Section B Exam Question

I feel disappointed on how the exam was set up. If we had a choice of two questions to answer the situation would have been fair. I don't understand how we all could misunderstoohd what has been said in class if we did not communicate about it among ourselves. If one or two misunderstood it would have been understandable, but the whole class, it means we all got the same message about the exam question and prepared according to it.

We did not feel prepared for the question and did not feel we had learnt enough content to learn from it.

focused on the role of the mother as per the advice given to us in the lecture. the mis-understanding was really unfortunate and has placed us as students in a worrying predicament

The lecturer explained that if we studied the role of the mother, as we did for the test we would be well prepared for the exam using any theorist applicable. The fact that the examiner set a compulsory question limiting us to one theorist was highly unfair because chances of us studying the same theorist in depth is highly un-probably, we should have given a choice to play to our individual strengths. This is very frustrating because the other lecturer was very clear in their section, section A of the paper and examiner kept to their word, BUT THIS WAS NOT THE CASE FOR SECTION B As academics we have the right to pass to our desired goals not be disadvantaged, we have future plans dependent on this course mark. The lecture greatly mislead us and this petition is evident of our disgruntlement. Please we are open to any form of compensation, something needs to be done

According to what was mentioned in the lecture the exam section for the lecturer would constitute two questions and we would be required to answer one. In the exam there was only one question for her section which left me with no choice but to answer that question which I was not prepared for. The lecturer also mentioned that one of the questions would focus on the role of the mother in early child development and we would have to use any theorist from those presented in class, however in the exam the question was on a specific theorist. I feel therefore that i have been greatly disadvantaged. The mark that i get for the exam has a huge impact on my overall GPA and future plans. If i had known that there would be no options to choose from in the exam for the lecturers section i would have prepared in line with that. It is not just about passing the course for me but doing so well enough to gain entry into Postgraduate studies. It is my hope that the issue will be addressed in the best way possible by the department.

I studied Winnicott because I was under the impression that we would be examined on any theorist that discusses the role of the mother. I thought preparing for the class test would prepare me for the exam so I was unable to answer the question on Bowlby.

For me the first thing that blew my mind was that we were not even given a choice. When i recall we were told that there is going to be two questions and we will have to choose one. But surprisingly we were forced to just answer one. The second thing is the exam scope that seriously misled us. We were told that the exam question will be about the role of the mother, so studying for the test on that topic will automatically prepare you for the exam, it was even called "killing two birds with one stone". There was no question on the role of the mother. The third thing is about the test. We were told to prepare one theory that would describe the role of the mother, but the question said "using theories" not one theory. And then when some of us use Theories not a theory, we get penalised for it. I think its not fair. Terminology is very important. Its better to get no scope at all than to get a deceiving scope that would lead astray.

I feel that there was a huge miscommunication in terms of what will be in the exam for section B. We were placed in an extreme unfair position which will surely affect our future considering that this is the marks we will use for post-grad. Please bring forth a solution.

I have not managed to sleep since last night because of the trauma I incurred as a result of the SWK4030F exam section B, working with children. To my understanding the exam was going to be a case study based on the role of the mother in early child development using any of the theorist covered in class. Alas, the exam was specific a compulsory question and focused on one of the many theorists we covered in class Bowlby. I feel that this has a huge impact on my final mark for the course and better yet my overall GPA, my future plans depend on this mark and passing the course well. I have been put at a disadvantage as a result of this and feel the department needs to do something to resolve the matter.

We were misled and told to study a similar topic for the exams which is the role of the mother after writing the test. Fatima stated that if we studied the role of the mother for the test then we would be killing two birds with one stone because it would come in the exam as well. In the test the question asked us to write on the role of the mother using any theorist we had covered in the course to which most of us focused on winnicot and the role of the mother but she then brought only Bowlby in the exam which shocked majority of the class as we had not covered Bowlby' s section.

I was so dissapointed by the exam. Firstly we were told tht on section B as well there will be two questions and we would choose only to find out tht there would be a compulsory question since when we have compulsory questions. Secondly the lecture mentioned that in studying for the class test if you can focus on the role of the mother which is WinniCott u wll b killing two birds with one stone since it will be on the exam. Only to found out tht it was not there but we were given a strict indications to use Bowlby whereas we were told that we would be given a choice n focus on role of the mother like on the previous test we did in class. The way i am so disappointed i cannot even describe how i feel now. Never left an exam feeling betrayed and knowing i failed just bcz of being wrong misleaded.

The exam structure for section B was misleading because: 1. The scope or guide for the exam by the lecturer was that there would be 2 questions and 1 case study. The questions would be: 1. The role of the mother(which during lectures she focused and told us to focus on Winnicott) 2. Human development. NONE of these questions were included in the exam thus i strongly feel that the lecturer mislead us by giving us incorrect information to prepare for our exam.

To my understanding, we should have studied any theorist and that's what I did. But the one I studied was not asked

We were advised to study "the role of the mother", which implies Winnicott or Klein, which is what I did. Bowlby is the role of early attachment figures, which includes more than the role of the mother, but all early relationships. We were mislead to believe that atleast one of the exam questions would be on the role of the mother using a chosen theorist, so the fact that there was just one qustion and it did not include this was really unfair and evidence that we were given false information.

1. It was not fair that we were given a compulsory question. The lecturer clearly said to us that her section for the exam has two questions and we will be given an option to answer one of those question. 2. The lecture hinted that the role of the mother was something to focus on and she alluded to Winnicott. Many of us prepare theory by Winnicott, not Bowlby. 3. Not much emphasis was placed on teaching us theory on Bowlby, the lecturer just 'glanced through this section. I feel like the lecturer could have spend more time teaching this section if she knew she would set it for the exam.

We understood the question to be about the role of the mother and that any theorist could be used to substantiate our answers. However the most emphasis was placed on Winnicott's theory during lectures and the only extra resources received (due to the limited books in the library) was about his theory too.. Therefore when the question was based solely on Bowlby's theory, I was caught off guard and unprepared to answer section B's question. As a class we would like a rewrite of the exam, to allow us a fair opportunity to answer the question being prepared.

The instructions where clear that it was going to be the same as the test. It was a shock to see Bowlby only when Winnicot was also indicated. I felt misled and disadvantaged in the exam.

I focused on Winnicott for the exam because I was under the impression that we would be examined on any theorist who discusses the role of the mother in early childhood development. I was unable to answer the question on Bowlby. Could we please have the option of a re-exam for Section B

I did not study Bowlby due to the hints that were given in class

To my understanding, we were told to study any theorist by the lecturer and which I did. I did the theorist we had spent the most time talking about, and the one we had more literature on.