12/09/2002 Author : Mr Gert Schomacker 1 / 24 1.0 Introduction This report is divided into 2 sections: P art A is based on the reports ( Proces-Verbaux ) of the European Baccalaureate made by each European School. P art B is based on the reports of the external examiners on the written and the oral examinations. Report on the European Baccalaureate 2000 Teaching Committee (Secondary) Meeting on 15 November 2000 in Centre Borschette Références: 2000-D-4110 Orig.: EN Version: EN
Transcript
ean
and
Report on the EuropeanBaccalaureate 2000
Teaching Committee (Secondary)
Meeting on 15 November 2000 in Centre Borschette
Références: 2000-D-4110Orig.: ENVersion: EN
1.0 Introduction
This report is divided into 2 sections:
Part A is based on the reports ( Proces-Verbaux ) of the EuropBaccalaureate made by each European School.
Part B is based on the reports of the external examiners on the writtenthe oral examinations.
12/09/2002 Author : Mr Gert Schomacker 1 / 24
School reports
Introduction
heiromrs’heirding
ole. It
nt auchheandrom
more
uringom
Part A
1.1 School reports
• General remarks
The reports of the different schools are in many aspects very similar in tstructure. Some schools give many details, like copies of faxes frInspectors during the written examinations and copies of doctocertificates, other schools’ reports are much shorter. All schools start treports by the number of candidates enrolled per language section, incluwithdrawals.
In this report the totals refer to the number of candidates who took the whexam (including those who failed, but excluding those who withdrew)would make the reports more compatible if the schools did the same.
The two biggest schools (Brussels I and Luxembourg) do not preseranked list of results, but simply an alphabetical one. A ranked list is mmore useful for this report. Very useful, too, is the table listing tdistribution of results, grouped in relevant intervals, for the whole schooleach language section as well. This kind of table is found in the reports fBrussels II, Culham, Karlsruhe, Mol, and Varese.
1.2 Enrolment
The complete exam was this year taken by 1133 candidates, 59 or 5.5%than last years’ 1074 candidates.
The number of successful candidates reached 1092. Last year: 1031. Dthe examination period 9 candidates withdrew : 1 from Bergen, 5 frBrussels I, 2 from Brussels II, and 1 from Luxembourg.
The following table shows enrolment by schools and language sections.
2000-D-4110_bac_en_A+B.tmpfm.FM
Part A2/24
12/09/2002
Deliberation
Introduction
d ton behe 5
for aten
ntlyn:
r a.
e 6
ve ats in
Enrolment by schools and language sections :
1.3 Deliberation
According to the European Baccalaureate regulations the mark requirepass is 60. Candidates with an average between 59 and 59.99 caconsidered for a pass if they have obtained 60 or more in at least 2 of twritten examinations.
Candidates with an average between 57 and 58.99 can be consideredpass if they have obtained 60 or more in at least 3 of the 5 writexaminations.
This year only 10 candidates qualified for a special deliberation, significaless than last year’s 22 candidates. All 10 were given special deliberatio
At Brussels II, Culham, Karlsruhe, Varese no candidates qualified fospecial deliberation. Mol does not explicitly mention special deliberation
Bergen and Brussels I do not specify the interval of the original marks. Thcandidates from Luxembourg and Munich were between 59 and 59.99.
If candidates pass after special deliberation, marks are adapted to arrifinal average of 60 or slightly above. As an example, the adapted markLuxembourg were from 60.08 up to 60.20.
School Be Br I Br II Cu Ka Lu Mo Mü Va Total
Total 53 279 185 45 80 261 66 87 77 1133
DE 11 21 29 10 25 40 8 28 17 189
DK - 22 - - - 19 - - - 41
EM - 20 - - - 8 - - - 28
EN 16 37 36 11 18 36 - 25 23 202
ES - 46 - - - 12 - - - 58
FI - - 7 - - - - - - 7
FR 9 74 45 16 16 52 27 15 12 266
IT 3 34 24 5 14 36 10 15 23 164
NL 14 25 17 3 7 23 21 4 2 116
PO - - 20 - - 29 - - - 49
SW - - 7 - - 6 - - - 13
Part A3/24
2000-D-4110_bac_en_A+B.tmpfm.FM
12/09/2002
Overall results
Results
tion,st 6
ast 6
nogenrate.
l
3
%
2.0 Results
2.1 Overall results
Of the 1133 candidates, 1092 passed, 10 of whom after special deliberawhile 41 failed. The pass rate was 96.4%, the second highest of the layears, but the variation is not very big:
This year 309 candidates (27.3%) scored 80 or more, the highest of the lyears:
2.2 Differences between the schools
2.2.1 Success rates
Differences between schools are bigger than last year. Culham hadfailures, for the fourth consecutive year. This year two other schools, Berand Varese, had no failures as well. Mol had a remarkably low successApparently there is no correlation between school size and pass rate.
2.2.2 Good results
Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Pass rate 95.7% 95.7% 95.5% 97.2% 96.0% 96.4%
Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Over 80 21% 21.1% 18.8% 22.4% 23.4% 27.3%
Pass rate Be Br I Br II Cu Ka Lu Mo Mü Va
2000 100 94.3 98.9 100 97.5 96.2 86.4 97.7 100
1999 96.3 94.7 96.5 100 93.7 95.5 98.3 98.5 95.8
5 year average up to 1999 95.1 95.8 96.1 98.6 96.0 95.8 96.4 93.9 96.8
The total of 45.7% candidates scoring 75 or higher is very satisfactory, mmore than the previous years: 40.2% in 1998 and 39.9% in 1999 .
The variation among schools is much higher than last year. Two schoBergen and Mol, have very few good candidates. Culham holds the posof topscorer with no more than 64.4% .
The great differences between schools become more clear if the above reare shown in rank order:
The three big schools hold the three places closest to average. Theschools are either far above or far below average.
It may also be interesting, but with great statistical uncertainty to studyoutstanding candidates scoring 90 or above. The total was 26 or 2slightly above last year’s 22 or 2,0% :
Again we see the same pattern, the three big schools closest to averagCulham at the top.
2.3 Differences between language sections
2.3.1 Pass rates
The differences between pass rates are smaller than last year. TheNordic countries have no failures. Spain and Portugal have left their botposition, now held by France.
The following table shows the language sections ranked by pass rate2000
2.3.2 Good results in different language sections
The following table shows the language sections ranked by the proportiogood candidates (75 or above).
The usual top group formed by the English, Greek, German, and Dasections having more than 50% scoring, 75 or above has this yearovertaken by the Swedish and Finnish sections. Spain has left last ybottom position to Portugal.
2.3.3 Good results in different language sections and schools
The results have already been commented above. The following table gmore details.
Relationship between preliminary mark, written and oral examina-tions
this
3.0 Relationship between preliminary mark, written and oralexaminations
For the years to come it may be interesting to produce statistics onsubject in the schools’ reports.
School Be Br I Br II Cu Ka Lu Mo Mü Va Total
Total 53 279 185 45 80 261 66 87 77 1133
75 - 15 109 96 29 46 117 13 50 43 518
DE 1 12 20 6 18 27 2 13 10 109
DK - 17 - - - 12 - - - 29
EM - 11 - - - 4 - - - 15
EN 4 11 26 6 11 22 - 19 8 107
ES - 14 - - - 6 - - - 20
FI - - 6 - - - - - - 6
FR 4 19 15 13 9 18 4 6 7 95
IT 2 14 10 1 6 10 2 11 17 73
NL 4 11 6 3 2 9 5 1 1 42
PO - - 7 - - 5 - - - 12
SW - - 6 - - 4 - - - 10
Part A7/24
2000-D-4110_bac_en_A+B.tmpfm.FM
12/09/2002
Differences between language sections
Distribution of final marks (after deliberation)
4.0 Distribution of final marks (after deliberation)
School B
e
Br I Br II C
u
K
a
Lu Mo Mü Va Total %
Total 53 279 185 45 80 261 66 87 77 1133
Failed - 16 2 - 2 10 9 2 - 41 3.6
Passed 53 263 183 45 78 251 57 85 77 1092 96.4
00-49.99 - 2 - - - - - - - 41 3.6
50-56.99 - 9 2 - 1 3 3 1 -
57.58.99 - 4 - - 1 7 5 1 -
59-59.99 - 1 - - - - 1 - -
60-64.99 13 40 21 2 7 37 14 7 3 144 12.7
65-69.99 14 50 35 5 10 45 17 16 11 203 17.9
70-74.99 11 64 31 9 15 52 13 12 20 227 20.0
75-79.99 10 43 35 13 16 46 5 23 18 209 18.4
80-84.99 3 47 27 7 18 44 7 18 14 185 16.3
85-89.99 2 14 30 6 9 20 1 8 8 98 8.6
90-94.99 - 5 4 3 2 7 - 1 3 25 2.2
95-100 - - - - 1 - - - - 1 0.1
2000-D-4110_bac_en_A+B.tmpfm.FM
Part A8/24
12/09/2002
Differences between language sections
Reports of external examiners
and
and
d iniledsibleful
vel ofewveral
thethe
eaumyt also, in
ia,
ation
Part B
Part B is based on the reports of the external examiners on the writtenthe oral examinations.
5.0 Reports of external examiners
This part of the report is based on external examiners’ reports on writtenoral examinations.
Nearly all examiners have sent in a report. Generally they were receivetime and proved to be very useful. Some examiners give very detaobservations, too detailed to cover in this report. The Inspector responfor the subject in question will deal with these detailed and useobservations.
In some cases examiners have used the same form for more than one lethe subject, or for two subjects, or for both written and oral exams. A freports were in other languages than English, French, or German, and sewere more or less illegible. I have not taken those reports into account.
The number of candidates taking each subject is taken fromMemorandum. This means that the actual values can differ slightly fromfigures given in this report.
How do you conclude on a subject from two reports, noting “très bon nivdes èlèves” and “niveau assez médiocre” ? It is difficult - but I have triedbest - to pass on a balanced overall impression of examiners’ reports, buto record interesting observations. Below, quotations are printed in italicsthe original language.
General observations.
Many examiners praise the organisation and atmosphere.Once again Ienjoyed taking part in the exam process. It is important to note despite thecritical remarks quoted in this report, thatthese points are mentioned inpursuit of further excellence, not from dissatisfaction .
Especially for new examiners information like syllabus, marking criterhotel situation etc. would be very useful in the letter of invitation.
One examiner suggests to use an Internet homepage for the evalureports.
Four representative examiners’ remarks:
The organisation is impeccable.
The reception of external examiners is splendid.
Part B9/24
2000-D-4110_bac_en_A+B.tmpfm.FM
12/09/2002
Differences between language sections
Written examinations
de me
.
eachfew
every
veryrman
Chaque année, cette expérience me passionne, et je vous remerciepermettre d’y participer.
I very much admire teachers’ preparations of this heterogeneous society
6.0 Written examinations
General remarks
As in former years, the vast majority of examiners express their great satisfaction with
the standard of the question papers and of the students’ performances. Several ask for a
copy of the syllabus to be sent to external examiners.
A few teachers are not aware that their corrections should not be made on the copies.
Solutions, if any, must act as a basis for marking, but cannot be regarded as model
answers.
Presentation and readability remain sources of concern for examiners, together with
spelling and grammar. Similar concerns go for the sciences.
It seems necessary to remind schools to place the candidates’ copies in the envelopes in
the same order as on the list of candidates’ names.
It also seems necessary for schools and teachers to remind candidates
• to put their name and candidate number legibly on every sheet
• to number all sheets
• not to hand in the rough notes
• to read all questions carefully
One examiner advises candidates to study the marks assigned tosubsection: Do not write 3 pages on a simple subquestion carryingpoints.
A mathematics examiner advises candidates to use a different sheet forquestion.
LI Basic course.
German examiners report that poetry interpretation was not chosenoften, but great differences between schools in that respect. One Geexaminer suspects that pupils had known the school’s own proposal.
Da En Fi Fr Ge Gr It Du Po Sp Sw Total
2000 45 157 8 250 180 30 143 118 49 50 15 1045
1999 24 180 9 207 178 27 116 125 55 55 9 985
1998 40 189 9 211 180 36 138 112 43 62 4 1024
2000-D-4110_bac_en_A+B.tmpfm.FM
Part B10/24
12/09/2002
Differences between language sections
Written examinations
ition
% of
ons
own
to
lose
cificlitiesidates
od
ore
The Finnish examiner finds the time too short to give an elegant composof the text.
The French examiners report: interesting and stimulating questions, 90the pupils are able to express themselves clearly and understandably.
One Dutch examiner observes that pupils often give original introductiand conclusions.
The English examiners report high standards among pupils.
Questions gave candidates plenty of scope to develop answers at theirlevel of understanding.
The Hardy poem proved to be surprisingly difficult for candidatescomment on.
Candidates tend to base answers on preparation rather than upon canalysis of text and quotation.
For more consistent marking we need to have guidelines on the spequestions each year, not merely general descriptions of the quaassociated with mark ranges. We seem to place large numbers of candin a narrow range of marks.
One Italian examiner reports:mistakes display someone not having gocommand of his own language.Also from Italy about problems withpunctuation:La ponctuation est la réspiration de l’écriture.
A Dutch examiner notes that a clear distinction betweentaskandyour viewis missing.
LI Advanced course.
Comments are in general positive. From English examiners:More specificguidelines are needed. Q1 similar to 1999. Essays under Q2 much msuitable than previous years.
LII Basic course.
Da En Fr Ge It Po Sp Total
2000 1 42 14 7 22 3 9 98
1999 6 33 31 7 8 4 - 89
1998 - 26 16 7 23 6 - 78
English French German Irish Italian Dutch Total
2000 517 348 174 2 12 16 1069
1999 480 339 165 - 6 6 996
1998 451 372 155 1 8 12 999
Part B11/24
2000-D-4110_bac_en_A+B.tmpfm.FM
12/09/2002
Differences between language sections
Written examinations
n thenersn of
ext
lent
and
ft to
forlike
d in
Fair questions and in general a good standard of performance.
A German examiner observes that candidates often use a single word itext (computer) as a starting point, forgetting the context. French examireport great differences among schools. Improvements in the constructioanswers, but still:
Il faut insister sur la rigeur de l’argumentation.Some very technical wordslike “opulent” and “gringalet” should either have been explained in the tor avoided.
English examiners report well focused extracts of texts and excelcandidates.Questions separated sheep from the goats.
The pre-marking session with all the English examiners is very valuableshould be continued.
The creative element and opportunity to respond to literature can give a licandidates not very fluent in English.
LII Advanced course.
English: Part 1 reasonably testing without being too difficult. Part 2 quite a testing ques-
tion. Candidates generally fluent, but many are weak in ability to focus.
A number of candidates seem to have great difficulty in pacing themselves. A question forwhich only 5 marks are allocated requires a short answer, not 3 pages.
L III.
French: A very interesting text by J.Duras gives many possible directionsthe candidates. Average to good performance. Avoid too technical words“dénouement”.
German: big difference between schools, depending upon situateGermany or not.
English French German Total
2000 68 4 12 84
1999 44 27 7 78
1998 57 18 23 98
En Fr Ge Gr Ir It Sp Du Sw Total
2000 196 107 38 - 1 17 65 34 - 458
1999 177 97 38 - 1 29 50 44 - 436
1998 228 111 40 1 1 15 46 29 2 473
2000-D-4110_bac_en_A+B.tmpfm.FM
Part B12/24
12/09/2002
Differences between language sections
Written examinations
and
ge is
nce.
the
used
Spanish: Part 2 and Part3 were too close to each other.
The English paper was suitable for the level, the questions interesting,the candidates well prepared.
This class treated instructions cavalierly.
Are students told and prepared for what criteria they will be marked by?
In Part I (comprehension) candidates should be given marks if messaclear, i.e. despite language errors.
L IV.
French: rather difficult questions, good presentation and preforma“Expression personelle” has not given very original results.
The Spanish examiner would like to have better opportunity to testoriginality of the candidates and ability to structure their ideas.
Latin.
In spite of the candidates’ good efforts, performance is not as good as itto be.
Greek (ancient) .
3 candidates (1999 and 1998 : 0 ).
Questions average degree of difficulty. Candidates excellent.
Philosophy.
En Fr Ge Ir It Sp Du Po Sw Total
2000 3 20 21 1 26 88 19 10 5 193
1999 6 10 23 1 40 73 33 7 2 195
1998 5 20 37 - 49 107 20 1 - 239
Section English French German Italian Dutch Total
2000 5 6 3 19 - 33
1999 6 4 10 6 1 27
1998 2 - 6 10 3 21
Section Da En Fr Ge Gr It Du Po Sp Sw Total
2000 - 32 17 19 4 45 - 7 16 2 142
Part B13/24
2000-D-4110_bac_en_A+B.tmpfm.FM
12/09/2002
Differences between language sections
Written examinations
their
auf
oor
es
s to
t to
nts
nd to
Again numbers varied much between the sections. Examiners expressgeneral satisfaction with the new programme.Candidates are compelled tothink during the exam. Allgemein sehr viel besser strukturierte Arbeitengutem Niveau auf Grund der neuen Prüfungsordnung.
History.
One French examiner notes that for part A2 the photocopy was of pquality. It is important that the text is not known to the candidates.
About B1:Les questions qui s’y rapportent sont inadéquates.
Il faut - à l’avenir - être beaucoup plus attentif sur la formulation dquestions écrites avant leurs rédaction définitive.
English examiners report about a generally high standard.
Two questions from a wide choice makes life easier for poor candidatepass and difficult for able people to show their full ability
No major disparities in the marking of the historical essay, but still hardesstandardize. Useful to have a hierarchy of historical skills
Geography.
English examiners find a wide variety of interesting questions. Studeperformed well, but somewhat lower than previous years.
Students should be encouraged to go beyond the learning of facts, aanalyse issues.
1999 9 36 17 11 - 17 - 10 15 - 115
1998 5 35 9 20 4 35 - 15 9 - 132
English French German Total
2000 117 26 28 171
1999 92 41 20 153
1998 99 40 14 153
English French German Total
2000 67 20 14 101
1999 35 19 8 62
1998 29 28 15 72
2000-D-4110_bac_en_A+B.tmpfm.FM
Part B14/24
12/09/2002
Differences between language sections
Written examinations
goods on
thethe
..ences
ne
mesraph
ng a
r thes bigenceglish
nt des
The French examiner notes that the syllabus needs to be revised.
Mathematics 3.
The questions were well balanced, and candidates had an overallperformance. One examiner asks for more guidance to candidatesignificant figures.
It would be useful if the examiners were sent copies of the syllabus andformula sheets and statistical table that the candidates are allowed inexam.
Some examiners find the area tested too narrow:Les capacites demandées .seulement un instrument pour resoudre des problèmes . Les compétpropres d’une mathématique qui soit instrument de formation généralesont pas sollicitées .
One examiner notes that with graphic calculators in the future it becomore important that the candidates’ answers are consistent, e.g. a gshowing an increasing function should correspond to calculations showinon-negative derivative.
Mathematics 5.
The questions covered the syllabus, challenging but representative folevel, and were well presented. Generally good results, but in some casedifferences between classes, even at the same school. Too little differbetween some of the first questions and the optional questions. An Enexaminer asks for solutions in English. Italian comments:
Bonnes questions. Cette année on fait quelque pas dans l’élargissemecompétences.
Economics.
1998 1999 2000
624 620 627
1998 1999 2000
478 454 517
English French German Dutch Total
2000 72 19 28 3 122
1999 80 40 16 4 140
1998 85 60 20 7 172
Part B15/24
2000-D-4110_bac_en_A+B.tmpfm.FM
12/09/2002
Differences between language sections
Written examinations
terial,tion
,ber
ans andtter
temater.minerount
urelyd be
anceishrvesand
ulties
Questions across the syllabus, using varied and appropriate source madiscrimina ting well between candidates. Candidates better at descripthan analysis. One English examiner notes:This was a high standard cohortthe best for years.The French examiner observes a strong decline in numof candidates taking the subject.
Physics.
Questions covered the syllabus, appropriate degree of difficulty. A Germexaminer notes that this year the balance between understanding physicperforming numerical calculations was better than previous years. Beprogression in each question than previously, with a simple introductory ifor the benefit of the weaker candidate, and more challenging items lCandidates seemed less prepared for atomic physics (Q5). One exanotes that the distribution of marks does not always reflect the actual amof work and degree of difficulty.
Efforts should be made to avoid presenting the Physics syllabus as a ptheoretical one. More emphasis on explaining physics concepts shoulencouraged.
Chemistry.
The paper covered the syllabus, average degree of difficulty. Performgenerally satisfactory, but remarkably wide spread marks. The Finnexaminer finds syllabus quite conservative. The English examiner obsethat some students have actually performed practically some of the testsothers have not. European school candidates can sometimes have difficwith their mother tongue, the Portuguese examiner notes:Les copiesmontraient quelques difficultés d’expression dans la langue maternelle.
Biology.
1998 1999 2000
275 239 310
1998 1999 2000
290 363 342
1998 1999 2000
218 274 246
2000-D-4110_bac_en_A+B.tmpfm.FM
Part B16/24
12/09/2002
Differences between language sections
Oral examinations
as ins stillto be
n
ne
erallk in
oodenfs
withthe
e. Ittimes are
The paper was at a balanced level, candidates’ standard as goodprevious years. The German examiner notes that Lamarckian statementappear very often. The French examiner proposes the model solutionprepared by a neutral teacher, not a member of the expert group.
English examiner:Candidates often look for “hidden meanings” rather thaanswering the obvious.
Dutch examiner:Es wäre wünschenswert, daß die Lehrer nicht für eifalsche Antwort die volle Punktezahl geben.
Art.
The questions covered the syllabus and were clearly presented. Ovstandard of performance was good. The new format of the written worPlastic and Architecture not yet sufficiently established.
Music.
Dutch examiner:The questions covered the exam programme, were of gquality and degree of difficulty. Composition should be left out of writtbaccalaureate.The English examiner hasserious concerns about the lack ostandardisation and moderation of marks.The German examiner presentsome very critical observations in his long report.
7.0 Oral examinations
General remarks.
The majority of examiners once again express their great satisfactionthe warm welcome at the schools, the standard of questions andperformance of the candidates.
This is not repeated below under each subject.
In very few cases only examiners report about questions arriving too latis important that external examiners are informed in advance about theand dates of deliberation and proclamation before travel arrangementmade. Another good service would be addressed enveloped for reports.
1998 1999 2000
148 147 148
1998 1999 2000
10 7 17
Part B17/24
2000-D-4110_bac_en_A+B.tmpfm.FM
12/09/2002
Differences between language sections
Oral examinations
day
ent
each
omement
the
s:
ated awith
utesandfer a
ned
on isionvery
amelaced
Some examiners have very long days. A maximum of 15 candidates peris proposed.
For the timetables it should be taken into account not to mix differlanguage levels for one examiner. It takes time to “change gear”.
One examiner asks if schools could invite external examiners to meetother and to meet other teachers at the school.
In general the examiners and teacher are very close in marking, but sexaminers call for more specific guidelines. A common sheet for assesscould be made. One examiner has already done so in cooperation withteacher.
Examiners praise the good relationship between teachers and candidate
Teachers are unbiased and fair.
The very good rapport displayed between teachers and candidates crecalm and pleasant atmosphere which enabled candidates to respondcomposure and confidence.
In most cases the timing was perfect. Candidates should get their 20 minto prepare, therefore escorting them between the examinationpreparation rooms should not be done by the teacher. Examiners preshort break after every three candidates.
The issue of questions going back to the lot after being chosen is mentioby a few examiners. They give strong arguments against this rule:
Candidates are not given the equal chances intended. After a questidrawn there is time enough for the following candidates to get informaton it, especially if the same group is examined over 2 days, and not ecandidate has the chance of drawing an already used question.
Languages.
Examiners often report on more than one language level on the sevaluation sheet. Therefore the observations below are not necessarily punder the correct level and they are not repeated.
LI basic course.
Da En Fi Fr Ge Gr It Du Po Sp Sw Total
2000 43 157 8 250 180 29 143 118 49 50 15 1042
1999 24 180 9 207 178 27 116 125 55 55 9 985
1998 40 189 9 211 180 36 138 112 43 62 4 1024
2000-D-4110_bac_en_A+B.tmpfm.FM
Part B18/24
12/09/2002
Differences between language sections
Oral examinations
ol,” .
es
deetory,
s on
.rite
n
Comments generally very positive. An English examiner: “... perhaps moreguidelines for staff, if not an annual training day in each European Schowould help to coordinate strategy, particularly for newer members ...About the fiction/non-fiction text in LI :Il faudrait revoir la formuleproposée à l’oral = il y a forcément une certaine inégalité dans le choix dtextes ... pourquoi la renforcer par une telle disparité ?Another Frenchexaminer notes thaten LI, on constate une ignorance de plus en plus gran(voire totale) de l’histoire littéraire. A Spanish examiner notes that thlanguage should support a deeper cultural knowledge of the country: hisgeography, and literature.
LI advanced course.
The selected texts were exemplary, ... making appropriately high demandLI Adv candidates.Another English examiner notes:It would be fairer to allcandidates if some texts were introduced by a gloss of a sentence or twoAnGerman examiner suggests very convincingly to permit candidates to won the question sheets:Dies ist vergleichbar mit der Aufforderung zu redeunter dem gleichzeitigen Verbot den Mund zu öffnen.
LII basic course.
Generally examiners express great satisfaction with texts and performance. Teachers are
professional, competent, and friendly. A French examiners asks if teachers at a big
school could switch classes: does a candidate have the right to be examined by his own
teacher? Examiners do not agree about the teachers’ guiding questions on the texts.
They are not necessarily helpful, sometimes candidates give an answer to these questions
only. In some cases examiners find differences in degree of difficulty: Tout dépend dutirage au sort. A German examiner: Es wäre wünschenswert, im Rahmen einer Fortbil-dung einen Kriterienkatalog für die Auswahl der mündtlichen Texte zu erstellen und ihnan verschiedenen Beispielen zu illustrieren.
Da En Fr Ge It Po Sp Total
2000 1 42 14 7 22 3 9 98
1999 6 33 31 7 8 4 - 89
1998 - 26 16 7 23 6 - 78
En Fr Ge Ir It Du Total
2000 523 348 174 2 12 16 1075
1999 480 339 165 - 6 6 996
1998 451 372 155 1 8 12 999
Part B19/24
2000-D-4110_bac_en_A+B.tmpfm.FM
12/09/2002
Differences between language sections
Oral examinations
tedl. A
LII advanced course.
English examiner: Is there a case for greater consistency in the length and presentation?
LIII.
An English examiner notes the importance ofdiscussing with the teacherbeforehand an outline of how the examination is going to be conduc.Another examiner asks for a more specific set of descriptors for this leveFrench examiner simply notes:Le niveau reste faible.
L IV.
Latin.
Philosophy.
En Fr Ge Total
2000 52 8 12 72
1999 44 27 7 78
1998 57 18 23 98
En Fr Ge It Sp Du Total
2000 47 34 7 4 3 5 100
1999 39 29 6 5 7 11 97
1998 45 31 8 7 13 7 111
En Fr Ge Ir It Sp Du Po Total
2000 - 4 6 2 6 6 6 3 33
1999 1 2 2 - 5 7 2 - 19
1998 1 3 2 - 4 5 2 - 17
1998 1999 2000
- 4 1
Philo 2 Da Du En Fi Fr Ge Gr It Po Sp Sw Total
2000 12 27 90 2 47 67 14 43 21 24 1 348
1999 5 27 91 - 52 59 18 37 14 23 - 326
1998 10 34 77 - 82 52 21 50 9 23 - 358
2000-D-4110_bac_en_A+B.tmpfm.FM
Part B20/24
12/09/2002
Differences between language sections
Oral examinations
een
in the
rmat
ther
eine
uagethe
on
German and French examiners report about great differences betwschools. Spanish and English examiners very satisfied:Highest level I’veknown in 10 years of examining.
The Spanish examiner encourage teachers to train candidates moreprecise use of philosophical vocabulary.
History.
A German examiner notes that teachers finally have found a common foof the exam questions:Wissen - Einordnen - Problematisieren. Still to beharmonised is the amount of documents given to the candidate. AnoGerman examiner of both history and geography observes:Bei fast allenPrüflingen scheint die Wahl des Prüfungsfaches Geschichte/Erdkundepositivwahl dargestellt zu haben.
Geography.
Examiners are generally positive. Some candidates have langdifficulties. Questions have become more comparable and now containelementsWissen - Transformation -Kritik/Stellungnahme auf der Basis vaktuellem Material.
Philo 4 Da En Fr Ge It Po Sp Sw Total
2000 - 11 15 7 7 1 - 3 44
1999 1 17 6 3 11 4 - - 42
1998 1 18 14 1 7 1 4 - 46
Histo 2 En Fr Ge Total Histo 4 En Fr Ge Total
2000 286 199 106 591 2000 32 30 3 65
1999 258 190 79 527 1999 17 36 11 64
1998 232 207 103 542 1998 42 27 4 73
Geo 2 En Fr Ge Total Geo 4 En Fr Ge Total
2000 359 184 100 643 2000 24 6 9 39
1999 338 199 102 639 1999 25 5 4 34
1998 329 217 99 645 1998 20 6 1 27
Part B21/24
2000-D-4110_bac_en_A+B.tmpfm.FM
12/09/2002
Differences between language sections
Oral examinations
fority of
r of
n inphic
, Excel,. Itatical
ten
An Belgian examiner was surprised to find the same questionsGeography 2 and Geography 4. Several examiners praise the high qualcolour charts, maps, etc.
A French examiner:Le programme de géographie devrait être revu.AnEnglish examiner asks for guidelines for the quantity of data and numbequestions to bring greater conformity across schools.
Mathematics advanced course.
Very excellent candidates. The Italian examiner finds too much calculatiothe exam questions. The French examiner has a note about gracalculators:It faudra sans doute dans l’avénir transformer certain sujets.Inone school the candidates had access to a computer and a spreadsheetduring the examination. The examiner reports very positively about thisgave broader assessment and also opportunity to demonstrate mathemunderstanding.
Economics.
Auffallend gute Fragetechnik der Lehrkräfte.
It is easier to evaluate ability in economics during an oral than with a writscript.
Physics.
Da Du En Fr Ge It Po Sp Total
2000 - - 27 64 - 3 4 5 103
1999 4 2 33 50 1 - 5 - 95
1998 - 4 25 43 1 - - 11 84
Du Eng Fr Ge Total
2000 - 5 1 1 7
1999 3 1 1 1 6
1998 - - 1 2 3
En Fr Ge Gr It Po Total
2000 2 1 3 2 6 1 15
1999 - 8 1 1 3 - 13
1998 - 1 1 - - - 2
2000-D-4110_bac_en_A+B.tmpfm.FM
Part B22/24
12/09/2002
Differences between language sections
Oral examinations
ent..
orhen
Chemistry.
Biology.
Good candidates. Questions represent a very positive developmPreviously too much reproduction of facts, now much broader questions
Art.
Music.
The standard average or high. The English examiner:Real concerns aboutquality assurance. There are no agreed criteria, standardisationmoderation of marking. This puts the examiner in a vulnerable position wchallenging teacher’s marks.
