« VorigeDoorgaan »
The essays were, as a rule, written in a simple and straightforward style, and of a very fair degree of merit, several of the better candidates sending up distinctly good work. The analysis and the parsing were, on the whole, the most successfully answered parts of the papers and were often excellent. The paraphrasing was much less successful, many candidates either reproducing the words of the original in a different order, or giving a mere epitome of the poem, without bringing out the meaning of the words actually used. The précis was fairly good, though there was some confusion as to what were the main points in the passage and what were subsidiary. The questions on syntax and the meanings of words well answered by most of the candidates, but in the latter question some of the weakest candidates failed badly. The question on metaphors produced a number of good answers; the other two literary questions were attempted by few and usually without much
The set book had evidently been read with much care and interest, with the result that questions depending on knowledge of the extracts were generally well answered, often with great accuracy. The two alternative questions on the characteristics of authors were less successfully treated, only a few candidates sending in creditable answers.
Seventy-five per cent. of the candidates passed. About 13 per cent. of the total number, or about 17 per cent. of those who passed, obtained
the mark of Distinction. The work of many of these candidates was very good, and the general result of the examination was satisfactory. There were, however, many mistakes in spelling due to a careless malformation of words, and a good many cases of words used in their wrong senses.
There was some improvement, at all events in the better papers, on the work of last year, and one or two questions were really well answered. On the other hand, the number and character of the mistakes seem to show that the teaching is inefficient and that the prescribed syllabus is beyond the powers of the candidates. The general want of accuracy and of understanding are illustrated by the following mistakes :-(1) Several candidates state that one result of the movement of the wind system with the sun is "to wear away the coast of Africa"; (2) Winnipeg is said to be "in the middle of the wheat growing"; (3) China, Tibet, United States of America, and France are all stated to be in the British Empire; (4) Isotherms were drawn over land and sea as unchanged straight lines, and with no indication of actual temperatures.
ARITHMETIC AND ALGEBRA.
The answers to the question on decimals were not such as one would expect from the candidates, and in one particular a considerable number of the candidates were careless: they solved a quadratic equation, but they did not write down the factors. Otherwise the work deserves much commendation.
There were a few unsatisfactory papers, but the work of the candidates on the whole was decidedly good. Nearly all the candidates referred to a theorem not contained in "Euclid," but generally included in textbooks on Geometry recently published, and very frequently did not understand-or, understanding, did not make clearthat one reason for the conclusion is that two angles are right angles,
What candidates had seen or were interested in was well done. Definitions and statements were inexact and often showed a very loose grip of the idea. Facts were much better known than proofs, and the only rules well known were those of uniform acceleration and of work, but they were very well known.
The work was very satisfactory.
On the whole, the work was very satisfactory. The passages to be translated into English were very generally understood and well rendered, particularly the poetry. The Grammar, which was very easy, was but fair; the rules were often not known, and there were many bad mistakes. The translation into French was good on the whole; but the use of the past tenses in French had not been mastered by many and the vocabulary showed signs of weakness.
More practice, particularly in free translation and epitomizing, would improve the work, which shows much promise.
The translation of the set books was, on the whole, very satisfactory. It was close, idiomatic, and free from paraphrase. In Grammar the questions on accidence and elementary syntax were mostly answered correctly, and many thoroughly understood the niceties of mood and tense in more advanced syntax. The Unseen Passages were not handled so successfully. The Composition for the most part reached a high level, and was full of promise.
The general result and impression are evidenced by the high marks gained, not only by the large percentage who reached Distinction, but also by the bulk of the candidates.
The questions were answered in a very creditable way and afforded evidence of satisfactory preparation and laboratory training.
The papers this year were somewhat disappointing in quality. A certain proportion of the candidates presented good work, but on the whole the standard shown was below the average. In too many instances the answers were not well set out, and both writing and spelling gave scope for improvement.
The candidate showed a very fair knowledge of the subject, and was particularly good in the minerals and rocks.
THEORY AND PRACTICE OF EDUCATION.
In Section A, Question 1 was generally well done. In Question 2 candidates in many cases made a serious miscalculation of their time and answered at great length. As a rule the answers here were bad. Scarcely any of the terms were accurately known. In no case was motive or memory-image correctly described. The question on Habit was generally well done. The prevailing fault here was a discussion of the value of specific habits instead of a discussion of how to foster or break habits.
In Section B the first two questions were much better answered than the third. To Question 6 (c) one or two excellent answers were given, but under 6 (b) no single candidate gave the correct meaning of accommodation. No one attempted 6 (a). In this section the candidates showed a great deal of common sense, and used their own experience in illustrating the points treated.
In Section B the Inductive was the only one of the three general methods that drew any response: the answers here were on the whole well done. In dealing with lecturing one or two candidates appeared to regard the word as equivalent to scolding or admonishing. In Question 9 the best answers were those dealing with "home-lessons." Here much intelligence was shown. The other two sections of this question were rather less satisfactorily answered, probably because the candidates had not had much experience of the practical problems involved.
In the Notes of Lessons no candidate took the Snow Line, a few