TASMANIAN QUALIFICATIONS AUTHORITY
T A S M A N I A N
Sociology
C E R T I F I C A T E
Subject Code: BH836
O F
2004 External Examination Report
E D U C A T I O N
Investigation Project Report
Choice of Topics
Some topics investigated were very absorbing, were competently handled, and some very
interesting links made. Others had not followed up at times, when this would have added a
pertinent point to the discussion. Candidates should be encouraged to look for a novel topic.
Originality of research is rewarded.
The task this year was based on Section 2 of the syllabus, Institutional Framework of Society.
However, some candidates focused on inequality, in particular gender, and wrote reports
addressing that unit, rather than social institutions. Several reports had a distinctly
psychological flavour. The focus question(s) need to be explicitly addressed.
Report Format
Unfortunately the same problems with Investigation Projects appear annually. It seems that
candidates do not consult the guidelines or the examiners reports.
The report must stand on its own. Several projects relied on information contained in the
appendices; reading the report gave no clue as to the topic(s) investigated. Many of the
appendices were over-length, containing information missed in the report. They should be no
more than 250 words.
Proof reading was poor and spelling in many cases was appalling. Projects should be spellchecked and proofread. Surveys in particular should be proofread.
Word count
Some reports were grossly long-winded, with misleading word counts. Others were under the
limit and exaggerated the number of words. Some word counts were in the body of the text
and some in the right hand margin. Others did not have a word count at all.
Plans
Plans must be approved by teachers and attached to the back of the projects. Many candidates
omitted to attach a plan. Plans that were attached were incomplete. Projects where ethical
considerations were definitely of importance had ‘none’ written on plan or were left blank.
2004 External Examination Report
Sociology
2
Subject Code: BH836
Results
The usual problem of using the term ‘random sample’ occurred. Many of the graphs were
beautifully presented, but others had no titles, labels or percentages. Some candidates did not
graph raw data at all, and while this is not obligatory, it does add to the report. It is not
necessary to have coloured graphs; it is recognised that not all candidates have access to a
colour printer, but graphs should be clear. Often shades of grey were not distinguishable.
Candidates can use hatch/patterns to overcome this. Tables and graphs need to be in results
and not in appendix.
Discussion and Analysis
Weaker candidates presented a superficial coverage of their research in their discussion
section, or were too general. That is, their discussion was unsupported by research. Others
just linked discussion to primary research and did not review secondary sources. Too often
the range of resources was just the bare 3, and in some cases only 2 sources were used.
There were names of candidates/colleges/participants in the projects despite declaring that the
surveys were ‘confidential’. There should be no unauthorised identification of any individual
or group. A transcript of interviews with a questionnaire is necessary if the markers need to
check what was asked or said. Candidates do not need to submit all their surveys.
A number of candidates thought it necessary to compare the conflict and functionalist
theories in their IP’s. This is not the case. There should be no new information in the
conclusion.
List of References
Referencing was often slipshod to say the least, with in-text references often not appearing,
and end of text references not following the appropriate form. Candidates are to provide a list
of references, not a bibliography. It is clearly set out in the guidelines how this list is to be
written up, but it still not adhered to. Often the references were not alphabetical. Sometimes
just the author was given, and not the title. Robertson is not appropriate as the main
reference, neither is the dictionary.
2004 External Examination Report
Sociology
3
Subject Code: BH836
Written Examination
General Comments
Candidates need to read questions carefully to see what is actually being asked rather than
answering according to what they hope is being asked. This is particularly so for criteria 8,
alternative explanations, when very specific alternative explanations are asked for.
It seemed that a few questions in this section were not what candidates had ‘wanted’ or
‘anticipated’, this was particularly the case with questions 3 (family, education and work) and
4 (the media). Candidates must not expect each institution to be covered separately and they
must be prepared for any combination of the focus statements to be addressed in the
questions. A concerning trend noted was for candidates to answer questions in this section as
if answering Section B – Socialisation. This was particularly so for Question 3.
When the given stimulus does not have a lot within it to discuss, it is even more important
that candidates address both parts of criteria 3, that is, apply sociological terms as well as
interpreting the information.
Section A Institutional Framework of Society
Question 1
There was often misplaced emphasis on change in family (in a pre-learnt format) and nothing
on the increase in alternative family forms, which was the question. There was inappropriate
emphasis on pre and post-industrial family as per Robertson which is not relevant to
Australia, and there were sweeping unsubstantiated over-generalisations. It is insufficient to
only refer to the stimulus in passing or in the last paragraph.
Candidates had obviously prepared quite well for this question in particular there was sound
knowledge in terms of the changes that have occurred in family life over time.
Criterion 3 required that candidates ‘unpack’ Baker’s points in regard to family differences.
Those candidates who did so and then related these differences to how the family has
changed, did well. Unfortunately many candidates failed to mention the stimulus at all and it
was a common practice to commence answers with an explanation for the increase in family
forms (Criterion 6).
Those candidates who stayed focused in terms of addressing this point regarding the
variations in the types of families in contemporary Australian society did quite well.
Good preparation was also evidenced in Criterion 8 where candidates received rewards for
successfully explaining the connection between social/legal/economic factors and their
impact on the family. The sociological perspectives in relation to this question were generally
not handled confidently.
Candidates need to note that the Industrial Revolution occurred in Western Europe and has
limited relevance to the development of current Australian family trends. Candidates who
revised for the ‘functions of the family ‘ and the ‘future of the nuclear family’ were penalised
for ‘dumping’ this material without any attempt to relate points back to the questions asked.
2004 External Examination Report
Sociology
4
Subject Code: BH836
Question 2
This was generally a well, to very well answered question where candidates considered what
the stimulus and question were actually asking. Candidates who just dumped their knowledge
on ‘work’ included much information not essential to the question. This incorporated long
descriptions of the three sectors of the workforce (according to Aspin), or four, including the
quaternary sector, according to more recent sources. They also covered details of pre- and
post-industrial societies as covered in Robertson which are not very relevant for Australian
society. Most candidates managed to interpret the given information fairly well but did not
always support this with good use of sociological concepts.
Good answers indicated that there was a complex interplay of factors that accounted for the
changing number of people employed in the different industries. The number and manner in
which these changes were covered differentiated candidates. The changing social, economic
and political nature of society and the complex interplay of these influences were mentioned.
Specifically, candidates discussed changes in technology (this alone is not sufficient
explanation), manufacturing going off-shore due to labour costs (examples of manufacturing
and call-centres were given) and globalisation. Others linked the rise in Australia’s standard
of living and consequent greater spending on leisure activities, increase in dual income
families and their greater demand for services (including domestic/garden help), IT growth,
emphasis on credentials in society, increase of women in the workforce, and increased
tourism. Alternative explanations posed a problem for many candidates.
Question 3
It seemed that candidates had anticipated an education question in this section and this triple
barrel question with a fairly short stimulus perplexed some. Strong answers referred directly
to the role of stratification and its significance in education. They explored the role of
education, related the school attended (whether government or non-government) to family
background, and linked this to the type of employment or unemployment as the case may be.
Because three institutions needed to be taken into account, each part could not be explored in
great depth.
Good answers included discussion on life chances, cultural capital/social competence, social
reproduction, and social mobility. Also mentioned were gender, parent, and teacher
expectations, the hidden curriculum, anti school subcultures, influence of peers, restricted and
elaborated language, and retention rates. Relevant Government policies were included and
the relationship between family and education and family and work, as well as education and
work/careers was explored.
Question 4
It is unlikely that Tasmanian candidates would be familiar with these Victorian newspapers in
the graph from Windshuttle, K. (1988) on Circulation of Melbourne Daily Newspapers, 1932
– 1988. However, stronger candidates were able to identify trends and argue that although
newspaper readership had declined, the importance of the media overall had increased, but in
other forms. Examples given were the internet, television, film and so on.
Alternative explanations used the top down, bottom up, and hypodermic syringe model
theories of the media.
2004 External Examination Report
Sociology
5
Subject Code: BH836
Section B The Individual as Member of Society
Question 5
In general, many candidates did not adequately address the stimulus or attempt to incorporate
the stimulus into their discussion. Many simply did not refer to the stimulus at all.
It is worth noting that if candidates want to include concepts and ideas from other areas of the
syllabus, they, must be used in relation to the given stimulus and question.
Criterion 3
Better answers referred to the stimulus, although most did not reference Camm, and a
significant number of candidates were very creative in their interpretations of the cartoon
stimulus, building on their interpretation throughout their discussion, incorporating evidence
from Contemporary Australian Society and also relating their discussion to the statement.
However, there may have been confusion with some candidates about the very dated figure
presented in the cartoon (probably a cartoon from the mid to late 80’s), who was variously
interpreted as a butler, waiter, bellboy or ethnic stereotype. He may not have been a figure
who was easily identifiable by candidates in 2004.
There was a significant amount of dumping of socialisation theory.
Criterion 6
Generally there was strong discussion on socialisation, but better answers were able to
integrate this discussion with social control and diversity.
Some candidates were able to support their discussion with relevant evidence from
Contemporary Australian Society (CAS), such as recent newspaper articles demonstrating
sub-culture, diversity and the relativity of deviance. Films and videos were also referred to
providing recent, relevant examples from CAS and modern western society to demonstrate
social control and diversity. However, many candidates referred to generalised, rather than
specific examples of empirical evidence.
Better answers included a logical argument which referred to the stimulus, linked this to
evidence from CAS and theories.
Criterion 8
Agency (Interactionist theory), Functionalist,
Conflict, Control Theory, Cultural
Transmission were the main theories mentioned. Some candidates attempted to apply other
deviance theories to the discussion, such as Labelling theory. Cooley and Mead were also
mentioned.
Better answers were able to integrate their discussion of the theories with the empirical
evidence and through reference to the stimulus.
2004 External Examination Report
Sociology
6
Subject Code: BH836
Question 6
This question required a detailed knowledge and understanding of the theories of deviance.
While many candidates showed evidence of a good grasp of the theories, they did not
interpret the Summers’ extract The End of Equality, and link it to a particular theory.
The question gave a strong advantage to those who had studied indigenous people.
When the stimulus was referred to, it was generally well integrated. Those candidates who
came up with an explanation using one theory, then used an alternative theory for part b)
were rewarded.
Some candidates however, failed to mention the stimulus and merely ‘dumped’ the four main
theories of deviance. However, this was noticeably less than in previous years.
Question 7
Few of the 238 candidates who attempted this question understood the nature of the deviance
of jazz musicians in the stimulus, but those that did wrote well about it. They talked about the
different music and lifestyle. Some mentioned the era and the modern view of jazz.
Many candidates talked about Becker labelling the jazz musicians but not many picked up
the relative points of view mentioned in the quote ie the fact that other people were labelled
by the jazz musicians as ‘squares’. Sometimes the term sub-culture was missing from an
otherwise well explained discussion of jazz musicians as a ‘different group’.
The focus of the questions ie. the meaning of deviance and why some acts or persons are
defined as deviant while others are not, caused problems. In other words, they had to
understand the relativity of deviance. Many candidates wanted to use the theories explaining
how deviance comes about, rather than what deviance is and why deviance is relative. The
Sharyn Roach Anleu, Deviance Conformity and Control was good material to use for this
question.
Better answers for part a) included some of the following ideas: that everyone deviates at
some point, some acts are seen as more serious than others (folkways, mores, laws, etc),
deviance is relative, not absolute, and that deviance can depend on the person who deviates,
rather than the act. A significant number of candidates responded creatively to the stimulus,
drawing analogies with examples from CAS. Examples ranged from deviant sexual
behaviour (Pitcairn Island, Wayne Carey), drink driving offences (Darryl Sommers), and
were generally used effectively to illustrate the relativity of deviance.
Acts defined as deviant change with time (easily related to the stimulus), place, subculture
and counterculture; anomie may contribute to deviance as more and more behaviour becomes
accepted in contemporary Australian society.
Functionalists see deviance as undersocialisation, conflict perspective sees deviance as the
natural state, and the socialisation process leads to social control which makes us conform.
Deviance is not all negative; there are positive functions of deviance.
Better answers for part b) addressed the question and discussed: The Labelling theory,
gender, class, media and significant others. The economically powerful were also mentioned,
along with the dominant culture, and religious and other lobby groups. Consensus theory and
the Inequalities of Power theory were used to good effect.
2004 External Examination Report
Sociology
7
Subject Code: BH836
The Labelling theory was the link to the question used by a lot of candidates. This was good
but often led to a discussion of all the other theories without linking back to the focus of the
question. There was a significant amount of dumping.
Section C Difference and Inequality in Australian Society
Question 8
In many cases the stimulus, a table comparing population statistics for indigenous people to
the total population, was neither cited nor in some cases, not mentioned at all.
Many candidates ignored the question and merely ‘dumped’ a prepared essay. Those
candidates who interpreted the table and identified inequalities, ie the age profile, mortality
rate, fertility rate, and location, were rewarded.
Better answers constructed an argument to show how this population profile could be linked
to other social and economic inequalities experienced by indigenous people. The age profile,
fertility rate and median age of death can be linked to health, education and lifestyle. The
urban/rural demographic can be linked to access to education, access to work as well as
housing, health and other infrastructure.
Alternative explanations were through social and economic conditions and/or sociological
theories. Strong answers linked the theories back to inequalities and were not just a general
statement about stratification within society.
Question 9
23 candidates answered this question which specifically referred to unemployment, poverty,
racism, sexism and hetero-sexism. There was no definition of the latter, so candidates were
not penalised if they did not know this. However, many candidates did not mention the other
terms, indicating that essays were ‘dumped’.
Stronger candidates mentioned that both youth and aged are more likely to live in poverty
and may be marginalised by society. Contributing factors to inequality were listed as income
or lack thereof, exploitation of the workforce, legislation, media portrayal, and dependency
on government or family for income.
It should be noted that retirement is no longer compulsory and there are incentives to work
longer than age 65.
Question 10
Many essays failed to analyse the source article. Often only a summary was provided and
there was no further reference to the source.
There was frequent use of inappropriate examples, for example, the relationship between the
characters in ‘Home and Away’, anecdotal descriptions of how males and females behave,
and personal observations.
Too many answers used few or no sociological terms. Candidates should note that empirical
evidence from Robertson or Browne when applying information to contemporary Australian
society is unsuitable.
2004 External Examination Report
Sociology
8
Subject Code: BH836
There were some good responses to the source article. Candidates acknowledged that it was
from 1984, and is no longer the case in contemporary Australian society. They mentioned
‘sensitive new age guys’ (snags) and referred to more up to date research.
For criterion 3 strong candidates made appropriate and frequent reference back to the source
article, and criterion 8 contained a good coverage of the conflict and functionalist theories as
well as socialisation processes. It was pleasing to see ‘androcentrism’ mentioned and
references to the secondary labour market.
Question 11
18 candidates answered this question about migrants. Strong answers argued how ethnicity
affects lifestyles, life chances and identities. They explored the difficulties faced by nonEnglish speaking migrants as opposed to English speaking ones; that the lack of fluency
limits employment opportunities; that cultural differences may lead to stereotyping and
discrimination.
‘Life chances’ does not mean how long a person lives.
Weaker answers did not address the stimulus at all.
All correspondence should be addressed to:
Tasmanian Qualifications Authority
PO Box 147, Sandy Bay 7006
Ph: (03) 6233 6364 Fax: (03) 6224 0175
Email: [email protected]
Internet: http://www.tqa.tas.gov.au
2004 External Examination Report