how'd you do with the exam?

wasn't too bad at all.
i sucked some stuff out of my thumb though
can remember :
systematic vs participant advantage/disadvantage
what is grounded theory
know you triangulations
literature review (14marks)
mean,median,avg,range, standard deviation (did not do the SDeviation)
reasons for doing research (8marks)

Didn't the exam was too bad at all, however question 1.4 was worded literature survey and not literature review. At no time during the exam did the invigilators correct this, nor could they answer queries on it. Everyone makes mistakes, but as far as I'm concerned this question should not be counted toward the final result. I plan on phoning Prof. Smith tomorrow and asking him about this. In my mind survey and review are two very different things.

It was not bad at all but I was also confused about the literature survey thing and answered it as "literature review".
I messed up the question about between systematic vs participant advantage/disadvantage: starting to answer in paragraph form and then realise I must make a table.

Yes, not bad, but I was a bit messed up by the Literature Survey question too.
I ended up answering with Literature Review and the Survey Process in one answer.
Nearly scrubbed out Literature Review and replaced with Survey Process, before I decided I just couldn't guess which one they meant and ended up plonking out everything to do with either.

this literature one caused some trouble
i hope rhofmeyr sorts them out and we can get some marks for that

The results are out. My pass mark for this subject is very disappointing. The paper was not difficult at all. I also do not qualify for remarking because I do not fall in the catecory specified. Eish!!!