GCE EXAMINERS' REPORTS

Transcription

1 GCE EXAMINERS' REPORTS RELIGIOUS STUDIES AS/Advanced JANUARY 2012

2 Statistical Information This booklet contains summary details for each unit: number entered; maximum mark available; mean mark achieved; grade ranges. N.B. These refer to 'raw marks' used in the initial assessment, rather than to the uniform marks reported when results are issued. Annual Statistical Report The annual Statistical Report (issued in the second half of the Autumn Term) gives overall outcomes of all examinations administered by WJEC. Unit Page RS1/2 CS 1 RS1/2 ETH 4 RS1/2 PHIL 8 RS1/2 BS 11 RS 1/2 CHR 14 RS1/2 ER 17 RS1/2 WR 21

3 RELIGIOUS STUDIES General Certificate of Education January 2012 Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced Principal Examiner: Gordon Reid Unit Statistics The following statistics include all candidates entered for the unit, whether or not they 'cashed in' for an award. The attention of centres is drawn to the fact that the statistics listed should be viewed strictly within the context of this unit and that differences will undoubtedly occur between one year and the next and also between subjects in the same year. Unit Entry Max Mark Mean Mark RS1/2 CS Grade Ranges A 61 B 51 C 42 D 33 E 24 N.B. The marks given above are raw marks and not uniform marks. 1

4 General Comments RS1/2 CS INTRODUCTION TO RELIGION IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY The majority of students answered question 1, followed by question 2. There were some excellent answers at the top end although overall the standard was good, though not exceptional, and similar to the previous year. Q1 (a) Most students knew the basic issues surrounding euthanasia, but only those at the top-end really tackled the concepts of the quality and sanctity of life. The best answers linked the two concepts to the problem of euthanasia with regular mention of religious arguments and with some reference of scripture and the position of other faiths. Many listed examples of euthanasia cases and, in particular, where the cases led to a conviction or a visit to the Dignitas Clinic. The best students linked this well with scholarly argument and debate. However, the majority of candidates fell into the mid-range because they wrote all about the various euthanasia arguments, but failed to link them, or in some cases even mention, the quality and sanctity of life. At the lowest end, candidates resorted to GCSE-type responses that lacked depth of argument. The best candidates offered a clear assessment of religious arguments covering both sides, backed up with good use of textual narrative and scholarly discourse. In the mid-range, candidates considered the euthanasia debate in its widest context and threw in a few religious notions, but missed the main thrust of the question. For the most part, there were rather muddled references to religion but few were prepared to offer a valid and supported argument. In the lowest range there were large numbers of general answers, many repeating what had already been said in (a). Q.2 (a) A popular question, but perhaps the most feebly done, with only the best offering any serious scholarly debate and linking religious beliefs and practices to the programme. The great majority of answers relied on re-telling events from episodes of The Simpsons, but only the best offered any real discussion and evidence on the portrayal of religious belief and practices. A number regurgitated confused accounts of different episodes whilst glossing over the religious aspects and few made really successful links between religion and The Simpsons beyond character generalisation. Most contented themselves with rather vague comments about religious clothing, belief and ceremonies. There were hardly any good answers to this question. The best candidates were able to offer a reasoned analysis, using a range of episodes, and offering some debate about educating society, but overall there were too many stereotyped responses here concerning how good The Simpsons is. A few resorted to stereotyped descriptions of famous characters to illustrate their rather vague arguments. There was a lot of repetition from (a) though most candidates were able to offer some kind of conclusion. 2

5 Q.3 (a) This was quite well done with the highest candidates making useful reference to the main aspects of either fundamentalism or NRMs and candidates offered good knowledge, but would have improved their answer with greater use of examples and scholarly opinion. Most students in the mid-range talked about different aspects of fundamentalism/ NRMs, including faith schools and worship, with some rather undeveloped emphasis on religious diversity. Some got tangled up with issues of faith and politics. In the mid-lower range, most made reference to problems of religious fundamentalism/ NRMs but tended to resort to stereotypes and scare-stories. Few were able to make any really positive analysis and comment on the issues that fundamentalism and NRMs raise. This is an awkward question and was difficult to mark. There were very few good answers. With regard to both fundamentalism and NRMs, candidates in the upper- mid range offered a variety of differing issues but more links could have been made to the future in Britain. In the mid-lower range, most stereotyped the UK simply being a traditional Christian nation and few explored future possibilities. At the lower end, candidates drifted into the merits or otherwise of fundamentalism/ NRMs, but failed to address the question. Q.4 (a) Probably the best-answered question of all with most upper and mid-range students having a good knowledge and referring to range of scholarly debate and views were often explained in considerable detail, though few mentioned religious belief sufficiently. In the mid-range, candidates tended to offer the life story of Jung or Freud and more might have been made of links to issues of religious belief. Greater use of examples linking the two scholars to religion would have helped. Candidates at the lowest end offered general accounts of the life and work of one of both scholars. There were many brief answers to this question. The best candidates offered examples and scholarly analysis, though in the mid-range all-too-often, arguments were unsubstantiated or simplistic, with the focus on religion in general. At the lowest end, candidates probably did not understand the question and there was considerable repetition from (a) into. 3

6 RELIGIOUS STUDIES General Certificate of Education January 2012 Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced Principal Examiner: Andrew Pearce Unit Statistics The following statistics include all candidates entered for the unit, whether or not they 'cashed in' for an award. The attention of centres is drawn to the fact that the statistics listed should be viewed strictly within the context of this unit and that differences will undoubtedly occur between one year and the next and also between subjects in the same year. Unit Entry Max Mark Mean Mark RS1/2 ETH Grade Ranges A 63 B 53 C 43 D 33 E 24 N.B. The marks given above are raw marks and not uniform marks. 4

7 RS1/2 ETH INTRODUCTION TO RELIGION AND ETHICS General Comments The paper appeared to be accessible to candidates. The use of Welsh terminology by some candidates was poor in comparison to previous papers. Many centres had prepared their candidates well and there were a number of outstanding scripts. However, some students continue to 'write all they know about' rather than address the questions set. This was particularly noticeable in some answers to Question 1 and was reflected in candidates' level of achievement. In Question 2(a) and 3(a) weaker candidates were often unaware of the ten principles of Situation Ethics or the seven criteria of the hedonic calculus within Act Utilitarianism. They should be reminded therefore to make better use of the glossary provided by the WJEC in order to gain a true understanding of these ideas. Several candidates also failed to complete the paper which suggests they should be encouraged to set time limits for each question. Some candidates answered the (a) and questions out of order which made the principle of salvage difficult to apply. It would also help considerably with the administration of the scripts if candidates entered the question numbers they have attempted on the front of their scripts. Q.1 (a) Good candidates were able to define what absolutist meant and select which aspects of Natural Law they needed to refer to in order to address the question. They referred to actions being intrinsically right or wrong, primary precepts, interior and exterior acts, real and apparent goods, cardinal and theological virtues and the four types of interrelated law identified by Aquinas. Weaker candidates simply wrote all they knew about Natural Law with little or no reference to the question. Some spent time giving irrelevant background information on Aristotle or Aquinas. Others referred to the secondary precepts as being absolutist which they are not. Many appeared not to know what the term absolutist meant and this inevitably limited their level of response. Good candidates relished grappling with the question and produced mature and thought provoking responses. They referred to the fact that Natural Law could promote injustice as it to some extent relies upon religious belief and it promotes discrimination e.g. against those who cannot reproduce. Many were able to recognise that Natural Law can promote justice with it s universal moral norms, it s clear-cut guidance and in fact many argue that it has led to the development of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Some candidates recognised that there is often a struggle between what an individual or society thinks is just at this time and what Natural Law sees as justice. Good candidates also gave evidence or reasoning to support their ideas and made an appropriate conclusion. Weaker candidates tended to list points for and against the view expressed in the question with little or no analysis. They would be wiser to make fewer points, but to develop and analyse their arguments in greater depth. Some candidates answered the question as if it asked for the strengths and weaknesses of Natural Law which was not the case. Q.2 (a) Good candidates recognised that outline means Write a concise account of the main features, incidents or principles. They gave a brief account of Situation Ethics using key terms such as relativism, consequential, teleological, agape love and the ten main principles. Some also mentioned why Fletcher rejected legalism and antinomianism. 5

8 Weaker candidates attempted to list some or all of the principles which is not the same as writing a concise account. Some wasted time outlining the different types of love or were unable to even list the ten principles which was disappointing. Candidates/centres would also be advised against paraphrasing the principles as sometimes this results in the true meaning of the principle being lost. For example Love is intrinsically good is not the same as Love is pure as used by one centre. Positivism in particular continues to be misunderstood and one of Fletcher's Six Fundamental principles "the loving end justifies the means" was regularly misquoted. Good candidates produced mature and well thought out responses. They referred to the fact that Situation Ethics can provide a poor basis for making decisions as love is subjective, you cannot predict the consequences of any action and it fails to consider the emotional ties we have to others. Many were able to recognise that Situation Ethics can however provide a good basis for decision making as is it is altruistic, it allows people to make decisions for themselves and considers the situation they find themselves in. Good candidates gave evidence or reasoning to support their ideas and made an appropriate conclusion. Weaker candidates tended to list points for and against the view expressed in the question with little or no analysis. They would be wiser to make fewer points, but to develop and analyse their arguments in greater depth. Some candidates answered the question as if it asked for the strengths and weaknesses of Situation Ethics which is not the case. Q.3 (a) Good candidates read the question carefully and were able to define what Act and Rule Utilitarianism meant. They used relevant terms accurately such as hedonism, teleological, relativistic and consequential. They also mentioned the principle of utility and the hedonic calculus (which they could explain correctly including the seven criteria). The more able candidates even referred to the Strong and Weak forms of Utilitarianism. Weaker candidates simply wrote all they knew about Utilitarianism including irrelevant material on Mill s higher or lower pleasures. A number of candidates confused Bentham and Mill s ideas and some were unable to even correctly identify the seven parts of the Hedonic Calculus let alone explain them. Some candidates correctly referred to rule utilitarianism as using rules, but failed to explain that the basis of these rules was the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Good candidates addressed the question set. They identified how Utilitarianism could be incompatible with a religious approach to ethics in various way including the fact that it s approach is teleological and not deontological (like many religions), that it allowed a minority to suffer as an outcome of an act, whilst religions promoted equality or the fact that Utilitarianism is based on the pursuit of happiness and not fulfilling God s will. They also recognised that Utilitarianism could be compatible with a religious approach to ethics in a number of ways such as the fact that the principle of utility does not promote selfishness but altruism, that Mill s rule utilitarianism might agree with some of the rules advocated by major world religions and Mill himself believed his approach to ethics was closer to the Golden Rule of Christianity. Good candidates also gave evidence or reasoning to support their ideas and made an appropriate conclusion. Weaker candidates tended to list points for and against the view expressed in the question with little or no analysis. They would be wiser to make fewer points, but to develop and analyse their arguments in greater depth. Some candidates answered the question as if it asked for the strengths and weaknesses of Utilitarianism which was not the case. 6

9 Q.4 (a) Whilst this appeared to be the least popular question, good candidates focussed on the question and were also able to link the religious teachings on marriage to other relevant issues such as same sex marriage, adultery and divorce. They often referred to religious traditions, leaders or relevant theories such as Natural Law or Situation Ethics. Many of these candidates also quoted sacred texts with accuracy and insight. Weaker candidates tended to give simplistic and stereo-typical religious views on this issue. They often made general claims without any supporting reasoning or evidence. Others simply wrote about another issue such as sex before marriage with little or no reference to the question set. Good candidates were able to produce mature responses. For example they gave various reasons why the rejection of marriage could indeed be damaging to society including that it threatens the sanctity of marriage, it shows a lack of commitment, it leads to greater promiscuity (with effects such as increased abortion or teenage pregnancies) and that it means there is not a stable environment for any offspring. They were however, able to recognise that many would argue that the rejection of marriage is not damaging to society as it allows people to choose when or if they marry rather than having to conform to the traditional norms of society, that people can show commitment without getting married and that children can still be brought up in a stable environment without their parents being married. Good candidates also gave evidence or reasoning to support their ideas and made an appropriate conclusion. Weaker candidates tended to focus on why marriage was a bad idea rather than the question set. Those who did attempt to address the question tended to list points for and against the view expressed in the question with little or no analysis. They would be wiser to make fewer points, but to develop and analyse their arguments in greater depth. 7

10 RELIGIOUS STUDIES General Certificate of Education January 2012 Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced Principal Examiner: Mr. Karl Lawson Unit Statistics The following statistics include all candidates entered for the unit, whether or not they 'cashed in' for an award. The attention of centres is drawn to the fact that the statistics listed should be viewed strictly within the context of this unit and that differences will undoubtedly occur between one year and the next and also between subjects in the same year. Unit Entry Max Mark Mean Mark RS1/2 PHIL Grade Ranges A 67 B 57 C 47 D 37 E 27 N.B. The marks given above are raw marks and not uniform marks. 8

11 General Comments RS1/2 PHIL INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION The concept of reading the question set and then answering it continues to evade a significant number of candidates and thereby affects the marks that they are able to gain. It is essential in this paper, in order to demonstrate effective philosophical skills, that the candidates employ their ability to reason and reflect upon the specific issues that are raised by the topics studied, if they are to access the highest marks available. It is imperative that centres impress this point upon their candidates. Issues relating to grammar remain problematic for many candidates, especially in relation to key concepts and words all of which are referenced in the published glossary to accompany this unit. Centres may find it useful to exercise the literacy skills of their candidates by making more frequent use of this document. Centres are, again, also encouraged to ask their candidates to follow the instruction on the examination paper with regards to completing the relevant rubric of indicating questions that have been attempted on the front of their answer booklets. Q.1 (a) Many candidates did not answer in the order the question gave and this more than often suggested that a learnt answer was going to be provided come what may. Regretfully, a high percentage of candidates (or, Centres) did not have a clue about Sufficient Reason and so ignored it or gave various degrees of clever answers suggesting they may know something! This inevitably suppressed the higher marking levels. There remain unnecessary introductions - especially for a question that was so specific, and consequently wasted time and effort. Conversely, some were trying to condense Aquinas 3 Ways into one so as to save time. There were varying levels of success in this attempt. The issue of infinity was too often ignored completely or mentioned for one Way without seeming to be relevant to the other two. Examples were often missed and were frequently mixed between Motion and Cause which then often brought a confusion in the text itself. There were, however, excellent answers, as always, these were produced by those who had clearly done their own research and wider reading and so wrote something more or different to the majority of the candidates from their centre. This question was accessible and liked and often produced that prime answer of weaving pro and con assessment rather than simply listing or being one sided; both of which were witnessed. Consequently, the full mark range was employed. Q.2 (a) Candidates often had their own answer that was going to be presented no matter what the question. Unfortunately this simply put but unusual slant of question caught too many of these prepared answers out. In the majority of papers there was no sense of chronology of the argument whatsoever. It was common for Aquinas to develop Paley s argument! Others ingeniously got around their unsure chronology but taking development in terms of themes. Again, too often the word science was ignored and the set pros and cons answer provided. Either way the arguments for strengths were far poorer than the arguments for weaknesses. Several candidates brought in cosmological arguments because they were scientific - albeit irrelevant. That said, there were a notable minority of excellent answers. 9

12 Q.3 (a) The inconsistent triad, animal, immensity and innocent suffering were dealt with very well by many. Some could have scored more highly if they had used the information. i.e. some stated what innocent suffering was, for example, without saying how it raised issues for religious believers. Unfortunately, many put information on Augustine and Irenaeus in here. Not only was it not relevant here, but because it was not evaluative it could not be salvaged to part b either. Many did try to deal with the two theodicies and did look at positive and negative aspects of both (although there were more negatives.) Despite it now lying outside of the specification, some used Process theodicy in their answer to good effect. Candidates must be reminded to avoid the needless explanation of theodicies in part b and to get on with the evaluation of them. Q.4 (a) Several candidates answered this question very well particularly when describing William James theories. Some candidates were able to weave the life and work of a mystic like St. Teresa as examples of James four characteristics and, when they did so, it was impressively done. However, many candidates were not prepared for this question and simply did not know enough (or anything at all) about James. A few students just ignored the question and wrote all they knew about a particular mystic On the whole candidates seemed happier with the Part B than the Part A. Some good answers, particularly when considering the positive effects of mystics. Some good case studies used e.g. the positive effect of mystics like St. Julian of Norwich. Weaker candidates changed the question in their minds to a basic: Mysticism is rubbish and then discussed why mystic are (quote) nutters, drug addicts etc. 10

13 RELIGIOUS STUDIES General Certificate of Education January 2012 Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced Principal Examiner: Rev. Gwynn ap Gwilym Unit Statistics The following statistics include all candidates entered for the unit, whether or not they 'cashed in' for an award. The attention of centres is drawn to the fact that the statistics listed should be viewed strictly within the context of this unit and that differences will undoubtedly occur between one year and the next and also between subjects in the same year. Unit Entry Max Mark Mean Mark RS1/2 BS Grade Ranges A 66 B 55 C 45 D 35 E 25 N.B. The marks given above are raw marks and not uniform marks. 11

14 RS 1/2 BS INTRODUCTION TO BIBLICAL STUDIES Section A: Introduction to the Old Testament Section B: Introduction to the New Testament General Comments The total candidature was small. Only one candidate attempted the Old Testament option. The following comments apply to the New Testament option. There were no outstanding scripts. The marks ranged from 1 to 68 out of a possible 90, with the majority of candidates scoring between 25 and 59. Only two candidates scored over 60. Poor spelling ( miricles, miricals etc., even though the word miracles appeared on the question paper) and poor grammar ( would of, in particular) were again common. Q.1 (a) Most of those who responded had a fair idea what Logos meant to Jewish and Greek philosophers (God in action/cosmic order), and were aware that John s use of the term to demonstrate the two natures of Jesus, human and divine, facilitated the conversion to Christianity of those who were familiar with Greek thought. Only the abler candidates, however, provided an adequate exploration of the biblical background the story of Creation, Isaiah and the Old Testament concept of Wisdom. The gist of the question was well understood. Candidates were happy to concur that Matthew and Luke are less acceptable because of their supernatural content, their dubious historicity and the differences between them. Many, however, found very little to say against the contention. No one felt that John s account lacks drama and dialogue, or that it over-emphasizes the divinity of Jesus. In the absence of any valid argument, there were several lengthy and irrelevant commentaries on the Matthean/Lucan variations. Q.2 (a) Although this was a popular question, the response, on the whole, was disappointing. The main weakness was that almost all candidates provided an amalgam of the parable as it occurs in Matthew and Luke. Very few drew any distinction between the two versions. In Matthew, a king arranges a wedding feast for his son and sends out messengers to summon guests, who kill the messengers; the king destroys the guests and invites others from the street. In Luke, a man arranges a feast and sends one servant to invite guests, who make excuses; the man then invites people from the streets and subsequently from the highways and hedges. The variations have some bearing on the exposition, e.g. in Matthew, the servants may represent the prophets, the servant in Luke may represent Jesus. Incidentally, the word invite was extensively used in responses as a noun. Even for those of us who are not native English speakers, this is incorrect, substandard and irritating. Candidates should be advised that invite is a verb; the noun is invitation. 12

15 Candidates fared better here. Almost all were aware of the saying in Mark 4:10-12 and parallels, which was interpreted as proof that Jesus knew that not all would understand his parables. On the other hand, there would be little point in teaching in a way that nobody would understand. There was some good discussion of the parables being Jesus way of obscuring his message from those who were hostile to him. Q.3 (a) The miracle was well summarized but, again, there seemed to be little, if any, awareness of the variations between Matthew and Luke. In Matthew, the centurion comes to Jesus himself; in Luke he sends Jewish elders. No one at all mentioned the similar miracle in John 4: Everyone, however, understood that this was a healing miracle performed at the request of a Gentile, and there was some adequate discussion of common features, e.g. the centurion s faith, the miracle is accomplished through words and from a distance and is designed to bring glory to God. Arguments in favour of the contention included allegations that the miracles could have been made up by the early Church to demonstrate Jesus divinity, that the New Testament should be demythologised, that Jesus teaching is more important and that miracles are simply unbelievable. Alas, the last point was often embellished with lengthy, unnecessary and irrelevant discussions of objections made to miracles by philosophers and scientists since the Enlightenment. Against the contention, almost all responses argued that the miracles prove Jesus divinity and that Christianity is based on the miracle of the resurrection. No one, however, questioned what authority Jesus teaching has if he is not the Son of God. Q.4 (a) This was not a popular question. Of the few who attempted it, several brought in elements from other gospels, and several were incomplete. There was almost no discussion of the significance of some of the Matthean events, e.g. darkness falls to signify Jesus being identified with our sins and thus separated from God; the curtain of the Temple is torn to signify that the way to God has been opened to all; many saints are raised from the dead to signify the coming resurrection of all believers. The basic arguments both for and against were well understood, but there was seldom much detail. In favour of the contention, almost everybody wrote that the death of Jesus is important because he died for our sins. Only a few mentioned the possible meanings of this a victory over Satan, a ransom, a moral example, penal substitution. No one at all explored these meanings in any detail. Against the contention, almost everybody wrote that the resurrection of Jesus demonstrated his victory over death. Only a few mentioned that this was God s final endorsement of Jesus work. No one at all realised that, without this endorsement, Jesus death can have no meaning. 13

16 RELIGIOUS STUDIES General Certificate of Education January 2012 Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced Principal Examiner: Rev. Gwynn ap Gwilym Unit Statistics The following statistics include all candidates entered for the unit, whether or not they 'cashed in' for an award. The attention of centres is drawn to the fact that the statistics listed should be viewed strictly within the context of this unit and that differences will undoubtedly occur between one year and the next and also between subjects in the same year. Unit Entry Max Mark Mean Mark RS1/2 CHR Grade Ranges A 67 B 56 C 45 D 35 E 25 N.B. The marks given above are raw marks and not uniform marks. 14

17 RS 1/2 CHR INTRODUCTION TO CHRISTIANITY General Comments It is pleasing to report that the general standard was reasonable. Of the 50 candidates, the majority (31) scored between 25 and 60 marks out of a possible 90, and 9 scored between 61 and 81. Legibility and spelling were generally adequate, even though the occasional candidate decried the immortality of medieval monks and nuns. With the exception of the 10 candidates who scored less than 25 marks, knowledge was satisfactory, and sometimes even formidable, and there were some intelligent responses to AO2 questions. Q.1 (a) Almost all of those who responded understood the gist of the question. There was some excellent discussion of the doctrine of the Fall and Original Sin and some theologically competent treatment of how in the Incarnation God becomes flesh, paving the way to justice being satisfied, the Law being sustained and humanity being saved. Everyone knew what punishments were inflicted upon Adam and Eve. In support of the contention, some thought it unfair that we, whom they deemed to be innocent of Adam and Eve s sins, are still punished for their wrongdoings. Others thought that the unfairness lay in God s apparent punishment of his only Son. Against the contention, there was a general unanimity that God s anger is directed not at the sinner but at the sin, and that the Incarnation sets forth his love. Q.2 (a) This was a popular question and, in general, was well answered. All responses featured some relevant aspects of Luther s scholarly and devotional work his substitution of scriptural authority for papal authority, consubstantiation for transubstantiation, justification by faith for justification by works, his doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, his translation of the Bible; and of historical events: the selling of indulgences, the 95 theses (although there were some wildly fluctuating guesses as to how many there were), the Diet of Worms etc. Candidates who remembered all these things and wrote about them with fluency and flair were well rewarded. Although most of those who responded realised that the Reformation brought with it political benefits, there was a general suspicion, but usually no more, that it was at root a matter of theology. No one seemed to know of the Augsburg Confession (1530), which established a secular government in Germany, or to realise that the reformers were evangelicals. There was often a lack of detail. Candidates who named Frederick the Wise, Zwingli, Calvin etc. fared better than those who wrote that Luther was hidden away by a German king, or that Luther had several more extreme followers. Q.3 (a) The several responses that demonstrated a good grasp of the subject seemed to divide the Divine Liturgy into two parts the Liturgy of the Catechumens (for everybody) and the Liturgy of the Faithful (for baptized people only). No one mentioned the Liturgy of Preparation, which is said privately by the priest and deacon at the start of the service. Among weaker candidates, there was a common tendency to write in very general terms about the use of readings, homilies, hymns, prayers etc., that could be part of any Eucharistic rite, even within the most Reformed tradition. 15

18 While there were good arguments in favour that both traditions use ornate vessels and vestments, music, incense, processions and liturgy etc. candidates were far less sure how to challenge the contention. There was considerable (and understandable) uncertainty as to whether the Orthodox tradition believes in transubstantiation or not. Some wrote that it does, others that it does not. Both were correct. For the record, the Orthodox tradition does believe that in the Divine Liturgy the bread and the wine truly and actually become the body and blood of Christ. However, it does not generally use the word transubstantiation, preferring the terms divine mystery, transelementation or reordination. Because it believes the Eucharist is a mystery, it cannot be explained through reason alone. Orthodoxy, therefore, rejects the Roman Catholic scholastic definition, based on the Aristotelian concept of substance and accidents. It also rejects the Roman Catholic teaching that the change in the elements occurs when the priest, acting in the person of Christ, speaks the words of institution ( This is my body ). Rather, it occurs at the epiklesis, when the priest prays God to send his Holy Spirit to change the elements into the body and blood of his Son. It is the Holy Spirit, not the priest, who causes the change. Q.4 (a) Most candidates knew the meaning of Atonement Christ dying for our sins to reconcile us to God and there was some good discussion of Atonement theories (Penal Substitution, Moral Example, Christus Victor etc.). The abler candidates had no difficulty in relating the belief to examples of Christian celebration Veneration/Stations of the Cross, processions, three hour services. Weaker candidates either ignored the celebrations entirely or were confused as to who does what. One very common misunderstanding was that Anglican three hour services begin at 3.00pm. They don t. They start at 12.00pm and end at 3.00pm, to reflect Mark 15:33 and parallels. Several candidates scored impressive marks for their responses to this. Everyone realised the paradox of celebrating the death of one s Saviour, but that Jesus death is a cause for rejoicing in that (i) it has reconciled humankind to God and (ii) is inextricably bound with the resurrection. 16

19 RELIGIOUS STUDIES General Certificate of Education January 2012 Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced Principal Examiner: Rev. Huw Dylan Jones Unit Statistics The following statistics include all candidates entered for the unit, whether or not they 'cashed in' for an award. The attention of centres is drawn to the fact that the statistics listed should be viewed strictly within the context of this unit and that differences will undoubtedly occur between one year and the next and also between subjects in the same year. Unit Entry Max Mark Mean Mark RS1/2 ER Grade Ranges A 67 B 56 C 45 D 34 E 24 N.B. The marks given above are raw marks and not uniform marks. 17

20 RS1/2 ER EASTERN RELIGIONS General Comments Generally the overall standard was good. There was a reduction in the number of papers who were very poor and there were many scripts which were a pleasure to read and mark. Most candidates had good knowledge of their chosen religion but varied in their understanding of that knowledge and their ability to select relevant material. Examiners again this year commented on the increasing use of relevant quotations which is good to see. Some candidates are still adopting the write all you know about approach to answering questions, completely ignoring the trigger words, especially explain. This results in much of what they write being irrelevant to the question. Candidates also need to realise that the trigger word examine requires more than just a description of an event or practice. The meaning and significance also need to be discussed. However questions requiring an evaluative response continue to improve with most candidates being able to give a balanced response. BUDDHISM Q.1 (a) The response to this question was disappointing. This was one of the write all you know about questions referred to above. Candidates saw the words four sights and proceeded to write a description of the sights completely ignoring the rest of the question which explains in which context the four sights should have been discussed. A number of candidates described the birth of the Buddha which was irrelevant while others described his enlightenment which was also irrelevant. The majority of candidates did note that it was the four sights that inspired the Buddha to renounce and seek enlightenment but it was only the high scoring candidates who could refer how seeing sickness had led the Buddha to think about suffering and old age leading him to dukkha, annica etc. There were much better responses to this question with candidates giving a balanced discussion on whether Buddhism is pessimistic, optimistic or simply realistic. It was pleasing to see candidates giving examples from Buddhist teaching to support their arguments. Q.2 (a) On the whole the responses to this question were slightly disappointing. Most candidates had some knowledge and understanding of both karma and rebirth. However it was not detailed enough to attain the higher levels. There was also an imbalance in many answers with either karma or rebirth being discussed in detail but seldom both. Other candidates simply explained the Buddhist wheel of life. This was relevant but on its own could not attain the higher levels. Other candidates were slightly confused between the Buddhist belief of rebirth and the Hindu belief of reincarnation. The better answers were balanced and gave clear examples to explain Buddhist beliefs about karma and rebirth. On the whole again slightly disappointing. Candidates struggled to relate the Buddhist beliefs of karma and rebirth with Buddhist lifestyle. Answers were superficial, lacking in depth and with little evidence to support reasoning. Better answers focused on the consequences of karmic law and also the importance in Buddhism of the motivation for an action. 18

21 Q.3 (a) On the whole this question was very well answered with most candidates showing good knowledge and understanding of the four noble truths. They had obviously been well prepared by centres. There was good use of relevant terminology such as dukkha, magga etc. and many referred to them as a medical diagnosis. Most candidates explained in detail the first and fourth noble truths but some candidates were a bit superficial in their explanation of dukka. A small minority of candidates unfortunately mistook the four noble truths for the four sights. There were some very good, balanced responses to this question with candidates noting that the four noble truths are important to Buddhists today because they were the Buddha s first sermon; they are the words of the Buddha; they are Buddhist teaching; they help on the way to enlightenment and are a diagnosis of the human condition. However there are other important factors which Buddhists need to know about within Buddhism such as the life of the Buddha, Three Marks of Existence etc. Q.4 (a) There was a vast range in the quality of answers to this question. Many candidates just described the different elements within meditation and puja and made no effort to explain their purpose within Buddhism. Some candidates misread the question and answered on either meditation or puja. Other candidates limited their answers to one or two elements found within meditation and puja. However the higher scoring candidates were able to write in detail about the nature of meditation and puja in Buddhism and the importance of the different elements. Many referred to Metta Bhavana and the differences between different Buddhist traditions. This question was well answered with candidates giving balanced answers debating the relative merits of meditation and puja. Some candidates were able to refer to the importance or value of meditation and puja within different Buddhist traditions and dependant on the status given to the Buddha. HINDUISM Q.1 (a) The responses to this question varied greatly in terms of quality. Higher scoring candidates wrote in depth about the different beliefs about the divine found in Hinduism and were able to give examples from within Hinduism to illustrate them. They were also able to use terminology with confidence. However the weaker candidates showed a lack of knowledge and understanding of the different terms referred to in the question. Generally the answers to this question were good. Candidates had obviously been well prepared by centres for this kind of discussion. They were therefore able to evaluate in a balanced way and to give examples to support their reasoning in defending Hinduism as a monotheistic religion or in arguing that it is polytheistic in nature. Q.2 (a) A very well answered question. Candidates had obviously been well prepared by centres and were able to give detailed knowledge about each of the four ashramas and the duties linked with them. They were also able to exemplify each one with relevant examples. It was also pleasing to see the correct use of Hindu terminology. 19

22 Generally the answers to this question were satisfactory with most candidates being able to link duty with the need to gain good karma and secure a higher reincarnation. Better answers referred to the importance of duty within cosmic order. On the other side of the argument candidates argued that there are other important elements within Hinduism such as the scriptures. However very few answers referred to bhakti and daily puja. Q.3 (a) On the whole answers to this question were slightly disappointing. Some candidates did no more than describe how Ganesh got his elephant head. Others described his features without explaining their significance at all or his significance within the Hindu community. There was very little reference to Ganesh Chaturthi or Lakshmi Ganesh Puja. However there were some excellent and balanced answers which showed a wealth of knowledge and understanding. Generally the standard of responses was good and it was clear from the answers given that this is an issue which is discussed in centres. Candidates referred to the contemporary role of the stories about the gods and goddesses in maintaining moral standards, giving guidance and motivation and being role models as well as giving opposing viewpoints that some of the stories are childish and difficult to believe. Q.4 (a) In general responses to this question were only satisfactory with a number of candidates ignoring the word importance in their answers and simply describing the festivals. Others misread the question and wrote about one festival only. Although they had a good level of knowledge about the festivals in terms of history, tradition, celebration etc. they did not refer to the importance of these festivals to the Hindu community. Candidates were obviously more familiar with Diwali than Holi and this was reflected in the answers given. Answers on the meaning of Holi tended to be very weak. There was a varied response in terms of quality to this question. Some candidates simply gave reasons why certain actions within Hinduism are important without any reference to belief at all. However the better answers were able to link belief and practice in a balanced and mature way giving specific examples of how certain beliefs directly influence actions in Hinduism. SIKHISM There was an insufficient number of scripts to draw any helpful conclusions regarding performance. 20

23 RELIGIOUS STUDIES General Certificate of Education January 2012 Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced Principal Examiner: Peter Jacques Unit Statistics The following statistics include all candidates entered for the unit, whether or not they 'cashed in' for an award. The attention of centres is drawn to the fact that the statistics listed should be viewed strictly within the context of this unit and that differences will undoubtedly occur between one year and the next and also between subjects in the same year. Unit Entry Max Mark Mean Mark RS1/2 WR Grade Ranges A 64 B 54 C 44 D 34 E 24 N.B. The marks given above are raw marks and not uniform marks. 21

24 General Comments RS 1/2 WR INTRODUCTION TO WESTERN RELIGIONS It is pleasing to report that examiners felt that the overall response to these papers was good. The quality and depth of perception evident in some scripts was most impressive. It was also pleasing to see answers reflecting good use of relevant quotations and accurate use of terminology. Generally speaking, those candidates who did not produce good answers did so due to the following: A reluctance to pay careful attention to the specific wording of questions. Failure to reach high levels was invariably due to a lack of understanding rather than a weak knowledge base. Parts (a) and require candidates to demonstrate different skills and use basic information in a different way there is no credit to be gained from rewriting the same material in both (a) and. Many candidates responses lacked attention to detail too many general comments but not enough specific accurate information. Section A: Introduction to Islam Q.1 (a) Most candidates demonstrated some knowledge of the Qur an and its importance in Islam. Responses not achieving higher levels did so due to the fact that they failed to develop their understanding of the Qur an as the basis of shari a law. Examples of basic rules of shari a found in the Qur an were few and far between. There was a good standard of response to this question. Many candidates were able to debate the practicality of observing Qur anic principles today identifying the Qur an as a guide to Muslims over many centuries, irrelevant of place and time. There was well informed debate about the place of the Qur an in a more scientific and technological age with answers skilfully reflecting the struggle to adapt principles to modern life. Q.2 (a) Too many candidates interpreted the question to give a detailed biography of the life of Muhammad. What was actually required was a summary of events after the hijrah, illustrating how Muhammad fulfilled his role as the final prophet of Allah. Answers to this debate were generally weak. Examiners were advised to credit the following areas of debate: Muslims regard the Qur an as the literal word of Allah revealed to Muhammad. Authenticity never really doubted by Muslims. Oral tradition then written down. Final scripture given to the final prophet. Muhammad as transmitter Zaid as the author. On the other hand Reliability of oral tradition. Debate about the historical reliability of some hadith. Was the Qur an a product of Muhammad s mind? Written by Muhammad as solutions to problems at the time. Original sources more religious than historical. 22

25 Q.3 (a) Although some candidates confused salah with sawm, there were some very good answers where candidates wrote with confidence about both the practice and significance of salah to Muslims. Weaker candidates concentrated too much on the practices rather than the religious significances. There were many excellent responses debating the various difficulties of performing salah viz Problems living in a non Muslim secular society. Strict observance of prayer times. Difficulty finding places to pray. Observance of wudu. Work related issues. Candidates achieving the higher levels were then able to compare the difficulties of practising the other pillars. Q.4 (a) The majority of candidates who attempted this question demonstrated only a limited knowledge base about divorce in Islam. There was a good debate about arranged marriages and general attitudes to divorce in Islam. The better responses presented a balanced and informed view of searching for happiness through family involvement and the base line that this can never really be guaranteed either through arranged marriage or love marriage. Section B: Introduction to Judaism Q.1 (a) In answers credited at the higher levels, candidates gave a summary account of the Exodus and the role of Moses bridge between God and the people monotheism teacher and authoritative leader restoring relationship between God and His people establishing a new covenant etc. Weaker candidates simply wrote at length about the life of Moses. Most candidates demonstrated excellent evaluation of the life of Moses referring to history, Pesach, suffering of forefathers, role models, the relevance of mitzvot and tradition. They were also able to highlight the negative aspects of dwelling in the past, the impact of Reform Judaism, the changing role of religion in society etc. Q.2 (a) This question was specifically to do with worship in the synagogue. However, the majority of candidates saw it as a general question about synagogues! As a result, very few answers were actually focussed on the question. There were too many descriptions of interiors, the role of the synagogue in the community, furnishings etc. Examiners were advised to credit the following key areas: Synagogue as a place of prayer. Daily services practices. Centrality of the Torah. Chanting of prayers. Shabbat services. Festival services/rites of passage. Uniform of worship yarmelke, tallit etc. Furniture of worship ark, bimah etc. Minyan (ten males to be present). Role of rabbi, chazzan etc. 23

26 Evaluative comment was generally of a high standard especially with regard to the importance of the home in Judaism viz. Home as a miniature sanctuary. Place where people live according to the ideals and beliefs of Judaism. Place for bonding and religious teaching. Rites of passage ceremonies in the home. Candidates achieving the higher levels were also able to assess the importance of the different roles the synagogue plays in Judaism and also its centrality for worship on Shabbat. Q.3 (a) A very popular question with some outstanding responses showing accurate and precise detail of practices and beliefs. Many candidates wrote with confidence about Selichot, Kol Nidre, Yamin Noraim, the shofar, readings and their significance, use of white in the synagogue etc. Some answers were weak on the religious significance, lacking reference to kingship, repentance, judgement, creation, forgiveness/hope. The high standard of response to (a) was generally maintained here many excellent answers debating the social and religious aspects of festival observance. Q.4 (a) Answers to this question were generally weak information was vague with regard to the roles of the father, mohel, sandak and the importance of Elijah s chair. Candidates were expected to show knowledge of the practice of the redemption of the first born male and the naming ceremony for girls. Most candidates made good attempts to debate the importance of life cycle rituals in strengthening Jewish family life. Examiners were advised to credit the following areas: Judaism is based on history and tradition passed on through family. Rituals maintain Jewish identity and strengthen family bonds. Rituals strengthen religious beliefs and practice. All rituals have a purpose roles of members of the family. All life cycle rituals are family occasions. On the other hand Rituals can be seen as things of the past no place in modern society. Rituals can cause religious prejudice. Many ritual practices rejected by Reform Judaism. Are the rituals really necessary e.g. circumcision, mourning rites, arranged marriages? Rituals may cause family tension. GCE Religious Studies Examiner's Report - January 2012/ED 24