For the last 4 yrs, I have had an online quiz as my 1st assessment in my admin course. It is deliberately technical, precise and requires the readings
It has commonly had a 30% fail rate - because students hate details, & don't pay attention. I use it as a wake up call, reminding them that details matter - in admin law, & in practice (this is a final year course)
I have always allowed those who fail to take a sup for 50% max
As it is only worth 15% of overall grade, I have found the little bit of terror helps set them up for course, as they take everything a bit more seriously.
However, it has a slightly scary reputation, and does cause some stress. In normal circs this balance seems right
This year however, this approach seems deeply inappropriate -the last thing they need is any additional sources of stress
So this time, I initially gave them double the time to do the test.
Then I decided that sups now was a bad idea. So I allowed them unlimited attempts in over the weekend, with the highest grade stand.
The results have been striking. Yes, no one failed, and the average grade went from 58% to 83%. But, what struck me was the perseverance. On average students attempted the quiz 4.5 times. One student took 12 attempts because they wanted 100%.
When discussing afterwards students were excited - instead of a cause of stress it energised them. They reported how much they had learnt through the exercise. The repitition forced them to consider the details
I have had a bunch of emails thanking me - both for demonstrably considering their well-being and reducing stress, and for the format itself
Now this might all end up backfiring. With out the shot across the bows they may perform badly later. I will have to moderate later to avoid grade inflation.
But right now this feels like a real win (And we all need a few of those right now)
I am interested in your thoughts on this model (unlimited attempts etc), whether it undermines the integrity of the assessment regime, what message it sends, and whether I should look at continuing.
A 🧵 on managing expectations in #academia#highereducation (from my own painfully learnt experiences)
#AcademicTwitter, I accidently deleted my earlier popular pinned thread. I thought it was a good excuse to repost, but with some further reflections (older/wiser?)
These are tips that I wish I had learnt earlier - I hope they help a few of you struggling with the many demands of academic life in long, dragging #pandemic where academic life is increasingly under acute pressure and everything feels extra hard
In the article we examine the pivots to remote hearings our courts have undertaken, and probe the issues of public law and good judicial administration that arise with this shift. We also flag the opportunities for future reform presented by this profound cultural shift
The changes in judicial practices in the last 6 months have been profound - and there are as many challenges ahead as there are opportunities that have been created. This is a needed conversation for all those with an interest in judicial studies, practice and administration.
THREAD ON HIGHER ED: This wonderful article by Lynda Ng is a must read for anyone working in (or interested in) higher education in Australia. It exposes the fundamental misconceptions that have plauged the corporatisation of our Universites.
I look forward to hearing @AmeliaLoughland response to this - what a great thing for the work of young graduate to invite such a detailed response from leaders in empirical judicial studies t
This type of scholarship is still new in Australia, and we are still probing out the uses and limits of it. However, like all legal scholarship it should be discursive. The debate is enriched by disagreement and counter analysis
There appear to be methodological differences between the two studies- though this needs to be unpacked. It seems that most of the concern with loughland piece is that the sample was unrepresentative and that propositions went beyond the data.
Great #proudson moment today. My Dad is appearing in the @HighCourtofAus in the important native title case NLC v Quall - concerning native title, improper delegation and representative governance.
This cases has been a long fight for important principles of properly engaging traditional owners in decisions directly affecting their right.