Control tables versus Essay Questions

[PJW]

I'd be interested to find out the true statistics, but from the limited number of results of which I am aware, it certainly seems that in 2007 the "questions" were considerably preferable to the "Control Tables". Only a small sample but those who did the former generally got at least a grade higher than I might have guessed, whilst those who did the Control Tables on average fared a bit worse than I had anticipated.

Any comments- did anyone do better in the CTs than they had expected?

I am personally of the opinion that there should not be such a choice of what to do, but that the paper should require all candidates to do some element of Control Table AND some element of written question (AND probably some element of aspect sequence as well- that I don't count as written question). I have attached poll- please give your opinion

[Peter]

I did CT but mainly because I was doing module 3 because I had not done much with them production-wise before (maybe just to be sure that I could). I did worse than those who had cast their eyes over my non-exam efforts before the day had thought would be the case.

I think it is important to see that people understand the "Why" which is what some form of written question would give. I am sure the examiners would argue that you have to know the "Why" in order to decide the "What to put in the box" on the CT.

I did one written Q because I changed my mind after about 7 mins of aspect sequence, reasoning that I knew enough about backdrives to get good enough marks in the 23 mins left so maybe my mark was a result of that change rather than the choice of questions. Don't take exam technique coaching from me!

[Peter]

Data from the exam review

Module 3 question breakdown:
Part A 75% of candidates attempted this.

Part B

1. (Aspect Sequence) 75%
   
2. 8%
   
3. 8%
   
4. 6%
   
5. 0
   
6. 2%
   
7. 21%
   
8. 16%
   
9. 11%
   
10. 3%
    

At first reading those look to add up to more than 100% but bearing in mind Part A is two thirds of the marks, 75% taking that equates to 50% of the total marks available, 75% aspect sequence (contributing to 1/3 of the potential mark breakdown) a further 25% of the total makrs available and the other questions (totalling 75% of candidates), the remaining 25% of the total mark.

So clearly a 2:1:1 split on marks attempted Control tables:Aspect sequence:essays

[Jerry1237]

Did CT because of the way I studied (over a long period including vocational training) for the exams. I did use exam technique to pass M3 though as I felt it was technically my weakest.

Jerry

[JamesC]

I must confess to answering the essay-style questions in preference to the CTs, as I figured that I was bound to omit some key column if I had to compile the CT template myself. Personally, I prefer the ability to have a choice but if I was on the Exam committee, I would be looking to mandate the candidate to answer a mixture of CTs and essay questions, to demonstrate a wider spread of knowledge.

[chris1922]

For me there is no contest. IMHO the aspect sequence is a given, you would be mad not to answer that.

As for CT, I avoided them like the plague. I don't like the iea of having to draw your own grid, to me that is memory test, not a test of your principles knowledge. I occasionally look at CTs in my job, but drawing them from scratch is a design function, and I have little or no design experience. Although, to be fair you could say that about signalling a blank plan...........
I am far more comfortable answering written questions, and as the way the exam is set seems to agree, this is just as good a way of questioning your understanding of signalling principles.

I guess it just depends on your experience and what ever you feel more comfortable with. I am the only person I know of who answered written questions (and sequence), everybody seems to prefer CT.

Each to their own I guess........

[PJW]

I half-expected an announcement at the Exam Review in January that the Aspect Sequence Question would be disappearing from module 3, at least in its current form. It wasn't said so looks likely to be there for 2008 but I suspect its day's are numbered- make hay whilst the sun shines.....

Two of my students did the written questions and got Distinctions whilst the others I think all did the Control Tables and between them got every other grade. We had probably spent more time on CTs; perhaps it was my teaching!

For me there is no contest. IMHO the aspect sequence is a given, you would be mad not to answer that.


I am the only person I know of who answered written questions (and sequence), everybody seems to prefer CT.

[Jerry1237]

CTs are done the way there are to prove you understand why box y appears and its content is to be x and z. These come with years of doing it as a day job because it is the nuances that gain the marks not that tracks aa-bd plus overlap track bd are required for the route. ALWAYS qualify what you mean when using hashes or notes. #193 may mean "time in minutes" to you but you have to prove to the examiner that you know it means that! To be honest, it is better to avoid hashes and notes altogether.

As for aspect sequences, easy money as other's have stated. My exam technique was draw the tables, whilst they are being copied do the AS, then complete the signal CTs first and finish with the points CTs.

Jerry

[Nurton]

I'd be interested to find out the true statistics, but from the limited number of results of which I am aware, it certainly seems that in 2007 the "questions" were considerably preferable to the "Control Tables". Only a small sample but those who did the former generally got at least a grade higher than I might have guessed, whilst those who did the Control Tables on average fared a bit worse than I had anticipated.

Any comments.....

Hello... a newbie here. I actually registered just so I could reply to this thread. As you'll see from my bio, I am one of the lucky ones who has the exams behind me, but this topic is rather a pet hate of mine.

When I did my exams I was expecting to get my best grade in modules 3, but as it turns out it was actually my worst grade. So why was this?

Firstly, I used to work with one of the (module 3) examiners, so obviously my attempts of kitchen free cake provisions to bribe him were unsuccessful. However I did have the advantage of grilling him to try and understand why I nearly failed it. Although he didn't admit to recognising which paper was mine, here is the information I extracted:

[Note: I did the CT's + the aspect seq chart]
- I lost the majority of my marks by not completing all of the signals and points that were asked for. Out of the 8 (is this right???, can't remember!) routes/points that I was asked to compile CTs for, I realised I didn't have time, so I did:
1 X Shunt Route
1 X Warning Route
1 X Main Route
1 X Points
1 X Points with swinging O/L

Which meant that I missed another shunt route, main route and set of points, which I felt were farely similar to the ones I had completed. I guessed that by not completing these I would lose marks for missing the unique detail in these routes/points that were different from the others, but hope that by doing one of every "type" (as listed above) well, I would demonstrate my ability to do these with an attention to detail.
This was the wrong decision as it seems from what I could understand that marks were given per statement, i.e. You got one mark for listing the TORR control conditions for each route. Whereas I was hoping you would get at least 75% of the marks for doing it perfectly on the first route and then the remaining 25% for spoting the differences on others, but not be massively penalised for not completing one of the other routes at all.
- If you do CTs... you must do all the routes/signals that are listed. It seems it is not about demonstrating your interlocking principles skill, but rather your ability to rush through all CTs in ~1 hour.
- I choose to use the CP9 style, which didn't take too long to write up in the exam as I had it memorised, but I should have used some shorthand titles to save a bit of time (as suggested by PJW).
- I should really have used the table format as the biggest problem with this module in the exam was time and any minutes saved would have helped. I thought Module 2 would be the hardest in this respect (time), but actually managed to finish the whole layout just as the time ran out (and did very well). However in Module 3 I worked at full pace (very fast) but still came nowhere close to finishing all of the CTs + the aspect sequence chart.
- I probably should have done the wordy questions, but as I was doing 4 modules in 1 day, felt that I was already writing enough essays and was looking forward to doing something more "puzzle" like!
- I'm not sure if doing the aspect sequence chart was the right idea, but I know I lost marks by completely missing a pre-set shunt signal (of course I knew about the principle, but completely missed the signal on the plan, on the day, due to rushing).

Don't know if this is helpful, or just a rant (probably a bit of both!). However I would say that I think the reason I managed to pass all exams in one go was down to my very good exam technique, which means that if I came nowhere close to finishing these CTs in time, somebody who doesn't consider themselves an exam "road runner" should probably steer clear.
I'll leave you with this fact... from the start of the Module 3 exams to 1.5 hours later, at no point did I stop to think (not great exam technique, but I had no choice!). Every second I was writing something, yet I still came nowhere close to completing all the parts required of me. To be honest this was a symptom of most modules but Mod 3 is by far the worst.
I'd be interested to see if anybody else found the same as me!

[PJW]

[I'll leave you with this fact... from the start of the Module 3 exams to 1.5 hours later, at no point did I stop to think (not great exam technique, but I had no choice!). Every second I was writing something, yet I still came nowhere close to completing all the parts required of me. To be honest this was a symptom of most modules but Mod 3 is by far the worst.
I'd be interested to see if anybody else found the same as me!

A few briefish (!) comments:
1. Thanks for your views and also as a model re bio completion; photo as well, there is a first. Thanks also for sharing details of your experience which I think is pretty typical.

2. I am too old to have experience of the modular exam- but both the morning and afternnon paper were mad rushes in my day.

3. It does seem strange that whilst signal engineering is all about getting absolutely right a relatively limited content whereas the exam seems to be quantity over quality.

4. I do accept that some form of speed pressure is useful to distinguish between those who really know and those who are less robust- I just think that it has gone too far.

5. There is obviously the pragmatic consideration that the entire exam should be achievable at one sitting (individual's travelling / accomodation expenses / envigulators giving up their time, companies lending their offices etc) and there is also only so much examination time that a candidate can take in a day (and to me we are already at or beyond that). What can be cut? [One issue I have with mod 1 is that there should be three rather than only two questions; if a candidate has failed to appreciate the full significance of one question and therefore has chosen it, they are almost certain fo fail unless their one remaining question scored exceptionally well- other modules give better chance of passing having made one poor question choice].

6. Until last year's exam review I was giving advice to students to do the most complicated point, one example of main / Warning / Call-on / Shunt and then look at the time and prioritise the remaining Control Tables to demonstate as much "different" as possible - indeed if necessary to miss out the basics and concentrate on the "frills". My logic was as yours; once the candidate has demonstrated they can do a certain activity consistently, why give more marks for showing more of the same. However I picked up exactly what you say- the way the mark the papers do attempt all the CTs, put something in every box that needs it but don't waste time trying to ensure that you get all the route locking since on a marks per minute basis once you have got half of them for an element then time to move on. As a Principles tester this seems CRAZY to me but that seems to be the marking system, so you'd be stupid not to exploit it.

7. BTW I wouldn't have expected that you'd lose marks for a preset shunt on aspect sequence chart. NR practice is certainly not to show it at all; I regard as an aspect level (R change to Y) as opposed to aspect sequence (better aspect) control. IRSE examiners make it clear that do not need to show PL aspects and GPL signals.

8. I certainly have difficulty doing any of the IRSE modules in the time allowed. I think part of it is the more you know the longer it takes you to think through possible issues; to an extent it is easier to concentrate on the bare essentials when you have more limited experience. That is not to say that I don't think I could do enough to pass or get a better mark (after all you only need 50% to pass) in the time, but in an industry when you generally attempt to do a 100% job then settling for 70% seems wrong- also if I am to use my output to help others then it better be more than just over 50% right! Not sure I agree that mod 3 is by far the worst; probably I find that CTs are relatively quick because of years as a Principles tester I am just so much more used to undertaking the activity; relates to item 4 and the argument that time pressure is the way in the exam to demonstrate level of competence by placing the system under pressure- a bit like an endurance test at or beyond limits of specification for a piece of equipment to see if it can stand it.

8. I very much agree that it has to be "start to stop producing output without too much stop to think". There is an argument for re-thinking the exam and indeed this would make an interesting new topic area.

9. For now though the exam is what it is (and has been for a long time); students need to get to grips with this and PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE. ....It has to be admitted that far too much is "exam technique" rather than "signalling knowledge / aptitude" and this does enable some to pass the exam with almost too much ease and others to struggle and repeatedly fail. I think that many who fail only have themselves to blame, but there is a percentage for which the exam does not give a fair reflection of their abilities; it is too biased to "academics"- I say this as a graduate of the University of Oxford.

Not so brief after all, but think we are in broad agreement; BTW you weren't the candidate of the 2005 mod 2 whose Australian paper is being used as an example answer in the IRSE study materials are you?

regards,
PJW