Student poll demands change

Article by Lione Klee

(Questionnaire compiled by L. Klee and Raewyn Tucker)

This year in the two six credit 200 level courses of Economic History (ECHI 201 Modern British Economic History, and ECHI 202 Development of the International Economy), several areas of discontent developed—It seemed impossible to effectively communicate these to the acting head of Economic History, as he felt there were only a few minor dissatisfactions from a few students. It was decided to demonstrate what discontent did in fact exist by drawing up a questionnaire and distributing it to the class during a lecture. This article is a report of the results and 'achievements' of that questionnaire and expresses a majority of the views therein. The opinion expressed is largely based on the statistical results and the comments which appeared.

At present the 200 level Economic History courses have a part in term assessment, part examination grade system, wherein the 30% interm mark is counted if it is greater than the grade achieved in the final exam, otherwise the examination counts as 100% of the final grade. On the face of it this seems extremely fair, but a mere 30% in-term rating, for a six credit course, is gained from three substantial essays plus a terms test. Moreover if a student averages 60% in this in-term mark he still has to obtain at least 46% in the final exam to even be credited with a marginal pass mark. In essence students are presently being burdened with interm assessment without significant reduction of pressure from finals.

As a consequence more than 80% of the class asked for more weight to be given to the amount of work done during the year, the majority favouring this to be done on a 50/50 basis. Those disagreeing were mostly against interm assessment as such, and both sides applied the caution that increased interm weight should not imply a heavier workload.

The present system whereby the three essays and one terms test count toward the final grade, allows no room for human fallibility. This becomes even more true if the in-term mark is increased to 50%. In this light most students felt that it would be incorrect to be penalised for one poor piece of work, especially as it may be the first essay that the student has had to write in economic history. It can be a very real problem for a student to change his style of essay presentation between different courses. Hence there was strong support to a system that accounted the top three marks from the four main pieces of work, three essays and the terms test.

ECHI 201 and 202 are undoubtedly courses covering wide fields and under the present system a student is required to possess sufficient knowledge to cover the complete course thoroughly. A general knowledge of the course does not give enough detailed knowledge to answer an examination question; hence to study detailed sections is at the moment essentially a hit and miss affair.

One student in the class who sat the exam previously and failed considered that he failed not because he did not understand the course but because the eight topics he learnt for finals did not appear. What is not wanted is a guessing exam in respect to what questions will turn up but rather a situation which would take the uncertainty out of exams.

Most students feel that the general areas to be examined should be specified, as in many other courses, rather than the present guessing game. More knowledge can be gained from a reasonably detailed knowledge of several areas than a vague knowledge overall. An idea of the general topics to be examined eases the workload while preparing for finals and does away with superficiality in the answers. More specialisation would be possible with a widened scope for displaying knowledge.

If topics are to be specified, the specialisation thus required can come from several sources. One possibility is that exam questions be more related to essay topics while requiring the students still to maintain a general level of knowledge of the course. Many students agree with this considering the re-analysis of essay topics to be more fruitful than the regurgitation of books and lectures, especially if the essays have been composed with depth of thought.

At present there are three pairs of essay topics, allowing students a horns of a dilemma type choice. Almost all the class felt that the present range is constricted and would prefer a larger number from which they could choose. Greater choice does not make the writing itself any easier but at least the choice of a greater number widens the scope for display of initiative inspired by personal interest. Most students feel that the present range does not allow scope for personal interest.

At present the essay questions are narrow and limited, requiring in the main superficially descriptive answers. Students generally feel that a larger choice from three to five areas would allow greater personal interest, while the caution must be made that the increased quantity should not lead to a further degeneration in quality.

At first, it may seem contradictory to increase the number of essays while asking for relevance of essay topics to exam questions, but this could be accomplished by an increase in the number of questions in the exam.

Due to the present lack of scope for analysis in areas of personal interest, it was suggested to the students that one of the three essays could be an approved topic of their choice; a chance to display initiative and intelligence. This idea was well received as it was realised that it could be an excellent opportunity to explore any interesting field in depth. It is harder to delve about and try to find a topic which would really interest you, than work to a set topic, because it demands more of a student then what would probably otherwise be a regurgitation of set texts, most students see this as an intellectual challenge. A few dissented with such reasons as "haven't got time to really get deeply interested in any one particular topic—would rather just be told!" However it is time for a bit of initiative and wider learning in most courses; at present motivation is toward gaining good marks rather than being inspired by interest and enjoying the construction of, in this case, an essay. It is time for students to consider the purpose, the methodology, and the assessment of education.

Generally those students pleased with their own marks also considered the distribution to be reasonable; those displeased found it unreasonable. A few elaborated that they wished to see some marks greater than 7 or 7½. At present late essays are under almost every circumstance penalised by 10%. This over-rigid policy does not allow for personal problems that can arise, or the problem which concerns many students throughout the university; simultaneous peaking of workloads in two or more courses.

An example of the unrealistic attitudes of the department in this respect are really ideally exemplified in a specific case. A student who had completed the preparation for an essay contracted an illness shortly before the due date, thus preventing its completion. The essay was handed in immediately after the due date with an attached medical certificate to the effect that the student had been incapable of study. The marked essay came back less 10% with the following attached: "The error in your reasoning is that you could have done something to prevent the essay from being late. Most of us have minor illnesses during the winter (incidently this was not a minor illness) and should be aware that if such an illness occurs near any deadline it may be difficult to meet that deadline unless one always works a week or so ahead ".....the three day graced) period... " is provided for such things as illness such as when a students' precautions prove to be inadequate, and is not provided as a gift."

The tutorial system at present is extremely formal—They still have the class register which is undoubtedly an anachronism in the university situation. The staff should know the students; the numbers are sufficiently small to allow this. Students are addressed on a surname basis which constricts any personal contact between students. Another requirement that breeds dissatisfaction is the necessity for written preparation for tutorials. A student can read the relevant background material, take part in disucssion but be penalised because he has no written work to hand in. The actual written preparation, 250-300 words is found by many students to be the factor which makes the workload somewhat excessive.

The course has three lecturers; Professor Gould is the founding father of Economic History at Victoria and is reputedly reading the same set of lecture notes that he was using a decade ago, hence he gives a rather well oiled but somewhat over-simplified presentation. Professor Hawke encourages students by telling them that his lectures are insufficient to pass the final exam and therefore lectures on bits of associated trivia. Mr Higgins has good conceptual ideas but has previously been inclined to lecture with incomprehensible celerity—he is, however, making a genuine effort to improve his presentation after learning that three-quarters of the class had stated in the questionnaire that he lectured too fast. Students on the whole had only minor complaints about the lectures and presentation.

The administrative structure of ECHI is unarguably rigid—after more than a decade the policies of John Gould have tended to solidify—but some students feel happier in the security blanket thus created. Half the class was aware, however, that the course is over-administered.

In the field of staff-student communication the figures speak for themselves; over 90% of the class felt that the present communication is adequate or less than adequate, while only three people considered that it was good. The majority saw that there was a definite need for an improvement in communication. Two-thirds of the class supported the suggestion that ECHI society be established in order to promote staff-student communication. The size of the class, however would probably be too small for this, although a more recent proposal approves the establishment of informal tutorials which would support the establishment of a friendly and effective staff-student atmosphere. One tutorial already meets at SASRAC and the feedback therein developed has been found to be extremely satisfactory.

The workload did not support major dissent but several important points did arise. Firstly the 250—300 word (or often more in reality) preparation for tutorial was found to be very burdensome, especially when taking into account the reading and research required. This preparation is a consistent onus which becomes extreme when combined with peaks in workloads from other subjects. This peaking of workloads is compounded on essay due dates, and in this case the mere 30% present interm assessment is a small and insufficient reward. Interm assessment does not relieve the burden.

Economic History presently has a content which tends to be too dry and factual; it suffers from a descriptive and shallow approach—there is a definite need for the content to develop into a more critical and analytical approach. A significant section of the students at the moment consider the content to be presenting no intellectual challenge, in fact just over half the class are of the opinion that the course could be taught at the first year level without significant alteration. On the face of it, this figure, appears to be a fairly undecisive variable, but surely a much smaller proportion of students in other comparable 200 level courses could visualise their course at the 100 level. At the moment ECHI 200 courses are conveniently situated for many students' degree structures, so this was the reason given by a section of the class who did not consider it should be taught at the first year stage.

For a course at the 200 level the superficially descriptive approach is hardly adequate. A veneer of events over an extremely long period could be better replaced by a selection of certain topics of interest, and covering them more deeply on a theoretical as well as descriptive basis. An overview is by definition not a bad thing but when it means that important themes are raced over, it becomes no longer of optimum benefit. The bird's eye view method presently employed in ECHI 200 courses gives students a continuum of shallow facts which are not inspected thoroughly and comprehensively interrelated.

More interpretation is needed rather than the acceptance of a series of events. At present the administration dismisses such ideas as put forward by Keynes, Adam Smith and Marx without discussion, under the pretext that students are not capable of comprehending at the 200 level. It is ridiculous that these hypotheses are handled by other courses at the first year level but are beyond the capabilities of ECHI 200 level students.

However because John Gould is out of the country, Gary Hawke feels unobliged to give any definite reply on these matters, so the dissatisfaction in the class remain unresolved.