Part Two

Last week "Salient" looked at the experience of in-term assessment at Victoria University. We pointed out a number of criticisms of this method of assessment, which have been compiled in a report by NZUSA's Education Department on the basis of faculty and welfare services reports.

This week "Salient" looks at proposals for reforming the present system of in-term assessment, and ways in which students can start working for change.

"Double Chance" Assessment

In an effort to overcome some of the problems which have resulted from the introduction of in-term assessment the staff and students of the French sector of the Romance Languages Department last year came up with a proposal to give students a "second chance". Their idea of "double chance" assessment was to give students a mark out of 100 for their performance in course work and then to give them the opportunity to improve on this mark by sitting an end of year examination. Students presenting themselves for both types of assessment would be given the higher of the two marks obtained as their final result. An important element in this proposal was that students would be told their mark for their year's work before the final exam.

The advantages of this method of assessment would be to give students two chances to score well and to give more equal opportunity to those who prefer course work assessment and those who prefer final exams. But its disadvantages are that it would present students with a most difficult, if not unfair decision, at the end of the year: whether to settle for the mark obtained during the year or to challenge the judgement of their lecturers by sitting a final exam. Furthermore it would not remove many of the disadvantages of in-term assessment that were outlined in last week's article.

Although the French sector's proposal was only a limited attempt at reform, it did offer students a much better deal than the established method of in-term assessment. It was also a proposal that was jointly worked out by staff and students at all levels of the French sector's courses. However the proposal has not been implemented in its original form. The Professorial Board subsequently altered it to make the finals exam compulsory. But the student's final grade is determined by his highest mark in course work or finals, and a student can score as low as 40% in either mark and still pass.

Group Assessment

A more controversial proposal to alter the established methods of in-term assessment is group assessment. This method would introduce a qualitative difference to other forms of assessment in that students would be assessed collectively on the basis of a group report. Therefore this method provides students with the opportunity to learn in co-operation with each other rather than in competition.

But it was precisely because group assessment would fail to distinguish the individual differences between students and eliminate competition that it was curtailed by the Chairman of the Department of Sociology and Social work, Professor Robb, when it was proposed by some sociology students in 1973.

Professor Robb outlined his objections to this method in a memorandum of August 21, 1973 to the university's Academic Committee. He claimed that under this method of assessment "not only is the individual student's contribution not identifiable but as any group is virtually certain to contain at least one person who is determined to get a pass mark and will therefore make certain that an adequate piece of work is returned, under this system it is extremely unlikely that any student will fail. At the other end of the scale a brilliant student will have his qualities recognised in his mark only if he so dominates his group that the work is effectively his and all his fellow members share the results of his brilliance."

Professor Robb went on to argue further: "....it seems to me that the whole tenor of university legislation and tradition gives rise to an expectation on the part of all concerned that the award of a degree represents a public statement that so far as can be ascertained, the particular individual has achieved certain standards, completed certain pieces of work etc. If the group assessment method is used then it seems to me that such assurance cannot be given and the award of a degree or of credits towards a degree takes on a completely new meaning."

Just imagine. A method of assessment which would make it extremely unlikely that any student would fail! A system that could subordinate individual decisions to collective decisions and would encourage people to work in co-operation rather than in competition. What a nightmare it would be if such a system were ever introduced!

But Professor Robb was not expressing an oddball view. Far from it. In fact his arguments to the Academic Committee pinpointed the primary purpose of assessment in universities as they are presently structured.

As NZUSA's Education Department argues in its report on assessment, the primary purpose of assessment at New Zealand universities is to stratify students and to select the "brightest" students to do those jobs which are supposedly most intellectually demanding, to our society.'

Because jobs in our society are stratified—from Supreme Court Judge or company managing director to dustman or Unskilled' worker on an assembly line—the road to the top is a competitive one. One of the main functions of the education system is to select the "bright" students and to weed out the "failures". Therefore education at university is a competitive business.

As long as the primary purpose of assessment is to stratify students every method of assessment will create [unclear: pressur] on them, and impede the development of forms of evaluation of students which serve the student by pointing out his weakness and helping him to overcome them and to achieve full understanding of whatever he is studying.

Since all methods of assessment primarily serve the purpose of stratifying students, there is no method of assessment which will provide students with a genuine opportunity to develop their own abilities free from the pressure of competition—the constant need to get a "good mark".

But that does not mean that all methods of assessment are the same. In the short term, students should press for methods of assessment which will enable them to spend as much time as possible outside the classroom, learning from contacts with others and from the experience gained by extra-curricular activity at the university and by activity in the community in general.

In its report on different forms of assessment NZUSA's Education Department recommends "double chance" assessment, group assessment and "Take Home" exams as the forms of assessment which are least onerous for students. ("Take Home" examinations are a system of exams which free the student from the restrictions of supervision, narrow time limits and sitting unseen papers).

But the report emphasises that whatever methods are used, students must have the right to decide for themselves what form of assessment they want to be applied in the courses they are studying. This means they must be given this opportunity before their courses begin on the basis of full information about the content of the course, the amount of work required, the dates on which this work is due, and a timetable of courses offered by each faculty.

The opportunity for students to choose the method of assessment to be applied in their courses could only be carried out successfully if students were given full information about the different types of assessment, the advantages and disadvantages of each type, and time to discuss different forms of assessment with other students.

As we reported last week the recent Conference of New Zealand Universities passed a resolution requesting the universities to promote discussion and research on the use of assessment and moderation procedures in the universities and the secondary school system.

Students can take a cue from this decision. If the universities are keen on discussion about assessment, let's not be backward in helping them promote it.

• Ask your lecturer to have a class discussion about methods of assessment. Ask him or her how they're finding in-term assessment—is it getting them down too?
• Call on the head of your department or faculty and ask him or her what the department/faculty is doing to examine its methods of assessment and whether they're interested in hearing student opinion.
• Phone the Vice-Chancellor Danny Taylor on 46-040 and ask him if the university is going to publish its reports and research on assessment so that staff/students discussion can proceed on the basis of full information.
• Report your findings and your opinions to "Salient". We'd like to know just how keen the university is to promote discussion on assessment.