620 likes | 631 Views
Learn how to improve your pass rates in the professional level papers with essential exam techniques. Manage your time effectively and impress the examiners with your knowledge and understanding of question requirements.
E N D
Rhys Johnson Head of Education Asia Pacific
ACHIEVING SUCCESS IN THE PROFESSIONAL LEVEL PAPERS
GENERAL EXAM TECHNIQUES
Manage Your Time and use RAPT
THIS IS NOT NEGOTIABLE! Exam Timings Example: P1 3.00 - 3.15 RAPT 3.15 – 4.45 Question 1 4.45 – 5.30 Question 2/3 5.30 – 6.15 Question 3/4
Headings • Bullets (where appropriate) • Sentences and paragraphs
Relevance Scenario Mark allocation Professional marks (more later!!)
UNDERSTANDING QUESTION REQUIREMENTS
Instructions And Verb Subject matter
knowledge & comprehension application & analysis evaluation & synthesis
List Define Describe Explain Select Calculate Identify Compare
Apply Compare Analyse Compute Derive Reconcile Prepare Interpret Value Contrast Relate Classify Solve Implement
Formulate Modify Rearrange Create Compose Design Develop Highlight Summarise Assess Evaluate Justify Decide Advise Recommend Discuss Report
P1 June 2010 Question 1 (a) Level 1 4 marks Level 1 2 marks Distinguish between voluntary and involuntary stakeholders, identifying both types of stakeholders in Hesket Nuclear. Assess the claims of THREE of the involuntary ‘affected’ stakeholders identified. (12 marks) Level 3 6 marks
P3 June 2010 Question 1 (b) • Problems with the current membership renewal process include: • the low response to payment requests • the despatch of renewal reminders for people who have already paid • the failure to send renewal invoices to some members. • Analyse faults in the current membership renewal process that cause the problems identified above. Suggest solutions that would remedy these faults. • (15 marks) Level 2 and 3 1 mark per point
ACHIEVING PROFESSIONAL MARKS
P1 J2008 Question 1d • Prepare the statement for Mr Markovnikoff to read out at the AGM. The statement you construct should contain the following. • A definition and brief explanation of ‘sustainable development’; • (3 marks) • (ii) An evaluation of the environmental and sustainability implications of the Giant Dam Project; (8 marks) • (iii) A statement on the importance of confidentiality in the financing of the early stage working capital needs and an explanation of how this conflicts with the duty of transparency in matters of corporate governance. (6 marks) • Professional marks for layout, logical flow and persuasiveness of the statement. (4 marks)
P2 J2010 Question 1(c) Discuss the nature of and incentives for ‘management of earnings’ and whether such a process can be deemed to be ethically acceptable. (6 marks) Professional marks will be awarded in question 1(c) for clarity and quality of discussion. (2 marks)
P3 J2010 Question 1(a) The new CEO, Sheila Jenkins, recognises that she should understand the strategic position of WET before considering strategic options and changes. She wants a concise assessment of the strategic position; covering environment, strategic capability, stakeholder expectations and organisational mission. Undertake the assessment, required by Sheila Jenkins, of the strategic position of WET. (21 marks) Professional marks will be awarded in part (a) for the scope, structure and tone of the answer. (4 marks)
EXAMINERS FEEDBACK
P1 Examiners Report June 2010 “Before discussing the questions in detail, I have two overall remarks to make. Firstly, I sadly must repeat comments made in previous examiner’s reports about the four professional marks in Q1. Many candidates did not gain many professional marks in writing the statement required in Q1(d). Secondly, the ethical reasoning questions, Q2c and Q4c, were both done poorly overall. This suggests that candidates are less well prepared for these tasks than they might be. I will return to both of these points in my review of questions. “
P1 Examiners Report June 2010 “Part (d)(ii) contained two tasks ...fewer were able to do well on the second task which was a level 3 intellectual outcome: to construct a case. In this task, candidates were required to construct the argument in favour of the proposition that HN’s social and environmental footprint is positive ........ In order to be able to do this, candidates needed to know what such a footprint was and what it involved, and then to study the case for evidence to support the argument. The case study contained evidence on both the social footprint (about local jobs, energy and development abroad) and the environmental footprint (clean energy and very good safety/leakage record).”