About Module

ES1103 serves as a bridging course for students who have taken the university’s Qualifying English Test and are deemed to require additional language support for the academic context. It aims to equip students with the knowledge of the academic genre and the ability to apply such knowledge in academic communication. The course adopts a reading-into-writing approach using themed readings as springboard texts for students’ writing and provides opportunities for analysing and internalising ways of organising academic texts. Students will acquire essential academic skills required to cope with the rigour of academic writing at a tertiary level.

From: https://nusmods.com/modules/CG2111A/engineering-principles-and-practice-ii

Final Essay

Warning: Plagiarism is an academic offense taken very seriously by the University, as stated in the NUS Code of Student Conduct.

All files listed on this page are under protection by CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 License.

Redefining Fairness: The Case for Absolute Grading in Singapore’s Higher Education

Assessment in tertiary education is crucial in evaluating students’ progress and academic achievement. However, a contentious debate exists within Singapore’s higher education institutes on the ongoing tension between relative and absolute grading. In relative grading, grades are assigned based on student performance compared to cohort peers. In contrast, the absolute grading system assigns grades based on individual performance against a fixed rubric rather than the entire cohort’s performance. This essay posits that relative grading within Singapore universities is not a fair or accurate reflection of student performance and negatively impacts students’ mental health, sense of motivation, and desire to collaborate. Therefore, a more holistic, absolute grading system is a better alternative.

The relative grading system is controversial in Singapore’s higher education landscape due to its negative effects on student performance and learning culture. Relative grading is widely employed in public universities, such as the National University of Singapore (NUS) and the Nanyang Technological University (NTU). In this context, the relative grading system statistically distributes scores according to a bell curve distribution. As posited by Professor Tan Eng Chye, the former provost of NUS in 2012, the bell curve grading system differentiates between students of varying abilities, identifying those who have excelled and those requiring additional support. However, the principle of fairness of outcome, which advocates for grades to reflect students’ efforts and contributions accurately, is compromised. The bell curve system has inadvertently fostered an environment where students are pitted against one another for better grades. This ultra-competitive culture detracts from learning, discourages collaboration, and potentially misrepresents students’ abilities and efforts. This perspective is corroborated by Hanushek & Woessmann (2017), who contend that such grading systems decrease cooperative behaviors and increase academic dishonesty. In contrast, absolute grading presents an alternative by grounding assessment in the student’s capacity to understand the content of the course correctly rather than in their ability to outcompete their peers.

Grading students based on their performance relative to their peers does not accurately reflect individual capabilities and may harm their mental health. For instance, relative grading often fails to thoroughly evaluate all aspects of student performance, particularly in project-based modules. Group projects emphasize collaboration and real-world applications, assessing students based on their collective problem-solving skills and teamwork. In such cases, relative grading becomes inadequate, primarily focusing on rank-ordering students rather than evaluating their holistic performance (Brookhart, 2013). Furthermore, students who perform well in absolute terms may receive lower grades in a cohort with exceptionally high-achieving peers (Rodabaugh, 1996). Thus, these students may feel unaccomplished despite their merit, diminishing their confidence. In addition to being unfair, the relative grading system can lead to the deterioration of students’ mental health. In a study conducted by Furr et al. (2001), students evaluated under the high-stress, competitive conditions of relative grading reported a significant increase in anxiety and depression. Therefore, relative grading contributes to a culture of unhealthy competition and undermines students’ psychological well-being.

Some solutions implemented by Singapore universities to mitigate the issues posed by the relative grading system include absolute grading, grade moderation, and the S/U (Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory) system. Absolute grading removes the pressure of competition by evaluating students’ understanding and abilities against a predetermined standard rather than a relative curve, encouraging students to focus on mastery of the content. This fosters a healthier, more collaborative academic environment. However, while absolute grading seems fairer and less stressful, Bloxham (2009) argues that it could lead to grade inflation if not carefully moderated. For instance, lenient grading may yield higher grades overall, devaluing the significance of high grades and making it more challenging to distinguish outstanding students. Another measure to reduce stress and competition within the relative grading system is the S/U system, which assesses students based on whether they meet course requirements. However, Lyboldt et al. (2022) argue that the S/U system does not incentivize students to pursue excellence. Therefore, while these solutions show promise, their implementation still requires further refinement to mitigate the problems associated with relative grading.

Moving forward, an integrative approach that combines absolute grading, grade moderation, and the S/U system, supplemented by a comprehensive support framework for educators, could prove transformative in reforming Singapore’s higher education assessment strategy. For widespread application, absolute grading should be applied across the curriculum, ranging from foundational courses to specialized modules, fostering an environment of intellectual rigor and fairness. This system can enable a direct correlation between the student’s knowledge and their grades, diminishing the unpredictability associated with curved grading systems. Additionally, absolute grading could be bolstered by deploying a meticulous and robust moderation process. This would entail establishing clear, objective evaluation criteria, employing multiple evaluators to mitigate individual bias, and performing routine audits of the grading process to ensure consistency. Transparency should be at the heart of this process, with students being informed of the criteria so they can understand how their work will be evaluated. In conjunction, the S/U system could complement absolute grading, particularly in courses prioritizing skill acquisition over academic mastery, allowing students to delve into various disciplines without the burden of competition. Knight & Yorke’s research (2006) suggests that the S/U system should ideally be employed in at least 20-30% of the curriculum, encompassing modules that enhance soft skills, interdisciplinary learning, and exploratory areas of interest. However, the success of these solutions largely depends on the educators’ preparedness to adapt and their ability to foster a more collaborative and less competitive academic culture. Faculty development programs could be introduced, promoting a better understanding and implementation of these grading systems while offering the necessary training and resources to support students’ mental health. Lastly, aligning these changes with the broader education system’s purpose – nurturing holistic learners over mere grade earners – could resolve the conflict between assessment and education’s intrinsic goals.

In conclusion, Singapore’s higher education needs to reassess its approach towards grading systems. Despite its usefulness in differentiating student capabilities, the relative grading system fosters unhealthy competition and can adversely impact mental health. A holistic, absolute grading system, complemented by grade moderation and the S/U system, offers a promising alternative, fostering collaboration and more accurately reflecting student understanding.

(Word Count: 1,012)

Reference

Bloxham, S. (2009). Marking and moderation in the UK: False assumptions and wasted resources. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930801955978

Brookhart, S. M. (2013). How to Create and Use Rubrics for Formative Assessment and Grading. ASCD.

Furr, S. R., Westefeld, J. S., McConnell, G. N., & Jenkins, J. M. (2001). Suicide and depression among college students: A decade later. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32, 97–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.32.1.97

Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2017). School Resources and Student Achievement: A Review of Cross-Country Economic Research. In M. Rosén, K. Yang Hansen, & U. Wolff (Eds.), Cognitive Abilities and Educational Outcomes: A Festschrift in Honour of Jan-Eric Gustafsson (pp. 149–171). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43473-5_8

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An Educational Psychology Success Story: Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09339057

Knight, P., Tait, J., & Yorke, M. (2006). The professional learning of teachers in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600680786

Lyboldt, K. E., Bach, K. D., Newman, A. W., Robbins, S. N., & Jordan, A. J. (2022). Impact of Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory Grading on Student Motivation to Learn, Academic Performance, and Well-Being. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, e20220020. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme-2022-0020

Rodabaugh, R. C. (1996). Institutional commitment to fairness in college teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1996(66), 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219966608

Tan Eng Chye. (n.d.). The Bell Curve | The NUS Provost Contemplates. Retrieved June 15, 2023, from https://blog.nus.edu.sg/provost/2012/01/20/the-bell-curve/