20171003 – Grading guidelines – first draft

Project name: DEX 11-18

SPÅ 2901 Business Communication in English, intercultural

and ethical awareness (written).

Examination grading guidelines

SPÅ 2901 has just one assessment of student learning outcomes; the written exam at the end of the teaching semester. There are no pre-requisite or obligatory exercises (arbeidskrav) in order to qualify to take the exam.

1. SPÅ 29011 – The organization of the exam

The SPÅ 2901 is conducted in the following way:

  1. The exam is a 5-hour written exam to all students.
  2. It takes place on a single day at the end of the teaching semester.
  3. Students are free to take the exam from anywhere they wish to be on that day.
  4. The exam paper is made available to all students electronically at a pre-arranged time (9:00 am) through BI’s Digi-ex system.
  5. Students write their answers on a PC.
  6. Students are required to submit their written exam script within 5 hours (14:00).
  1. Student scripts are anonymous and are graded by two examiners independently of each other (one internal and one external).
  2. Once the proposed grades have been loaded into the BI Digi-ex system by the examiners, they conduct a discussion based on their notes from the grading process. This discussion must lead to a single, final grade for the script. In cases in which the two examiners cannot agree, the opinion of the external examiner is decisive.

2. SPÅ 2901: Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes[BM1] - overview

The exam tests the following three intended student learning outcomes:

  1. Application of intercultural theories to interpret communicative situations
  2. Application of ethical theory to decide what is right.
  3. Written communication skills in English.

The examiners wish to emphasize to students the importance of demonstrating their ability to apply the theoretical ideas which are presented in the syllabus material of the course. In the SPÅ 2901 exam, students will NOT be given credit for simply presenting theoretical ideas from syllabus in their scripts. They will only be given credit for presenting a theoretical idea if they are able to demonstrate to the examiners their ability to apply the idea in order to make plausible interpretations and analyses of communicative and ethical situations.

The examiners’ ambition level for students’ learning outcomes

The examiners consider the following points to be pertinent in their setting of expectations for the student learning outcomes:

  1. Expectations for student learning outcomes in tertiary education. The examiners note the guidelines (see appendix to this document) provided by the Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education (NOKUT) which among other objectives, expect that a student:
  2. has knowledge of important topics, theories, problems, processes, tools and methods in the subject area and
  3. can apply academic knowledge to practical and theoretical problems and explain his/her choices
  4. The ‘open-book’form of the SPÅ 2901 exam. Students are free to make use of all syllabus information and any other tools that they believe can support them in preparing their examination electronic script for submission. It would, therefore, be wrong of the examiners to award credit for presentation “of important topics, theories, problems, processes, tools and methods in the subject area.”This would amount to giving credit to students for a simple copy-paste operation.

Contextualized in the Bloom model of student learning, the SPÅ 2901 examiners expect students to demonstrate their ability to apply the theoretical ideas provided in the syllabus material in order to make well-founded interpretations and analyses. The reverse side of this expectation is that students who merely present “knowledge of important topics, theories, problems, processes, tools and methods in the subject area” will fail the SPÅ 2901 exam. [BM2]

3. SPÅ 2901: Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes - detail

In order to assess the two student learning outcomes,

  1. application of intercultural theories to interpret communicative situations and
  2. application of ethical theory to decide what is right,

the exam consists of two main parts: [BM3]

  1. Section 1- Intercultural communication (weighted 70% of the total grade). Candidates can choose between two essay questions.
  2. Section 2 - Analysis of ethical business issues (weighted 30%) based on one of the three ethical dilemmas in the syllabus. The candidates will be asked to write a letter or a report.

A passing grade in each of the tasks is required to pass. In reading a student’s exam script, the examiner will assess the candidate’s skill in applying theoretical ideas from syllabus in order to make well-founded interpretations and analyses. For each of the two parts of the exam, they will individually set a grade (A-F) for this intellectual content of the candidate’s examination script using the guidelines below.

SPÅ 29011 (2018-2019): Grading guidelines for intellectual content of exam script[BM4]
AOutstanding. Candidate demonstrates a thorough understanding of the course syllabus and is able to apply theory and concepts outstandingly well in both sections of the exam. Candidate uses relevant examples to clarify explanations, quotes sources, contributes own opinions and demonstrates original creative thought. If required by the question, the candidate is able to demonstrate (i) an ability to apply knowledge from the syllabus to the needs of the supposed reader, and (ii) an awareness of the reader’s needs and expectations. Arguments are organised clearly, and expressed logically and persuasively. The main points are clearly organized and well-balanced. Key terminology from the syllabus is applied with ease.
B Very good. Candidate shows a very good understanding of the course syllabus and is able to apply theory and concepts very well in both sections of the exam. Uses examples effectively to clarify and support claims and viewpoints. If required by the question, the candidate is able to demonstrate a reasonably good ability to apply knowledge from the syllabus to the needs of the supposed reader, as well as satisfactory awareness of the reader’s needs and expectations. The argumentation progresses logically, and ideas are expressed clearly. Candidate uses key terminology from the syllabus competently.
C Good. Candidate displays a good understanding of the syllabus and is able to apply theory and concepts with some examples relatively well in both sections of the exam . Certain of the main points are explained clearly, while others might lack information and support. If required by the question, the candidate demonstrates (i) some ability to apply knowledge from the course syllabus to the needs of the supposed reader, and (ii) some awareness of the reader’s needs and expectations. The argumentation progresses relatively logically, and ideas are expressed relatively clearly. Candidate displays knowledge of key terminology, but might not always use it correctly.
D Fair. Candidate is able to make use of key information from both sections of the syllabus on a relatively superficial level, but with little application. Writing lacks a clear structure, and the arguments presented may be difficult to follow. There may be too much information, or some of the information may not be relevant to the task. Limited support for the main ideas.
E Poor. Candidate does not appear to be familiar with key areas of the syllabus, and has difficulty discussing key topics convincingly. Points made follow no logical progression and have very little application. Relevant support is not provided for claims made. Candidate uses little key terminology from the syllabus.
F Fail. Candidate fails to answer the question or is not familiar with the syllabus (ie candidate either shows no knowledge of the central cultural terminology on the syllabus or no evidence of the context within the ethical dilemma in question), and/or what is written is ambiguous and /or irrelevant.

Once the examiner has set the grades for the intellectual content of the two sections, she will turn to the assessment of the third learning outcome:

  1. Written communication skills in English.

The examiners would like, once again, to point out the ‘open-book’ form of the SPÅ 2901 exam. Students are free to make use of any tools that they believe can support them in preparing their examination electronic script for submission. This reflects the situation in which they will find themselves when, as Bachelor-graduate students, they communicate in written English. As part of the learning opportunities provided in the SPÅ 2901 course, students have been able to practise their usage of the proofing facilities in Microsoft Word and the translation service in Google[BM5]. The examiners will expect, therefore, that all students, regardless of the accuracy of their written English, ought to be able to present an exam script of a good quality.

The examiners further note that in a communicative process, readers are most concerned to understand the intellectual content of say an essay or letter/report[BM6]. The quality of the written English only becomes a serious problem when it starts to seriously hamper understanding of the content. For this reason, the examiners’ evaluation of the written English in an examination script is limited to deciding how the intellectual content grades for the script might be modified (up/down) in deciding the overall grade for the script.

SPÅ 29011 (2018-2019): Grading guidelines for how the quality of the written English affects the overall grading of the exam script[BM7]
AOutstanding. Candidate writes effectively and with ease. Candidate’s writing in English is approaching native-speaker level. There are no, or only very few, basic usage errors. Few, if any, other usage errors and no evidence of first language interference in grammatical constructions. The effect of the written English quality considerably enhances the overall communicative power of the candidate’s script and in setting the overall grade for the script, the examiners will probably go up from the content grade.
B Very good. Candidate writes effectively and appropriately. Relatively few basic usage errors and only occasional evidence of first language interference in grammatical constructions. The effect of the written English quality enhances the overall communicative power of the candidate’s script and in setting the overall grade for the script, the examiners may go up from the content grade.
C Good. Candidate writes well, managing basic topics comfortably but with some difficulty with complex topics. Some basic usage errors and/or evidence of first language interference in grammatical constructions, but on those occasions they do not prevent effective communication.The effect of the written English quality neither enhances nor detracts from the overall communicative power of the candidate’s script and in setting the overall grade for the script, the examiners will use the content grade.
D Fair. Candidate writes fairly well. Occasional difficulty when discussing basic topics and general difficulty when discussing complex topics. Frequent basic usage errors. Evidence of first language interference in grammatical constructions which sometimes prevents the candidate from communicating effectively. The effect of the written English quality detracts somewhat from the overall communicative power of the candidate’s script and in setting the overall grade for the script, the examiners may go down from the content grade.
E Poor. Candidate writes with difficulty even when discussing basic topics. There is a high frequency of basic usage errors. First language interference often makes it difficult to understand what the candidate is trying to communicate.The effect of the written English quality detracts considerably from the overall communicative power of the candidate’s script and in setting the overall grade for the script, the examiners will go down from the content grade.
F Fail. Little control over even simple grammatical structures. Basic usage errors in most sentences. First language interference impedes comprehension to such an extent that it is difficult to follow what candidate is trying to communicate.The effect of the written English quality detracts so much from the overall communicative power of the candidate’s script that the examiners have to fail it.

Appendix

The following is taken from the Norwegian Qualifications Framework (NQF) which can be accessed at

Level 6 (part of Bachelor) University College Graduate:

A candidate who has completed his or her qualification should have the following learning outcomes defined in terms of knowledge, skills and general competence:

Knowledge / Skills / General competence
The candidate…
  • has knowledge of important topics, theories, problems, processes, tools and methods in the subject area
  • is familiar with research and development work in the field
  • can update his/her knowledge in the subject area
  • is familiar with the subject area’s history, traditions, distinctive nature and place in society
/ The candidate…
  • can apply academic knowledge to practical and theoretical problems and explain his/her choices
  • can reflect on his/her own academic practice and adjust it under supervision
  • can find, assess and refer to information and academic material and relate it to an issue
  • masters relevant academic tools, techniques and styles
/ The candidate…
  • has insight into relevant ethical issues relating to the field/ profession
  • can plan and carry out tasks and projects alone or as part of a group and in accordance with ethical requirements and principles
  • can present important academic material such as theories, problems and solutions, both in writing and orally, as well as using other relevant forms of communication
  • can exchange opinions with others with a background in the field and participate in discussions concerning the development of good practice
  • is familiar with new ideas and innovation processes

[ - ]

1

[BM1](1) This needs to be in alignment with the course description….

(2) Where do the Sedona-based aspirations belong in this process?

(1) From the course description: Learning outcome skills:

Students will be able to contrast and analyze cultural differences by applying the relevant theoretical frameworks within a business context. Furthermore, they will be able to provide ethical justification for decisions taken in business settings. In both cases the responses will be written in an appropriate, professional letter/report/essay-writing style.

[BM2]This is a really worrying prospect. However much we try, we will not succeed in changing student behaviour in just one semester. If we follow the letter of this guideline in December 2018, we will fail large numbers of students I think.

[BM3]Taken from current (2017-81) course description.

[BM4]3rd October – at this stage I have not made any changes to these ‘intellectual content’ grading guidelines…. but that will also be part of our discussions…

[BM5]This is something that we will have to provide – teaching materials. Any suggestions as to how we gear up for this are welcome…

[BM6]In a recent (21st Sept) note to the teaching group Andrew has, among several points, made a strong appeal for emails to be included as a format that students should be expected to master – discussion point for the group.

[BM7]This is my first attempt to draft a set of grading guidelines for the written English that reflects the discussion at Henley (see the final sentence in italics for each of the grades). Here are the notes from the Henley report:

Assessing effective communication in the new SPÅ 2901 digital exam

The hockey-stick approach has received some guarded approval from the team.

Action on Mark to mock up a draft of the SPÅ 2901 (2018-2019) Examination Grading Guidelines for circulation to teachers. Also, to sketch out the implications of these changes to the grading guidelines for learning activities.

Discussion point…