"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."