
Those who set them are often very sloppy with language. Now I reserve the right to type how I bloody like on this blog. And if my meaning isn't clear when the milkman is reading the note I left, then it's only me that suffers. But a person setting exam questions (not to mention writing textbooks or teaching) has an undeniable duty to do so clearly and properly. To underestimate the consequences of poor written English in these circumstances is dereliction of duty.
I've lost count of the number of times I've answered a written question only to be marked down for not reading the mind of the illiterate and careless buffoon who wrote it. More recently, I've become very frustrated at a sub-phenomenon where asking a teacher to clarify the meaning of a question doesn't help. All too often they will either (i) look at you like you're raving mad; (ii) simply tell you what to write, rather than explain the meaning of the question; (iii) glibly rattle off the wrong meaning, as if any other would be unthinkable or (iv) answer some altogether different query - presumably one they'd rather have been asked!
All of which leads to the saddest part of all: Distrust.
Nowadays I read all instructions (whether on an exam paper or Pot Noodle lid) with a deep suspicion which, frankly, nobody seems to wish to allay.
For example, here's some text from M150 TMA 03:
"You can complete all the parts of this question using only features of JavaScript that you learned about in Unit 7."
Firstly, here's the only logical interpretation of this statement:
"Restricting yourself to using Javascript features learned in Unit 7 while answering this question is permitted ."
Well, it may well be obvious to you. Strictly speaking, it's obvious to me as well... except for the distrust I mentioned above. You see, there's a frightening and all-too-probable possibility. (I say "frightening" because this is a degree we're working towards, and it's not cheap in terms of effort, time or money. Losing marks because I'm an idiot is just life; losing them because the people entrusted with the job of testing me are idiots is another thing entirely!)
It's possible, even likely, that the person writing the instructions for TMA 03 actually meant
"You must answer this question using only those aspects of Javascript you learned in Unit 7."
And here's the kicker: IT MATTERS!
If the second interpretation carries the meaning the examiner actually intended, then PEOPLE STAND TO LOSE MARKS FOR DEVIATING FROM AN INSTRUCTION THEY NEVER ACTUALLY RECEIVED.
And now I'll explain why this is the saddest part...
Despite the paranoia I've developed after many years' experience with academia of all levels, it's just possible that the written instructions for M150 TMA 03 are absolutely fine.
I may be fretting about nothing.
But there's no way of really and truly knowing before it's actually too late. That's why it's sad.





