Phil Race's comment
Picking up another of your comments, do we really take in written work
faster than oral work? I often find I have to re-read things quite a lot
to work out how to assess written work, but (e.g. with video recordings)
I don't find I so often need to 'play an extract again' - the
combination of visual and aural seems to make it easier for me to assess
what it's worth.
## (In common with most?) I find good work much quicker to mark than the
weak by a ratio of, at the extreme, maybe 6 to 1. But as the proportion
of high quality written work declines, the overall efficiency difference
of written over oral work falls.
But I think this is a big, multi-dimensional issue needing examination
and an approach shared within and between institutions - the extrnal
examiner system? There are logistical issues concerning making and
storing video recordings. And there must be subject to subject
differences even at tactical levels - for example, within business, much
more marketing lends itself to presentation than accounting.
NEW POINT - Employability and its implications
Are we not worried by the employability of our students? When there are
scores and more of written applications for every proper graduate job,
how are those of our students with weak writing skills (SWWS) to get
into the frame from which they could possibly be selected? And to
defeat (in part) the professional cv/application form writers, one asks
for a section in the applicant's own handwriting.
Though I don't know if it is still the practice, back in 1979 at ICI
Dulux we used to ask all short-listed candidates to write a 1-hour essay
- and this was after selection by the employment agency. And we
recruited some very good accountants by this method. One would expect
any (UK) employer aspiring to world-class performance to be
culture/nationality blind - and this is strengthened still further by
the UK's equality culture. So these SWWS students will just be displaced
by people from other nationalities. Recruiters are not going to make
adjustments for the fact that some UK candidates have been assessed
orally - or rather they will get jobs where oral skills are important.
Furthermore, just as sumo coaches select by height, knowing they can add
the muscle and weight, employers reckon it's easier to add oral skills
to academic skills than vice versa. Incidentally, isn't the USA an
educational system where the oral has, relatively speaking, greater
weight? And, for the majority of its own citizens, that educational
system is not held in high repute. Is this vacuum/gap one reason why the
USA is such an employment magnet? They import their brains rather than
grow their own! And the UK is going down this path. I'm not saying we
should not, I just feel it's a big issue needing debate.
Pip pip!
Simon
========================================================================
=======================================
> When I (attempt to) mark badly-expressed work I wonder how I can mark
> only the student's work and exclude the knowledge that I bring to the
> question. Do others find this an issue?
>
>
> ## this must be right but "grammocracy" has two MAJOR advantages:
> A) because one takes in written material many times faster than oral,
> reading work is much more efficient
> B) it minimises the complications arising from the halo effect and
> personal interactions, e.g. it might be difficult to persuade students
> not to take a fail grade for an oral presentation as a personal
> rejection, and just think of all the discrimination caes that could
> result. On respect of written work we are being pushed to anonymous
> marking. Etc etc
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE
This message and any files transmitted with it is intended for the addressee only and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. Unauthorised use is strictly prohibited. If you are not the addressee, you should not read, copy, disclose or otherwise use this message, except for the purpose of delivery to the addressee.
Any views or opinions expressed within this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Coventry University.
|