLY some of the points you are making:
things
> are getting better because people are learning ... that's what education's
> all about.
>
> and so on!
>
> <text deleted>
>
>
>