Exam Post-Mortem

• Ambiguous Questions
• 60% Practical - Not a chance
• Bugger-all questions on the focused topics throughout the year
• Parrot-fashion answers expected versus "Testing the concepts"
• Name the naming convention? Seriously?
• Arrow Network Model is explicitly stated as not being used anymore. Not once were we asked to draw a full-out diagram like this. The whole year was Precedence networks.
• The exam was far too long
• No consistency between previous years, or even this years assignments/exams
• Corner case theory, rather than driving principles

Quote

Dear Lecturers,

I am writing to show my discern for the exam written for INF308 - 26 October 2010.

I am quite angry with the way that the SOC examinations have progressed so far this year. With each exam written, the complete lack (and misdirection) of communication between learners and lecturers has become more and more apparent. I have prepared well in advance for all of my exams, and have never been the type to "cram" work. I followed all of the instructions within the examination tutorial letter and have most definitely come off second best. Not only did I prepare, but I even went as far as to help other learners with their preparation for the exams.

My concerns are as follows (with quotations from the examination tutorial letter 103 for 2010):

Ambiguous Questions

Many of the questions were put in a sense where the objective was not made clear (be it the wording or the structure). Examples being the question in regards to Stepwise planning (the word planning, rather than simply using stepwise technique) completely sent learners down the wrong path. Another example is with regards to "Name the naming convention..." - what is the question here? These are only two examples from an otherwise convoluted exam.

60% Practical - Not true at all

Quote:

The layout of this year’s examination papers will be as follows: roughly 40% will focus on theoretical questions, while the remaining 60% will focus on a combination of theoretical and practical questions. While you do not need to memorise all the discount factor values, table descriptors, multiplier values, and so on (you will be provided with them), you do need to be able to apply all the relevant formulae.

The practical aspect of the exam came to 30% of the paper, a long shot from what we were told it would be. This causes us to focus on completely incorrect sections of work - putting us at a massive disadvantage when the paper is mostly theory based. Another note here is the fact that the question involving the Function Points did not give Albrecht's table of function point categorization, making the question guess work

Questions on the focused topics throughout the year were few and far between

The entire year has been focused on the practical aspects of applying concepts found in the textbook. It has also been focused on using the key aspects used in project management, such as the COCOMO model, the precedence network, cost-benefit analysis, scheduling and application of the various formulae to practical scenario's.

Parrot-fashion answers expected versus "Testing the concepts"

Quote:

The examination will test your understanding of the work
rather than just your ability to recall the work.
Most of the exam was based on parrot-fashioned recall. By stating that we must focus on understanding, we assume that you would rule out questions (which are very first-year-esque) such as "The four of..." or "List the 7 steps of...". This would again apply to the above point regarding the actual practical component of this module, in a relevant way to our future and current jobs.

Activity-on-arrow

It is explicitly stated in the book that the Activity-on-Arrow method is no longer being used in practice. Not once were we asked to draw a full-out diagram as was expected in the exam but rather the focus of the entire year was on Precedence networks - even if this meant converting an activity on arrow diagram into an activity on node diagram.

The exam was far too long

The tutorial letter stated that a mark a minute was what was required. This is a complete misrepresentation of the exam. The exam was at such a length (including the problems with ambiguity and drawing) that it is impossible to actually answer all of the questions with the required level of detail. I did not see a single person finish the exam on within time that was happy with their answers - and I exclude those who skipped sections.

No consistency between previous years, or even this years assignments/exams

There was barely a link between the assignments and the exam. The main concepts were left out and the theory was never tested.

Corner case theory, rather than driving principles

As students have said, the majority of theory questioned was in fact an array of corner case questions that are ignored when summarizing your notes. Again, we were told to focus on the understanding of the material, and not the parrot-fashioned receive and recall method of studying.

Please take these points into consideration, as I know for a fact that I am not the only one who had the same concerns.

Looking forward to your reply, and best regards,

Kyle
4343-375-8