Studying within the Christian community is full of unique experiences. From a distinct lack of competitiveness, to lecturers praying, to a common desire to learn. One of the most surprising aspects is the administration/lecturers actually taking on board the suggestions of students to improve the college experience.
In this spirit of collaboration, yesterday we had a first year feedback session. We got to air our (very few and minor) grievances, and our first year supervisors heard our concerns, with promises to make changes based on issues raised.
One thing I'm still trying to get my head around is the relationship between learning for learnings sake (or for serving's sake) as opposed to learning for better class marks. I know we're here for more than just getting the degree, but we are still assessed. And in some ways, learning for learnings sake will just mean a shift in the same discussions that most secular uni students have. They say P's get degrees, but for the student of learning, HD's are sure to please.
During our feedback session, one of the categories of discussion was 'assessments'. I'm told that at some stage in the last couple of years, Moore College had an educational review which led to a raft of changes. One such change was the invention of so-called 'formative exercises'. These are assessments which aren't really assessed. Or perhaps, they are assessed but with no bearing on your final result. The fact that these count for no marks, would certainly have no bearing on the amount of effort students will put in, because they're above that kind of pragmatic impetus. Another revolution was that in one class we were peer-assessed, which did count towards our marks. This was a rather unpleasant experience for me. I mean, I did really well and enjoyed it, but the discussions surrounding this exercise from different students were quite disturbing. It was in my opinion, a great idea which free from being worth marks, would have been an enjoyable experience.
These kind of tasks I think fail to realise what the average student is like. Sure, we're "not here for marks", and all that. We are "conscientious students" who are aware of "the danger of pride", and so simply "wish to learn". But there is a reason that we have assessments. There is a reason our subjects aren't purely pass/fail.
And that reason is because some of us are motivated by deadlines and repercussions. Dare I say, everyone is motivated by deadlines and repercussions to some degree. Give me two competing tasks, one worth marks and the other worth learning, and I'm certain to put more effort into the task worth marks. I'm the type of guy who says make everything worth my while, not purely of "educational" worth, but give me tangible assessment repercussions. The threat of poor marks is like an educational whip, which forces my hand to study hard and thus learn as much as possible.
Then at the end of the day, having been motivated to work hard by the threat of a giant 'FAIL' hanging over my head, even if I don't get a Distinction, I will be satisfied that I have learnt as much as possible.
I don't understand formative assignments.
ReplyDeleteIf we're above the pragmatic impetus, then don't mark anything.
If we're not above it, don't give us formative assignments.
If formative assignments are helpful in us getting better for a 'real' assignment, why the need for the 'real' one and not just another formative assignment?
If formative assignments aren't any more helpful in us getting better for a 'real' assignment than a preliminary real assignment would be, why at all?
Why don't we just keep pushing back the marked assignments until the very end of our 4 year degree, and until then, just let us formate our academic abilities? If that's not a good idea, 'because too much would be riding on those final exams' - then why do this within any subject of any semester and make the final assessment 100%?
This smells like a cake and a cake being eaten.
In the end, no one wins. And it don't make no sense to me. Perhaps others are more 'formed' than me...
I was chatting with someone at lunch and we decided that some people do work in a way that finds formative assessments helpful as they can focus on learning without fear of polishing something for a mark.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this system fails to acknowledge the way most people work.
I am thankful though, that we even get a hearing on concerns over this issue. This is why I have no problem having a rant online, because I am genuinely thankful that we can express concern, and have these concerns heard, even if the board of studies disagrees.
Now, on this factor of designing assessments in light of the way students work, my lunch companion offerred a helpful suggestion. With online submission, the problem of 5pm deadlines was eradicated and now the deadline is set at midnight (11:55pm to be precise). But a number of wives have expressed a lot of concern about this because rather than staying up one night to rush in an assignment, their husband now stays up two nights, the night before its due and then working right up until the deadline.
Now, someone will say "Just be disciplined." And I say to that someone, "Don't be an idiot." You are living in a fantasy world. College is just a series of time compromises, which means that it is often helpful to use every possible minute up until an assessment is due.
Why not make assignments due online at 8pm? That way, students would (hopefully) still feel able to attend class in the morning, even if they're not done. But it won't encourage workaholism late into the evening.
Okay, so its a bit of a retrieval ethic, but lets face it, it takes a lot of discipline to call it day on an assessment which never has enough time to be completed. This is a discipline which most people don't possess.
This isn't aimed at you Zac, but I desperatley need to rant;
ReplyDeleteSometimes when I'm in the library finishing an essay, I hear the echoes of the ghosts of students past whispering in my ear '...soft...soft...'
We've got it so good.
Nothing forms an academic student more than a straight down the line 5pm deadline, with the assignment bearing the appropriate percentage weighting within the course.
Appropriate percentage weighting =
time expectation for assignment/time expectatoin for whole course*100
The concept is called 'fairness'.
If you want to ensure that someone forms an essay writing ability, a good place to start is to ensure that they try hard. The perfect way to do this is of course, to make it count towards thier final mark. If the reply is, 'but we shouldn't make them focus on marks, or only work for marks, they aren't THAT important' - I reply, 'then why mark anything?'. Make the requirement of the course to hand everything in. Simple.
But what we're left with is a situation where the final examination counts for 100%. But the time we are to invest in preparing for that exam is 100% minus the time we invested in preparing the formative essay. Thus, I'm only being assessed on 70% of the work for the course, but given a mark that supposedly reflects the course.
Let's say I get a HD in the formative assessment. What if I'm then really nervous in exam situations, and I get 44% in that final exam? Is that fair?
Of course not. The whole purpose of constructing a university course is to assess. It is to test, proke, prod and expose where our weaknesses are, and to give us a continual kick up the bum to think, and think hard. And at the end of the day, we are given a fair and complete evaluation of our academic abilities.
At least that's what they used to be. I spent two years at UWS sometimes wondering if I was sitting in the middle of a paper mill factory. If we want everyone to pass, no-one really passes. It's all just 'formative' in the end.
We are the bell curve generation. And the ghosts of old are softly ringing their bells saying,
'...soft...soft...soft...'