Lets take a look at SPA...

It's been a long time since I last posted anything on the blog... I think a lot of things are happening in my life and I'm feeling a bit, like don't know how to feel properly? But that's not the main point of the post for today, but maybe if I go into a greater level of confusion or something like that...

Note to self: I need to find a movie that makes me cry properly so that I will feel properly again...

Anyway...

Note to all readers: I know that SPA is a National Exam and that release of any materials related to SPA will be severely dealt with and disciplinary measures will be undertaken. What I have written below is NOT a description of any experiments or procedures done in SPA but rather a personal view of the SPA system as compared to the SPE system that I was exposed to in secondary school as well as my own personal take on the effectiveness of SPA as a teaching tool for students to learn practical skills. As such, this post does not violate any rules or regulations set out by the SEAB regarding SPA. However, should a violation occur, please inform the author and this article will be promptly deleted

Science Practical Assessment was introduced to replace the Science Practical Examination that was being used then to assess the abilities of the candidates in performing practical experiments in the respective disciplines. I remembered several rationale behind replacing the science practical examination with the science practical assessment, one of which was that it allows candidates who are taking the exam to not be so worried about their one and only chance to score well in the science practical exams.

I thought that it was a great idea then, mainly because it would be nice to have more then one chance when it comes to a science practical. You can imagine the gloominess that follows a science practical examination when you flop up something halfway, especially when you have prepared many times for the exam. It is also quite irritating when you are measuring something and it just so happens that you made a simple mistake in the set-up somewhere and that costs you the whole of the experiment without giving you any chance to ever rectify that mistake and score the marks that you actually deserve, but lost because of a moment's folly.

Also, another rationale was that candidates were not following proper lab procedures when we are doing science practical examination. I remember not even worrying about whether or not we should wash the burette when we start volumetric analysis in chemistry practical examination at O levels because none of the invigilators would care about you and you wouldn't even be marked down even if you did. That's because in the SPE, you only needed to present the correct observations and conclusion to score that marks you need.

However, in SPA, correct lab procedures need to be observed. Marks are now placed on the way a candidate perform his experiments in the lab and this helps to train candidates in the correct methods of handling the many different types of equipments in the lab. I felt that this was a good change, as I'm finally more conscientious of what I'm doing in the lab, and also making sure that the readings are as accurate as possible the first time round, and not re-doing experiments over and over again because of a speck of dust in the containers.

Of course, I've finished my SPA already, so its kinda easy for me to tell you guys about the good stuff about SPA because I don't have to worry about the next SPA that is coming up. If I had to worry, I would probably be whining about how dumb SPA is and all...

And why is that?
Look at it this way, in the old SPE, the best that the teachers could do was to guide their students in the main methods of practical and then leave it to the students themselves when they step into the lab. However in the new SPA, practicals are now "designed" such that they train us to be ready for the next practical exams. Sometimes I wonder if this really portrays an accurate picture of a candidate's ability to do practical.

Face it, the failure of SPA is that most of us don't even remember any of our SPA skills any more because there is no need to remember them once we are done and over with the SPA. I can't list any examples, but seriously, if you are geared up to one particular type of experiment due to the way the practicals are designed, a good question to ask would be is it really teaching us to use our practicals skills, or are we just simply trying to present to the invigilators and examiners with what they want to see?

What's the point of studying? Is it to get high marks and to be the top in whatever cohort? I don't believe in that. Learning about science and doing practical isn't about getting your As and that's it. To me, its more about learning the skills that comes along with it. How do you make sure that the measurement you get is accurate? How do you make sure that there are no other variables that will affect what you are doing? This is the more important stuff, not about going through the motions checking this and checking that in a robotic fashion simply because we already done that before and is simply regurgitating it in the practical examination hall.

I mean, come on, maybe one day we will find the need to conduct an experiment that we thought up ourselves, and if we are stuck into that geared up practicals... then how?

I would say that SPA has tried its best to teach us skills and sometimes indeed, I would say that our tutors have tried their very best to impress upon us the true meaning of doing practicals, and not because we want to score an A for our science subjects. But looking back at it all, the mock practicals that we were doing that leads up to each SPA, it felt less skills and more repeating of work...

Alright, that was about the skills part. Word has come round to say that next year, SPA will change its format. Currently there are 4 skills which are tested separately in the SPA:
1. Planning
2. Performing the experiment and tabulation of data
3. Analysing the data
4. Pointing out errors and way to improve it.

Skills 2,3 and 4 are tested twice while skill 1 is tested only once. This means that there's a total of 7 tests. There's quite some chances for you to flop up here and there but overall, you won't die because of one miserable flop. But hey, things are going to change next year!

Next year, SPA will only have 2 tests. One in the first year and one in the second year. Skills 2,3 and 4 will be tested in one shot in each assessment. OK, truth be told, its damn freaking hard to do that much things in one shot. Personally, my brain died after completing only one skill. There's so many things to write and report about, so many things to take note of, and now they're only going to give you 2 chances? I thought we were trying to reduce the burden of having a mistake in your practical exams...?

Hmm, sounds like we are going backwards eh? Personally, I'm against the reduced amount of tests. Ah yes, less stress, but that means that the sort of privilege that we have had in terms of making mistakes is severely reduced for the next batch of people taking the SPA exams. Is that the point of having the SPA exams then, or should we just reinstate the SPE, but with a change in the emphasis to that of the SPA.

To make it clearer:
One big practical exam that means you have no chance to flop, but with marks allocated to the way you should perform the experiments like that in SPA.

Sounds like a good idea to me, judging from the way things are changing already in our science practical examinations.

And hey, things are going backwards as usual. Just look at IP, who remember the good old days when there were no junior colleges and there were college departments in secondary schools that prepares students to university?

Discmon