Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2008 Q 1-4 Brisbane Study Group
#1
Our study group In Brisbane looked at the 2008 paper Questions 1 - 4 last Tuesday and would appreciate some feedback.

We would also like to ask whether the answer reflects the time available to answer three questions.

Thanks,
Hitesh, Laura & Johnson.


Attached Files
.docx   2008 Module 1 Q1-4.docx (Size: 19.91 KB / Downloads: 81)
Reply
#2
(06-08-2010, 12:09 AM)hiteshp Wrote: Our study group In Brisbane looked at the 2008 paper Questions 1 - 4 last Tuesday and would appreciate some feedback.

We would also like to ask whether the answer reflects the time available to answer three questions.

Thanks,
Hitesh, Laura & Johnson.

Thanks for these- what I'll probably do is respond to each separately and so that each question is in its own thread that will make it easier in future for others to find. Indeed where there is a previous attempt at that question then 'll add to that thread which makes it easier to compare and contrast the variious different answers.

From first read through they seem well written and presented- however generally too short. Q1 started well but certainly not enough for the first 6 marks; however it was about right for the next 6 re the examples. The main meat of the question has 13 marks; eight 2-line bullets is too sketchy.
See Question 1

Similarly for Q2: the first two sections are reasonable but the second half of the question needs more. The bullets themselves were fine but each needed expansion to be 3 or 4 lines explaining and giving examples of what was regarded as being included within that heading and I'd recommend relating back to the first part of the question with hints of WHY each of the testing steps is undertaken .
See Question 2

Q3. Not so easy to assimilate info quickly from ths one- too much condensed text and I think a tabular approach would have been a benefit. I haven't the time now to get a quick overall picture- just remember that the harder you make it for the examiner, the less charitable they are likely to be- they are human afterall.

Q4. I suspect you were running out of time by now and thus this is quite sketchy.
I think this is the only answer in which there was a hint of the railway context in which you are answering. It is generally worth including such a statement in the beginning of your answer; I think thi is particularly important for those whose practices are different from UK. Whilst there may not be large differences between what you are familiar with and the UK, it is worth satting. The examiner will know that the answer has come from "abroad" but that is all; beware there can be misunderstanding- when you write TPWS then I believe you mean what I mean being the Thales system with TSS and OSS loops but when an Indian uses that term it may well mean a form of ETCS L1 implementation.......

Further more detailed feedback to follow
PJW
Reply
#3
(06-08-2010, 07:14 AM)PJW Wrote: [quote='hiteshp' pid='1877' dateline='1281049767']
Our study group In Brisbane looked at the 2008 paper Questions 1 - 4 last Tuesday and would appreciate some feedback.

We would also like to ask whether the answer reflects the time available to answer three questions.
Quote:Further more detailed feedback to follow
I have now posted: Question 1 and Question 2 and now
Question 3 and Question 4
so that concludes the voting.
PJW
Reply
#4
Thanks for reviewing these. It gives us direction for future study group meetings. We hope to upload further answers to questions and hope you get time to review these.

Regards,
Hitesh
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)