Philosophy

This video looks at how the general assessment principles are applied in A-level Philosophy. It takes a detailed look at the link between the specification content and the exam questions, focusing on the different question types and how they are constructed to reflect the assessment objectives and assess the different specification topics.

Transcript

Hello, I am Jamie Swann, I am a Lead Examiner for A-level Philosophy, and today I am going to be talking to you about assessment principles in A-level Philosophy papers.

Hopefully you'll have already seen our what makes good assessment videos about the principles of assessment, which cover concepts such as validity and reliability and what those terms mean. In this video, I'm going to talk about how those principles apply in philosophy .

Throughout the session, we are going to look at the four question tariffs and consider how they relate to the two Assessment Objectives, how they differ from and build on each other, the kinds of question asked at each tariff, the language/command words used within each question tariff and the scope of the questions, that is, how they relate to specification content.

There are just two Assessment Objectives in philosophy. The first is to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the core concepts and methods of philosophy, including thorough the use of philosophical analysis.  The second Assessment Objective is to analyse and evaluate philosophical arguments to form reasoned judgements.  Both of these Assessment Objectives were set by Ofqual and AQA have to base their assessment around these.

As can be seen on the screen, the first Assessment Objective is reflected in the complete range of questions as the 3, 5 & 12 mark questions are focused on assessing knowledge and  understanding. The second Assessment Objective is only assessed in the twenty-five mark essay question as this is predominantly focused on assessing analysis and evaluation skills.  This means that in each paper, there are 60 marks available for AO1, and 40 marks for AO2, therefore AQA fulfil the Ofqual stipulated 60/40 weighting between the two Assessment Objectives.

As the Assessment Objectives dictate that students need to show knowledge and understanding within AO1 as well as analysis and evaluation in AO2, questions need to facilitate these skills but only in relation to the specification content. It’s imperative to understand that in philosophy, the specification content is always the starting point for a question writer as questions must be directly related to what is listed on the specification.

If we take this section of the specification from the epistemology unit, a three mark question such as State the claim made by the tripartite view’ would be legitimate as this is directly listed on the specification.  However, what is significant here is what is not included on the specification. A question such as ‘explain a strength of the tripartite view’ could not be asked because there is no reference to students being required to know the strengths of the tripartite view.

We will discuss individual question structure and stems later in this presentation, however first it’s good to look at the paper holistically.  Both philosophy papers, so that’s paper 1 focusing on epistemology and moral philosophy and paper 2 focusing on the metaphysics of God and the metaphysics of mind, follow an identical structure, whereby the number of questions and marks progress in an identical manner. Each paper begins with a three mark question, followed by two five mark questions, then the twelve marker and finally the twenty-five mark essay question.

As the tariff increases either the level of detail required to successfully answer the question will be greater, or the amount of the specification they relate to will increase.  This culminates in all skills being deployed in the twenty-five mark essay question. The increase in demand is mirrored by the increased space available to respond to different question types in the answer booklet.  For example, if we consider a three mark question to be “Outline Ayer's verification principle, how could we adapt this to be a five mark question which includes an increased demand for detail? You may wish to pause the video to consider how you would do this.

One way this could be achieved is shown on screen here, where rather than just being asked to outline Ayer’s verification principle, students are asked to explain how Ayer’s verification principle challenges the status of religious language.

Let’s now consider the jump from a three mark question to a twelve mark question.  On screen is a question you may recognise from the sample assessment materials available on the AQA website.  This  three mark question asks ‘What is philosophical scepticism?  How can this question be developed into a twelve mark question, requiring a higher demand of detail and also increasing the range of specification it relates to? You may wish to pause the video whilst you consider your response.

Here we can see one way you may have progressed the question from a three mark one to a twelve mark one.  This question from 2020 develops and shows a shift from ‘What is’ philosophical scepticism to ‘Explain philosophical scepticism’, and, now through reference to reliabilism, requires students to cover a greater range of specification content. The specification includes the following phrases:

*              ‘and responses to these issues’

*              ‘and issues with these responses’

*              ‘and issues arising from these responses’

Such phrases will not be included in questions because this makes mark schemes very difficult to write, since there is such a wide variety of material that could be taught here. These responses/issues parts of the specification are covered within twenty-five mark essay answers where they can be used to add layers or robustness to a debate.

For example, the following questions are impossible: ‘Explain a response to the time-lag argument’ (5 marks) or ‘Explain the argument that idealism leads to solipsism and one way of responding to this’ (12 marks).  As we go through each question tariff, we will be considering how the key skills, drawn from the levels of response mark schemes, are required and build upon each other.

Now, let’s move on to look at the four different question types.

Three mark questions can cover the meaning of a term, such as ‘what is a philosophical zombie’ or ‘define qualia’.  They can ask for similarities or differences between terms or theories such as ‘what is the difference between direct realism and indirect realism’ as seen in 2023.

They can ask for the meaning of specific terms used by specific philosophers, such as ‘What does Kant mean by ‘hypothetical imperative’ or , as in 2022, state the definitions of ‘God’ used by (a) Anselm and (b) Descartes in their ontological arguments.

Finally, three mark questions can ask for the meaning of a claim, such as in 2021, ‘What does it mean to say that a person’s religious claim is unfalsifiable?’

On the screen are six questions representing potential three mark questions. Please read through each question and consider whether each fulfils the necessary criterion to be a legitimate question.  Consider both how they are phrased, what they are asking and whether they are related to specification content.

For any which you believe to be illegitimate questions, please consider why and whether it’d be possible to tweak these so that they become valid. The questions will remain visible on the screen for 90 seconds – if you need further time or are discussing this as a department then please pause the video to give extra time.

This first question is not representative of what a potential question may look like as it is not focused on student knowledge of (a) the meaning of terms or (b) claims or principles put forward by theories. We won’t ask for philosophers’ names in these questions.

This question directly relates to the ‘deontological ethics part of the spec and fits with common three mark question language.

This third question would not be valid as we do not ask for explanations in three mark questions.

As this directly relates to the ‘metaethics’ part of the spec and fits with the language and phrasing commonly used in three mark questions, it is valid.

This would be an illegitimate question as testing a student’s memory regarding the names of philosophers or theories does not sufficiently test their ability to demonstrate precise understanding of the philosophy of those people or theories.

This final example would also be incorrect as it is not focused on a student’s knowledge of either the meaning of terms or the claims or principles put forward by theories. We will not ask students about arguments or reasons in three mark questions. It is also not really possible to ‘state’ an argument. It can, instead, be outlined or explained however this is indicative of 5 mark questions.

Five mark questions focus upon Explaining theories, arguments, objections, issues or responses, the similarities and differences, distinctions and ethical theory applied to issues.

This first example is relatively simple, in that it simply asks to ‘explain Hare’s prescriptivism’.  The command word ‘explain’ is a clear increase in demand from the command words used in three mark questions.

This second question is an example of how students can be asked to explain arguments, in this case Berkley’s master argument. Students can be asked to explain philosopher’s objections, issues or responses to arguments provided they are from within the specification.  In this case, the specification directly states that students should “issues that may arise for the cosmological arguments” including that the cosmological argument “commits the fallacy of composition” and Russell’s name is placed in brackets after this.

Similarities and differences can be requested, such as this question from 2017 asking students to explain how eliminative materialism differs from mind-brain type identity theory. In a similar vein, distinctions can be requested, such as Kant’s distinction between acting in accordance with duty and acting out of duty.

Although there are no examples of 5-mark questions requesting an ethical theory be applied to an issue, there is no reason a question like this couldn’t be asked.

Like with the three mark questions, on screen are five questions representing potential five mark questions.  Please read through each question and consider whether each fulfils the necessary criterion to be a legitimate question.  For any which you believe to be illegitimate questions, please consider why and whether it’d be possible to tweak these so that they become valid. The questions will remain visible on the screen for 90 seconds – if you need further time or are discussing this as a department then please pause the video to give extra time.

This first question is perfectly legitimate in terms of wording and relevance to the specification.

Number two is unclear. It could be answered without explanation, for example. “It is an argument that originated with Plato” so this is not legitimate.

This third example has command words we won’t use: students can use illustration as a way of explaining if they wish, but it will never be asked for.

Question number four uses the command word ‘give’ which we do not use. Also, this question is unfair as examples of qualia are not included in the specification.

The fifth question fulfils all criterion for a five mark questions so is entirely legitimate.

Now let’s progress to  twelve mark questions.  There is a greater variety of types of twelve mark questions, but a common factor is that they all require integration between the parts of the answer.

One type of twelve mark question is where question setters ask for a theory or argument to be explained and then ask students to follow this up with an additional supporting or opposing argument or theory.

Although we don’t yet have an example of a question of this ilk from the current specification, on screen is an example from a previous specification to highlight what a similarities and differences question could look like.

Another style of question which could be asked as a twelve mark one is where multiple related theories are bunched together.  Again, I’ve used an example from a previous specification to highlight what a question of this manner could look like.

An as yet unasked version of a twelve mark question could be asking students to explain a theory or argument which has too much content for a five mark question.

Finally, students can be asked to explain how a normative ethical theory can be applied to an issue, such as the example on screen from 2023.

If you are watching within your department or even alone, you may wish to pause the video and try to create a question of each type using the specification content for Aristotelian virtue ethics plus, for the comparison and application questions, other parts of the specification.

Now onto the twenty-five mark questions.  One way of thinking about the twenty-five mark questions is that they are a natural development from explaining how one theory or argument might support or oppose another, as is required in one of the twelve mark question types.  On screen you can see a simple structure for the response to a twelve mark question asked in 2021.

twenty-five mark questions will involve the same kind of integration between parts, but now it will be discussed with the second Assessment Objective in mind, therefore the author’s “intent” will be clear, rather than the neutral presentation of a twelve mark answer.  The candidate might also decide to continue the debate further in their response.

All the key skills developed in the other types of questions are needed in twenty-five mark questions, however, in addition, is the fourth key skill that a clear and coherent argument or intent is visible throughout, robustly defended with consideration of the ‘weight’ of arguments. In twenty-five mark questions the student is expressing a viewpoint.

Twenty-five mark questions are fairly formulaic and can be divided into two main categories: theory or claim, and argument. On screen are examples of each. These questions reflect the way in which the specification is written.

In creating twenty-five mark questions, it is important that the question allows students to fully meet the criteria in the levels of response mark bands. Students can only give a robust defence, using multiple arguments which are weighted where relevant, if there is sufficient relevant specification arguments including objections, issues, problems and/or responses. It would be wrong to dictate a specific rule here as to areas of the specification where this is deemed possible or too difficult, but we can give some examples.

Let’s consider the part of the specification considering the concept and nature of God.  All three questions on screen would not be consistent with the assessment rubric. Pause the video and consider why each would not be classified as legitimate.

For this first question, there is only one relevant argument within the specification – the argument in the question itself. This would not facilitate enough content for students to achieve the top level band so would not be sufficiently valid.

Here there are no obvious or directly relevant specification arguments, so it’d be an unfair question to ask.

In this third example there is only one relevant specification argument – the ‘paradox of the stone’. It could, perhaps, be answered including the problem of evil and/or human free will in addition, but it would not be fair to expect this approach from all students. This area of the specification was successfully examined in a twenty-five mark question in 2020, when students were asked “Is the concept of God incoherent?”

Although the three previous examples didn’t hit the mark required for a twenty-five mark question, this area of the specification was successfully examined in a twenty-five mark question in 2020, when students were asked “Is the concept of God incoherent?”

Thanks for watching, I hope you found this presentation informative and useful. If you have any questions or feedback, then please do email philosophy@aqa.org.uk.

Questions you may want to think about

• How can you use these insights to prepare your learners for exams?
• Do your internal assessments reflect the approach of the exam? To what extent do you want them to?
• What’s the most important or surprising thing that you’ve learned? How might it influence your teaching?