SLS-6a6 Consistency in Assessment

Consistency in assessment across SL subjects is an issue that continues to post a challenge - and will probably continue to do so indefinitely.   Related to that is the challenge in communicating to the students the expectations of the subject.  It boils down to the practical question of what type of work truly deserves an A, or B, or C, or, in rare cases, failure.  It seems particularly difficult for the student to understand this question in the context of SL. Perhaps because it is a pedagogy that many of them do not have a lot of experience with.  A student probably takes no more than one or two SL subjects in a 4-year undergraduate program.  There is hardly enough exposure to become very familiar with it.  

A number of measure have been taken to address the consistency of grading.  Metrics to be used for assessment are required from the subject teacher for each subject.  Workshops are conducted for teachers periodically on assessment practices, development of metrics, etc.  At the end of each term, the grade distributions of SL subjects are reported to the Committee on General University Requirements, who are responsible for the quality control of SL subjects, together with other GUR subjects.  Subjects with grades that appear to be unusually high, unusually low, having an odd distribution, or otherwise out of the ordinary may attract scrutiny.  PolyU practices criteria-referencing assessment.  In theory, the grade distribution in each subject does not have to conform to a specific norm.  In practice, PolyU wishes to avoid the perception that SL grades are too arbitrary or subjective.   If the same group of students take two similar subjects, their performance in one is not expected to differ from the other. 

There are some challenges that may be specific to service-learning.  Many students who are initially indifferent during the classes and preparation phases often come alive and become very engaged when the actual service starts, when the students begin to interact with the community and begin to truly appreciate the societal issues.  The students’ enthusiasm can be higher than what they exhibit at other academic subjects.  Many teachers are pleasantly surprised by this elevated level of enthusiasm and the regrading may reflect that.  Enthusiasm often leads to greater effort.  There is also a tendency among some teachers to mistake effort and actually learning.  It is not uncommon to hear teachers explaining higher grades awarded to the class by pointing to the great enthusiasm and effort demonstrated by the students, rather than superior performance according to the learning outcomes.  There is, of course, a strong relation between the amount of effort put in by the student and the learning outcome, but this is far from guaranteed.  

One of the techniques practiced by some teachers to better communicate the expected standard of performance to the students is the discussion of samples of work with the students.  Often a sample produced by a previous cohort of students taking the same subject is presented to the class.  The students are asked to assign grades to the sample based on grading metrics announced by the teacher.  The teacher then reveals the actual grade assigned and how the grading metric was applied.  Discrepancies can then be discussed, and hopefully reduced.  Disagreement is perhaps unavoidable.  But students generally appreciate efforts from the teachers to better communicate expectations.