University’s ‘half-finished revolution’ now getting close examination

Press, 25 May 1984, Page 14

University’s ‘half-finished revolution’ now getting close examination

Debate on examinations and internal assessment is not confined to the secondary schools. As university students return to study for the winter term, moves are afoot which may change their work in future years. ROBIN ARTHUR, a journalism student at Wellington Polytechnic, reports.

The University of Canterbury is involved in “a half-finished revolution,” according to one academic. Debate may become heated but bloodshed is unlikely as the rulers and the ruled — staff and students — sit down to a series of committee meetings.

The purpose is a year-long review by the university of how student workloads, grades, and teaching are decided. In the earlj’ 1970 s students pushed for an end to “finals,” or end-of-year examinations. They said it was not fair to have an entire year’s study judged on a three-hour examination. Examinations also did not teach a student anything, did not adequately test the skills or knowledge learnt, and some students with proven ability during the year got poor grades because they cracked under examination strain or did not perform well in the examina-tion-room situation.

A compromise emerged. Marks for essays, assignments, and tests completed during the year contributed to the final grade given to students at the end of the year, while examination marks were reduced to a set percentage of the final grade in many courses. For 12 years this mixed assessment system has operated at the University of Canterbury and other New Zealand universities.

Throughout, grumbles continued from the students. Their predecessors had set out to get rid of examinations. Instead they had ended up with course work during the academic year which had to be done because it was counted in the final grade as well as sitting end-of-year examinations. Instead of less work they had more. There was more pressure, less time for sporting or cultural activities and for their part-time jobs to help pay living costs. Student counsellors were reporting more visits from worried and upset students.

Last year, Professor David Mclntyre of the history department sparked a new chapter in the debate. At a meeting of the professorial board he called for the abolition of in-term assessment. Canterbury was involved in a halffinished revolution to get rid of examinations with unsatisfactory results, he said. Tutorial attendances had dropped off because assignments for assessment took so much time and students appeared only to do them for the marks. As students spent less time outside of the lecture room, laboratory, or library they were in danger of becoming “boring swots.”

He remarked that it could be said that Wellington won the battle of Waterloo, but Napoleon won on the year’s work. The professorial board responded to Professor Mclntyre’s challenge by setting up a year-long review of the university’s assessment procedures for this year. Student delegates on university committees seized the opportunity they had been waiting for. Since 1981, members of the students’ association executive had been marshalling ideas and information on improvements to the assessment system.

Papers were prepared and a student “working party” of executive members and post-graduate students was set up. They were to co-ordinate the presentation of the student case in review committees set up by each of the university faculties.

Two post-graduate students, Philip Cheyne and Steven Ferguson, student president in 1982, are both involved in the work of more than 30 student delegates of the assessment review committees. Both are committed to thorough assessment reform.

Steven Ferguson rejects one conclusion of a staff seminar on changes held earlier this year that “some tinkering” is all that is needed. “What might be minor tinkering for one department might be substantial for another department,” he said. Philip Cheyne is determined that the review is taken seriously. Academics must not look at what they have done in the past but what they should do now, he says. Their first aim is to get a statement on the objectives of each course. Once the review committees agree on what ideas and skills the academics are aiming to teach, they can then discuss the best forms of assessment to achieve this. Each course will have specific needs which cannot be covered by a single form of assessment. “It might mean in Arts that examinations are outdated in certain courses,” Mr Ferguson says. “It might mean that smaller and more practical tests are set in the sciences.”

“There could be some experiments in group assessment,” says Mr Cheyne. He uses the examples of Maori studies, and team work in engineering design projects and geology and resource management courses.

The underlying principle is to have a form of assessment which is “valid” for the subject and purpose of the course. The technical skills learnt in a fine arts or engineering design course cannot be tested by a three-hour written examination. According to a student background paper, “the two aims of assessment are often in conflict.” One aim is to “stratify” or rank students in order of ability and competence.

Behind much of the present criticism of assessment procedures is the feeling that the other aim, as “an aid to learning,” is often sacrificed to grading. One goal for the students during the review is to get "more feedback on assessment,”-to point out weaknesses in their work and areas where they need to put in more study, Mr Ferguson says. They also want the “quantity and difficulty” of their workloads to be fair. They have challenged the idea that more work equals more learning. Some students have to rush through so many assignments that they do not get a chance to study and properly understand the information or skills they are supposed to be learning.

After this a system of appeals against unfair grades is being sought. In many courses, the word of one academic is final and the students do not get a chance to question the reasons for a low grade or get an independent second opinion.

A spin-off from preparing the student case for the review has been more student involvement in the decisions which affect their’ own study. “For many it’s the first time that staff and students have sat down and talked about this kind of thing,” Mr Cheyne says. He hopes that this will continue after the review and that “senior students will participate in the design of courses.”