6.4 ANSWERS TO RESEARCH QUESTION 4: WHAT WERE SOME FACTORS THAT
6.4.2 The actual contexts used
learners used the 50th centile boys curve and the 87th centile boys’ curves, and 13 learners used 87th centile boys curve and the 3rd centile girls curve.
The placement of text on the source document affected learners’ success in the examination task. The 87th centile boys curve was obscured at the beginning with the text 5kg typed thereon. The break in the curve led learners to believe that the curve stopped at 5kg and hence read the curve from this point. The placement of the text ‘1 to 2 YEARS’ led to learners reading off the incorrect value. Although many learners understood the concept
‘range’ as indicated in the interviews, the errors, incorrect information and distracters, in the inclusion of girls’ curves in the source document hampered learners’ success in the examination task.
b. Personal Experience of the Contexts
Learners’ own experience of the context and the real world influenced the way they interpreted and responded to the examination tasks. When asked whether the volume of the bucket would double if the dimensions were doubled, P10 responded ‘Yes’. The respondent based his reasoning on his own experience of reality that a bigger bucket would be heavier to carry and not how the question designer intended him to reason. For a similar reason, Prestage & Perks (2001: p.107) argue that most of the time, a problem set in context “is hardly relevant to anyone other than the question setter”.
The context about comparing two banks accounts (Question 3.3) also led learners to consider their own experiences in responding to some sub-questions rather than the given information.
When asked to work out a cash withdrawal fee, P8 selected R0.00, which was influenced by the fact that the learner had an achiever account which did not charge an ATM withdrawal fee.
Owing to the fact that South Africa was to host the 2010 Soccer World Cup, there was lots of discussion about the various teams participating, who the good teams were and who would possibly win the World Cup. Learners’ personal experiences and judgments about the performance of soccer teams influenced the way they answered Question 2.2.3(a). The question asked if South Korea could overtake Spain in the final round robin match. The correct response, based on the information given, was that if South Korea beat Spain in the final round robin match then both teams would be tied on equal points. Many participants, however, did not consider the given information, and responded that South Korea would not overtake Spain because Spain was a better team than South Korea. Their judgment was based on their real life experience of the teams’ performance. P10, who was a follower of soccer and knew how the point system worked, was negatively affected by his personal judgment in Q2.2.3(a). His experience of the game and the point system, however, helped him to zoom in on the crucial information needed to accurately work out the points required in sub-questions 2.2.1 and 2.2.2.
In his study to understand how pupils interpret and respond to test items in the context of actual testing, Cooper (1998) found that “some children’s accounts of their answers was a tendency to refer not to the given data but to their own experience of cars and lorries” (p.29).
He found that scores decreased as the children showed an increased tendency to refer to their everyday experience. Similarly, in my study, P8 and P10, as described in the preceding paragraphs, were negatively affected by their tendency to refer to their everyday experience of a bigger bucket being heavier and Spain being a better team than South Korea, rather than referring to the given data in responding to the examination task.
c. Complexity of the Contexts
The complexity of the contexts also affected learners’ responses to the questions. Question 1.2.2, which required the number of 500ml tins of paint that would be needed to paint 1 200 nuts, given that 25ml of paint was needed to paint one nut, contained too many numbers which made the context complex for some participants. Some responses obtained were: 1 200 nuts ÷ 500ml; 25ml × 500ml; 500ml × 1 200 nuts. The question: ‘How many…nuts?’ gave participants the false perception that their response should be in terms of ‘nuts’ rather than
‘tins’.
Due to the heavily information-laden context of Question 1.3 on wages and hours worked, Participant 9 gave up trying and simply multiplied the total working hours by the overtime rate. Similarly, participant 4 multiplied the total working hours by the normal rate. By subtracting a percentage from an amount (R708.75 – 1.3% = R707.45) and adding a percentage to hours worked (10% + 40 hours = 50 hours), participants demonstrated the complexity of the given context and the need to ‘simplify it’ in order to produce a response.
Participants 2 and 7 were unable to process multiple items of information simultaneously as was the case with Question 2.2 dealing with scoring in soccer. Multiple items of information that participants were required to deal with included the results from four matches and a log table showing matches won, drawn and lost with the points gained, Fifa’s system of scoring, and the fanatic’s system of scoring using bonus points. Due to the complexity of the information given in the scenario, Participant 2 responded in the interview: ‘I’m not sure how they get points’. Although Participant 7 was able to use the crucial information to correctly calculate the points for South Africa (D) and South Korea (E), she was unable to re-calculate D and E using the fanatics system of scoring. Success in this question depended on whether learners could simultaneously consider multiple sets of data, and make judgements based on different possibilities. Cognitively, this is a high level instruction and although it can be
classified as a Level 4 question in the SAML taxonomy (DoE, 2008, p.28), it is more demanding than the usual comparison task which asks for the better option based on comparison of prices or costs.