Bella Reichard INTO Newcastle University

 Cross-module marking at INTO Newcastle University  Rationale for and benefits of cross-module marking  Potential problems and solutions  Case study: Can you get a good Subject mark with poor English?

 Pathway programmes on 3 levels: Foundation, Diploma, Graduate Diploma  Cross-module assessment on International Diploma in Business:  Semester 1 formative (Marketing, Essay)  Semester 2 summative (Management, Essay)  Semester 2 summative (Study Skills, Presentation)

 Authenticity of assessment (target use domain)  Directly reflects what has been done in class, making the assessment fair  Face validity for students to make explicit the importance/relevance of EAP provision  “demonstrates why EAP development is essential to pathway students’ overall learning and achievement” (tutor comment)  “One less piece of original work” (tutor comment)

 “I think the marks given by EAP teachers are quite pertinent. It shows my right level. With my English level improve I got a higher marks every time.”  “It is a good procedure as it enables the students to know our weaknesses and strengths in both subjects.”  “Although the criteria for each subject are different, but the joint marking assignment helps identify our strengths and weaknesses in communicating our answers. so that in future the mistakes could be avoid.”

 positive washback  EAP teachers know what subject teachers expect  Encourages dialogue between EAP and subject staff

 Avoid confusion about requirements  Difficult to disregard content or language  Subject and EAP criteria need to be complementary  not only different but also explicit in exclusions  “there will always be some overlap” (Tutor comment)

 Confusing feedback comments: “Structure very good and easy to follow” (Subject) vs. “Difficult to read due to poor structure” (EAP)  Joint feedback sheet?  to avoid contradictory feedback comments  Joint-marking on same script?  Problems: turnaround time Independence

 “I think it would be better if EAP has its own assignment, so students can focus more on the structure, language, etc.”  "The difficulty level of the task could influence EAP marks. For example, if the question is easy to answer, students could answer the question fluently, and the mind flow of the writing is easier for teachers to follow. But if it’s difficult, student may can not explain clearly, therefore, it could influence EAP mark.”

 “Is it possible to write a poor essay in excellent English or an excellent essay in poor English?” (Kerry Tavakoli, June 2014)  Is it possible to get a good subject mark with poor EAP, or vice versa?  Can we predict the subject mark from the EAP mark? Threshold?

EAP score

 Very low correlation coefficient (0.47)  Impossible to conclude one mark from the other  clearly different marking criteria  Some students: high subject mark with low EAP mark (incl. 4x “fail” in EAP and “merit” in Subject)

 Cross-module marking works in our context  Authenticity  Fairness  Challenges  Disentangle criteria  Ideas? Comments? Questions?

 If it’s possible to get a good Subject mark with a fail in EAP, is this unnerving for EAP? Are we teaching the wrong thing?  Not if Subject intentionally left out EAP criteria; would these essays get a good mark in “real life” (post-pathway)?  Can we predict the post-EAP Subject mark from the combined EAP and Subject marks?  Hold a joint study clinic with EAP and Subject teachers  Subject: mark for the premises (i.e. the content); EAP: mark for the argument structure built on the premises (i.e. what the student does with them)