Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Volume 37, Number 22. 4th September 1974

Dealing with workloads

Dealing with workloads

How much effect has in-course assessment had on student workloads? Do essays that count towards finals get priority over essays that have no percentage attached to them? Has in-course assessment meant that the final three-hour exam has been replaced by two three-hour exams and four 2000-word assignments?

Having stirred up discussion with its interim report on workload limits, the Workloads Committee of the Faculties of Arts and Languages and Literature has produced a report on methods of assessment.

The committee has started from a belief (after discussion of various reports on the subject) that methods of assessment are intricately related to course workloads: "In many cases, especially four and six-credit courses, adopting a substantial amount of in-course assessment has not involved reducing the number or duration of final exams but simply adding a lot of other work to the category of finally-assessed material—in some cases every piece of work done by students."

Unfortunately, students in the past have not paid much attention to increases in assessed material, regarding it as a necessary evil of in-course assessment and unless they were repeating a particular course didn't know the number of pieces of work demanded in the past anyway. However the Faculties' Workloads Committee feels otherwise. It has suggested that the faculties consider placing limits on the amount of material which may be used to determine the final grade and within that on the proportion which may be required for final assessment purposes during the lecturing year. It has recommended that:—
1)The amount of work on which the final grade for a 12-credit course is determined (other courses in direct proportion to credit rating) be limited to no more than—100 level: 2 3-hour exams or an equivalent amount of material; 200 level: three 3-hour exams or the equivalent.
2)Only 40% of the final grade may be determined by work (exam or other) due for final assessment purposes at or before the end of the course while non-exam material used for final assessment should be due for that purpose beyond the end of the course (by the date of the final exam or some date Within the official examining period).

The "equivalent" of a 3-hour exam ideally would require of students the same amount of preparation and take staff the same time to mark. The committee believes that three short essays (maximum 1000 words) is roughly equivalent to one three-hour exam but where students are required to do a longer essay (say 2000 words) as part of their non-assessed work during the course and then to resubmit the essay (rewritten or not as they please) for final assessment, it should be no more arduous in terms of contribution to "finals" workloads and pressure than a new essay half the length of the same topic.

With these two recommendations, the committee recognises that there is a definite distincion between in-course final assessment (of work handed in during the course) and end-of-course final assessment of work handed in at the end of the course and final exams), and stresses that in-course final assessment is not the only alternative to exams.

Drawing of a man operating on someone's head

The limit of 40% on in-course final assessment is imposed because it was felt that i.c.f.a.

  • may be responsible for increasing stress and with drawl rate if a student falls behind during the year;
  • reduces flexibility insofar as it allows less scope for individual variations in working patterns or pursuing special interest;
  • can be used to coerce students into working steadily throughout the course but also reduces opportunity for learning individual responsibility and self-motivation;
  • while it encourages students to spend more time on a given piece of work there is also a tendency to ignore comments (because part of the course is over and done with) so reducing effective feedback.

The figure of 40% was chosen because it was felt that in assessing how well a student did at a particular course, more emphasis should be placed on the end of the course (when an overall standard can be judged) rather than at various intervals throughout the course (when only on particular stage can be assessed). The 60% placed on end-of-course assessment reflects this emphasis.

This is one attempt that the committee makes to solve the problem of using student work for pedagogical purposes as well as providing something for the administration to place a mark on. This system is being used in at least one course at VUW. The student writes a number of essays during the course and hands them in to his tutor to comment on and discuss the points he or she has made. Then, for assessment purposes, the pieces of work must be handed in by some date after the completion of the course (either added to by inserting various paragraphs or left as is).

The 40% figure is not, however, designed to rule out the development of methods of assessment which are in both the student's and the staff's interest. The committee points out that the proposed limit of 40% does not entail as much of a change from present practice as might at first appear; for example where final assessment is at present on the basis of five in-course essays three of those could be commented on and handed back with the instruction "for final assessment hand these in by November 1—re-written or not as you please". However, methods of assessment such as Double Chance (as used In some French Department courses) or Obstacle Course (as used In an Education Department course), are not to be ruled out if they can't conform to the 40% limit. If courses want to adopt such methods the onus must be on them to formulate a detailed proposal which is "felxible enough to cater for the normal variety of student work patterns and (has) minimised undesirable side-effects on other courses the students are taking".

The committee's report has gone back' to every department in the Arts and languages and Literature Faculties to be discussed. Students in these faculties must bring the proposals up for discussion in tutorials, in lectures, through the pages of Salient, and through contact with your student representatives Roger Miller 759-327, Pat Martin 557 661, Colin Feslier 6458 TWA, Bruce Robinson 558-565, Pip Desmond 46-797, John Ryall 86-395 UH, Austin Guise 759-816 and Linda Hardy 699-376.