 |
 |
Yes, I like that suggestion. For me what you suggest is probably the most comprehensive form of synoptic assessment that could be achieved. It would also help to meet the QAA suggestion of work that is able to bring together the multiple topics that have been learnt. I am a strong advocate of synoptic assessment, but that is very rare. It would also eliminate exams which are very poor as assessment against level descriptors (but very good at assessing the performance of short-term memory under stress!). Another advantage would be no need for any enforced word count limit and only a guideline would help - based on a survey I did in this forum a few years ago asking about word count guidance for 20 credit modules assessed by a single piece of work, the general figure that emerged was 5,000 words. So, for 120 credits, the guidance would be around 30,000 words for the portfolio. I wasn't sure if your suggestion was to scrap individual modules, or individual module assessments - I assume individual assessments. I would really enjoy reading such portfolios. Marking could be done by collaborative teams (an idea being explored by AdvanceHE - HEA). If you meant the subject modules themselves, students would probably need to be supported by collaborative teaching and learning teams. On 04/07/2019 15:13, Chris Phillips wrote: > "It's time to scrap separate module and award/progression boards" > > or, better still, scrap individual modules and ask students to submit > a portfolio of evidence against programme learning outcomes and therefore > > "consider students holistically and with reference to programme > outcomes and the relevant level descriptors" > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* External examiners discussion forum > <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Geoffrey Darnton > <[log in to unmask]> > *Sent:* 04 July 2019 13:14 > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: Mark moderation > Mark moderation is closely related to the discussion in this forum not > long ago about marking. > > The question is set in terms of mark moderation, but of course > moderation by external examiners may be more than the moderation of > marks - for example it may include moderation of proposed assessments. > > Marking is done within an expected range of marks (or > classifications), and is usually done within a context of the level at > which a piece of work has been done, and subject to an implicit or > explicit scheme of marks, and level descriptors. > > In law, deciding a mark is a matter of academic judgement about a > piece of work subject to level and scheme - and as such the marker > producing the mark 'owns' the mark. That means another person cannot > arbitrarily change someone's mark without the original marker agreeing > a new mark - over-ride another person's mark at your peril! (see the > relevant case law about this). Academic judgement is considered non > justiciable, hence academic judgement cannot be appealed unless there > are factors other than academic judgement such as a process defect or > perversity. Markers have discretion within a reasonable range. Judges > are in a similar situation in that when dealing with a case they > usually have a range of discretion which must be exercised reasonably > - judgment can only be overturned if the original judge did not > exercise discretion within a reasonable range. > > Hence the moderator of marks should not approach moderation primarily > in terms of asking what mark the moderator has in mind for the piece > of work - the question for the moderator is nearer "did the original > marker mark within a reasonable range of discretion?" and only seek > agreement over changing marks if there are reasons to consider the > original mark to be outside a reasonable range of discretion. > > Coming down to earth, a problem I have been faced with on many > occasions is moderating work that I considered to have been given > marks much higher than I considered 'reasonable' - for example, work > given a mark of over 70 (distinction or 1st) for work that contained > only web references. In deciding the marks are unreasonably high I > take into account any relevant level descriptors - most level > descriptors require evidence of things such as subject knowledge and > understanding, critical and/or analytical thinking, applicability, > etc., and usually web only references fail to demonstrate evidence of > meeting the relevant level descriptors (in some rare cases they may). > > Of course, this is where we come up against a fundamental defect > caused by separating exam boards into module boards and award or > progression boards - module boards can only consider individual > modules and awards or progression are decided in a very mechanical way > based on the sum of module marks. In my experience it is extremely > rare for an exam board to consider students holistically or with > reference to programme level outcomes or level descriptors. A student > submitting a piece of work for one module with only web references may > fail to meet the level descriptors with that piece of work, but in > programme outcome terms may have met the required programme and level > outcomes in other pieces of work. > > It's time to scrap separate module and award/progression boards and go > back to combined boards that consider students holistically and with > reference to programme outcomes and the relevant level descriptors. > > best wishes > > On 03/07/2019 09:15, DEROUNIAN, James wrote: >> >> Moderation in all things!? >> >> Knowing that you are now kicking your heels, and not doing a lot >> (!?), here’s a pre-holiday teaser for EEs – >> >> “Mark moderation is of doubtful value” – discuss J >> >> James >> >> James Derounian BSc (Hons) MPhil MRTPI FHEA FILCM >> >> Visiting Professor (Faculty of Health and Wellbeing) at the >> University of Bolton, >> >> 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]> >> >> *Social Sciences Blog: *https://uniglossocialsciencesblog.wordpress.com/ >> >> Visiting Fellow Edge Hill University /Institute for Public Policy and >> Professional Practice/ >> >> Honorary Fellow Birmingham University (/Third Sector Research Centre/) >> >> *Silver****rating for teaching excellence** >> *Source: /Teaching Excellence Framework/ (TEF) 2017 >> >> ######################################################################## >> 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