In the Book but Not in the Syllabus
Five days before the pre-board examination, a teacher discovers that the class has been taught one topic from an older edition of the prescribed textbook. The current edition redefines the central term of that topic and drops one application that the older edition carried. The pre-board question paper has already been printed and was set from the older edition: it asks candidates to define the term and give one application, and the marking scheme accepts the older definition. In a class of 45, 38 candidates write the older definition. Twelve candidates have built their project on the application that the current edition has dropped, and project files are due in five days.
1. Should the pre-board be marked strictly by the printed scheme, strictly by the current edition, or by some combination? Reason from what a pre-board is for, and say how the differing treatment should be communicated to the 38 candidates.
Read the worked answer
A pre-board is a diagnostic, not a certification. Its number should predict what the board examination will award, so the current edition is the reference point for the corrected total.
Marking strictly by the printed scheme gives 38 candidates a false reading, and a false reading of about 5 marks per script is worse than no reading, because it removes the five days in which they could repair the gap.
A workable combination: accept the older definition when it is coherent and note it in the margin, but award nothing for the dropped application, and enter both the old-scheme total and the corrected total on the script so the candidate can see the size of the gap.
The communication matters as much as the mark. The 38 were taught this by the school, so the correction is presented as information about the current edition, not as a penalty for a student error. The message is specific: here is the term as the current book defines it, here is the application that replaces the dropped one, and here is the 20 minutes of class time we will spend on it tomorrow.
2. What evidence would settle which version is current, and in what order would you check it? Include at least one source you would not rely on and explain the exclusion.
Read the worked answer
First, the prescribed textbook for the current session, checking the edition and year on the imprint page rather than the cover, since students often carry older printings. Second, the syllabus document for the session, read for whether the topic is listed, dropped, or listed with revised content. Third, any departmental instruction or circular issued for the session, because a circular overrides a book that has not been reprinted. Fourth, the specimen or model paper for the session, which shows what the examiner is likely to ask.
A senior teacher's recollection is a fifth resort, useful only if the first four are silent.
Sources I would not rely on: an older edition of the same textbook, a coaching handout, and last year's question paper. Each of these is exactly what produced the present confusion, and none of them is authoritative about the current session.
One further check before deciding: whether the change is a renaming or a change of meaning. If only the label changed, an examiner may well accept either; if the concept itself was revised, only the current version can earn the mark.
3. The 12 projects rest on the dropped application and are due in five days. Set out the options, recommend one, and state the rule you would apply so that all 12 are treated alike.
Read the worked answer
Option one: let them stand. Cheap, but it sends 12 candidates into an examination with project work the current syllabus no longer supports, and it teaches the class that currency does not matter.
Option two: require a rebuild. Five days is not enough to collect new data, so this converts a syllabus problem into a failure of the students' work.
Option three, which I recommend: re-scope rather than rebuild. Keep the investigation, the data and the method, and re-anchor the application to one retained in the current edition, adding a short note explaining the substitution and its reason. The assessed skill is method, not the identity of the application, so the mark remains valid.
Rule for all 12: the same re-scoping requirement, the same note, and a day-three checkpoint where each student shows the rewritten application to the teacher. No student is allowed to keep the dropped application, and no student is required to discard data already collected. Record the rule in writing on the day it is announced, so that the treatment is uniform and can be shown to be uniform if it is questioned.