In an earlier blog post, I had mentioned that NUS has been progressively moving towards decreasing the weightage of final exams.
I thought it might be interesting to share this table which shows the distribution of CA-weightage across modules offered in AY2010/11. One-third of the modules have 100% CA, and more than half our modules have CA components of 60% or higher.
Table on Number of Modules by Level in AY2010/11 and the CA Component
|
Level |
Modules with CA at 100% |
Modules with CA at 80% to 99% |
Modules with CA at 60% to 79% |
Modules with CA at 40% to 59% |
Modules with CA at 20% to 39% |
Modules with CA at 0% to 19% |
Total |
|
Level 1000 |
111 |
0 |
67 |
147 |
30 |
5 |
360 |
|
Level 2000 |
120 |
2 |
128 |
251 |
66 |
4 |
571 |
|
Level 3000 |
288 |
1 |
145 |
251 |
81 |
5 |
771 |
|
Level 4000 |
274 |
2 |
107 |
214 |
68 |
14 |
679 |
|
Total |
793 |
5 |
447 |
863 |
245 |
28 |
2381 |
|
Percentage |
33% |
0% |
19% |
36% |
10% |
1% |
100% |
There are however, some variations between the Faculties/Schools, as there are differences in the content and nature between the disciplines. The final exam weightage tends to be higher for the science and technology courses, than for the arts or humanities. In the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences and Business School, 70% or more of the modules have CA components comprising at least 60% of the final grade. In Faculty of Engineering, slightly more than a quarter of modules offered have CA components comprising at least 60% of the final grade (and for the Faculty of Science, the corresponding percentage is 33%). This is probably not surprising as intuitively, many are aware that presentations, group case studies and discussions have traditionally been part of the pedagogies employed at business schools, whereas exams are the traditional testing method for technical subjects like mathematics, hard sciences and engineering.
Table on Number of Modules by Faculty in AY2010/11 and the CA Component
|
Faculty/School |
Modules with CA at 100% |
Modules with CA at 80% to 99% |
Modules with CA at 60% to 79% |
Modules with CA at 40% to 59% |
Modules with CA at 20% to 39% |
Modules with CA at 0% to 19% |
Total |
|
Arts & Social Sci |
304 |
2 |
291 |
278 |
3 |
– |
878 |
|
Engineering |
88 |
1 |
27 |
162 |
133 |
12 |
423 |
|
Science |
131 |
– |
32 |
232 |
102 |
2 |
499 |
|
Business |
143 |
2 |
28 |
60 |
– |
1 |
234 |
|
Computing |
41 |
– |
48 |
68 |
1 |
– |
158 |
|
Design and Environment |
51 |
– |
19 |
63 |
6 |
13 |
152 |
|
CELC |
35 |
– |
2 |
– |
– |
– |
37 |
There is a place for exams, and in many level 1000 or 2000 classes, exams will remain as an important assessment tool. But for the level 3000 and 4000 classes, we are moving towards placing more emphasis on continual assessment.
It will be good if CAs and Exams include Written Answers. Some Exams are all MCQs which may be convenient for examiners to correct and mark but it is not good for the working life. I have been to many job interviews and quite a lot (Land Transport Authority, IRAS, Mindef, MCYS, MOM, NCSS, ACRA, SLA and NEA) have written tests for about 30 minutes to an hour. The NCSS job interview is extremely challenging because they give you pie charts, graphs for you to give analytical answers. And it was about an hour!
Most CAs and Exams require written answers. I do not quite believe in the effectiveness of MCQs in testing understanding.
It might be good to include Oral Presentations as part of the assessment. I have been to Science Centre, Boys Home and EDB job interviews and they require you to do up slides and present to a board of panel. If the training ground in presentations is not good, graduates of NUS will fare very badly during job interviews.
Oral presentations will be stressed. This is why we are making Communications and Writing an integral component of our curriculum.
Highly contrary to the statistics, 0% of my core modules comprise of CA components greater than 30%. I’m from Mech. Engg by the way. Agreed that exams are a crucial mode of assessment for technical subjects. So why not include more tests then? This not only would inculcate better studying habits in the students, but would also ensure that they spend enough time on each portion of the syllabus. Hope this post attracts the attention of concerned authorities 🙂
I have the breakdown according to disciplines, which I will share with Heads and Deans, and they will get a copy of this blog article too
I’m a science student and had just recently returned from an exchange programme to the University of Toronto (UofT). The CA system over there very different from the CA system here (I’m comparing science modules). Initially, I was quite taken aback and found the workload “crushing” to a large extent because NUS did not really “train” me to handle so much CA (in terms of assignments) in my 2 years of studies here. Most of the CA for Chemistry modules are 20% lab, 20% mid-term, and 60% finals for Year 1 & 2 core modules. Even when it comes to Year 3 now, a Level 3000 core module I am taking now has 30% mid-term and 70% finals, while the other is slightly better, having 40% tests/quizzes, 20% term paper, and 40% finals (but thinking about it, it is still 80% on tests and quizzes).
For the modules over there in UofT, at least 50-60% of the module would be CA, for all modules. In addition, out of the 50-60%, a large part of the percentage comes from presentations, writing critical review papers, etc., which builds on other aspects of the students’ skills (such as critical thinking and public speaking), which I strongly believe is lacking for science students.
Scientists do not simply stay in the lab, conduct experiments, and write papers. Scientists should possess effective communication skills so that we can actively communicate with the public, conveying our ideas and findings to them, so much so that the society knows what we researchers are doing. Especially with respect to the dire issues of climate change, etc., I believe climate scientists should play a more proactive role in doing, to create more awareness, to nudge the governments, such that pivotal change happen before it is too late. Clearly, all these stems from the education system in which the “scientists” were initially trained in. Surely, there are education systems which provides good training in these aspects, and we do see top-notch scientists in their respective fields with their exceptional ability to deliver their ideas and communicate effectively with agencies, organisations, so much so that research can progress effectively and efficiently. And these people move and change the world.
It is my belief that NUS can, too, effect such changes in our system and learn from other universities with regard to this aspect, equipping our science graduates with better life-skills, on top of inculcating academic knowledge of their respective fields.
I agree that University of Toronto has a good system which we can emulate. Thanks for sharing this with us. I am glad that you have the opportunity to experience a different system and to benefit from it.
From looking at e statistics, in my opinion, has attributed to a good portion of students to mug for the sake of the grades. No doubt that exams is e traditional way to assess the science n tech based subjects..such a testing method may have start to lose some relevance. I believe in research work, esp the hard sciences, content knowledge is impt, but its e hands-on skills in the lab and communication skills tat will matter more to produce a good research. Also, there are some exams tat do not cultivate and emphasise on thinking and conceptualising ideas. At least in projects or presentations, it will help undergrads to articulate, conceptualise n brainstorm for ideas to make their project a good one, which are key qualities in research or in the working world. Knowing hard facts is one thing, BUT application is another and everywhere is looking at application. I feel during my undergrad days, i only learnt hard facts, not much of application.
Of course i do agree n appreciate the value of having content knowledge, as it sets e foundation to conceptualising n brainstorming of ideas, though such content are freely available in e internet.
As such, maybe the university may consider to re-craft the module syllabus, to enhance relevance in the marketplace?
Content, skill sets and relevance are all important aspects. Traditionally we tend to focus more on the content and a little on the relevance, but less so, on the skills like critical analysis, independence, etc. With the ever-increasing content base and the rapid changes in the work environment, skills have become more important. This is what we hope to concentrate on now, and in the future. Since exams and CA can drive learning, more thoughts must be put into using them more effectively.
What really is the point of project work? I would rather sit for a Final Exam that weighs 100% rather than going through the emotional turmoil of doing a project.
But before I venture on, I must make it clear that I am, by no means, an anti-social person and that I do see the benefits of working in groups. On theory, it does lighten the workload and it helps to prepare students for the real-world environment where companies often require employees to work in teams to achieve objectives and goals. However, while it seemingly lightens the workload, is it proven that all students actually have a lighter burden as they work together?
Some people do not contribute much to their group project, preferring to take an easier route out of things. In the real world, everyone in a team does his or her best as they are not only drawing a salary (including bonuses), but there is always the chance of getting the sack. These monetary and fear appeals however, do not really apply to our project work in school, simply because some students are only seeking the degree (their grades do not matter; they do not want a first-class honors; they can S/U the module) and thus, they do not pull their own weight when it comes to group projects.
Other members will then have to put in more work and go through the emotional and psychological trauma when communicating with the less-than-ideal project mates. As a result, sometimes, their final project is not as perfect as other groups which may have a full team of hardworking and responsible individual. Moreover, everyone has four or five or even six modules each semester, and sometimes a student has five major projects to complete and if he or she is THAT unlucky, all five project teams he or she is involved in could potentially have a team mate that sabotages the group.
Some of us come in with the aspiration to attain a first-class honours but the CAP is often sabotaged because of the unnecessary involvement in project work. Why are we paying such a hefty amount each semester in hopes of attaining a good honours to secure that elusive career, but only to have our grades tarnished by strangers and acquaintances who have their own agendas?
Of course, one solution is to seek the assistance of professors but I’ve come across professors who are not only ineffective in their teaching, but also ineffective in solving conflicts. Yes, the latter is not exactly a part of their job scope but it is frustrating to no ends when a professor randomly assembles the teams and expects all teams to run smoothly. Back to the real-world-preparedness track: While teams in the working world are often assigned and assembled without consulting the employees, the sole factor of a paycheck and/or bonus is enough to entice employees to stick together and tackle the project on a unified front. I am perhaps painting a picture that is too rosy for the dog-eats-dog world but the point here is, what do members in school project teams have in common? In a typical group of five, two could place more emphasis on their other projects, while another two are not too bothered about the grade and the last one is completely Missing In Action.
They say that the formula to success is 90% hard work and 10% luck. But when it comes to school projects, it seems that the element of luck plays a critical role too. Like I said, sometimes, you may be lucky enough to have the perfect team, but sometimes, you may simply be too down on your luck. Why then, do we have to pay such a hefty tuition for our grades to be messed around by luck?
Totally agreed!!
We had a compulsory component of our recent CA for PR2105 Pharmaceutical Microbiology in which we must evaluate our project group members, and this carries marks in addition to the final quality of the group itself.
While peer evaluation has an effect that some popular people may get grades boosted and unpopular people have it reduced, this effect isn’t absent from the working world either. And if a group member dared slack, and this was reflected in the peer evaluation report, that member would have gotten zero for that entire area of the CA.
I should also add that some students did not participate in this review component, and were penalised accordingly.
While it is not the case that this is commonplace throughout, some lecturers have already seen this to be a problem and have taken steps to pre-empt the situation.
I thought I would throw that up here, for three reasons: to throw this idea up (that it works and has already been implemented) to the wider lecturer and student population outside my major; to contradict the stand that project based CAs are always that dangerous; to show that some lecturers are aware of the situation and are doing their best to improve the situation within their zone of influence.
However, it is obvious as much that even if everyone is working hard, not everyone is equally capable, or we wouldn’t have a variation in exam results anyway. If your group happens to be full of the highest caliber people for that topic, you’ll definitely have an advantage than if your group was full of people who are weak in that specific subject. Randomisation of groups cannot solve that completely, but at least puts it down to luck, as opposed to an unfair situation in which these people seek each other out and thus reserve their spot at the top of the bell curve.
Thanks, Jack, for sharing your thoughts on project work. Pharmacy is one of the most challenging programmes, but I am heartened that Pharmacy is also one department with lots of passionate and dedicated teachers!
The truth is that more effective learning would entail more work on the part of students – nothing is free! Exams are certainly the easiest, and I can imagine that if we go on a 100% CA system, our students could be laden with projects and assignments. In real life, you usually do not get to choose your team members, and there are “riders” too. Jack (in #8) mentioned peer assessments which are often used by professors in team assessments to measure the extent of contribution by each member of a team. And Jack also made a good case on why projects are here to stay.
Dear Sir,
It is good to note that the system is increasingly moving towards a variant approach to grading. This is evident from the statistics presented in the table. However, I believe the typology of continual assessment matters. For example, we can have continual assessments that are research paper based, or those that are presentation based or otherwise assignment based. I wish to point out that different typologies of these continual assessments matter in their intended impacts. In which, in a long-term perspectives, what is the end outcome that is intended to be achieved should be considered. The point I wish to point out here is that, yes we are seeing more emphasis on continual assessment weightings in school, but is it achieving the intent that was meant to be? For example, my experiences in assignment CA has shown that every student typically receives the same score. If the intent is to create a more flexible and forgiving system, then I do not see the beneficial effect that this form of CA would bring about. Since everyone typically scores the same in the CA, the decisive factor would still be the final exams. There is a need to introduce more innovative forms of continual assessments that allows for proper differentiation of student abilities. Thank you and pardon me if my statements are lacking of statistical support.
If CAs are roughly equal in a large class, then there is a case for concern. You may want to elaborate on how CA is being evaluated.
I think CA without strict control could be a failure. Reason:
1. Students tend to copy each other for lab report type CA and bring home type CA. Even the online assessment supposedly need to be done by individual could become a “group” project.
2. Students can “outsource” the CA project to “professionals” to obtain good results, this is old news.
3. For most of CA, students will not do real research. Google+Wiki+Cut & Paste = CA.
Hence, more CA, at least in FOE, will lead to drop in academy standard.
It takes more effort to set a good assignment, a good test or a good exam. We can improve in this aspect. On the other hand, learning needs the active participation of the student. If a student take the easy way out, by outsourcing or simply cutting and pasting, then they are short-changing themselves!
The fact is many students feel no shame about copying CA from peers , or outsourcing the project, all they need is to pass the exam and get the paper.
BTW, I felt the evaluation system of lecturer teaching skill is not working at all. Some of lecturer serious lack of teaching skill and should be fired 20 years ago yet they are still survive.
What’s the point of anonymous scholarly reviews then, if the university students are judged so openly in their CA’s, in activities such as presentations. Scholars do not believe in their own peer’s open review, so they make it anonymous. Most of the time it is the lecturer’s favorite students who gets better grades. If the CA is 100%, and it is also a group project, then how do they decide who has worked more. What stops the people who have worked less from claiming that they have done the bulk of the work?
I think continuous assessment should be there, but they should not be interwoven with academic modules. This can let the employers know the exact reasons for a students grade. If he/she is looking for a more technical guy he should be able to judge the person by those grades that refer to a technical subject, if he/she is looking for a charmer, he/she could find one from the presentation grades.
Projects seem to represent both technical abilities and other factors such as communication skills etc. Judgement of such skills should be done by lecturers not known to the student because most of the times, lecturers develop a certain idea about a student due to various reason such as their inquisitiveness which he/she may dislike. If CA’s are not judged fairly it might result in a major un-democratization of education.
Scholars can be very critical of the works of their peers. I believe if we engender the right culture, our students too can be critical and yet diplomatic, in the spirit of learning. Jack in his comments above has highlighted peer assessments which have been shown to be effective. We have even toyed with the idea of making video recordings of student presentations or staff lectures for assessment purposes.
To err is human, which is why there are rules to prevent errors, whether intentional and un-intentional. Plagiarism tests’ only work on the grammatical and literal portions of CA’s which are easily manipulated to pass through. This puts a lot of responsibilites on the lecturers to call the bluff of the students or to be fair in every aspect of their evalution, to abstain from any prejudices.
Answer scripts’ evaluation are tangible because they can be re-evaluated if so required, unless the evaluation CA’s are made tangible they will fail in their purpose. Lecturers may choose to apply peer evaluation for some CA’s or suddenly cancel them for others due to some percieved problems with their favourite students, apply other measures into CA’s such as dressing sense which are very subjective in nature.
Education has a far greater role to play than just getting people jobs. Discouragement of plagiarism and manipulative behaviour also form an intergral part of education, albeit some of these qualities might actually be very advantageous in the real world work scenario. Building of social and communal harmony and trust also needs to be inculcated in the new CA process since it involves a lot more of human interaction.
There should be an independent board looking at grievances of students and review their issues faced. Otherwise students are sent to the same people for resolution of their issues who are at the root of the problems. Isn’t it important to evaluate independently whether there is substance to the claims of unfairness and misuse of the new rules, unless no one is interested.
” In the real world, everyone in a team does his or her best as they are not only drawing a salary (including bonuses), but there is always the chance of getting the sack. These monetary and fear appeals however, do not really apply to our project work in school, simply because some students are only seeking the degree (their grades do not matter; they do not want a first-class honors; they can S/U the module) and thus, they do not pull their own weight when it comes to group projects.”
In the real world, there is also laggards who do not pull their own weight because because of family commitments. There are also people who choose not to do too much because they do not see a wish to be promoted. Perhaps an appraisal system to appraise each member can come into play. In addition, if there are difficulties meeting up, they can always do online chatrooms, web-cams rather than meet up physically.
I agree – there are always “riders” and uninterested members in a team. This explains why some companies or teams are more effective.
I am a business school student and I just want to highlight a misconception prevalent in the business school. Although the majority of the level 3000 and 4000 modules have no “final exams”, most of them have a “final quiz” or “test” component which is a written exam of MCQ exam that tests the entire syllabus (5 out of the 7 level 3000 modules I took had a final quiz, 1 had a final exam and only 1 was truly 100% CA). The only difference is that this is not conducted after the reading weeks with the rest of the exams but embedded within weeks that can range from week 8 to week 12. Hence, in a way, not only do these modules have a final exam, they are scheduled among all the exam deadlines which make it harder to study for as compared to those after the reading week. I believe that if a module is supposed to be 100% CA, it should be 100% CA and not have a hidden “final exam” component
Interesting, let me check.
I have one friend’s brother in NTU Computer Engineering. He had a lot of trouble understanding and coping with the programming and complicated data sets so he relied on copying other peers work and even managed to pass his exams through sheer luck. In the end, after he graduated, he chose not to have a career as systems analyst or programmer but chose a generic role in IPOS.
Therefore, I think it is highly not a good idea to have bring-home CAs or MCQ CAs but CAs that are openbook and within one hour, must complete assignments or must present at the end of the day.
No testing mechanism is perfect, and students must play their part in the learning process.
Dear Sir,
I am a business school student and I am not unfamiliar with CAs (i.e projects and presentations) Many of my modules have 50% CA and 50% final exams. The projects and presentations have been beneficial to my learning as most of them require independent learning and team work to apply business theories to real-life situations. I am very sure that they will come in useful when I enter the working world next time.
However, an interesting thing I realised was that the weightage of the projects or exams does not affect the amount of time we spend on it. Even though the project is 50%, we will spend as much time and effort as we could to complete it. And this applies to exams with a weightage of 50% as well. Having an exam with 50% weightage does not mean that we put in half the effort we would have put in if it were 100%. That said, isn’t this too much workload for a student taking 5 modules, with a total of 5 group projects, 5 group presentations and 5 exams in one 13-week semester?
Nevertheless, I would be strongly against having a 100% final exam for a business/accounting module because group work and presentations are essential skills that business students should be equipped with. I can only hope that there is a system to ensure that CA deadlines do not clash and students have more time to study for the final exams (instead of only having the last one week to cram everything).
The 13-instructional-week semester is a little short, and this means that students must do continual work. Continuous assessments, unfortunately, translate to more work for the students. However, I think one group project, one presentation and one exam is a reasonable workload for one module.
I welcome the increase in CA weightage for a completely different reason – CAs are usually (not always) returned, and the lecturers generally go through them. In comparison, to say that the marking system and/or the system of going through the answers for final examinations is translucent would be an insult to the word translucent.
More CAs would mean more opportunities to go through concepts; as students we get feedback on our understanding, both affirmation when we got them right, and correction when otherwise.
Though I would prefer that the marking key be released after the exams so we can directly check off it (even if our scripts themselves were not released), it’s better to have more released CAs than less.
CAs generally approximate the assessment of ability closer to the actual standard of a student than a single final does, but consumes more time that can be used to cover more content.
=====
This is the part where I turn around and blast the weaknesses of increasing CA. =P
Overloading students with too many CAs at the same time can also lead to a paradoxical reduction in the fairness of assessment as due to time constraints, the busier individuals would be penalised more relative to the more free ones regardless of their level of academic ability.
This Semester I had 6 CAs in two weeks followed immediately by 2 concerts in the next and a 7th CA. 2 of the 7 CAs are group assessment modes, the other 5 are individual assessments. This does not include the practical reports that also comprise CA, and the projects we had to submit prior to reading week (and one carried out on reading week) that also contribute to CA. Though I acknowledge the concerts part is something I kind of asked for (and thus not something I should be complaining about), having 7 CAs in 3 weeks for only 5 modules is kind of excessive.
I sometimes hear the statement that Science’s workload is in practicals, exams, schedules (lectures and such) and Arts’ workload is mainly in projects. But in my major’s case at least, we have high loads in practicals (3/4 core modules have them in this Sem), the usual exams (4/4 core modules have at least 2 exams, 2/4 have 3), schedules (approximately 20 hours in lecture per week, 5 hours in practicals per week, 2 hours in tutorial per week NOT INCLUDING elective, leading to a total of 27 hours time without including project time, elective time and preparation/revision time), and projects as well (3/4 modules this Semester include group work). And one module has individually conducted research in addition to that – the research we compile is then tested in the CA examination without any form of prior assessment of the relative quality of our research so the CA is a reflection of our understanding, memorisation and research capability combined.
Now, I actually do think that some of these things are good. Especially that research followed by CA bit, that’s one of the most innovative assessments I’ve ever even heard of. However, considering the superheavy workload placed on the students, increasing the CA has its limits. If we spend so much time preparing for CA exams, doing CA projects, performing CA research and so on and so forth it severely hampers our ability to review and preview information from the main syllabus, and thus reduces the overall quality of our understanding and retention. While it increases the precision of assessment, it reduces its accuracy due to the time factor, biasing the results in favour of those who commit less. Thusly, it reduces the incentive for students to take up additional commitments outside the prescribed academic formulae.
We already have problems getting students to attend enrichment talks, if a previous post was any indication. If CA load increases as one goes to level 4000 modules, I will make the testable prediction that the rate of attendance of workshops and CCAs will invariably drop. It is impossible for someone to produce a certain quality of work without first spending a certain amount of time and energy on it, and in order to ensure that they will be able to spare that amount of time and energy, students will opt out of anything that is not included in the assessment criteria.
Lecture attendance will decrease markedly as module level goes up. This effect will be especially pronounced on webcasted modules.
Social interaction, networking, clubs and societies, enrichment talks and other such non-academic activities will decrease markedly as one approaches their final year. This in the face of the fact that certain types of enrichment (like career and interview skills workshops) become increasingly important as one approaches graduation.
Students will be increasingly reluctant to take modules with known high workload, and will opt increasingly for Mickey Mouse modules that require little effort in order to free up time for their other non elective modules. This diminishes the overall quality of education for the graduating candidate.
To solve this, starting with the syllabuses with more structure and are therefore more predictable, the University can make an effort to assess the number of hours required per module relative to its module credits. It is outright ridiculous than our SP1203 module, a level 1000, had a cumulative workload of more than 10 hours a week (4 compulsory due to tutorials, 6 necessary due to the project requirements and such), when the philosophy GEM1004 had a mere 3 hours a week, when both are level 1000, and both are 4 module credits. Our Pharmacy major modules tend to be at about 6 to 10 hours a week apiece, depending on the CA, practical and project workload.
Granted, there are things aside from CAs that take up time in a student’s schedule – some voluntary, others not so. There are family commitments (which may be more prevalent in the poorer students). There are CCAs. There are friendships. There is transportation time (people in the East are automatically screwed relative to those who live on campus to the tune of 3-4 hours a day).
But since this is a post on CAs, and CAs do affect the workload equilibrium drastically, as you are planning to increase the implementation of CAs I offer this up as a counter that there must be limitations put in place as well. Or else the students will pay the price for it.
Ultimately is it fair that an Arts student, with significantly more time, and multiple projects leading to much interaction will end up with a far broader social network, the time to train soft skills far more and a chance to experience the non-academic parts of University life, will have that edge over a Science student, with much less time, multiple exams and practicals leading to limited interaction will end up with a far narrower social network, etc?
Sure, they work in different industries if they work in their field of specialisation, but if a company was to hire people for, say, HR, I doubt they’d choose the Science student, and for rational cause, from their point of view; in our current job market I do not think it outrageous to posit that a sizeable minority of students will be unable to find employment within their field of specialisation.
And now, if we were to compare these NUS graduates in general against graduates from a more relaxed educational institution from overseas…
I prefer exam scripts to be returned, but there are related issues to address before we can do so. For now, what we hope to do is to have each lecturer write down brief comments on where students have done right or gone wrong. Answers to exams can always be posted on the IVLE.
Without doubt, Pharmacy is one of the most demanding programmes at NUS. The 13-instructional-week semester is short, and thus places further constraints while trying to schedule tests, practicals, projects, etc. Interestingly, Pharmacy was the only programme outside NUS Business School (which had their own career preparation programme), which made it compulsory for their graduating students to attend the full suite of career preparation courses.
Science modules are relatively heavier in terms of workload, usually due to the practical component. For FASS modules, students also spend time on essays and other assignments which you did not include. Our guideline is 8 to 10 hours of work per week for a 4-MC module. Anyway, many thanks for making a strong case against 100% CA (for Pharmacy). I do not think that it would be feasible for Pharmacy, as you have argued convincingly, but it may be feasible for other disciplines.
I am curious how come Law, Medicine, Dentistry, Yong Siew Toh Music was not included in this. How about the Yale-NUS College? Will it be 100% CA too?
I would like to add one step further that for Engineering and Science, it becomes important to have practical tests as well. Practical tests are very tough to administer because they can drive up the costs and students can always cheat by mentioning the results to other students. However, just like O levels or A levels, there must be a practical component to assess a student’s knowledge in a laboratory. Most NUS graduates already lack laboratory experience because running a lab is very expensive.
All that being said, we can compare how unfair the system is between S/U modules, projects assessments, CAs and modules with 100% exams but in working life, things are even more unfair.
For example, my previous working place was handling difficult customers. It was 100% frontline and there was hardly any time to go to the toilet. Even lunch was packaged and we had to wolf down our lunch quickly to prepare for customers. My other colleagues who were back-end had the time to go for canteen breaks and they were receiving the same pay as those front line people.
Of course it isn’t fair but quite frankly, there is nothing we can do about it.
The workplace being worse doesn’t mean the university shouldn’t change for the better though. However, from my experiences in both NS and running a company for a while… I know exactly what you mean.
Medicine and Dentistry do not follow the modular system, and so it is difficult to compare. I have only selected some Faculties for comparison.
Another way is to have an Online Chat for 3 hours and students can be assessed. It will be an open forum/ innovation and topics of discussion can be brought up so that everyone has the chance to participate for 3 hours. They can argue and debate online. It will test them to think on their feet, their writing skills and logic. Since most students have laptop, netbook and iPads, why not conduct this in a lecture hall? For example, Nature.com has an Open Innovation Platform for any scientist to solve the most pressing problems. http://www.nature.com/openinnovation/index.html
With a small class, anything is possible. How would you use online chat for a large class of, say, 100?
While it may be impractical to do online chat for 3 hours for a class of 100, class participation on IVLE forums just based on activity can be an assessment mode in itself. The GEM1004 Reason and Persuasion module has a component in which submissions to a blog specially set up for that purpose are graded on the quality of the post, and a minimum of 5 posts per Semester is required to meet the guidelines. More activity isn’t given extra credit, but those of us who were interested to could always write more to contribute to the discussion. And 1 Semester contains plenty of time in which to put posts.
Just raising this as an example in which contributions via online channels for CA have already been applied in certain parts of NUS.
==
I should add that attempts in other modules to get participation in IVLE chats/forums were unsuccessful when not graded. Perhaps if discussion is desired, we need some form of carrot or stick. After all, with thousands of students only less than a hundred frequent this blog (which includes non-students and alumni, who contribute even though they do not personally benefit even if changes are made – thank you for being here!), giving the activity ratio a <1% value. Without a direct carrot, if we apply this 1% ratio to most modules, you end up with a situation where someone talks to themselves on the forums once, before giving up entirely. Sad as it may be, grading might help increase discussion levels.
I do not believe in 100% CA for engineering, and hard sciences. The emphasis in the foundational years of these modules are not solely projects nor presentations but about knowing your content because the modules in the later years requires the knowledge from these foundational modules; that is why for many engineering modules you will notice have that they have many pre-requisites. I am in computer engineering which is designed around projects. However the execution of the projects so far are good because the projects in CEG emphasizes on making sure you know your content rather than looking at communication skills alone. As a computer engineer, we are likely to work on projects as the value producers of a company. Communication skills are required but that is done right as part of another module (Effective Communication). That means our modules do the right thing and put the correct emphasis on the module’s content rather that wasting time on communication because the first and foremost purpose of an engineering course is to train you to be an engineer, not a businessman. If you want to be a businessman, take a business minor or major alongside an engineering course. Simply put we should not be making every module project based because we want to ‘increase’ students’ communication skills. However, the shortcoming of knowledge based project work is the problem of copying. I can spend an entire weekend scouring datasheets and manuals to figure out how to program some microprocessor hardware to flash some LEDs whereas those who have no idea can simply copy code from others to achieve the same effect. At the moment this is fine as the project weightage is small compared to the finals and I know that the project’s objective is to give us a feel of hardware programming. At the same time, I have also come away with better knowledge of the hardware system when those who copied did not. If the project replaces the finals then it becomes a problem since those who freeload effectively “cheat” the assessment. My effort is no more commensurate with the grade. If the project/presentation is communication oriented (but a test on communication is not the point in an EE module), there is no way to cheat an assessment on one’s communication.
There is also the issue of cheap ways of CA participation such as take-home tutorial homework. For an EE module I took, there was hand-in homework. I did not understand the topic and was unable to solve the tutorial’s three stage amplifer in time for hand-in and hence simply handed-in a blank sheet of paper saying that I would rather not copy. Many of my peers who did not know how to even start on the question simply copied answers from those who knew. This obviously defeats the purpose of continual assessment. Instead I lost the CA component of the tutorial homework but attended the tutorials not simply for answers but to learn how to solve the tutorial question and hence managed to learn the content in time for the final exam.
Another example is IVLE forum participation. This is fine and dandy for Arts modules. I had one such experience in Introduction to World Religions. CA component in forum participation for Arts modules encourages students to discuss different points of view, hence adding to the diversity of content. However this would not work in a science or engineering module because there is little variety in talking about equations or mathematical laws.
Another problem with high CA component is the given amount of time to complete them. Frequent projects are the worst as there is little time to complete each one. Quizzes are an irritant but actually a good way of continual assessment, but should not be given so frequently that students actually desire NOT to have them. (I am experiencing this in a module I am taking now) There should be a limit to how frequent CA tests are given (maybe once every 2 to 3 weeks)
Essentially, my point is that the administration should not blindly push towards continual assessment for the sake of doing so just because some students complained about finals in a feedback exercise (I see this happening and as a result, ineffective CA methods that are a bane rather than a boon). This is Singapore and we all love to complain about everything. Pushing towards CA blindly will only lead to complaints about CA and a frustrated administration wondering what students really want. Instead, continual assessment however designed should take into account the module objectives and ensure that it works towards those objectives or it would otherwise be ineffective. It should take into account simple methods to prevent copying (such as an on the spot knowledge test when presenting a programming project that I described afore) yet should not have to require some sort of convoluted testing method that is more troublesome to everyone than useful. (in such a situation, it means continual assessment would be ineffective with the convoluted testing method to prevent copying and that the good old exam would be a better choice).
The single strongest reason for a mid-term / final exam is a controlled testing environment that is easy to police by a few invigilators. However its ease of use became the bane of our education, stifling communication training in students. In spite of that, exams are still the preferred choice if the objective is a knowledge test which is the case for hard science and engineering and all the mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology we learnt at O and A levels. It should remain this way because the foremost objective of science and engineering is to gain the knowledge-base and communication training is second. In other courses where projects and presentations are more important, then by all means increase a CA component as compared to simply sitting at an exam and writing essays. I hope that the administration do not succumb to populist measures and as a result come up with continual assessment procedures that are even more taxing on both staff and students and are not as efficient and effective in achieving the a course’s designed objectives.
You may not be aware that an important aspect of knowledge creation is in communications – scholars communicate their ideas to peers who can then help to refine and sharpen their ideas. Thus, a project-based module is not one that simply focuses on communications, but more importantly, it should be focused on engendering skills like independence, critical thinking and analysis. It takes a lot of courage to hand in an empty sheet instead of copying – I salute you; this is the right spirit!
“I did not understand the topic and was unable to solve the tutorial’s three stage amplifer in time for hand-in and hence simply handed-in a blank sheet of paper saying that I would rather not copy. Many of my peers who did not know how to even start on the question simply copied answers from those who knew. This obviously defeats the purpose of continual assessment. Instead I lost the CA component of the tutorial homework but attended the tutorials not simply for answers but to learn how to solve the tutorial question and hence managed to learn the content in time for the final exam.”
Faith in humanity – restored.
Dear Provost,
I may write out of topic, but since I consider exam as the main topic, I wonder whether the policy regarding MC during final exam may be relaxed.
Recently, with frequent transportation breakdown, I began to be concerned about the possibility of students coming late or missing their exams due to transportation or health problem. I believe it is unfair to penalize students for events that is outside their control.
Speaking from personal experience, 2 semesters ago, my skin illness which has been mild suddenly flares up and I found myself bleeding the night before one exam. The doctor provides me MC however after reading about the NUS Special Consideration policy regarding this matter, I force myself to attend the exam while bleeding from my head. Fortunately, I survive the experience.
Although students may receive IC grade, I believe this is unfair since 3 plus months of student efforts need to be wasted because of 2 hours in his academic life. I understand that relaxation of the present policy may result in the potential abuse by student. However, I believe not all MCs may be treated as equal and problem for students with serious health problem need to be addressed.
Thank you.
Dear Eric – If there is an MRT breakdown or a health issue, we will not penalize students for coming late or missing an exam. We do take into account the different reasons for absence, and we have in some cases, simply taken the CA component for the final grade. This was done by the Board of Examiners on a case-by-case basis.
Why is the school of medicine so conveniently left out?
It is a wonderful idea and initiative–please apply it to all faculties! I find it almost ridiculous that even though the final exam is “60% of the MBBS grade”, the clinical examination is still a make or break thing. Does that not defeat the entire purpose of decreasing emphasis on the final exams?
We have been told over and over again that it is almost impossible to fail the final clinical exams if we have been consistant with our work; but years of predecessors would tell us otherwise. The clinical exam is 50% skill and 50 % luck. Especially for the surgery exams where we basically only have 2 components to make or break it. If we dont speak the particular language of the patient and need a translator, thats 50% of our time gone. If the patient so happens to need to use the washroom or answers a phone call in the middle of the exam, thats even more time down. But thats not the worst of it; 2 examiners (during what we call the long case) basically decide your fate. The school tells us that the exam is very objective and the examiners have all been given standard marking sheets to grade us on. While that is true, the question is whether the examiners actually follow the marking sheet. At the end of the day the marking sheet gives very generic guidelines which allows the examiner to invent extremely creative (unfair) questions for the poor student. If anybody were to just read the accounts of numerous batches of (pitiful) seniors, one would get a good idea of what we go through. And then of course theres the factor of psychogenic stress..seeing certain examiners appear behind the curtain is enough to trigger a vasovagal syncope in many of us. How are we expected to be able to perform under such conditions? Sure the working world is stressful, but nothing like that I am sure.
Just as a last point, if the medical exams were really so fair and easy to pass (as the school claims it to be), we would not see students who have appeared on the dean’s list multiple times having to repeat an extra 6 months and students who have had to take repeated re-examinations for the past 4 years just cruise through the exam. I impore the university to rethink its examination policies for the (poor) medical students.
I did not include Medicine because it does not follow the modular system. I will check with my medical colleagues on your query.
Thats great. Just to clarify, having gone through 75% of the MBBS exam already, I do agree that it is not an impossible exam to pass. But the sheer pressure that goes into it knowing that this 1 exam is going to determine your life for the next 6 months is really overwhelming.
Also, I have reaffirmed my belief that this exam is 50% dependent on your luck no matter how the school tries to make us think otherwise. I think very few schools in the world still follow the same examining system for the undergraduate medical students and alternative forms of examination can be looked at too. Even just removing the “compulsory pass” for certain papers (the clinical exams) makes the entire exam very much more meaningful.
Finally, I think this blog is a fantastic idea. Keep the posts coming!
“The end of the day the marking sheet gives very generic guidelines which allows the examiner to invent extremely creative (unfair) questions for the poor student.”…… Would it be good for students to set CA questions on IVLE forums so that other students can answer? In that way, many people can participate and most teaching staff can be relieved of setting CA questions……..
In addition, one can view this Youtube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCujHIALQas
Students identified friendship, interaction, formative feedback and enjoyment as the key areas for enhancing the first year experience and within this keynote 4 students represent the views of the wider student community in these areas, identifying good practice and lessons for the future. Look at some of their presentations. Perhaps they can also be assessed on body language and visual presentation. Many times, employers look at how a job candidate if he/she can be controlled and whether he/she can work well if others. It would be good if NUS can introduce these subtle things inside CA because they would be useful when they conduct themselves well during job interviews and at workplace.
The change CA is generally positive as it would encourage learning along the semester and prevent cramming towards the end of semester, it also would reduce “exam anxiety” among students, however what I would really hope for is a significant cultural change in NUS regarding the viewpoint of grades,
I feel that we have been strongly accustomed by our primary/seconday/jc/o levels/a levels to heavily prioritize the pursuit of grades, and that perception remains strongly prevalent among many of my friends/coursemates whom i have met,
I think we should consider 2 different ideas about grades:
i. good grades occur as a result of the pursuit of learning
ii. learning results as the pursuit of good grades
I feel that many of my friends tend to put grades above personal learning, many would tend to “game” the grading system , cut as many corners as possible and get the grade, rather than pursue learning passionately and then getting the grade as a result of genuine interest in the subject.
In fact I feel that those who
1. Read stuff outside of coursework
2. Avoid “grinding” a certain topic and subject through memorisations etc…
3. Avoid “gaming” the system
tend to be disadvantaged in grading system in general ,
I think we first need to differentiate understanding and grinding a subject, avoid exams that require students to grind the topic in order to score well such that scoring grades become a matter of grinding and gaming the grading system instead of understanding, it is important to avoid such a scenario and environment as it dampens the need to understand and encourages grinding and “gaming”.
It would be good to de-emphasize the importance of grades and emphasize on the importance of learning, that pursuing grades are meaningless and trivial without the drive of curiousity,passion and learning; grades are part of life and learning but not everything. Lastly, we need to re-emphasize on the multi-faceted expect of life, that it is important to spend time for friends/family, social events, we are human beings, education is part of a students life but not the only thing that matters in life.
Hence I would think that a shift in attitude and mindset towards grades and the pursuit of grades would be extremely important in order to foster a good learning environment.
———————
Learning first and forever first , grades second as a consequence of the pursuit learning
and before everything else(including learning) the pursuit of a meaningful life regardless of how you do it.
I agree with you. It is our hope to change our culture to one that engenders learning and focusses less on grades and comparisons.
The difficulty here is how to change this perception though. You know especially well how I personally feel towards this memorisation/understanding grades/learning situation, but changing the mindsets of students is no simple feat. Especially since the NUS student population is hardly random.
The entry requirements of NUS are strict enough that only those with a certain A level performance (and those with an even higher performance in Poly… whether or not that standard is unfairly high is the topic of another discussion entirely) can even matriculate into NUS. I agree with you that those who read outside and who don’t learn to game the system will probably suffer for grades relative to those who go directly for it. However, the examination system that gets us our students in the first place already selects for those who had the highest results amongst the applicants from each major; this thus selects for, and concentrates, the proportion of system gamers relative to the learners to a higher level than the general student population. And those who entered the better JCs (with the better facilities and perhaps, teachers) in the first place already selected amongst the Secondary batch, etc, and already had a concentrating effect.
Now that they’ve already reached this point, it may be difficult to get someone to unlearn a skill which they have already perfected into an art from the past 12-14 years of Singaporean education.
Perhaps, the low participation rate of IVLE forum channels if not graded is a diagnostic indicator of this issue.
Would you have any other ideas as to how we can cause this mindset shift in a practical way? My mind is drawing a blank at the moment, other than setting exam questions more creatively by requiring knowledge application, and having graded online interaction channels, which have already been mentioned prior. I’d very much like to see this change, but without ways in which to effect it, wishes remain ethereal.
===
Hi boss! Welcome to the blog! =P
we can also have some modules like SMU Leadership Development in which there is no grades and comparisons but the main purpose is to learn something and give back to society in other means. Any topic is acceptable but it will constitute towards certain credit points before graduation.
Not sure whether we can totally omit grades because when we apply for jobs, not only that we have to key in our CAP scores, we have key in the specific grades for specific modules 🙁 Our prospective employers still emphasize a lot on grades, even though if I possess leadership skills, but I may not be shortlisted because I have bad grades 🙁 Grades still play a crucial role in this case T_T
Hi Prof, probably not directly linked to the blog post but I was wondering whether is it possible to make it necessary for the Arts Faculty to have Industrial Attachment? Arts students are more disadvantaged than other faculties’ students when it comes to searching jobs, especially those who did not have internship opportunities. Since Arts students only get theoretical exposures from NUS, other than involvement in CCAs or self-searched internship, we have nothing much to impress our prospective employers. Perhaps to make Industrial Attachment a must for Arts students, we will have better opportunities in the future.
1) Frankly speaking, my friend went to University of Berkely, California for exchange which is a very prestigious place. When she came back to apply for jobs, she also told me that she clearly wrote in her CV that she attended Berkeley and even her prospective employers didn’t ask her. She had to attend more than 40 job interviews and spent 6 months unemployed before she was hired by P&G. Therefore, I don’t really think that Industrial Attachment is really a good selling point.
2) Yes. That CAP Score grades is still quite important. When I keyed in some of the job applications such as People’s Association, CPF etc, they specifically wanted you to give the exact grades. If there are too many S/U grades, it looks very bad on you and HR may question you.
3) “Change our culture to one that engenders learning and focusses less on grades and comparisons.”…… In the real world, some employers and bosses don’t really like employees who keep learning. They just want fast results from you. I had one boss whom you can’t ask too many questions because she doesn’t like to teach you or bother you with too many questions. If you ask too many questions, she will frown and blame you that it is ‘common sense’. As student try your best to learn and enjoy. In the working world, its a different ball game because you will meet all kinds of bosses with different personalities..
The most important lesson to take note is that one must try to aim for Second Lower Honours in order to get a job interview. Yes it is important to score and important to embrace lifelong learning. However, one must also note that in order to get a job and advance in your career, one must also display good EQ, be humble and not clash with job interviewers or your boss. Many students think that having first class honours is the end of story. It is only half the story. I have seen quite a lot of people who are average performers but because they have done well in their career, they are promoted quickly than scholars. Most of the time, working is not about applying knowledge but knowing your skills and how to work well with people and manage yourself and your people around you.
I think even within faculties like FASS, the percentage of exams and CAs varies quite a bit. E.g. Economics continues to have mostly mid-terms and final exams, whereas English Literature modules are mostly 100% CA based.
Even for Business, most modules get around this CA/Exam based requirements by having mid-terms and “Final-Term tests” on week 13 or reading week, hence explaining their 100% CA weightages.
Hi all,
I would wish to humbly suggest an expansion of the UROPS program currently available. In the US, there is a program called the REU (Research Experience for Undergraduates).
NSF funds a large number of research opportunities for undergraduate students through its REU Sites program. An REU Site consists of a group of ten or so undergraduates who work in the research programs of the host institution. Each student is associated with a specific research project, where he/she works closely with the faculty and other researchers. Students are granted stipends and, in many cases, assistance with housing and travel. Undergraduate students supported with NSF funds must be citizens or permanent residents of the United States or its possessions. An REU Site may be at either a US or foreign location.
(http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/reu/)
I suggest that NUS, NTU and perhaps SMU can team up together for research programs during the summer break. Such a program will greatly enhance the research experience of students in NUS. Also, if the results are publishable, it would be a boost for those who wish to pursue further studies overseas, as sometimes the admission committes for graduate schools look at undergraduate research as one of the criteria.
Thanks and best regards.
Yes I agree,
I think an Achilles Heel of NUS education (from the science faculty perspective) is a lack of student research publication.
To compete effectively with US students, many of whom publish research articles in undergraduate journals, or even mainstream journals, NUS students need to brush up on this area.
Currently the US universities entry requirements for graduate schools are much much higher for international Asians (due to competition from China, India and South Korea), it is not enough to have just a perfect GPA/perfect GRE/etc.
I believe with some effort and guidance, Singaporeans undergraduates are able to produce some research that are publishable in undergraduate journals.
Actually, some such as Office of Sustainability Environment, Office of Estate and Development always have ad-hoc projects which need manpower/ students to do their work. Perhaps part of the CA/ UROPs can also come from that area?
UROPS are extremely competitive. Some science students get squeezed out in NUS. Alternatively, some science students can propose their own UROPs and see if they can get any supervisor interested in their research.
Would it be a good idea if some science students can get to shop around in polytechnics, SUTD and NTU if they cannot find any suitable projects? This would bring an exchange too.