Tuesday, April 04, 2006

criticism gone awry

today i shall critique the practice of essay-writing for 20-30% of a typical arts module's grade. to be fair, it's a pretty established standard of grading, with much proven results in its efficacy. however, various intrinsic problems do exist and these are often exacerbated by the extenuating factors unique to nus.

intrinsic problems
essay grading depends on subjective objectivity - i.e. the objectivity of one single marker such that this person represents the yardstick and determinant all rolled into one. the subjectivity stems from individual bias, assuming that the marker (if there's only one) is either a) not exposed to sufficient broadness in the field/module, b) holds personal prejudices/preferences where opposing views are pertinent, c) susceptible to moderating judgment based on personal relations (or the lack thereof) with the student, d) inordinately influenced by environmental factors (emotions, memory, fatigue, comfort, stress, etc) at the time of marking, or e) unable to "sufficiently understand" the expression used by the student. these 5 factors represent some of the more common pitfalls of subjective grading in general, but are neither exhaustive nor meant to be significant simply due to its multiplicity. each factor may exist in varying levels per different markers, though an objective way to measure these biases may not be possible thus far. put more simply, the marker's objectivity is often dubious and little transparent effort is invoked in most grading; whereas for instances of transparency, it is not standardised and may contribute to inter-module/field/faculty systemic biases.

whew. what a mouthful. just think about it... some markers are affected by the standard of the student's language (esp. in FASS) while others demand elaboration/conciseness all in one bite. another common problem is... that more often than not, it is more than one marker grading the papers. even when the marker's demands are understood, is that then an objective standard? of course, that's assuming that objective grading is desirable in the first place!

systemic bias, as touched on above, is an even more insidious problem with even lesser attention paid. what if faculties are getting disproportionate grades? but yea, i do see that this argument truly borders on being alarmist and unnecessarily sceptical. the only problem is that such doubts hang in one's mind until disproved.

extenuating factors
the most prominent one is the fact that we are doing an average of 5 modules per 13 week (lectures-tutorial) semester. essay questions are usually only released from the 3rd week onwards, where in any case most are not able to choose a proper question until more immersion in the module is properly acquired. deadlines are usually around the 10th-12th week, owing to administrative deadlines imposed upon the teaching staff. this equates to about 6-10 weeks at most for 5 essays (assuming each module requires one essay). the workload in itself is not necessarily asphyxiating, but most students are also called to participate in extra-curricular activities, i.e. hall stuff, society matters, church/temple, family commitments, part-time jobs, friends and lovers. coupled with most arts modules being only marginally related to each other (most departments do not offer sub-field specialisation) with an emphasis on broad-based learning, quite a lot of odds are stacked against us!

personal factors also play a large role. students are only nominally trained to do research for arts essays, while grading methods are not often availed to them. the lack of knowledge, skill, support, and confidence are very debilitating personal factors which often conspire to throw students into fits of absurd panic, wailing stress, and pitiable depression. are we trying to make these students feel worthless?

quid pro quo
so why go nuts for an institution that simply oppresses everyone indiscriminately? lecturers and tutors also have to sift thru mountains of material just to give us that non-descriptive grade. if grading is only more or less arbitrary, does it matter how much effort you commit to lit reviews or referencing? do you have confidence in a system that saps you of your own confidence? or are most of us happy robots willing to be ordered by a system that operates on misdirection, ambiguity, and superstition?

quid pro quo, students are not inclined to produce top quality work. surveys are often fabrications, and some of these "innovations" extend even to citations and so-called interviews. the lack of scientific objectivity in grading is leading to a parched social science academe. grading constitutes a major source of socialisation for aspiring social scientists as they learn about the intricacies of producing scholarly research. if they spend more time exploring the system's kinks and working the bell curve, are they still capable of studying what they set out to study? or have we become rational pragmatists in the game of deconstruction for exploitation's sake?

BUT! this critique does not represent a rejection of the system. just a long-winded lament for the countless hapless students who have been indelibly scarred by the ruthless hopeless impositions of society. yes, we are eulogised, so now let us march forth with valiant honour till we meet an untimely aneurysm. god save the undergrad!

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

whoo.. yeah man.. you just blogged out all that i've been feeling these past few weeks.. -_-!

take care dude.. something happened to your hard disk?!

alveolate said...

yeah... it crashed a few weeks back. haha. took me a while to get over.