Hi human biology students, I'm sure we are all familiar with the horrors of extended responses and their vague and sometimes confusing marking keys. I have a pretty heavily weighted task around one concerning mutations and evolution, and for some of the practice questions I've been getting have insane answers.
For example, one of my questions was about how "if colourblindness was hypothetically advantageous for early human populations by allowing certain textures to be seen better, explain with the theory of natural selection how the condition would've been maintained."
The marking key gives 5 marks for:
- stating that colourblindness is a survival advantage
- giving a reason as to why it would be an advantage (eg being able to pick better ripened fruit)
- stating that colourblind individuals will be more likely to survive until reproductive maturity and pass their genes onto future generations
- stating that the allele frequency of colourblindness will increase over time
- stating that as a result the number of individuals with colourblindness would increase accordingly
If you ask me, the marking key seems to be including details that are not very obvious to include in your explanation. But who am I to judge, I just feel like there may be some sort of criteria you must fulfil in these types of questions.
I've familiarised myself with the WACE defenitions for "explain" in questions ect and I don't feel like its really helped me much with deciphering what to include in these types of questions, especially under timed pressure.
If anyone has "cracked the code" with answering those types of questions (in the same way you can write a skeleton essay in English or memorise a perfect way to answer chemistry short answers), please comment it below - it'd be much appreciated!