Page 257 - SUBSEC October 2017_Neat

13. Twenty-eight of the respondents (93 per cent) indicated that the Modules of the syllabus
comprised a coherent Chemistry programme for the intended population. One respondent who
disagreed stated that Spectroscopy should be removed from the syllabus. The members of the Panel
did not agree with this respondent since a knowledge of Spectroscopy helps with understanding
Forensic Science. However, they were of the opinion that the quantitative aspects of this topic could
be removed as it was better covered at the tertiary level. Based on this decision, Unit 2, Module 2,
Specific Objective 7(c) was deleted. In addition to this, the Explanatory Notes for Unit 2, Module 2,
Specific Objective 5.1 and 7.3 were reviewed to improve clarity and a practical activity was included
for Specific Objective 6.4. Another respondent who was of the opinion that the Modules of the
syllabus did not comprise a coherent Chemistry programme for the intended population, stated that
the section that was included on Green Chemistry looked like a re-hashing of the CSEC® Chemistry
coverage. This respondent suggested that this section should be re-examined by the Panel in an effort
to build on the foundation which was laid at CSEC®. The members of the Panel agreed and after
deliberating on the topic, in Unit 3, Module 3, the sub-topic on Green Chemistry was removed and
instead, Green Chemistry was integrated into the entire Module 3: Industry and the Environment. A
new General Objective was written which reads, “appreciate that using Green Chemistry principles in
industry helps to produce a sustainable world that supports a healthy economy”. Under sub-topic 1,
Locating and Operating Industrial plants: Benefits and Risk, a new Specific Objective 1.3 which reads,
“assess the processes of select industries using Green Chemistry principles”, was included along with
the Explanatory Notes. The Explanatory Notes of Specific Objectives 2.3, 3.3, 4.3, 5.4, 6.4 and 7.3
refer the users of the syllabus to Specific Objective 1.3.

14. Respondents were asked to identify by Unit and Module any Specific Objectives which
needed to be more clearly stated and to suggest how they might be clarified. One of the respondents
stated that in Unit 1, Module 1, Specific Objective 4.2, can be clearer as to whether the redox
equations should be limited to acidified or basic reactions or should include both conditions. The
members of the Panel agreed and the statement “Redox equations should be constructed under both
acidic and basic conditions”, was written in the Explanatory Notes of this objective. Another
respondent pointed out that more details were required in the Explanatory Notes for Unit 2, Module
3, Specific Objective 8.4, “discuss the sources of water pollution”. The Panel concurred and the
Explanatory Notes of the objective was expanded to include “Definition of the terms persistent and
bio-accumulation in relation to all forms of pollution. Refer to Specific Objectives 9.2 and 10.3”.

15. The respondents were asked to list any topic included in the syllabus which they thought
should be omitted. One respondent indicated that Hybridization and Resonance should be removed
from Unit 1, Module 1. The members of the Panel were not in agreement with this suggestion as
knowledge of this concept was needed in order to appreciate Organic Chemistry. There was also a call
for the elimination of Transition Metals in Unit 3, Module 3, was too lengthy. Again the Panellists
disagreed as, without the knowledge of this topic, students would not be able to identify cations and
anions.

16. When asked if they were satisfied with the School-Based Assessment (SBA) requirements for
the syllabus, 11 of 22 (50 per cent) the respondents to this item on the survey were in agreement.
Two of the persons who did not agree were not in favour of including a project in the SBA component
of the syllabus since in their opinion students would already have done projects in Communication
Studies, Caribbean Studies and many CSEC® subjects. Seven respondents stated that the requirements
for the project were too vague and more details should be included in the syllabus. One respondent
stated that the Council should do away with SBA the inclusion of projects and instead offer candidates
a practical examination as part of the assessment of the syllabus as in their opinion this would “provide
a level playing field for all students and it would be a fair system”. The members of the Panel supported
the recommendation of the Working Committee for CAPE® Sciences and Review Committee for the

5