Co-ordinated Sciences is a double-award route, so the final result involves two grades. That can tempt you to run two separate sets of quizzes.
A better habit is to review your mistakes by pattern across all three sciences, because the same habit often causes errors in more than one. Check on the Cambridge subject page how the grades are formed for your exam year.
How do I review by pattern?
- Log each error with the science, the topic and a pattern tag.
- Use a short list of patterns: units and conversion, reading graphs or tables, definitions and wording, arithmetic, command words.
- Count by pattern across all sciences, not within one.
- Pick the largest pattern and write one retest question in each science.
- Retest later and update the log.
This follows the allocation and mixing work in double-award practice design.
Worked example (invented data)
A student’s log has 12 errors from a fortnight. Counts by science: biology 5, chemistry 4, physics 3 (total 12).
Counts by pattern:
| Pattern | Biology | Chemistry | Physics | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Units and conversion | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 |
| Reading graphs or tables | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Definitions and wording | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| Arithmetic | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Total | 5 | 4 | 3 | 12 |
Percentages of 12: units 4/12 = 33%, graphs 3/12 = 25%, definitions 3/12 = 25%, arithmetic 2/12 = 17%. These sum to 100%.
Looking by science, the student might revise biology most. Looking by pattern, units and conversion is the largest, and it spans all three sciences. The plan: one fresh units question in each science next session.
Re-check: row totals 4, 3, 3, 2 add to 12, and column totals 5, 4, 3 add to 12.
The mistake to watch for
A student treats each science as its own quiz.
Mistaken plan: “Physics had only 3 errors, so skip physics next week.”
Two of those three physics errors were unit conversions, the biggest pattern overall. Skipping physics leaves the largest pattern unpractised in one of its main settings.
The correction is to ask which pattern each error belongs to before deciding what to skip.
Check yourself
All data are invented.
1. A log has 10 errors: 4 unit slips, 3 graph misreads, 2 definition errors and 1 arithmetic slip. What percentage is each pattern?
Show answer
Units 4/10 = 40%, graphs 3/10 = 30%, definitions 2/10 = 20%, arithmetic 1/10 = 10%. Total 100%.
2. In that log, which pattern should the next session target, and how?
Show answer
Units and conversion, the largest at 40%. Write one fresh units question in each of biology, chemistry and physics, and retest them a few days later.
3. A student says, “My chemistry errors are all definitions, so I will only revise chemistry definitions.” What check would you suggest before they decide?
Show answer
Count definition errors in biology and physics too. If definitions are an issue across sciences, practise precise wording in all three. If only chemistry shows it, a chemistry focus is reasonable, but the log should show it, not an impression.
Where this leads next
Use the pattern review to feed the module practice set, which ends with a routing list for each error type. The mistake log and retest queue is built for this tally, and the scientific investigation critic helps when the pattern is weak reasoning about experiments.
If you would like a teacher to read your log and help you plan across the whole route, that is the work of online one-to-one Co-ordinated Sciences tuition.