comparative study between japanese & singapore national standards of assessment- presented at the...

7/28/2019 Comparative study between Japanese & Singapore National standards of assessment- presented at the NIE conference on Redesigning Pedagogy

1/30

National Assessment Procedures - A

comparison between Singaporean

and Japanese Standards, in

Engineering Degree Programmes

Sherin Banu, Acadamies Australasia

College, Singapore

Steve Jerrams, Dublin Institute of

Technology, Ireland

Masahiro Tanaka, Hirosaki University,

Japan


2/30

Criteria-Based Assessment

..fundamental judgments teachers make about

the quality of student work remain subjective

and substantially hidden from the students

view

D Royce Sadler, Griffith University, Australia


3/30

Two obligations for university lecturers to

meet:

1. To tell students clearly about the assessment

method and the weightings within it.

2. To provide timely and helpful feedback after

each assessment


4/30

Singapore and UK national universities

compared with Japanese national

universities

National University of Singapore-unambiguous and transparent system of

assessment.

Assessments tutorials, in-class assignments,laboratory tests, written phase tests and final

examinations similar to that in Japanese

national universities.


5/30

Assessment Components- Distribution

of Weighting

Assessment component different weighting,

totalling 100%. Different specialization in Engineering - varied

distribution of assessment components based

on learning outcomes and thereby varieddistribution of weighting.

The same assessment applies to Japanese

engineering programmes.


6/30

ASSESSMENTS & EXAMINATIONPROCEDURES IN SINGAPORE & UK

PROGRAMMES


7/30

Assessments & Examination Procedures inSingapore & UK Programmes

Assessments based on measuring Learning

Outcomes - moderated assessments.

Marking of completed assignments andexamination scripts second (and sometimes

third) independent & blind markingprocedures applied.

Marks distribution based on bell curvecriterion to obtain normal distribution.


8/30

Assessments & Examination Procedures inSingapore & UK Programmes

The entire system emphasises the need to setexaminations, assignments and assessments

that are pitched at the right level.

Guidelines advocate following Blooms

taxonomy to avoid discrepancies.


9/30

Grade Point System used in NUS

Relationship between Letter Grades and Grade Points

Letter Grade A+ A A- B+ B B- C+ C D+ D F

Grade Point 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.0

Formula to calculate CAP (Cumulative Average Point)

CAP = ( MCi x GPi) / ( MCi)


10/30

CAP & Honours Classification (2013)Honors Classification

Class of Honors CAP Cut-Offs

First Class4.5 and above, plus at least an A minus in theFinal Year Project

Second Class (Upper) 4.0 to 4.49

Second Class (Lower) 3.5 to 3.99

Third Class 3.2 to 3.49Pass 2.0 to 3.19

Fail Below 2.0

Source: NUS Student Information : CAP & Honours Classification (2013)


11/30

Feedback on the Grading system

Students are satisfied with the transparency of

the system. Feedback on student assessments provides an

opportunity for the student to improve.

Students are aware of the appeals procedure. Asked if the system needs improvement, little

or no changes were suggested.


12/30

UK and other foreign degree programmesoffered in Singapore Private Colleges

Double marking of examination scripts Continuous assessments are also double marked.

Internal exam board & external exam board

External moderator from parent university andanother moderator who is external to parent

university involved in the external moderation.


13/30

UK and other foreign degree programmes

offered in Singapore Private Colleges

Mark scaling may occur in case of identified

discrepancies. Extremely stringent or lenient marking by the

first marker, which may distort normal

distribution on the bell curve, is identified. Tedious process, yet, practiced by many colleges

for reasons of quality in that the grades finally

awarded to students are accurate and fair.


14/30

JAPANESE ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS


15/30

Japanese Assessment Systems

When the systems followed in Singapore and the

UK are juxtaposed with those followed in Japan, a

system that is behind in many respects and

contains in-built weaknesses can be observed in

the latter.

A uniform mode of assessment is rarely discerned

throughout the universities in Japan.


16/30


Similar to the UK and Singaporean

programmes; assessments are in the form oftutorials, assignment, laboratory tests,written phase tests and final examinations &weighting of the assessment varies dependenton the learning outcomes, but totals are100%.


17/30

Japanese Assessment SystemsObserved differences with UK/Singaporean model

Assessment criteria generally determined atthe discretion of individual academics.

Affects the grading process largely

inconsistent and ambiguous.

Examinations of a module are marked by the

teacher(s) who instruct the module.


18/30

Japanese Assessment Systems No moderation process, only single marking.

Marking results may vary among teachers - a

student in a cohort may be given a distinctionin one module marked by one marker,

whereas the same student may score poorly in

another module marked by another marker. Markers apply various marking regimes

consistent with their own experiences.


19/30


A further problem - marks can often be

extreme, i.e. either the majority in a cohortfail the module or over 50% of the studentsreceive the highest grades This anomaly iswidely recognized as a problem prevailing in

many Japanese universities (Amano 1999,Fujimura 2004, Nishiyama 2005, Tatematsu2008).


20/30

Japanese Assessment Systems No board of examiners highlighted in the

report entitled Toward the Creation of an

Undergraduate Curriculum.

In this report the Central Council for Education

in Japan (2008:26) identify that In our nations

universities, assessment criteria are assignedfully to individual academics, and systematic

methods of handling them are inefficient.


21/30

Reform The Central Council for Education in Japan

(2008:26) calls foran objective, systematic

method to evaluate learning with mutualunderstanding among academics that starts

with the introduction of the Grade Point

Average (GPA) system as well as theestablishment of assessment criteria and final

objectives for each module orsubject.


22/30

JABEE- (Japan Accreditation Board forEngineering Education)

Established to monitor and regulate the quality

assurance of Engineering education by

Improving engineering education

Guaranteeing the international reference of

engineering education and standardizing the

mutual accreditation of engineering-related

licenses with foreign organizations (MEXT 2007)


23/30

Qualitative System of Education Check points validate the system to ensure quality

education delivery

Comprehensive approach that shields the entire

system from weakness

At a more detailed level - examination results are

interrogated, without a moderation process thatensures the validity ofstudents grades, doubts arise

that students can be recruited at the appropriate

level based on their results from examinations.


24/30

Improvement planThe requirements of an improvement plan are

to emphasise:

The establishment of assessment criteria and

the clear statement of these criteria

The systematic follow-up check of assessment

outcomes

The participation of third parties to enhance

trust in these results


25/30

Improvement Plan

Masahiro Tanaka (2012) identifies a major

difference in the greater number of tests

taken by students in Japan by comparison

with students in the UK.

This makes an improved system difficult to

implement.


26/30

Challenges in Implementing the Plan A level III UK Engineering Degree student in

Singapore may take a maximum of three

exams and three assignments in a ten weeksemester.

Module assessments are set and moderatedevery term, where lecturers have adequatetime.

Limited assessment are set, nevertheless thelearning outcomes are fulfilled.


27/30

Challenges in Implementing the Plan A Japanese university engineering student

may have to take 15 different exams.

The module lecturer has to set all the phasetests, and the time lecturers spend in class isgreater than for UK counterparts.

With these difficulties in the Japanese system,implementing an improvement may be toodifficult unless there is a change in the basicframework of delivering education.


28/30

CONCLUSION


29/30

Conclusion

Comprehensively, all three systems of education

are qualitative in terms of the programmesoffered and in general curriculum accreditation.

Examining the outcomes of assessments, the

procedures followed by the UK and Singaporean

national universities have greater reliability and

have a far more robust structure.


30/30

Conclusion The system in Japan falls back on its culture -

Honouring system, where individual academics

are the ones who regulate the system, whichmeans that if there is human error, it may or maynot be identified.

Though change is required, it may not be easyand rapid because of the greater number ofmodules offered and hence the greater numberof assessments taken by the students.

comparative study between japanese & singapore national standards of assessment- presented at the...

Documents