Ha ha "Balls to that"! Nice one Jeffrey....
"marks should be awarded if the students meets learning outcomes".....given that this is what a student is batting against/ asked to deliver in an assignment, then surely if they deliver the LOs we ask them to, then they must get due recognision (in their mark).
James
________________________________________
From: J Vernon [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 21 December 2016 11:18
To: DEROUNIAN, James
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Christmas Cracker
I think there's a good argument for regarding a first class result as a form of currency, and not awarding 70% just for accumulation of statements on the exam script. On my course, the criterion for 70 is personal response to the challenge of the work, or solid critique. I will award 80+ for elements of true originality, and (very rarely) 90+ for publication standard work.
One poster has mentioned that marks should be awarded if the students meets learning outcomes. This can lead to inflation, if the outcomes are merely a re-statement of the syllabus. I have just gone through an external programme review, and I was criticised for writing measurable learning outcomes that probed higher-order learning (integration, abstraction and so on). I was told that these were not properly formulated LOs. The externals just wanted to see a list of things the students should recall - 'what they needed to know for the exam.' Balls to that. In the era of TEF, I think I should name and shame their home institutions.
- Jeffrey
On 21 December 2016 at 11:01, DEROUNIAN, James <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Neil/ all,
mentioning "mindset" - I have now reversed the way I approach a student assignment......in the past I would build the mark from zero.
Now I start with 100% perfection, and work down, always questioning...."OK, so why have I e.g. docked 20 marks"?
I simply don't think it's rational or fair to say things like - "Outstanding......76%"........why not 80, 85, 90?
I agree re grade distortion, BUT we mark the work in front of us, not the student.
Glad to see the cracker has gone off with a BANG!
Happy Noel
James
________________________________________
From: External examiners discussion forum [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] on behalf of nwellman [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
Sent: 21 December 2016 10:53
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Christmas Cracker
Hi all,
I'm sure we've all grappled with this one over the years.
Picking up Marcus' point, as an EE I am often more concerned when 'marking across the range' results in grade inflation with 2nd class work gaining 1st class marks.
I suspect this is partly psychological in that once markers get into the mindset of awarding 80/90s it shifts the goalposts away from 70%=excellence/1st and it can seem miserly to award marks in the 60s.
I've also noted that breaking down assessments into overly small elements can also distort the final mark, especially if half (or 0.25) marks aren't allowed). Thus, 5/8 for an element can seem mean so there's a tendency to award 6/8 which raises a 62% 2nd to a 75% 1st. Having five or so such elements each of which is upgraded in this way can easily cumulatively result in over marking (see below for how I personally resolved this).
As things stand I think that we are mostly (?) work to a system, reflected by Mark's point, whereby we 'know' what a F/3/2.2/2.2/1 looks like and that 40% is the pass/fail threshold with 70% a 1st and anything over c85% outstanding (measured holistically via consideration of the ILOs and the QAA/graduate skill benchmarks). So as long as we have degree classifications anything above this is largely immaterial (unless mark means inform marginal grading decisions).
Like others, I have rarely awarded over 85%, but for truly exceptional work have awarded in the 90s, and, yes, 100% (I found USA MBA students found this difficult and felt they'd failed if the got 'only' 75%, until it was explained that this was still a distinction).
Again speaking as an EE (for business/mgt/mktg), I have also found that assessments can be simplistic/process driven, testing recall of the taught syllabus or mechanistic application of models rather than the ILOs and academic rigour (yes, we do have this in bus/mgt !).
Re GPAs: the HEA did a pilot in 2013/14: its report is here:
https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/resources/GPA-report-2013-14.pdf
Their recommended metric is shown below. Note that this still leaves wide excellence/fail bands of 75-100% and 0-30%, so Marcus's point about encouraging marking across the range is perhaps moot.
I checked, eg Oxford Brookes, who similarly has wide extremes (see: https://www.brookes.ac.uk/regulations/current/core/a3/a3-14/ and the student guide here: https://www.brookes.ac.uk/students/your-studies/grade-point-average/)
The HEA recommendation is:
[cid:em61655b66-dbdb-47a4-9e12-05097e01b7a5@nwellman]
And Oxford Brookes':
[cid:em05def477-3814-47c6-a0e1-10580cf45ad0@nwellman]
Note that HEA offers GPs for fails over 30% whilst OB doesn't and that OB has a maximum of GP 4.5, so the two aren't compatible and would still need 'translation'.
I didn't much on other UK HEIs GPAs so am unsure how standardised they are, but it seems they are different from the USAs, so still aren't universal.
There's an interesting paper on all of this from Doug Hunt from Imperial here: https://www.imperialcollegeunion.org/your-union/how-were-run/committees/12-13/Union_Council/file/2016
For what it's worth, my system was to award marks out of ten (to x.5/10) for each element, then use the element weightings to calculate a mean score. This was then holistically reviewed by asking the question "is this really an XYZ class piece of work?" , with the answer usually (but not always) being 'yes'. In some instances a capping element was in place (eg no/poor refs) which could limit an otherwise good piece of work to a pass at best (tough love?).
This method also formed the basis for giving very specific feedback to students regarding what they did well and less well (or 'badly').
Neil Wellman (retired but still EEing)
------ Original Message ------
From: "Marcus Wood" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Sent: 21/12/2016 09:17:48
Subject: Re: Christmas Cracker
It’s also quite common to have external examiners talk about the need for markers to use the full range of marks, i.e. 0-100, since this rarely happens in practice.
The issue is the huge banding for a First-class mark from 70-100, where other bandings, e.g. 2.1, are only 10%. This is one of the reasons why people are increasingly tending to favour Grade Point Averages (GPAs) over percentage marks for modules. Still some way to go re moving to GPA as a sector.
Actually to specify, though, that a percentage mark over 80% cannot be awarded (which was the original query) has to be wrong, surely? It must be possible for a student to achieve a mark of 80+ even if it is very difficult. To this extent I disagree with Mark’s point below.
Dr Marcus Wood
Senior Registrar: Governance
Academic Quality Directorate
Buckinghamshire New University
High Wycombe Campus
Queen Alexandra Road
High Wycombe
Buckinghamshire HP11 2JZ
Telephone: 01494 605066
For all formal regulatory documents please go to http://bucks.ac.uk/about_us/how_we_are_structured/Governance/public_information/formal_documents/ and use the search field. For inquiries related to our External Examiner process please email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> and a member of the team will get back to you.
From: External examiners discussion forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>] On Behalf Of Mark Taylor-Batty
Sent: 20 December 2016 14:31
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: Re: Christmas Cracker
Merry Christmas James
It’s quite common to have a top mark within a system that is based on 0-100, even if the full 100 range is not applied. One could argue over whether this means percentages are being applied or not (they are, but certain percentages are being disallowed; they are not but applying a scale from say 30 to 80). The important things are the grade qualifiers and the criteria to guide one within the grades. The number applied in a sense are arbitrary, but a system needs to have a coherent logic. 30 to 80 scales do have a logic, even as topped and tailed percentages.
On 20 Dec 2016, at 14:13, DEROUNIAN, James <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>> wrote:
Christmas Cracker
[as seen on a card from a colleague, but worthy of a cracker joke = “What do you get if you cross a bell…..with a skunk?” Answer: ‘Jingle Smells’]
And a brain teaser:
A colleague recently announced that – although a module guide clearly states award of percentage marks for student assignments - they marked out of 80; that is 0-80 (top mark).
Why? How can this be justified? Isn’t it just plain wrong?
Happy Christmas ☺
James
James Derounian BSc (Hons) MPhil MRTPI FHEA FILCM
Principal Lecturer in Community Engagement and Local Governance,
Course Leader Applied Social Sciences,
National Teaching Fellow,
University of Gloucestershire,
Cheltenham
GL50 4AZ
Tel. 01242-714562
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Visiting Fellow Edge Hill University Institute for Public Policy and Professional Practice
Honorary Fellow Birmingham University (Third Sector Research Centre)
######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the EXTERNAL-EXAMINERS list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EXTERNAL-EXAMINERS&A=1
######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the EXTERNAL-EXAMINERS list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EXTERNAL-EXAMINERS&A=1
######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the EXTERNAL-EXAMINERS list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EXTERNAL-EXAMINERS&A=1
######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the EXTERNAL-EXAMINERS list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EXTERNAL-EXAMINERS&A=1
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the EXTERNAL-EXAMINERS list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EXTERNAL-EXAMINERS&A=1
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the EXTERNAL-EXAMINERS list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EXTERNAL-EXAMINERS&A=1
|
