English Assessment Meeting

by Martin Doyle

On Monday, July 12th, a meeting was held at lunchtme in the Union Hall, to discuss assessment within the English Dept. This was a progressive step towards understanding and changing some of the structures in the Dept and came as a result of recent combined meetings of staff and students.

The actual meeting entailed three brief speeches by John Clift (Teaching and Learning Institute), Peter Franks (NZUSA), and Stuart Johnston (Chairman of the English Department), followed by an hour-long free-for-all.

Lately everyone has latched onto the idea that both staff and students are involved in a common pursuit and they should thus submit to the structures they have mutually agreed to work under. This sounds likely, but has never existed in reality since decisions about assessment have always been made 'up there' amongst the staff without students being consulted. But there is now a willingness on everyone's part to discuss things and take part in discussions.

This new atmosphere of a "classless Department" is catching some people on the wrong foot - it was noticeable at the meeting that a large number of staff were present (as at the other two meetings), and yet only a couple spoke their minds, and not one addressed questions to the speakers. This was obviously not due to antipathy, but rather a feeling that they were "sitting in" on a student affair, rather than something where everyone had an equal interest and right to speak The hunt for a round table goes on. No doubt we all need to make each other feel much more welcome if worthwhile dialogue is to become the norm

Leonie Morris chaired the meeting, and got things started by quoting a recent survey which showed that 93% of the students in one Stage 2 course had expressed dissatisfaction with the running of the course and wanted some kind of change. Then away we went —

He chopped the wood clean, there. Even when staff and students agree on and idea, there always seems to be some runtish piece of bureaucracy to say we can't do it. John Clift thought before we could reach an ideal situation, there has got to be a change of attitude in both staff and students. The student must say 'This work is for my own good" and the staff must say "It is not the end of the world if this student does not do the work." But compromises would be needed before the end, and even within the present exam system more use could be made of alternative forms e.g. longer periods in which to sit papers, oral exams, open book exams, variety in the form questions take etc., just to make life more fun.

These comments caused much tittering and nodding amongst the groundlings, and Mr Johnston's jaw dropped about ten feet. Peter Franks offered an alternative in the French Department's 'double chance' system where a student's final grade is derived either from the final exam, or the in-term work, whichever yeilds the better grade. 'This flexibility merits careful consideration.'

Stuart Johnston introduced his speech with a quote from Milton about how exams would not be necessary in 'an un-fallen world'. It was uncertain if he was alluding to the moral fibre of student life, or to some high metaphysical matter, but he attempted to clarify this by adding This is true, and proves the necessity of reading the later books of Paradise Lost.' My head got so notted up that fifty boy scouts couldn't undo it. His Miltonic imagery surfaced again later when he talked of 'meetings down below with students' in previous years.

Mr Johnston claimed that internal assessment would demand more teaching hours, organisation and regulation changes, than was possible for the department. He thought the 'double chance' system of the French Department was impractical for the English Department since it was so much bigger, and placed severe demands on the teaching staff (an aspect of internal assessment that is often overlooked He supported this by referring to the mountainous essays that were being attempted by 'a team of markers that set out last week.'

He suggested that exams were more in the student's favour, since each paper was marked by at least two markers, and the tutor was also consulted in an attempt 'to see the person behind the work.'

Mr Johnston appeared to be making a virtue of necessity i.e. because the double chance system was impracticable, he was trying to prove how the exam system was in fact better anyway. But this is just part of his trench by trench style more than anything else, because he proudly went on to show how 4 courses were totally internally assessed, 13 partly internally assessed, and only 9 were assessed totally on exams. He is to be seen as a Chairman acutely aware of the practicalities of assessment but equally keen to 'blend and organise what is appropriate.'

In the aftermath, questions were fielded by a large number of students, mainly to Mr Johnston. He replied to some questions by saying 'We are working on it' which raised the crucial questions of whether student views are presented when vital decisions are made about courses. Helen White announced that the staff used tutorials as sources of student views, which is true of her and no doubt the whole staff, but the feeling of the meeting was that a greater chance for expression should exist.

Then - and this was the only practical proposal to come out of the meeting - it was decided in the time honoured New Zealand tradition to form a student/staff committee to enable staff and students to work together for constructive change in the Department. It's exact makeup will be determined in a meeting between Mr Johnston, Gerard Couper and others. Whether it will be able to effective tap the opinions and experience of the 'grassroots students' will of course be one condition for its success. But another will be its ability to instituee real change. It is hoped the Department will not consider the committee simply a sop to keep students quiet; but rather a bonafide policy making body

I think it is now essential for students to register their approval of the courses that have been improved by gallant tutors, and join with staff in searching out better forms of assessment instead of simply councing back and forth between a treacherous final exam and spine-curving in term work.

A Dissenting Opinion

For seven agonizing minutes the lecturer and class at Friday's lecture for English 213 were obliged to observe the painful progress of Gerard Couper's sloth-like chalk across the blackboard of LB1.

That Mr Couper felt his information to be of spell-binding significance was indicated by his failure to have the word of democracy already displayed before the appointed hour of noon.

My objection is that time to be devoted to studying Hamlet was wasted on an issue entirely separate. The attendance at the lecture suggests that I am not alone in my eagerness to learn about Shakespeare and I hope I am not alone in objecting to this abuse of the meagre time allotted to assist such learning.

I ask only that those of us who wish to learn of the plays of Shakespeare be left to do so while those who would wrangle over assessment and terms requirements do so in their own time.