Dear Ms Roe,

 

I refer to your email of 30 October 2019. The University's response
follows.

 

1)  How many students who submitted the first assignment were given:
(1a) under 50% for that assignment.
14
(1b) under 40% for that assignment.

6

 

2)  How many students who submitted the second assignment were given:

(2a) under 50% for that assignment.

8

(2b) under 40% for that assignment.
4

 

“3)  Please can you tell me how many students (who submitted both
assignments, who sat the multiple-choice internal component, and who also
sat the exam) were failed for the course in that year.

4)  Please can you tell me how many of the students in 3 were awarded
passes for the core 3 papers for application to MBChB.”

The University does not hold this information in the form requested. Your
request is declined under section 18(e) of the Official Information Act.
You have the right to make a complaint to an Ombudsman about this
response.

 

Yours sincerely

Rebecca Ewert

General Counsel

University of Auckland

 

-----Original Message-----

From: K Roe <[1][FOI #11553 email]>

Sent: Wednesday, 30 October 2019 3:36 AM

To: legal <[2][email address]>

Subject: Official Information request - POPLHLTH101, 2015

 

Dear University of Auckland,

 

This is in regards to the course POPLHLTH101 in 2015.

 

Please can you inform me:

 

1)  How many students who submitted the first assignment were given (1a)
under 50% for that assignment.  (1b) under 40% for that assignment.

 

2)  How many students who submitted the second assignment were given (2a)
under 50% for that assignment.  (2b) under 40% for that assignment.

 

3)  Please can you tell me how many students (who submitted both
assignments, who sat the multiple-choice internal component, and who also
sat the exam) were failed for the course in that year.

 

4)  Please can you tell me how many of the students in 3 were awarded
passes for the core 3 papers for application to MBChB.

 

Thanks.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

A person in NZ,

 

K Roe

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.

 

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:

[3][FOI #11553 email]

 

Is [4][University of Auckland request email] the wrong address for Official Information
requests to University of Auckland? If so, please contact us using this
form:

[5]https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...

 

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:

[6]https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers

 

If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #11553 email]
2. mailto:[email address]
3. mailto:[FOI #11553 email]
4. mailto:[University of Auckland request email]
5. https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
6. https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers

hide quoted sections

Dear Ms Roe,

 

I refer to your email of 16 November 2019, in which you requested
information from the University of Auckland under the Official Information
Act 1982 (OIA). The following is a response to your OIA request and does
not address your extraneous claims about your studies at the University.

 

In relation to the POPLTHLH 101 course as currently offered by the
University:

 

“- Is blind grading employed (the grader does not know which student
submitted the assignment when they are awarding it a grade)?”

 

Blind grading is not used for POPLHLTH 101. I note, however, that POPLHLTH
101 tutors do not mark work submitted by students in their own tutorial
group.

 

“- How many times does the grader grade it (e.g., only once or three times
to see if they award it a different grade on each pass through)?”

When marking of an assessment commences it is not uncommon for lecturers
to mark the first say 10 assessments, and then go back and remark those 10
to ensure consistency across marking. For a large stage 1 paper like 101,
it is common practice for the course director, professional teaching
fellow  and the tutors on the course to mark a set of assignments (3-5)
independently and then come together at a special meeting to discuss how
they marked these  and why to develop a shared understanding about what
they are assessing and how they are using the rubrics.  Markers may also
consult with the Professional Teaching Fellow and/or Course Director about
any assessments they are unsure of throughout the marking process (2-3
weeks).  The Professional Teaching Fellow also reviews the marking of the
individual tutors' marking once all of the marking is completed to check
alignment with what was agreed at the meeting.

 

“- What is the process for checking different graders have employed
comparable standards across batches (e.g., the A's are similar between
graders, the B's are similar between graders)?”

 

All courses have an examiner and an assessor. The assessor reviews the
marking of assessments by looking at students with a range of grades (e.g.
3 in the lower grade band, 3 in the middle, and 3 in the upper grade
band). They will compare this against the assessment that has been set and
any marking guides or rubrics. They are looking for consistency and
fairness in the marking. They may make recommendations where they think
there are issues with consistency or  fairness and in discussion with the
course director/coordinator grades may be revised accordingly. This is
noted in the Assessors report for the course.  

 

"- What is the process for ensuring that you don't fail out students who
have previously demonstrated capabillity [sic] (e.g., at secondary school,
on previous arts and social sciences courses, perhaps on international
publications)?"

 

Every student's assignment is marked based on its merits, not the
student's prior academic achievement. Information about the support
offered to students is publicly available at
[1]https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/on-campus/...

 

Yours sincerely,

Rebecca Ewert

General Counsel

University of Auckland

 

-----Original Message-----

From: K Roe <[2][FOI #11553 email]>

Sent: Saturday, 16 November 2019 9:58 AM

To: Rebecca Ewert <[3][email address]>

Subject: Re: FW: Official Information request - POPLHLTH101, 2015

 

Dear Rebecca Ewert,

 

If the university does not hold this information in the form requested I
have very serious concerns about whether the University is keeping
adequate records of student progress / achievement.

 

In answering question 3 all you have to do is count up the number of rows
that sum to a total of less than 50 percent for the course and then count
how many of those rows have values other than zero for every column (for
the first assignment, second assignment, internal multi-guess, exam). 
That will tell you the number of students who did everything that was
required of them but the University decided to fail them out.

 

I want to know whether I was the only person to be prevented applying to
MBChB (and a good honest effort to irrevokably ruin my GPA thus preventing
further application) not because of performance on core papers, but
because I refused to attend meeting on demand that seemed more to do with
circumventing proper grading process than anything else.

 

Please can you tell the NZ public what mechanisms of accountability there
are on grading `language rich' `arts based' courses that are supposedly
for students who are capabe in subjects such as law, arts, and social
sciences?

 

- Is blind grading employed (the grader does not know which student
submitted the assignment when they are awarding it a grade)?

 

- How many times does the grader grade it (e.g., only once or three times
to see if they award it a different grade on each pass through)?

 

- What is the process for checking different graders have employed
comparable standards across batches (e.g., the A's are similar between
graders, the B's are similar between graders)?

 

- What is the process for ensuring that you don't fail out students who
have previously demonstrated capabillity (e.g., at secondary school, on
previous arts and social sciences courses, perhaps on international
publications)?

 

I understand that the POPLHLTH101 people think they are allowed to be very
particular in asking students to do very particular things only and
otherwise failing them.  My understanding of the University of Auckland is
that it is a top 100 University, however, and as such, I enroled under the
assumption that international standards on assignments and grading would
be employed.  I understand if students perhaps are not EXPECTED to meet
some of the higher demands of international scholarship.  It is, after
all, a first year paper.  It is another thing entirely, however, if
students are not ALLOWED to meet some of the higher demands of
international scholarship -- including those around freedom of expression
of original ideas.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

K Roe

 

-----Original Message-----

 

Dear Ms Roe,

 

 

 

I refer to your email of 30 October 2019. The University's response 
follows.

 

 

 

1)  How many students who submitted the first assignment were given:

(1a) under 50% for that assignment.

14

(1b) under 40% for that assignment.

 

6

 

 

 

2)  How many students who submitted the second assignment were given:

 

(2a) under 50% for that assignment.

 

8

 

(2b) under 40% for that assignment.

4

 

 

 

“3)  Please can you tell me how many students (who submitted both 
assignments, who sat the multiple-choice internal component, and who also 
sat the exam) were failed for the course in that year.

 

4)  Please can you tell me how many of the students in 3 were awarded 
passes for the core 3 papers for application to MBChB.”

 

The University does not hold this information in the form requested. Your 
request is declined under section 18(e) of the Official Information Act.

You have the right to make a complaint to an Ombudsman about this 
response.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

Rebecca Ewert

 

General Counsel

 

University of Auckland

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:

[4][FOI #11553 email]

 

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:

[5]https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers

 

If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

References

Visible links
1. https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/on-campus/...
2. mailto:[FOI #11553 email]
3. mailto:[email address]
4. mailto:[FOI #11553 email]
5. https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers

hide quoted sections

Dear Ms Roe

 

To clarify - for a large stage 1 paper like 101, when the marking process
commences, it is common practice for the course director, professional
teaching  fellow and the tutors on the course to mark a set of assignments
(3-5)  independently and then to come together at a special meeting to
discuss how they marked these and why, to develop a shared understanding
about what  they are assessing and how they are using the rubrics.

 

Once marking is complete there is a process of moderation where the course
director and/or the professional teaching fellow will review the marking
across the markers to ensure consistency. This typically involves randomly
selecting work with a high, medium and low mark from each marker. 

 

Throughout the marking and moderation process a marker is able to seek
support and additional review from the course director and professional
teaching fellow if they have questions about  marking.

 

There is no process whereby the course director instructs tutors on which
particular 3-5 assignments to mark and bring to the meeting, or algorithm
used to randomly determine which assignments are marked and brought to the
meeting. Quite commonly a marker will bring assignments that reflect a
range of marks e.g. low, medium, and high.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Rebecca Ewert

General Counsel

University of Auckland

 

-----Original Message-----
From: K Roe <[FOI #11553 email]>
Sent: Monday, 9 December 2019 6:51 AM
To: Rebecca Ewert <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Official Information request - POPLHLTH101, 2015

 

Dear Rebecca Ewert,

 

The year I sat the course the course convenor attended most of our
tutorials.  The tutor ended up taking very much of a back seat as the
course convenor took over explaning things and otherwise running /
managing the tutorial session.  I do not know if the course convenor chose
to conduct herself similarly in other tutors tutorials.

 

The course convenor also ran a number of extra help sessions whereby
students could go and seek approval from the course convenor as to whether
parts of their assignment should stay or go according to whether the
course convenor approved or disapproved of what was said.

 

Now I am being informed that the course convenor decides whether or not
the students work has 'merit' and that the decision on whether or not the
work has 'merit' is not the product of a blind grading process.

 

Q -- When people grade their 3-5 for the grading meeting - who decides /
what is the process for deciding which students will have their work
presented as 'ideal' and 'aspirational' (and perhaps which students will
have their work failed) in the 'special meeting'?

 

For example, does the course convenor instruct tutors 'present these 3 in
particular at the meeting' or is there an algorithm whereby students are
selected at random.

 

A person in New Zealand (a New Zealander),

 

Kelly Roe

 

Yours sincerely,

 

K Roe

 

-----Original Message-----

 

Dear Ms Roe,

 

 

 

I refer to your email of 16 November 2019, in which you requested 
information from the University of Auckland under the Official
Information  Act 1982 (OIA). The following is a response to your OIA
request and does  not address your extraneous claims about your studies at
the University.

 

 

 

In relation to the POPLTHLH 101 course as currently offered by the

University:

 

 

 

“- Is blind grading employed (the grader does not know which student 
submitted the assignment when they are awarding it a grade)?”

 

 

 

Blind grading is not used for POPLHLTH 101. I note, however, that POPLHLTH

101 tutors do not mark work submitted by students in their own tutorial 
group.

 

 

 

“- How many times does the grader grade it (e.g., only once or three
times  to see if they award it a different grade on each pass through)?”

 

When marking of an assessment commences it is not uncommon for lecturers 
to mark the first say 10 assessments, and then go back and remark those
10  to ensure consistency across marking. For a large stage 1 paper like
101,  it is common practice for the course director, professional
teaching  fellow  and the tutors on the course to mark a set of
assignments (3-5)  independently and then come together at a special
meeting to discuss how  they marked these  and why to develop a shared
understanding about what  they are assessing and how they are using the
rubrics.  Markers may also  consult with the Professional Teaching Fellow
and/or Course Director about  any assessments they are unsure of
throughout the marking process (2-3  weeks).  The Professional Teaching
Fellow also reviews the marking of the  individual tutors' marking once
all of the marking is completed to check  alignment with what was agreed
at the meeting.

 

 

 

“- What is the process for checking different graders have employed 
comparable standards across batches (e.g., the A's are similar between 
graders, the B's are similar between graders)?”

 

 

 

All courses have an examiner and an assessor. The assessor reviews the 
marking of assessments by looking at students with a range of grades (e.g.

3 in the lower grade band, 3 in the middle, and 3 in the upper grade 
band). They will compare this against the assessment that has been set
and  any marking guides or rubrics. They are looking for consistency and 
fairness in the marking. They may make recommendations where they think 
there are issues with consistency or  fairness and in discussion with the 
course director/coordinator grades may be revised accordingly. This is 
noted in the Assessors report for the course.  

 

 

 

"- What is the process for ensuring that you don't fail out students who 
have previously demonstrated capabillity [sic] (e.g., at secondary
school,  on previous arts and social sciences courses, perhaps on
international  publications)?"

 

 

 

Every student's assignment is marked based on its merits, not the 
student's prior academic achievement. Information about the support 
offered to students is publicly available at 
[1][1]https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/on-campus/...

 

 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Rebecca Ewert

 

General Counsel

 

University of Auckland

 

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:

[2][FOI #11553 email]

 

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:

[3]https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers

 

If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

References

Visible links
1. https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/on-campus/...
2. mailto:[FOI #11553 email]
3. https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers

hide quoted sections