Changes in unit assessment policy

Since 2007, assessing student learning in a unit in EU has followed the Ministry’s regulation that stipulates the total grade of the unit is a combination of a midterm exam (30%), attendance (10%) and a final exam (60%) (MoET, 2007). This change was expected to motivate students to learn during the course, rather than ‘cram’

at the end. However, despite these grading changes, the focus of assessment is still summative. Figure 4.1 outlines how student learning in a unit is assessed in EU.

Figure 4.1. Unit Assessment Structure.

Attendance accounts for 10 percent of the assessment of each unit, and is compulsory. Students must turn up to at least 80 percent of all classes. When student absence exceeds the limit they are not permitted to take the final exams. This implies that attendance is implicitly weighted at more than 10 percent, as not being able to take the exam means potentially failing the unit. According to Ly, attendance is considered important for two main reasons. First, attendance is a factor to consider in determining one’s learning attitude, which is an important trait for pre-service teachers. Second, checking attendance is intended to encourage students to learn more diligently. The loss of 10 percent or not being able to sit for the final exams is considered to motivate students to attend all classes.

MoET’s assessment policy and regulations regarding the assessment methods to be used by lecturers and students differ for each subject. For general and elective subjects, lecturers are allowed to choose methods to assess their students in midterm assessment, while the final assessment of these classes are usually written tests and organised by the Training Department of EU. This department is responsible for collecting exam questions, organising the exam, and reporting marks to students via the Internet. For core subjects, lecturers are allowed to choose assessment methods, and have responsibility to mark and submit grades to coordinators in their faculties. It

Unit Assessment Policy (100%) Process Assessment (40%) Final Assessment (60%) Attendence (10%) Midterm Assessment (30%)

is hoped that this greater flexibility in assessment choices may support lecturers to trial new and innovative teaching and assessment methods in these core subjects.

EU uses both number and letter systems to calculate students’ results (EU’s Handbook for Students, 2012). The unit is marked on a 10 point scale, and then converted to a letter system: A (8.5-10); B (7.0-8.4); C (5.5-6.9); D (4.0-5.4); F (under 4). The letter system is later converted to the number system, ranging from 4 to 0: A = 4, B = 3; C=2; D=1; F=0. Students have permission to re-sit an exam in following years if they want to improve their score. The following tables show how the grading system is used in EU.

Table 4.1

Grading System in EU

Numerical system (10 point scale)

Converted to the letter system

Converted to the numerical system (4-0 scale) Ranking 10 - 8.5 A 5 Excellent 8.4 – 7.0 B 4 Good 6.9 - 5.5 C 3 Satisfactory 5.4 – 4.0 D 2 Poor Under 4 F 1 Failure Table 4.2 Graduation Ranking in EU

Numerical system Graduation ranking 4.0 – 3.6 High Distinction/Excellent 3.59 - 3.20 Distinction/ Very good

3.19 - 2.50 Credit

2.49 - 2.0 Satisfactory

The above tables show that there are large differences between scales, which can impact on the reliability of assessment and result in confusion for students. Students in focus groups expressed their concerns regarding the “wide disparity” in each category when marks are converted from the 10 point scale to the letter system. For example, a student who gains a score of 7.0 is given a B, similar to a student who achieves 8.4. Some students claimed that this wide disparity may lead to “an

inaccuracy in assessing [their] learning results” (Thong and Lam, FG post L1). Furthermore, students’ unfamiliarity with the 4.0 point numerical scale has led to unexpected graduation consequences. To be assessed as passed and graduated, students need to earn a grade of five within a 10 point scale, while students must reach at least 2.0, according to the 4 - 0 scale. Score conversion from a 10 point scale to 4-0 scale has caused failure for a lot of students because their scores were lower than 2.0 (EU graduation rate 2013). For example, a student who has received a result of 5.4 in the 10 point system, may end up with a result of 1.0 in the 4-0 scale.

Another issue identified by lecturers was a tendency towards ‘grade inflation’ (Sadler, 2009), as lecturers in EU tended to give students high marks, usually within the A and B standards. Ly critiqued this practice as “students may not actually have completed work to achieve these grades” (TTL, post L4). She also explained that due to pressure of accountability and requirements of a credit-based training, many lecturers were willing to give current students higher marks to protect their reputation as well as to attract more students in future.

Participating lecturers acknowledged that the introduction of attendance records and midterm exams into the new assessment policy has positively impacted on student learning since this “has encouraged many students to attend classes more frequently and learn diligently during the entire semester” (TTL, post L4; DTH, post L4; and NVT, post L5). However, students’ learning approaches depended on lecturers’ teaching and assessment requirements and organisation. Tram said: “if the lecturers regularly assign us exercises and homework, or require us to give a presentation, then I study more frequently and diligently. If lecturers just organise exams, I only study at exam time” (Tram, FG, prior L1). The interviewed students reported that their common learning strategy was only studying prior to an upcoming exam. However, there were variations in students’ learning strategies in general, elective, and core subjects. Students considered core subjects as specialised units, contributing to their expertise, and therefore they tended to spend more time and effort on these units. For general and elective subjects, students might not attend classes regularly and their typical learning strategy was to wait for their lecturers to give them a list of questions for revision that could appear in the final exams. Research by Nguyen (2013) indicates that the number of students satisfied with the assessment methods in EU was low: 18.4 percent of students commented that their lecturers used inappropriate assessment

methods. Students’ dissatisfaction was reflected more clearly during focus group interviews in the three classes.

Students’ responses revealed that although oral and multiple-choice exams were also used in some core and English subjects, written examinations requiring only memorisation of knowledge were common at EU. To motivate students to learn, some lecturers gave an extra half or an extra mark as an incentive for students who participated actively. Students reported that the majority of lecturers focused just on transferring the content without addressing how their students learnt and whether they were motivated to learn. Lecturers’ feedback on individual student learning was reported by students as minimal, especially in large classes for general and elective subjects. Further, assessment methods and questions did not seem to reflect accurately students’ ability in midterm exams. Students reported that some lecturers tended not to take midterm exams seriously and they usually gave students high marks. Students indicated that they wanted lecturers to adopt various assessment methods to motivate them to learn deeply and also to accurately measure their ability.

It would be insufficient to change teaching and assessment methods without also considering how aspects such as facilities, curriculum, assessment policy, and the attitudes, habits, knowledge and skills of lecturers and students impact on student learning, in a particular sociocultural context. Although credit-based training has been implemented in EU for four years, it is claimed that there have been few changes in areas such as curriculum, facilities and teaching and learning practices. This was reflected in Ly’s statement: “Everything seems to remain unchanged as it was with the mode of annual training (TTL, post L2). Ly’s comments indicate that there is a perception that existing resources in EU have not addressed the demands of a credit- based training system.