National External Moderation Summary Report for 2008, Semester 2

Prescription: 560 Business Communication

Introduction

This report provides a national perspective on the moderation of 560 Business Communication.

Assessment materials from 21 Tertiary Education Organisations (TEOs) were moderated for this prescription.

Of the 21 submissions, seven submissions met the national standard.

Most of the 14 submissions that did not meet the national standard failed to assess all learning outcomes. Other common areas where the national standard was not met included:

assessments not at an appropriate level
unclear assignment instructions
inadequate marking schedules.

Presentation of assessment materials

17 of 21 submissions were complete, which greatly assisted the moderation process. Four omitted significant items including marking schedules and sufficient learner samples.

A few submissions included extraneous material such as internal moderation reports and extra learner samples.

Submissions demonstrated good practice when they:

contained all items listed in the moderation checklist, in the order of the list
included obvious dividers (e.g. a coloured page) between sections to guide the moderator
contained readable learner samples which were clearly labelled to indicate whether they were upper, median and lower quartile examples
did not include any unnecessary materials, such as internal moderation reports
were professionally presented, modelling such essential skills as clear layout, correct referencing in the required style, good spelling and punctuation, and correct addition of marks.

Assessment grids

The purpose of an assessment grid is to indicate in which assessment task the key elements are to be assessed, and the marks allocated for each key element.

A wide variety of assessment grids were submitted. While a small number were clear and accurate, some were cluttered with too much information. Others showed mark allocation at learning outcome level only. Many were wrongly calculated or were inconsistent with mark allocation in assessments.

Assessment grids should be clear, simple and exactly match the mark allocation in the assessments themselves, and need indicate only:

the marks allocated for every key element
the assessment item in which these marks are awarded
the weighting of marks for each learning outcome.

Learning outcomes

Learning outcomes indicate assessment outcomes and specify what learners need to know and be able to do. Key elements indicate assessment coverage and specify how the related learning outcome should be evidenced. Key element assessment evidence should be provided in the context of the learning outcome.

The main reason for submissions not meeting requirements was assessments not covering all key elements. The extent of this oversight ranged from four or five key elements to whole learning outcomes not being assessed.

TEOs can struggle to provide assessments which accommodate all key elements, without over-burdening learners with assessment tasks. Those who achieved this best had provided tasks which logically integrated several key elements, allowing learners to apply and demonstrate their understanding. For example:

an oral presentation on the subject of effective organisational communication strategies
a report on barriers to communication in the workplace, with recommendations for eliminating those barriers
letters and emails about meeting management, group dynamics, or legal issues
a group task to write a report about the use of emergent communication technologies in the workplace. The group also presents a reflective journal about their group processes, the influence of culture and perception on their group communication, their use of assertive and negotiation skills, and incorporating minutes and agendas from their meetings.

Level of assessments

Every learning outcome in the prescription states "Learners will demonstrate and apply an understanding of…". While a few submissions provided opportunities for learners to demonstrate and apply their understanding, many had an overwhelming focus on recall, particularly in tests and exams.

The use of realistic case studies accompanied by open questions encourages learners to analyse communication behaviours and to demonstrate their understanding through the relevant application of strategies and skills.

Assignments which involve primary research (such as interviewing real people in the workplace, or analysing real listening experiences) challenge learners and allow them to apply their skills in real situations. The use of reflective journals is helpful to encourage analysis and develop understanding.

Prescription weightings

A 10% aggregate variance is allowed in assessment weightings. That is, the percentage variation in total across all learning outcomes should not be more than 10%.

Most submissions included an assessment grid which showed that weightings were within the percentage variation. However, as many of these grids were inconsistent with assessments, prescription weightings were frequently at odds with the allowed variance.

As noted above, it is important to ensure that marking schedules award marks for all key elements integrated in the assessment.

Assessment conditions and instructions for learners

Assessment conditions and instructions were inadequate in almost half of the submissions:

instructions were frequently unclear, offering learners little or no guidance about expected style, length and presentation standards
many instructions were very brief, and therefore open to interpretation
some test and exam questions were ambiguous due to their complexity or grammatical errors.

Good assessment conditions and instructions include:

all conditions (for example, the due date, word count, expected referencing style and number of references expected, the time allowed if a test, and whether the assessment is an individual or group effort)
instructions in plain English explaining the task and how to approach it
a simple numbering system (for exams and tests)
explicit indication of how marks will be allocated, and which learning outcomes or key elements are being assessed.

Consistency with industry practice

The aim of this prescription is to prepare learners to apply communication knowledge and skills in the context of New Zealand and global business. Accordingly, the moderating team looked for evidence that learners were developing:

sound knowledge of mediated and unmediated interpersonal, group and organisational communication skills
understanding of the impact that emerging technology has on the communication process
knowledge of legal issues such as privacy, copyright and defamation
awareness of the influence of culture on the communication process
understanding of the importance of ethical practice.

While 12 submissions met this requirement, nine did not. The reasons for this included such things as:

non-inclusion of a consent form with report writing assignments involving primary research, to ensure all participants were aware of how gathered data and information was to be used. Some learners used company information and photographs in their reports – a breach both of copyright and privacy
suggested answers to assignments which were unrealistic and/or culturally insensitive
suggested interview questions which were at too low a level for a business setting
the use of unrealistic or inappropriate scenarios and case studies.

Marking schedules

While some submissions provided clear, detailed marking schedules, over half of the schedules provided were inadequate. Problems included:

marking criteria which were over prescriptive, and did not acknowledge that alternative answers may be possible
a lack of necessary detail to guide markers so that credit might be awarded consistently across a range of learner work
a lack of detail to guide learners so that they were fully informed of what the marker will be looking for
the allocation of a large number of marks for a task, with no breakdown to show how these were to be allocated.

Marking schedules should provide guidance as to what constitutes acceptable work, and allow for alternative responses where appropriate. They must:

state, clearly and without ambiguity, the acceptable standard for each aspect of an assessment task. This must include both the quality and quantity of work
show in detail how marks are to be allocated for that work
award marks fairly for the work that was requested by the assessor, and that is required by the prescription
contain sufficient detail that any user may reach the same conclusions about the standard of work to be marked
provide guidance for learners as they plan and undertake the work
state that alternative valid responses will be allowed, if these exist
award marks for all key elements integrated in the assessment.

Learner work samples

Learner work was checked for consistency with the marking schedule. If the schedule was significantly flawed, as noted above, it was difficult to make an informed judgment on marking consistency. In a few cases, some learners were awarded marks for what were clearly incorrect answers.

In some cases, learner work raised questions of authenticity but received high marks. Some learners demonstrated poor referencing – and in some cases, assessors requesting correct APA referencing did not demonstrate this in the course outline.

Conclusions

There were fewer submissions in this moderation round than in previous moderation rounds, as TEOs moved to the 400-600 series prescriptions. In the semester 1, 2006 moderation round there were 39 submissions for Business Communication compared with 21 submissions for this moderation round. It was noted that there was a slight improvement in the number of submissions which met the prescription requirements. As with the previous round, the quality of submissions was highly variable and this resulted in the high number of submissions not meeting prescription requirements.

Page updated: 16 June 2009