Transcript Document

Bella Reichard
INTO Newcastle University
[email protected]
 Cross-module
marking at INTO Newcastle
University
 Rationale for and benefits of cross-module
marking
 Potential problems and solutions
 Case study: Can you get a good Subject mark
with poor English?
 Pathway
programmes on 3 levels:
Foundation, Diploma, Graduate Diploma
 Cross-module
assessment on International
Diploma in Business:



Semester 1 formative (Marketing, Essay)
Semester 2 summative (Management, Essay)
Semester 2 summative (Study Skills,
Presentation)
 Authenticity
of assessment (target use domain)
 Directly reflects what has been done in class,
making the assessment fair
 Face validity for students to make explicit the
importance/relevance of EAP provision
 “demonstrates why EAP development is
essential to pathway students’ overall learning
and achievement” (tutor comment)
 “One less piece of original work” (tutor
comment)
 “I
think the marks given by EAP teachers are
quite pertinent. It shows my right level. With
my English level improve I got a higher marks
every time.”
 “It is a good procedure as it enables the
students to know our weaknesses and
strengths in both subjects.”
 “Although the criteria for each subject are
different, but the joint marking assignment
helps identify our strengths and weaknesses
in communicating our answers. so that in
future the mistakes could be avoid.”
 positive

washback
EAP teachers know what subject teachers
expect
 Encourages
dialogue between EAP and
subject staff
 Avoid
confusion about requirements
 Difficult to disregard content or language
 Subject and EAP criteria need to be
complementary


not only different but also explicit in exclusions
“there will always be some overlap” (Tutor
comment)
 Confusing
feedback comments:
“Structure very good and easy to follow” (Subject)
vs.
“Difficult to read due to poor structure” (EAP)
 Joint

feedback sheet?
to avoid contradictory feedback comments
 Joint-marking

on same script?
Problems:


turnaround time
Independence
 “I
think it would be better if EAP has its own
assignment, so students can focus more on
the structure, language, etc.”
 "The difficulty level of the task could
influence EAP marks. For example, if the
question is easy to answer, students could
answer the question fluently, and the mind
flow of the writing is easier for teachers to
follow. But if it’s difficult, student may can
not explain clearly, therefore, it could
influence EAP mark.”
 “Is
it possible to write a poor essay in
excellent English or an excellent essay in
poor English?” (Kerry Tavakoli, June 2014)
 Is it possible to get a good subject mark with
poor EAP, or vice versa?
 Can we predict the subject mark from the
EAP mark? Threshold?
75
EAP score
70
65
60
55
50
45
20
30
40
50
60
Subject score
70
80
 Very
low correlation coefficient (0.47)
 Impossible to conclude one mark from the
other

clearly different marking criteria
 Some
students: high subject mark with low
EAP mark (incl. 4x “fail” in EAP and “merit”
in Subject)
 Cross-module


marking works in our context
Authenticity
Fairness
 Challenges

Disentangle criteria
 Ideas?
Comments? Questions?
[email protected]
 If
it’s possible to get a good Subject mark
with a fail in EAP, is this unnerving for EAP?
Are we teaching the wrong thing?


Not if Subject intentionally left out EAP criteria;
would these essays get a good mark in “real life”
(post-pathway)?
Can we predict the post-EAP Subject mark from
the combined EAP and Subject marks?
 Hold
a joint study clinic with EAP and
Subject teachers
 Subject: mark for the premises (i.e. the
content); EAP: mark for the argument
structure built on the premises (i.e. what
the student does with them)