Forum: Answering PSLE science open-ended questions not so straightforward
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox
I refer to the news report “PSLE revision – Are keywords needed to score in science?” (July 31). An example of a question was cited in the report – why water puddles disappeared after a while – to which the Ministry of Education spokesman said that students can answer that the water has “evaporated” or “turned into water vapour”.
However, from my experience with my child’s science teachers, it is not as straightforward.
To get a full one-mark answer for this question, the student must demonstrate an understanding of scientific concepts, hence the ideal answer is: “The water at the surface gained heat and evaporated into water vapour.”
In another similar question to explain why there are water droplets forming on the surface of a glass of cold water, the student has to answer: “The water vapour in the surrounding air comes in contact with the cooler surface of the glass, loses heat and condenses into water droplets.”
It is not sufficient to say that the water droplets are formed by condensation of the surrounding water vapour after coming in contact with the cold glass.
It is this level of precision that is required of our science students at elementary level that drives parents to surrender their children to tuition centres in order to learn the “correct answering technique”.
I wonder if this stringency is solely initiated by the school’s well-meaning teachers, or if it is indeed a requirement in the marking scheme of the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board. Has MOE ensured both sides are aligned in the answer requirements?
Ng Yee Cheng
