Newton's laws and productivity

How can Newton's laws of motion help us to get things done? How to avoid procrastination?

Incorrect facts we teach our pupils at school!

We teach our pupils certain facts, but do we make them aware that it is fine to query the facts? Look at the article about "incorrect" facts they learn at school.

Edukite training cancelled

The Edukite training scheduled for November was cancelled.

Feedback from teachers: Monday's chemistry paper

"Overall I think the paper was quite challenging. I might be wrong, but I think the average for Chemistry will be lower than that of Physics. I like the approach of Q1.5 and 1.6. Q1.8 to 1.10 can be challenging to learners. In Q2 it is only Q2.2.1 that will be a challenge to learners. This is a much easier question compared to the one in the Sept paper. I like the fact that the name OR formula is asked throughout the paper. Questions 3 and 4 were fair. I expect questions 5.4 and 5.5 to be challenging to many learners. I hope that question 5.4 will not be negatively marked so that learners can earn some marks for correct arguments. 11 of the 18 marks in this question will be hard to get. The table for the Kc value is difficult. Many learners will probably get 3 out 8 for this question.  Luckily the mathematics in the second part will not be too challenging (that is for those who have something to substitute into the expression for Kc). Q6.3 will be easier for those learners where the teacher demonstrated this reaction, but the drawings in the question guide the learner very well. Question 7 requires a lot of reading and one has to refer back to the beginning of the question a few times. The same concept is tested in 7.2.1 and 7.2.5. I know it is supposed to guide the learner, but if you get the conversion of the volume wrong once, you’ll get it wrong twice. Question 7.2.6 will be very difficult for most learners. Question 8 luckily has 5 to 6 easy marks. Although I like the approach, learners will find it difficult. Only learners with an in depth knowledge of electrolysis will not get confused in Q9. Q10 was easy, provided a learner knows the theory."

"Wow! I was not aware that you pasted paper two comments yesterday, I have just read them now. Indeed, September papers were tougher than these ones. I also compared our standard of papers with those of other provinces, as we were revising. Really, our standard of papers is high in the Free State in general and the policy and structure of papers were followed to the letter. I saw in some of provinces there were no long questions on physical properties in organic chemistry and in Newton's laws. But electrostatics in 2D of WC was challenging."

"The paper was fairly balanced with bulk of questions from organic chemistry as expected 45 marks; very direct question mostly level 2 and 3 multiple choice questions 31 % of the paper. The only worrying factor in organic chemistry, which can cause learners marks is the technicality in marking for example question 2.2.1; naming of the compound with so many different substituents, use of hyphens and commas, alphabetical order of substituents, numbering of carbon atoms might pose a challenge to the level one and two learners. I just hope that there will be flexibility in marking question 3.3 for an example; if a learner refers to molecular mass and number of carbon atoms instead of the chain length as required by the examination guideline. Still expect them to do well in question 3 and question 2. Questions 5.4 will be a challenge to most of the level 1 and 2 learners, as they have to interpret the table and compare it with the graph. Organisation of facts and language will pose a problem for that 6 marks as they will have to compare all of the 4 experiments. I still expect the majority of learners to score average in question 5. Question 6 will be very challenging to most of the learners, especially question 6.2. Acids and bases is a new topic and contributed 23 marks, including multiple choice question contributing to 15 %. The challenging questions might be question 7.2.6 but generally expectation is to perform above average. Question 8 is familiar. I expect them to do well with a little challenge in question 9. Fertilizers - very familiar and straight forward question; they must score above average. Generally with the two papers and the effort made I won’t be surprised if we register and improvement in terms of both quality and quantity."

"The Chemistry paper was a repeat of the Physics paper. Well balanced paper. Similar to the Gauteng Preparatory Exam paper. So long as the learners have studied well, they should have obtained good marks in Organic molecules, Acids-Bases, Electrochemistry and Fertilizers. These two papers are proof that if learners work hard throughout the year, it is certain that they will pass at the end of the year."

"Paper 2 for was not difficult either; I think  it was well balanced. Multiple choice was easy, clever learners can obtain total in multiple-choice. Organic chemistry (Q2, 3 & 4) was also easy for learners to collect  marks from. Galvanic & electrolytic cells as well as fertilizers were also easy for learners to collect marks from. Only Q 5, 6 & 7 might be challenging for some average learners, but they were not difficult (the issue of mass as a factor that affect the rate of reaction in Q5 is an area of great concern to me). Can it be taken as a factor that affect reaction rate? I think the question should have referred to smaller & larger pieces in the table. Q7.2.6 should have been asked after 7.2.1. Stoichiometric application  in problems might be a problem to learners in acids bases and Kc. The overall paper was easy; learners can pass paper 2 with only Q1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9 & 10 only."


"The paper is fairly balanced and all topics done were tested, even the fertilizers were asked in a satisfying manner. Organic molecules were not asked in the confusing way. Question 7 (acids- bases) was well asked. I enjoyed the percentage purity calculation. Good start for CAPS."

"The chemistry paper was much easier than the physics paper."

"Learners indicated that the paper was easier than the one in September. Some of the struggling learners said the chemistry was easier than the physics."


"Both papers were well balanced. Average learners can also do well. The brighter ones can score a lot."


"Both papers were fairly easy."


"Chemistry was also a good paper; including Kc calculation were they have to calculate the initial mole."

Feedback from teachers: Friday's physics paper

"The balance of the paper – referring to Bloom's taxonomy – is spot on in my opinion, with about nine more marks allocated to levels 1 and 2 than prescribed. Despite this, the paper has it fair share of challenging situations, which is the correct approach in physics. The level one and two questions really enable learners to pass. If they don't pass, it will once again be an indication that they do not fail because of the challenging questions, but due to their inability to do the basics correct. The following deals with more specific subject related issues:

• Q2.3: Consideration must be given to accept a solution for full marks if the masses are combined to first calculate the acceleration of the system, followed by the calculation of the tension. Still on Q2.3. The last few years a trend crept into memoranda to expect learners to do the following when the magnitude of a vector was asked. If the final answer of the calculation was negative – purely due to the choice of the learner – the mark for the answer was awarded only when the value was once again written down, but this time as a positive number (with its unit obviously). For those learners who chose their directions in such a way to end with a positive number as the final calculation step, the same was not expected and the answer mark was awarded there and then. I am seriously concerned if this is going to continue for the following reasons: This is not fair towards learners because the expectations are not the same for the same marks. At a scientific level, I don't think it is in any case correct to expect somebody to express a scalar answer as a positive number if the calculation ends with a negative value due to the choice of direction. That negative does not imply the answer is less than zero; it merely indicates the direction of the vector. But, if the magnitude of that vector is asked, the final answer of the calculation – even if it is negative – should suffice as the magnitude and no extra responses should be expected from learners. This expectation in the past contributed to have lower marks than necessary and I think learners were not treated fairly and it influenced statistics negatively. We don't achieve anything with such an approach. The best way – if I may – to mark any final calculation's answer is to award the answer, irrespective whether the vector was asked or whether the magnitude of the vector was asked. If a vector was asked, a final mark should then also be allocated for the interpretation, which should include the absolute value of the numerical answer, with a description of the direction. We have used this method in the Free State physics paper of June, and it really gives a consistent, sensible and fair allocation of marks. Please look at other questions where the same argument is valid, e.g. 4.3.
• Q3.3: The maximum height of A is reached after half of the duration of time calculated in Q3.2. This duration of time is also applicable when the distance fallen by B is calculated. Some learners might realise that the distance fallen by B should be the same as the height reached by A, because they have the same acceleration and duration of time. Question: Will such a learner be fully awarded if the distance in the case of B is just written down, instead of finding the answer using a calculation?
• Q4: I guess the landing velocity of the dancer was meant to be vertically downwards. It might not be encountered, but I think dancers can land with non-vertical velocities. Hence, some learners might argue the velocity of 5 m·s^‑1 is at an angel with the horizontal, although the number of degrees is not supplied. That might save the question as they will revert back to think about "vertical" velocity. The question should have perhaps stated "vertical velocity" in order to have a fool proof scenario.
• Q7.3: I have interpreted the reference in the singular to "... the electric field pattern ..." as an indication that the NET electric field's pattern must be drawn. However, the absence of the word NET in the phrasing, in contrast with the phrasing in Q7.7, might influence learners to draw two electric field patterns; one for R and one for S. Are they necessarily wrong?
• Q8.2: This question's circuit is basically the same than that of Q1.8, and for the lesser prepared learner I think it will not be so obvious to analyse the connections involved. In my opinion, it is more fair to use non-similar circuits to avoid losing marks in more than one place due to similar conditions. There is nothing wrong with the questions though and they are quite interesting; I just feel that the similarity could have been avoided."

"Overall it was a fair paper with enough questions where level 1 and 2 learners could achieve marks. The exemplar paper, the September paper and previous exam papers were a good indication of what to expect. I think the more challenging questions for the learners will be questions 2.3, 5.2.2 and 8.2. Questions 3 and 4 were very fair. Question 5.1.3 is not unfamiliar, but since it is multistep some learners will have difficulty answering it. Question 6 and 7 were fair. Question 7.7 is a lot of work for 3 marks. Question 8.1 may still be a little unfamiliar, but the graph makes up for that. Question 9 and 10 were fair. The MCQ's were also fair. It was a good start for CAPS. The only thing I hope people on national level realise, is that it is impossible to finish the syllabus during school time. To finish all the work, every public holiday, every school holiday, many weekends and hours and hours of extra classes must be used. I do not think that is fair to the learners and the hardworking teachers. Why not less topics so that we can study those topics in more depth? Then each topic can be awarded more marks in the paper. That will mean that an easier four mark calculation can be asked on the topic and then a more challenging 6 or 7 mark question. That will give the level 1 and 2 learners a chance to earn more marks doing calculations and not only earning marks on definitions, etc."

"The paper covered all topics taught as per national guidelines. A fairly balanced paper. Most questions asked could be attempted by learners who worked hard enough during the course of the year. A little concern however on WEP questions (work, energy and power). Both questions were on inclined planes. I would have liked a variation such that another angle tested, like on a horizontal plane. We teach that as well, mind you. The red shift question challenged me as well, not much written in books, so questioning proves to be tricky. I hope our learners would do us proud in the subject."

"Learners indicated that the paper was easier than the one in September."

"The paper was well balanced; 14 marks on definitions and principles (learners can collect  marks there). Question 2: Learners might be confused of T2 and the 250 N force. Calculation of distance in 3.3 might give learners a problem. Momentum was easier than I expected. Q5.1.3 might be challenging to weak learners since it is not specific about the energy principles to be used like in the past (work-energy theorem & principle of conservation of mechanical energy). Doppler effect  was easy, but some learners  might be fooled by the 70 Hz higher  measured frequency (problem of interpreting questions). Electrodynamics was also easy for learners to collect marks. In general, with Doppler effect, photoelectric effect, electrodynamics, momentum, electrostatics and definitions on different questions and multiple choice, learners can pass the paper. They can even collect marks on electric circuits. It was not difficult either."

"Paper 1 was not easy. The low level learners will not get the easy marks because they don't know their definitions; also the multiple choice questions were quite challenging. Some even more than one thought."

"The paper was fine, with a very nice question on projectile motion. Learners who did not develop the thinking ability will miss it. Frequency that is 70 Hz higher than that emitted by the siren in Question 6 can be a problem to learners in general, because they do not pay attention to English. The paper was fine; not easy, not difficult as well."

"I expected worse. Each question presented an opportunity to learners to earn marks. The paper has tested whether learners understand their work and practiced it; that is how a paper should be. Hope the chemistry will also be like that."

"I was expecting a difficult paper due to the fact that this is the first CAPS grade 12 paper, but it was moderate."

"I was telling Mr ... about today's paper. It reminded me of the first NCS paper of 2008. In all fairness, this paper was relatively well balanced. If learners fail, it will be because they did not prepare for this paper since the beginning of the year. I was under the impression that today's paper would be as tricky as the June and Sept papers were. This paper is proof that when learners are well prepared - when the teacher uses challenging questions in class - they succeed."

IBP videos on YouTube

ICTISE has made short videos available on YouTube, especially to those schools who are not part of the Internet Broadcast Project. A list of the videos is available here. All the videos are short (plus minus 10 minutes). The majority deals with chemistry, and for those learners with internet connection it could be a great source.

Physics examination

Three days to go ... grade 12 physics paper on Friday the 7th. Best wishes to everybody with the preparations.