Teaching and Learning > DISCOURSE

Assessment where there is no right or wrong answer: An Analysis of the use of Oral Presentations within the Religious and Philosophical Subject Area at the University of Derby, 1996-2002

Author: Eleanor Jackson and Philip Henry

Journal Title: Discourse

ISSN:

ISSN-L: 1741-4164

Volume: 3

Number: 1

Start page: 157

End page: 214

Return to vol. 3 no. 1 index page

1.1 Introduction: The Problem

The problem which this paper endeavours to address can be briefly stated as follows: how can oral presentations be best understood as an effective means of assessment in cases where there is no right or wrong answer?

While the use of 'viva voce' examinations to determine the grade of a borderline undergraduate student or the merit of a doctoral thesis is an accepted part of the traditional academic assessment process, the same is not true for the use of oral presentations as an integral part of coursework assessment. This use appears to be haphazard, or at best problematic, and little research has been done into the effects of sustained use of this method of assessment, whether in Religious Studies and Theology departments or any other subject area, as we will show. Further, although it can be argued that familiarity with the skills involved in producing undergraduate presentations prepares students for present day job interview situations, we have not discovered any analysis of the relationship between these obvious 'transferable skills' and the undergraduate assessment process1. The University of Derby appears to be no exception in this. Finally, although presentations as administered according to the University of Derby Combined Accumulated Modular System (CAMS) assessment criteria do not require direct presentation of an answer that is categorically right or wrong, the significance of this has not been analysed2. Yet this may prove to be the single most important aspect of the use of presentations, which illuminates the whole contentious issue.

This point can be illustrated by the fact that although much seems to have been written on the secondary problems of oral presentations, such as student group dynamics, oral communications, peer assessment and the appropriateness of summative or formative means of assessment, little has evidently been done to address this issue directly3. The exception is a brief qualitative study involving a literature search, a defining of terms and the problems of assessment by presentation, and then interviews with four theology students and four law students4. Certainly we are not aware of any study from within the context of Religious and Philosophical Studies. Even Sophie Gilliat-Ray, in her consideration of innovative teaching and learning methods does not ask whether material so imaginatively delivered should not also result in students been assessed by equally imaginative methods5. This leads to a further question concerning whether the content as well as the style of teaching in taught modules should influence the method of assessment, but to answer this question is beyond the scope of this article.

1.2 Background and Aims

The purpose of the study initially was to relate the theoretical study of the implications of the generic use of presentations as a means of assessment as found in the writings of educational theorists with the actual practice of presentations as a means of assessment where there is no right or wrong answer within the Religious and Philosophical Studies subject area. We had anecdotal evidence of lecturers in other subject areas abandoning the practice because of the difficulties encountered, difficulties which we will discuss in our conclusion both from the module leaders' viewpoints and the students' perspectives. By academic custom rather than from any educational theory, peer assessment of presentations was dropped in 1995/96 and sometimes hostile group dynamics discouraged its re-introduction. This problem is discussed by Phil Race (2001) in an analysis of the impact of presentations on Physical Science students, as one of the disadvantages of the system. In addition there is the traumatic effect of the experience on some students, the transient nature of the assessment if proceedings are not properly recorded and the lack of anonymity in marking which may highlight problems of eliminating subjective bias. Against this he sets the notion that the communication skills involved in ' . giving good presentations are much more relevant to professional competences needed in the world of work.' This includes the ability to present research material at future conferences, to develop interview skills and to work collaboratively.6 We also felt that there were great benefits in the system, and together with our former colleagues Professor Richard King and Dr Balbinder Bhogal wished to relate educational theory and critical reflection on our professional practice 1996-2002.

This point is reinforced by this typically somewhat negative comment:

Oral or viva voce examinations, though commonly used in professional and postgraduate assessment, are the subject of great concern to test developers and psychometricians. They have their attractions, but are subject to all the well-known biases and problems of selection interviews, and should only be used in the full knowledge of these problems and how their effects may be minimised. The new practitioner in higher education is counselled to beware of and avoid orals... 7

Clearly the successful use of presentations depends largely on the assessor's confidence in the system and their own abilities to administer it, something which may be grounded in their personality type rather than their theoretical knowledge. This may account for the fact that all philosophy and theology modules were and are assessed by examination and coursework and never by presentation. There is no logical reason why presentations should not be used. However according to the University of Derby academic regulations the mode of assessment must be balanced, all students should undertake a third of their assessment by examination and coursework, a third coursework only, and a third of modules with presentations. Assessment of coursework is weighted in such a way that the presentation mark never comprises more than 30% of the total module grade.8

After considerable discussion with colleagues, we defined the project aims as follows:

Although the study is embedded in practice at the University of Derby, we believe it has wider implications concerning the administration of oral presentations as a means of assessment. We also believe that although the use of presentations as a means of assessment where there is no right or wrong answer could be upheld as an example of 'best practice' professionally, there are aspects which could have been done better. This study is therefore a critical reflection on the system of oral presentations. We can also demonstrate that this assessment process meets the criteria laid down by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA). It locates assessment within the teaching and learning process in terms of the transparency of the process, promoting learning, measuring the attainment of learning outcomes, appropriateness to the student profile, level and mode of study, consistency and rigour of marking and proper internal and external moderation.13

2.1 Methodology: Reflective Practitioners

Essentially our inspiration and our methodology is that of the reflective practitioner, an approach which it was gratifying to find is supported by Light and Cox (2001), and perhaps more significantly, to find that their recommendations concerning the use of role play and group work in assessment largely coincided with our existing practices. They do not discuss presentations! 14 'Practitioner' is an appropriate term with which to embrace both a Senior Lecturer who organises presentations as a means of assessment and a research student who in his undergraduate days (1998-2001) experienced the full range of presentations in Religions: Culture and Belief.

The former first became interested in the role of presentations in the teaching and learning process when she was an Assistant Teacher in Religious Education at a large Birmingham Comprehensive School, (1970-71). About a third of the 11-14 year olds were not literate. Many had behavioural problems and probably undiagnosed dyslexia. Asking them to draw the answer created further problems for them, but role-play, performing sketches, singing, and even acting in a passion play transformed so many of them that it was clear oral work was of great strategic importance. Six years spent in theological education and ministerial formation in India (1979-86), in a culture where literacy had until recently been the preserve of the elite socio-religious groups, provided evidence of how oral presentations embedded in popular culture could empower students, especially those from non-professional backgrounds. They passed rigorous competitive examinations derived from a University of London pattern15, by soul-destroying 'swotting' and learning by rote, but oral work gave them opportunities for flair and imagination in exegesis and problem-solving as well as exposing them to peer assessment. Nevertheless a few women students may have been less participatory because they found it difficult to speak spontaneously in front of men16.

In contrast, when I was lecturing at the University of Göettingen, (student theological education in Germany 1982-3), the students' work involved summative assessment after six years' university education, including study of three classical languages. Likewise taking thirteen examinations in one week (June 1970) as summative assessment after two years' lectures and tutorials took a terrible toll on me.

Confronted with the system prevailing at the University of Derby in 1996, it seemed to me to be appropriate to develop it using the positive elements from my past experience to refine the use of presentations as a means of assessment where there is no right or wrong answer. This was my contribution to the revalidations of 1998 and 2000, in module reports and annual programme reports I began to monitor how successful presentations can improve students' self-confidence and self-esteem while improving their social skills in group work17, and encourage the diffident and dyslexic, as in Birmingham. I aimed to encourage students to be imaginative and creative in their presentations, if they wished, which led one colleague to comment that these games were all very well for future primary school teachers, but was not for future academics. I tried to give clear and precise instructions about the conduct and content of oral presentations and to do all I could to encourage mutual student support18. This experience fuelled the desire to find out whether presentations as a means of assessment really do empower marginalised students, as anecdotal evidence gleaned over six years as a programme leader suggested19. It is therefore to me a matter of some disquiet that in the QAA Code of Practice for Students with Disabilities, in a section headed by the statement, 'presentations are viewed as an appropriate alternative when a student is unable to take the normal means of assessment, an examination'.20 At the University of Derby presentations are a required mode of assessment for all students. Consequently in the reverse situation on two occasions I had to invoke the regulations for an alternative to presentations for two students with severe speech impediments.

2.2 Personal Perspectives: Assessed Practitioner

As co-author of this project I (Henry) bring to it two clearly definable views. Firstly as a former Combined Subject Programme (CSP) undergraduate within the Religious and Philosophical subject area at the University of Derby, I offer a personal reflexive account of assessment methods. Secondly as a current sessional lecturer and doctoral student within the subject I provide technological and methodological support for the project (delineated below) together with Dr Jackson.

My personal background to this research project is based initially in my former undergraduate studies in the CSP, which I undertook between 1998 and 2001. I came to the University as a mature student aged thirty-seven from a background in the public sector. I had personal experience of assessment methods in public service, designated as examination related assessment criteria, and practical assessment in role-play models where the criteria were based around the development of personal interactive transferable skills towards vocational training. I was a former instructor in the latter and part of the development team for ongoing training.

As an undergraduate I completed twelve modules in 'Religions Culture and Belief' (at level five and six), and these included a total of five modules with presentation assessment as part of the assessment rationale. Of the five, two were basic fieldwork modules and a third an advanced fieldwork module. The remaining two were in 'Hindu and Jain Ways of Salvation' and 'New Religious Movements'21. All of these were subject, in part, to assessment by presentation both individually (two cases) and as a group (three cases)22.

The modules taken during my undergraduate programme were influenced by a number of factors. As a mature student I felt a sense of self-consciousness at an academic level that I had not encountered for some years. It became apparent quite quickly that in order to complete the degree with the least possible stress I needed to plan a route that helped to cushion me from exposure to examinations. The rationale for this decision was based on a pre-conditioning to examinations in the nineteen seventies at both secondary and advanced level. These experiences reinforced feelings of insecurity in my ability (despite reasonable results), which helped to highlight an anathema for this assessment method. With one exception it was in fact in excess of twenty years since I had taken formal academic examinations and I was not prepared to risk the experience when alternative methods of assessment were available. This strategy did not however protect me entirely as I did take two examinations during the degree, at no major cost to my grades.

2.3 A Profile of a Typical Student?

I am, according to the QAA Subject Review Report of April 200123, typical of the student profile as described in the University's commitment to widening access to include those from diverse backgrounds (2000 /2001), " . [where] 72 per cent are mature students." My acceptance of coursework by way of written assignment and presentation in both individual seminar and group environments was fundamental to the decision making process when selecting modules. My experience of individual and group presentations outlined the need to take them seriously as a means to work in collaboration with my peers. It also identified the need to have a sound knowledge of the area presented in individual oral examination post presentation. Here I saw a definite advantage in interview and other oral examination situations for the future.

As a reflective researcher for this project I am in danger of succumbing to the insider-outsider research dilemma. However, as a case study in point, I have a valid, if somewhat unorthodox position from which to span the insider-outsider divide. As a former undergraduate with a contribution to make reflexively, I am also subject to the conditioning of the results of the findings described in this study. I make this statement early in my personal assessment of my own experience, as it is fair to say that to the best of my ability I have tried to offer only my personal reflections of the undergraduate experience, bracketing out (as best I can) peer experiences and related feedback. As Hufford 25 points out, " . reflexivity in knowledge-making involves bringing the subject, 'doer' of the knowledge-making activity, back into the account of knowledge." This sums up my position insofar as scholarship is an object of scholars, done by them, to them. The fact that all observations are made from somewhere supports the notion that " . all knowing is subjective." This is an issue Hufford makes clear in his discussion of reflexivity, in what he calls Belief Studies. I am aware of my awareness and reflect on that despite issues surrounding the research process that may colour my perceptions. The honesty of the endeavour is in an attempt to create reflexivity that is not mere self-justification but transcends that in search of a culturally specific human quality of knowledge, something which applies to both of us.

I devised a strategy for my degree programme that took into account the issues of presentations as a different medium of assessment to exams, the rationale being the useful outcome of presentations in developing communications skills and competence in interview and conference situations. In this I was not disappointed. My long-term aim was to find a career in academia and this was a sensible way (pace Race) to test my communications skills.

2.4 Further Methodological Considerations

The methodology adopted by us in this project therefore can be summarised as follows: firstly, we are 'reflective practitioners', either as an assessor or one of the assessed, and although we are only reviewing six years' practice, we bring to bear on the subject insights from much longer experience. The question is, to what extent can one ever completely 'bracket out' one's subjective impressions? Feminist academics argue that 'objective information' is a Cartesian illusion, since no comprehension of facts, no selection of them to comprise history and no presentation thereof is ever objective or 'academic' in the Oxbridge sense26.

We are therefore unapologetic about our advocacy of presentations, and we have heeded the comment of the External Examiner concerning the first presentations based on field experience in South India and do not penalise advocacy in students.

'The genre emerging as a result of the experience was distinctive. With feminist philosophers attempting to persuade the academy that personal reflections are part of academic analysis, I would be less inclined to be too critical of those who bubbled over with enthusiasm.'27

Secondly, we have taken note of the 'insider/outsider' debate, and we are writing about a system of assessment of which we have inside knowledge and experience, endeavouring to stand back and reflect on its strengths and weaknesses, in order that an 'outsider' can understand it. To overcome the issue of bias here we designed a questionnaire in order to obtain "objective" quantifiable data. However the 120 past and present students of the University of Derby who were sent a questionnaire about presentations are all 'insiders'. The 63 who responded were among those who had left a forwarding address with their programme leader when they graduated, or had subsequently asked for a reference or help in time of trouble. Quite a number of the students enclosed a letter of thanks for past help or sympathy concerning the impending closure of the subject area. These letters were swiftly removed so that the purpose of an anonymous response was not undermined.

We note that the limitations of the sampling process were further affected by the vagaries of the post. Even allowing for a percentage going astray, an appreciable proportion of former students appropriated the stamped addressed envelope for the reply. Telephoning a sample 10% of the students to ask if they had replied of course produced affirmative answers.

Since their memories might have dimmed even over the passage of a few years, their answers have been co-related with the anonymous questionnaires that students fill in and submit to their module or cohort representative on the programme committee. Unfortunately, the efficiency of this system varies enormously. Some diligent student representatives obtain 90-100% responses; others barely get 40% and relate oral complaints instead. We do not know if the 63 respondents also put in module questionnaires, though as not a few were module representatives, the presumption is that they did. Unfortunately the module questionnaire is generic to all modules and does not specifically enquire about presentations, only about whether students understood the Learning Outcomes. There is space for comment but this was never used to comment on presentations, but rather on a perceived chronic lack of resources or books, or absentee collaborators, or academic overload, which are factors in the preparation of presentations, as we will explain in our concluding overview. Specific letters of complaint have been received twice, once (February 1999) with regard to a module administered by two part-time lecturers who failed to ensure consistency and continuity, once (March 2002) by a student who complained that he had not been assessed by peer review. He also objected to the Jackson principle that as all students watch the presentations, no two groups in any given module may do presentations on the same subject as each other.

An element of outsider control and objectivity is provided by the rigorous system of internal moderation, with all presentations being recorded on videotape, and then in the case of group presentations, viewed by both the first and second markers before being sent to the external examiner together with feedback sheets and any accompanying handouts the students prepared. Until 1999 a short written submission was also required, and some groups submitted scripts, which it must be confessed were useful indications of who had prepared what, especially on the one and only occasion when a tape was mislaid, but which were never marked as such28.

Thirdly, the project is 'consumer orientated' It focuses on students' perceptions of themselves, their achievements, and what presentations were to them in terms of acquiring transferable skills, and so on. We also wanted to know whether students deliberately opt for presentations, following a cryptic statement in an Annual Report 'There is also some concern that unless there is a fair balance between varying modes of assessment, some students will seek to avoid examinations even though such modules may not be appropriate for future career paths.'29

The questionnaires, which are reviewed below, were designed to elicit basic information about the student's academic achievements, their personal identity, and their self perception with regard to ethnicity and disability. We also wanted to know why they chose a module with presentations and whether they were aware that the assessment criteria were predicated on there being 'no right or wrong answer.'

Fourthly, in constructing our research model we used the principle of 'triangulation' as a means of verifying the data. The analysis of the questionnaires will be balanced by statistical analysis of final year assessment profiles in order to establish whether Religious Studies presentations as part of 'coursework only' 30 enhance students' marks. We also wish to check the percentage of students occupying 'pathway changes', because we have evidence of students transferring into Religious Studies and then taking on presentation assessed modules as a way of completing their degree, as presentations are perceived to be easier. A pathway change is usually made because of changed career plans necessitating different qualifications. However, it may indicate a 'fail and terminate' student. In recent years the Religious Studies department has become famous for turning round these students to success. We have taken the profiles of an equivalent number of students to the number responding, but as everything is anonymised, we cannot say in all cases that there is a profile to match the questionnaire's finding. Also, since results are only kept for three years after a student graduates, I only have 1999-2001. We decided it was unethical to use 2002 results. Additionally, a significant proportion of students had deferred coursework, and may not have graduated in 2002. The issue of progression is discussed, but Religious Studies students have a better progression rate than the Combined Subject Programme norm given here.31

3.1 Presentation as an Assessment Method: The Research Strategy

As outlined above the research methodology follows traditional lines in offering a framework not uncommon in social science research, where the research question is influenced by the purpose(s) for it and the supporting theory. In turn the questions influence the methods adopted and the sampling strategy.

The research strategy is fixed as essentially quantitative, being based on the breakdown and analysis of the figures attributed to the University of Derby's Combined Subject and Specialist Programmes taken from annual review and QAA figures, which are stand-alone documents with academic credibility. The use of these is in presenting an overview and student profile breakdown reflecting the sociological makeup of CSP at Derby, relative to gender, age, ethnicity and disability. The overview is an indicator of the background, when comparing these figures in terms of student population, against the sample to which a formal questionnaire was distributed (see appendix 1).

3.2 Background to the Research Sample

The sample to whom the questionnaire was distributed comprised one hundred and twenty students (120) accessible to the researchers as outlined above. The profile of the group canvassed comprises 88 CSP students (73.33%), 27 Specialist degree (SD) students (22.5%), and 5 Development Studies (DS) students (4.17%),32 Of the surveyed sample 26 (21.6%), were male and 94 (78.33%), were female. There were 67 (55.83%), mature students of which 17 were male, and 50 female. Ethnic minorities numbered 33 (27.5%). Disabled students numbered 21 (17.5%) of whom 18 were female and 3 male. The number available is from a total potential population of undergraduates of four hundred and seventy eight (478) enrolled in Religious Studies between 1996 and 2002, in both the specialist degrees and CSP degree programmes. Reverting to the question of the success of students completing both CSP and Specialist degree, these high academic standards are highlighted by the external examiners, who identify the quality of degree results by non-standard entry, mature students and students with relatively low A level points score. Between 1998 and 2001 18% of foundation/access students gained firsts, 54% upper seconds, 25% lower seconds, and 3% continue on the programme. Overall 62% of all students completing programmes find employment or go on to further study.

3.3 Combined Subject Programme: Statistical Indicators

Having briefly delineated the potential CSP and specialist degree population we will briefly reflect on the much larger total CSP population of which, Religious Studies (RS)34 is only a part. This is however an interesting indicator by comparison with the smaller sample within RS at Derby. This snap shot is by way of orientation to the lager student background. Comparisons can be made between the macro and micro relative to gender, age, ethnicity and disability. Taking the annual report for 1999/2000 as a snap shot of CSP population, it acts as a reasonable indicator of the overall CSP provision from 1996. There are few important changes statistically. Total CSP numbers for 1999/2000 are 2118. The average gender split across all three undergraduate stages (4, 5 and 6) is 63% female, 37% male. The ethnicity breakdown identifies white 75%, Afro-Caribbean 4%, Asian 13%, Chinese <1% and other 7%. This shows a slight increase in Black [all] +2%, Asian [all] +3%, since 1996. Disability figures reflect Dyslexia 3%, deaf/hearing 1%, blind/partial sight 1%, not listed/unspecified 5%, other disability 2%, giving a total disability figure of 12%. Age on entry reflects students under 21 at 72%, and those over 21 at 28% with <1% unknown. 83% of students completed or continued at level 6 compared with 86%, 88% and 91% in the previous three years. This is identified in the table below, fig. 1.

Overall CSP Indicator % (1999-2000)

Figure 1
%Gender Ethnicity Disability Age
Male 37 Female 63 White 75 Afro-Caribbean 4 Asian 13 Chinese <1 Other 7 Dyslexia 3 Deaf 1 Blind/Partial 1 Unspecified 5 Other disability 2 Not disabled 88 <21: 72 >21: 28
Total 100% 100 100 100

 

The figures in the table above can be compared to the student entry profile for both BA/BSc Religions: Culture and Belief (CSP) and specialist BA degree students (SD) within the Religious and Philosophical Studies subject area. These figures are taken from the entry characteristics of students for 1999-2000 of the QAA Subject Review and show significant differences in the two populations. Figure 2

Gender CSP SD Ethnicity CSP SD
Male Female 28 72 29 71 White Asian Afro-Car Other 73 18 2 7 72 14 0 14
Total 100 100 100 100
Disability CSP SD Age CSP SD
Dyslexia Deaf Blind/part Other 7 0 0 11 3 0 0 9 <21 >21 48 52 43 57
Total 18 12 100 100

 

The comparison of both the larger total CSP population (fig. 1) and the smaller RS (CSP and SD, fig. 2), reflects proportionately higher levels in the smaller group (fig. 2) in ethnic minorities disabled and mature students. Ethnic minorities (fig. 2) are 27% CSP and 28% SD compared to the total CSP population (fig. 1) of 25%. Disabled students (fig. 1) are 12%, compared to 18% CSP and 12% SD (fig. 2). In terms of age, students (fig. 1) are 72% under twenty-one and 28% over twenty-one whilst figure 2 shows 48% under twenty-one and 52% over twenty-one CSP and 43 and 57% respectively SD. This indicates 24% more mature students in (fig. 2) CSP and 29% more mature SD students, than the equivalent age difference reported in the larger population CSP (fig 1). The snapshot of SD students in Religious and Philosophical Studies either in the BA (Hons) 'Religions, Social and Cultural Studies' or BA (Hons) in 'The Study of Religions' offers a less balanced picture than that of the larger CSP entry, simply because the specialist programme students are small in number and stand alone in the subject area. They do not form a micro part of a larger macro picture and cannot therefore be compared to larger indicators. Despite this it is important to have an overview of the student profile in the specialist degree area within RS at Derby, as a proportion of SD students are respondents to the questionnaire circulated, which is analysed later in this report. The figures in the specialist snapshot are also taken from the annual return of 1999-2000.

3.4 The Pilot Sample

The methodology describing the sample surveyed by means of a questionnaire is outlined above. Twelve questionnaires were administered as a pilot sample on 12 July 2002, when a number of the then second year students and most of the Derby graduates who are MA Religion in a Plural Society students participated in a day conference entitled Religion, State and Society in the Colonial Era. This was in order to test out the questions for suitability, rather than the answers, but as a discrete sample the results might have been influenced by the fact that at the end of the conference a senior student gave a solo presentation as required by the module she is taking, Advanced Field Experience (Jamaica 2002), and a number of the students were there to support her. The group was also not representative in that the interaction of religious traditions in India and Africa in the colonial and post-colonial periods is only one of the specialist interests of the Religious Studies subject area. Therefore the answers were subsumed into the total sent.

3.5 The Survey Sample

It is important to reflect here on the usefulness of the surveyed sample in relation to the wider CSP population as outlined. Clearly the sample surveyed was a non-probability sample, in that it was not carried out by either random or systematic sampling. This was not possible given the researchers' inability to trace all members of the total population of CSP students within the Religious and Philosophical studies framework. The accessible sample became the one hundred and twenty former CSP and SD students who were traced from 1996 to 2001. The longitudinal time frame however only produced a sample from 1998 to 2001. The 'rule of thumb' for sample size proposed by Mertens (1998) 1 as fifteen participants per variable is satisfied within the context of the survey sample. The survey questionnaire is both descriptive and explanatory and seeks to clarify a valid relationship between attitude and behaviour of the participants involved. The nature of the survey sample leans towards 'purposive sampling' in that Dr Jackson's judgement in choice of participants is wholly based on typicality of interest of the participant. This is an issue discussed by Robson2, who claims, " . they tend to be used in situations where probability sampling would not be feasible." This can be seen to be the case where all the participants, as in this case, are of a particular type, i.e. CSP/SD students and former students all of whom have taken modules in Religious and Philosophical Studies. With this in mind the analysis of the data from the survey can be seen to be useful in making co-relational assumptions about the sample surveyed. The wider population is useful as a means of descriptive comparability as opposed to a specific statistical generalisation that may follow from a random sample. Despite the difficulties in locating the total RPS population, I would argue that the survey is formalised with 'typicality' in mind making it more significant than a convenience sample. The potential survey sample after piloting was 120 CSP/SD students (former and current) these having been circulated with the survey questionnaire (appendix 1).They responded by returning fifty-five (55) of the original one hundred and twenty (120) by the given deadline. Eight students replied late, they are therefore not part of the formal analysis, but are included as an indicator in a postscript analysis (see section 5.2). It was felt that to ignore the late returns was unacceptable hence the postscript completed after the statistical analysis. The working sample from which the following analysis is produced is from a total of fifty-five (45.83%) returned questionnaires of the original one hundred and twenty (120 = 100%) canvassed3. The immediate problem of the non-respondents means that it is not possible to account for their views in the research and no attempt will be made to imply probability to this lack of response. I maintain that the nature of the research as outlined will still hold significant validity within the existing framework. The statistical analysis of the surveyed sample was carried out using SPSS version10.5 and will go so far as to produce frequency tests relative to the numbers of respondents involved and a percentage breakdown of those numbers. This method produces tables relative to frequency of individual variables derived from the questions in the questionnaire. Specific cross tabulation and chi square tests will follow in order to address the aims of the study and address the significance of related questions from a statistical perspective. The statistical analysis reflects directly on 'alternative forms of assessment' including the hypotheses that presentation as a form of assessment empowers students, and generally raises standards compared with essay and examination grades.

4.1 Analysis of the Questionnaire

The surveyed sample answered a questionnaire (appendix 1) designed in three parts, with a total of twenty questions. Questions one to five deal with 'Academic Details', six to ten with 'Personal Details' and eleven to twenty with the 'Analysis of Presentation Experience'. The twenty questions were subsequently broken down into thirty-seven individual variables when subject to input by SPSS. I will describe the variables and the frequency test results which give numbers of respondents and valid percentage figures for those numbers. Any missing values throughout the analysis are the result of a respondent failing to answer a question or part thereof (variable). Part one of the questionnaire deals with the following five questions (Q)

: Q.1 The year respondents entered level 2 (5); Q.2 The numbers of years studied; Q.3 Full time or part time students; Q.4 Pathway or programme change at level 2 (5) or 3 (6); Q.5 Type of student (Religion Culture and Belief (RCB), Specialist Degree (SD), Development Studies Student). There are five SPSS frequency charts reflecting the figures from part one which can be seen as 'Appendix 2' attached. Part two addresses questions six to ten: Q.6 Gender; Q.7 Ethnicity; Q.8 English as mother tongue; Q.9 Language (BBC, reasonable grammar, regional dialect); Q.10 Disability (a. Physically disabled, b. registered disabled, c. dyslexic, d. dyspraxic). The ten SPSS frequency tables reflecting questions six to ten are attached as Appendix 3. Part three: questions eleven to twenty deal with the analysis of the 'Presentation Experience'. Q.11 Experience of assessment by group presentation (a. transferable skills, b. vocational skills, c. academically satisfying, d. be more imaginative/creative); Q.12 Why choose modules with presentations (a. interest in subject, b. test vocational skills, c. professional requirement, d. like lecturer's style, e. avoid examination module); Q.13 Ease of relating learning outcomes to assessment in collective presentations; Q.14 Find assessment fair; Q.15 enjoyment of presentations; Q.16 In New Religious Movements (NRM) was the same grade to all in the group, fair? Q.17 If part of validation change (in 2000) was removal of written submission fair? Q.18 Which group presentation did you prefer? (a. open sandwich, b. inter-active, c. illustrative drama) Q.19 Problems encountered (a. finding resources, b. uneven division of labour, c. finding time to meet, d. un-cooperatives or absentees, e. inadequate tutor support); Q.20 realisation of presentation with no right or wrong answer? The 22 remaining frequency tables covering questions 11 to 20 are attached as Appendix 4.

4.2 Sample Survey: Summary

The response to the questionnaire across all questions averages a mean response of 93.96%. This figure takes into account the lack of response to question 16 on 'New Religious Movements' (50.9%), and a similar non-response, to question 17, (43.6%). If this lack of response is removed the mean response increases to 96.62%.The student profile reveals 89.1% of the sample were full time students. A third of which (32.7%) changed their pathway after entry at level 2 (5). The gender division is males, 21.8%, females, 78.2%. This shows a disproportionately lower incidence of males compared with the CSP population of 37% overall (see fig. 1), and 28% males in the total Religious Studies programme (see fig. 2). It also shows a higher incidence of females in the sample compared with CSP 63% and RS 72%. Ethnically the sample surveyed is made up of 16.4% ethnic minorities in total, compared with a CSP population of 25% and RS population of 27%. The lack of an age related question in the surveyed sample does not allow for an analysis of students in terms of maturity. The figures for mature students in the canvassed one hundred and twenty students who were sent questionnaires was 55.83% mature (over 21) and 44.17% (under 21). Approximately 50% of returned questionnaires from the total sample of 55 analysed were from mature students, although the survey questions do not reflect this information. The survey reflects a student type of 60% Religions Culture and Belief, 29.1% Specialists and 7.3% Development Studies students. The figures do not however reflect the individual student pathways as affects the RCB students. The average CSP pathway representation is 35% Major, 43% Joint and 22% Minor pathways. The level of recorded disability according to the surveyed sample is 14.55%, compared with the larger CSP population of 18%. The sample shows a high proportion of dyslexic students at 10.9%. The 'Presentation Experience' reflects a high proportion (89.1%) of students who see the experience as a way to develop transferable skills. The testing of vocational skills for the future was also highly regarded, with 72.7% of respondents acknowledging this. The process as a way to be more imaginative and creative gained an 85.5% positive affirmation and presentation as an academically satisfying experience was agreed by 69.1% of respondents. This explains why there was no adverse criticism found on the module questionnaire forms except with regard to resources and attendance, as noted above. The reasons for choosing presentations are clearly supported in the interest of subjects in a module for its own sake, where 89.1% of respondents agreed. The style of the lecturer figured in the positive affirmation of reasons with a small majority of 56.4%. The teaching requirement was seen negatively by 70.9%, as was the avoidance of examinations by the same figure. This left a negative response also, to the testing of vocational skills with 58.2%. Despite the same question receiving a positive affirmation under question 11(b) as an experience, it was not considered by the sample as a prime reason for choosing presentation. This is not entirely consistent with the answers to 11 (b). The respondents' understanding of assessment methods using presentations saw 74% respond positively. Similarly an overwhelming 89.1% saw the assessment methods in relation to presentations as fair, and 69.1% saw presentations as enjoyable. The most highly favoured method of presentation being the inter-active style supported by 60% of respondents. Question 12, asking respondents to reveal any problems encounted in their experience of presentations revealed few problems with finding resources. Over half the sample (58.2%) had problems with a division of labour in group events and a similar number found absentee and un-cooperative students problematic. Very few (7.3%) had problems with tutors. The vast majority (70.9%) of respondents did not know that the assessment did not involve a right or wrong answer. This may be indicative of the student mind-set and culture in appreciating the possibility of an alternative. With this in mind it is unlikely that the participants were biased in any way towards presentation as the majority would hold a belief that they were as likely to present the presentation wrong in assessment terms, as they were right.

4.3 Cross-tabulation and Pearson Chi-Square Analysis

Having analysed the frequency (number) of respondents in the survey and their associated percentage figures relative to the questions asked in the questionnaire, the following section will use that information in asking questions of the researched sample based on statistical significance of a chi-square analysis. As the levels of respondents is small in the surveyed sample there is no attempt to take the significance levels further as it is not anticipated that such a set of results could be equated to a population beyond that of the larger CSP population described in this report. The analysis will use 'gender' and 'type of student' (RCB, SD or Development Studies) as a constant when addressing other variables such as ethnicity, disability, experience, reasons and problems encounted. The associated tables are displayed as appendix 5, attached. Some of the fundamental questions identified within the study thus far reflect the need to look closely at why presentation was chosen, and how the experience of it was both positive and negative. Are disabled, including dyslexic students empowered by presentation methods of assessment? Do ethnic minorities find language problematic in a presentation scenario? Are mature students pre-disposed to presentations as an alternative method of assessment to examinations? Or is that assertion relevant for other definable groups making up the surveyed sample and the larger CSP population? It is hoped that by analysing these and other emerging questions this study will go some way to provide a positive reflection of presentation as a significant example of professional 'good practice'. Firstly, I will address the question of presentation as a medium for transferable skills. I have used the crosstabs test relative to 'gender' and 'student type' to include 'transferable skills' as part of 'presentation experience'. The case summary, cross-tabulation and chi-square test set out in appendix 5 (a) are typical in analysing specific questions of two by two tables with a layered variable. This format will follow similarly with some of the following queries testing other research questions. The question set up by the test looks at the confidence levels of the sample across gender and student type when addressing transferable skills as a presentation experience. The cross-tabulation reveals only 2 males (RCB and Dev Studies) and 5 females (1 RCB, 3 SD, and 1 Dev. Studies) answered 'no' to transferable skills as their experience of presentation. The positive response, 'yes' to the same question was given by 9 males (4 RCB, 3 SD, and 2 Dev. Studies) and 38 females (27 RCB, 10 SD, and 1 Dev. Studies). The resulting chi-square statistic shows an asymptotic significance (2 tailed) of 0.082 for the negative answer. A significance less than 0.1. The positive test 'yes' however, shows a significance level of 0.071, less than 0.1, giving a confidence level of approximately 93% in the test. This is a more acceptable level given that the removal of the development studies count of 2 would increase the significance level closer to 0.05 without affecting the overall positive relationship to the question. There is therefore an association between the gender and student types and their belief in transferable skills being attained by presentation assessment. The majority of females in the survey slightly skews the gender question; however nine out of eleven males is an overwhelming majority and tends to show that the vast majority in both genders saw presentation as essential in transferring skills. The chi-square test 'dyslexic: why presentation' reflects the significance levels of dyslexic students avoiding examinations in modules, which by inference may support their use of presentation as an alternative. Despite small numbers of dyslexic students in the test, the total of six (10.9%) of the sample is high nationally. Of those six, one failed to answer the exam avoidance question. The remaining five were split. Three would avoid exams, and two would not. The uncertainty of the one missing answer is indicative of the difficulty of a dyslexic person's dilemma in choosing to sit exams or take a presentation as an alternative. There is however, due to small numbers, only anecdotal evidence to support this. The significance can be seen in appendix 5 (b) together with a cluster bar chart. The chi-square result shows a significance level of 0.073, less than 0.1. It is acceptable to report an association between dyslexic respondents and their taking of examinations, despite 50% of cells with an expected count less than 5. This cannot be avoided due to the small sample involved. A larger sample may have tended towards avoiding examinations if you are dyslexic more significantly. This however is anecdotal. The notion of empowerment is an essential part of this research project. A particularly relevant area in which to look is that of language, an essential ingredient in any oral presentation. The following cross-tabulation and chi-square results identify language as it is described by the respondents. The cross-tabs and chi-square tables are attached at appendix 5(c). The test views language in the questionnaire as either of a 'BBC standard', 'reasonably grammatically correct' or of a 'regional dialect'. The associated questions put to the sample (which is language related), reflect the use of language to include ethnic minorities and the issue of English being a respondent's mother tongue. The hypothesis being tested here, asks 'do language difficulties adversely affect a respondent's decision to choose a module with a presentation as a form of assessment'? The cross-tabulation of language as affected by ethnicity reflects language of a regional dialect, and how that relates to both ethnic minorities and those whose mother tongue is not English within the sample. Conversely it also identifies those who are not ethnic minorities and how the question of English not being one's mother tongue relates to them. On the question of regional dialect, 34 claimed not to have one, and 18 believed they did. Of those that had no dialect, 27 were not ethnic minorities, and 7 were. Of the ethnic minority group 3 claimed English was not their mother tongue and 4 said it was. Of the 18 claiming a regional dialect 16 were not an ethnic minority group and 2 were. Of the 2 who were, 1 claimed English was not the mother tongue and the other that it was. This same set of variables was tested against the other two language variables, 'BBC' and 'reasonable grammar'. The levels of significance associated with the test are high in the positive responses to the regional dialect question addressing ethnicity and the use of English as the mother tongue. The p value 0.004 is reflected in the responses as an asymptotic significance, showing a better than 95% confidence level in the association of language, ethnicity and mother tongue. The same can be said of the other two associated language tests. The 'reasonable grammar' chi-square result had a p value 0.002 in the positive response, showing similar high degrees of confidence in the association. The values for the 'BBC' question were 0.009 in the positive responses, verifying the association and rejecting the null hypotheses. The total number of respondents who claimed to have BBC English was 14. Of that number 9 were not ethnic minorities and 5 were. Of the 9 who were not, all 9 claimed English as their mother tongue. Of the 5 ethnic minorities with BBC English, 3 claimed not to have English as their mother tongue and 2 said their mother tongue was English. The total number of ethnic minority students in the sample was 9. Of that number over half (5) claimed BBC English, and 4 did not. All chose presentation as a means of assessment demonstrating the possible association between the type of language of the student and the ability of that language to empower a decision to use it in presentation assessments. Empowerment through language in presentation is applicable to both a majority of the ethnic minority sample, and over half of the non-ethnic minority group sampled, the majority of whom were non ethnic without a regional dialect and had English as their mother tongue. Presentation as a means to challenge a lack of self-confidence is addressed in appendix 5 (d). The non-ethnic minority group is split 24 to 21, 53.33% in favour of it being a challenge to a lack of confidence, while the 9 in the ethnic minority sample are divided 7 in favour, 2 against a challenge to a lack of self-confidence. The ethnic minority divide is 77.78% in favour of presentations as a challenge to a lack of self-confidence. Part of this analysis, as described earlier, necessitates a closer look at the number of respondents who would use presentation modules in order to avoid those which contain examinations as a more traditional form of assessment. This has been reflected in dyslexic respondents, and can be seen as part of appendix 5 (e) attached, as a sample using gender. The number that responded to this question was 53 out of 55, with only two missing who failed to answer. The majority 39 in number (70.9%) did not avoid examinations to take a presentation-assessed module. The subsequent chi-square analysis does not find any statistical association between these variables, and thereby supports the negative assumption of the majority in relation to this question. The fact that this example reflects across all respondents by gender does not detract from other groups within the sample, like dyslexics or ethnic minorities, that may reflect a different outcome in their treatment of the examination question. The clear indication is that students (according to their own accounts) do not take modules with presentations in order to avoid examinations.

5.1 Module Analysis

The CSP modular system in place at the University of Derby accredits RS students with module grades attained as part of a degree programme. In reviewing the grades and modules made up of presentation, course work and examination assessments it is hoped that a snapshot of the RS population over the preceding six years will reflect a method of analysis that can compare RS module grades with those in their other CSP subject areas. The availability of modules depends on the availability of staff and student choice; therefore not all modules with presentations have run every year. This particularly applies to the field experience modules. I will analyse a systematic random sample of forty student grades across all six years covered by the project. The analysis will look at the student by age, pathway taken, and numbers of presentations they were involved in. A comparative analysis of their presentation grades compared with their non-presentation grades is used as an indicator for a wider comparison between RS grades and other CSP grades attained by the same students. This will also involve looking at those students in the sample who undertook both presentation and examination as part of their programme and a comparison of the best examination grades with best presentation grades. The sample is taken from a systematic random selection based on twenty students each year from 1996 to 2001, a total of one hundred and twenty students. This figure was ascertained by selecting every forth student from a total of 478 undergraduates between 1996 and 2001 (approximate average of 80 per year). The sample equates to twenty per year when the total is rounded up to 480. This accounts for the .5 of a student left over in an exact calculation of 478, which is equal to 119.5 students. The sample figure (20 per year) is approximately 25% of each year's population. The selected 120 were numbered and systematically chosen by number. Every third number became part of the surveyed sample, leaving a total sample of forty. The final sample (identified below in figure 3), reflects six students from 1996, seven in 1997 and 1998, six students from 1999 and seven in 2000 and 2001, and is referred to as the 'Random Sample Profile'.

The Random Sample Profile

Figure 3
Male Female F/time P/timeM >21 <21 Maj Joint Min Path Change Ethnic Min.
12 0% 28 0% 32 0% 8 0% 23 7.5% 17 2.5% 24 0% 8 0% 8 0% 5 2.5% 12 0%

The disproportionate numbers of males to females is reflected in the greater RS population. The full time: part time ratio is also representative of the total population. The large numbers of mature students is also in line with the larger RS population, but not so with the CSP population as a whole. The pathway is heavily supported by a major route with joint and minor pathways reflecting similar percentages. Of those that changed pathway during the last two years of their degree four out of five improved their grades and completed the degree course and one failed to improve and complete. Of those five, all undertook modules containing presentations; none chose modules which offered examinations as part of the assessment method. The ethnic minorities represented in the sample are above average for the larger CSP population. From the sample of forty, there were a total of 77 presentations undertaken, indicating an average of almost 2 presentations per student (1.93). Allowing for the approximate third validation requirements of the University, this is in keeping with that strategy accepting that students at level 2 (5) and 3 (6) would expect to take six modules as a major pathway student and two as a minor, or four as a joint pathway. The validation criterion only works effectively with major pathway students. The fact that 24 students (60%) in the sample have taken a major pathway suggests they completed 48 presentation modules, leaving the remaining 8 (20%) joint and 8 (20%) minor students taking the remaining 32 presentation modules (16 per pathway joint and minor). These figures are approximate to the data and should not be seen as exact. The table below (figure 4) shows an exact count and percentage value of presentation modules undertaken by the sample from the total of 77.

Presentations Taken by Random Sample

Figure 4
Number of Presentations 0 1 2 3 4
Number of Students Taking Pres. 7 9 10 8 6
%(77=100%) 17.5 22.5 25 20 15

The table above (figure 4) outlines the number of students taking presentations. There were seven who didn't take any, nine who took only 1, ten who took 2 presentations, eight taking 3 each and six who each took 4. Of the total sample of forty, sixteen (40%) took one presentation or less, eighteen (45%) took up to three and six (15%) took four. The sample is subject to a comparison, using an average of their presentation grades compared with an average of their other grades (non-presentation) within RS. Thirty-seven students were sampled, three were not due to insufficient numbers of grades available to make the comparative study. Of the 37, the number of students who had a better presentation average than other grades was 10 (25%), those with similar grades in both presentation and other grades was 14 (35%), and those who showed a worse grade on average in their presentations was 13 (32.5%). The number not compared was 3 (7.5%). Of the total (40) sampled, 24 students (60%) had the same or better grades in presentation modules than other grades in Religious studies. To take this methodology a stage further a comparison was also carried out with those students who took examinations and presentations in RS modules. A total of 22 students (55% of the sample) took examinations. When looking at their best examination grade against their best presentation grade the following pattern emerged. Eighteen students showed a better grade in presentation than in examination, three showed the same grade in both, and only one had a better examination grade than a presentation grade.

5.2 Postscript

Eight replies were received too late to be included in the main sample. I felt we could not ignore eight voices, especially as they are a near representative spread, QI, Entering year 2 : 1 : 1996; 1: 1997; 3: 1998, 1: 1999 and 2 : 2000 The spread corresponds to the main sample almost exactly. All had been full time students, but 25% had extended their study for an extra year, which is quite common if academic, personal or family difficulties are encountered. Extended study is 5% higher, but there are no MA ex Derby students included here. Students who fail to progress from one stage to another generally go part-time but it seems respondents did not consider a seventh semester made them 'part-time'. None changed their pathway or programme in the second year. One did not understand the question, presumably because entering year 2 in 1996 she had belonged to the former BA/B Ed. programme before the specialist programmes (SD) began. Otherwise 6 were Religions, Culture and Belief students, one Religious, Social and Cultural Studies. This does not reflect the main sample where 32.7% changed. There were no Third World Development Studies students among the whole. The male/female ratio was 1:7. A Muslim woman was the only ethnic minority, non-English mother tongue speaker. Three considered they spoke BBC English, five that they spoke reasonably grammatically, and two who did not speak BBC English declared a regional dialect. None considered they had physical disabilities or dyslexia, though one I know had an assessment at Student Services and was allowed extra time in examinations. This illustrates the problems of using addresses in one's files, questions of confidentiality, and also the potential mis-match between the students' declared self-perceptions and the tutor's awareness of a problem. This is reflected in the main sample, where 7.3% considered themselves disabled in some way, but of the 120 sent questionnaires, twelve are known to have had physical problems: three were severe car accident victims, and nine dyslexics. Q11, Analysis of presentation experience: Six saw it as a means of gaining transferable skills, one did not, and one did not reply. The same six thought they gained vocational skills, one did not and one did not reply. These replies represent 75% as opposed to 70% awareness. Four of the six saw it as academically satisfying, two did not, and one did not reply. Academic satisfaction is only 50% not 69.1%. All six saw it as an opportunity for creativity, with the same dissident, and the same abstainer. Here the percentage responses are almost identical. This abstainer then indicated a problem with lack of self-confidence, as did 5 others. This is a much higher response concerning confidence than the main sample. Q12, Reasons for choosing modules with presentations: Six affirmed interest in the subject, 2 negatives. 25% negative contrasts with 7.3% of the main sample. Two considered knowledge of the religion in the module a professional requirement. Here 75% answered in the negative compared with 58.2% of the main sample, but that could reflect future or present teachers being more efficient at meeting deadlines. Three liked the lecturer's style. (37.5% compared with 56.4%). Two were trying to avoid an examination. This represents 25% compared with 30%. Q13, five found the Learning Outcomes easily achievable (62.5%, lower than the main sample at 74.5%). Q14, All found the assessment fair, in contrast with 9.1% dissidents overall. Q15, two did not enjoy doing presentations. This is the same percentage as the main sample. Q16, five did not do New Religious Movements, 2 found the common group mark fair, one not. This is a higher response rate than the main sample. Q17, of the three who took presentations after 2000 when there was no written submission, 2 found this fair, 1 not. This is more or less the same reply as the main sample. Q18, ref styles of presentation, 3 preferred the 'inter-active', 2 the 'open sandwich' (including one who also liked the inter-active style) and 3 the 'docu-drama'. A significantly higher proportion preferred the drama style compared with the main sample. Q19. Problems encountered:

Q20. Concerning awareness of whether the assessment criteria involved a 'right' or 'wrong' answer, five had no such awareness, three had. This is within 2% of the main sample. It is difficult to find much degree of difference in what might be considered a random group, those who failed to reply by the deadline for inclusion in the main samples, since a 5% deviance is within the margin of error for such statistics. There is, however a consistency of attitude, which is interesting, given that these are 85% Combined Subjects Programme students, and the male:female ratio is what one would expect. To a considerable extent the results of the postscript questionnaires validates the results from the main sample and hence its inclusion here.

6.1 Conclusions

This research has demonstrated the fallibility of programme leaders' impressions and students' perceptions of the process. As a tutor one can become very involved with a particular student's progress and fail to judge correctly whether this student is typical of the situation or not. The 120 chosen had all had some involvement with their tutor over the years and requested a reference and left an address; but while this might account for the comparatively high level of response nevertheless there is considerable deviation from the expected norm of answers that would have validated our expected opening hypotheses. In selecting the 120 students we endeavoured to obtain as ecumenical a cross section of students as possible; however the 63 respondents are not similarly representative. It is also fair to say that in certain cases their replies were not entirely consistent. Having examined how presentations function as a form of assessment where there is no right or wrong answer using a questionnaire, and analysed the students perceptions thereof we have established that there is a strong sense of positive enjoyment of the presentation. Students appear to have understood the learning outcomes and what was required of them in terms of delivery of their contribution. Presentations however do suffer from the ambiguity of having both summative and formative elements in the assessment. The enjoyment of both students and staff has been affected by what I have referred to in my Annual Reports as 'persistent casual absenteeism'. However, neither discussing the problem at programme committees nor invoking disciplinary matters has resolved the problem completely. Perhaps as word spreads that presentations are to be enjoyed, students will participate more and staff will be less apprehensive. Does this achievement represent empowerment? If the surveyed sample are to be taken seriously, and there is no reason why not, the fact that 77.78% of ethnic minority respondents saw presentation as a positive challenge to a lack of self confidence speaks volumes for this project. In addition the non-ethnic response to the same question provides over 50% who saw presentation as a positive challenge. From the sample postscript in particular we can see that students with disabilities and dyslexia may be being empowered but because they do not identify themselves in this category in the questionnaire (despite having registered with student services) they are not aware of this. It is very significant that only two students ever had to be found an alternative means of assessment. The success of the assessment method may be due in part at least, to the emphasis on fieldwork with a hands on approach to the study of religion using local and overseas visits, extensive interviewing of believers and a 'feminist experiential approach'. That is, the content of the modules may contribute to the success rate of the students. Students can replicate their experiences by seminars, drama, interviews etc. The fact that tutors throw themselves into the spirit of the presentations and contribute by their questions at the end is a necessary part of the equation that could be explored further. The fact that the overwhelming majority of respondents saw the presentation experience as positive in obtaining transferable skills for the future shows an element of forward thinking in a way that cannot always be readily seen in text based assessment. The needs of students to develop a positive oral ability is well documented: the sample here hold firmly to that belief, and for those in ethnic minorities and disabled categories who too easily are described as lacking empowerment and confidence, this type of assessment does by their own admission provide a challenge that is ultimately empowering. When considering the grades of those taking oral presentations it is evident that high proportions are both female and mature students. The evidence suggests the quality of grades is higher in these groups than in other subjects in their own and other subject areas. It is not possible to draw a clear conclusion here as to how their grades are consistently higher than in other subjects but it does allow for a reflective view that there is a sense of empowerment here that is driving the grades upward. This would suggest that recent research into the way girls are out performing boys, even from as young as 7, and the improving grades of girls at 'A' level (now assessed by coursework as well as examination) is being extended to University level. Therefore we believe we have established the case for the empowering nature of presentation as a means of assessment with its right to be considered an integral part of the whole assessment process.

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to our former subject team colleagues who helped launch this study and who no longer work for the University of Derby, namely Professor Richard King and Dr Balbinder Bhogal. Professor John Hinnells usefully provided challenging reflections on the one occasion in 2002 when he conducted assessment by presentation in Derby. The Revd David Hart has played a similar role in his assessments of the module Inter-Religious Dialogue since 1998. The statistics which Dr John Hey, Graham Parker and Richard Tarplee compiled for the QAA inspection have been very important in enabling us to locate our findings in the wider academic context. The present External Examiner for undergraduate courses, Ms Peggy Morgan, has been extremely supportive of our efforts at innovative assessment. Finally we are indebted to our families for their restraint when leisure activities and the housework had to make way for the demands of this work. However, none of this would have been possible without the encouragement of the team at the Learning and Teaching Support Network office who stuck with the project until it was completed in a somewhat different form from the original proposal.

Endnotes

  1. By 'transferable skills' we mean those generic competences, such as the ability to express oneself clearly and to answer questions orally well, which can later be utilised in a variety of contexts and not exclusively in academic discourse relating to matters of religion and philosophy. In the 1998 Definitive Document of Religions: Culture and Belief in the Combined Subjects Programme, assessment by presentation is said to involve 'the selection of material appropriate to a short presentation, and the exploration and discussion of the significance of the material being reviewed. It provides evidence of clarity of thought, the ability to communicate with, and enthuse other students, and the ability to debate topic showing sensitivity to a wider variety of views.'
  2. These criteria are: (a) quality of expression, (b) sharpness of focus, (c) identification of central issues, (d) awareness of significant evidence, (e) clarity and succinctness of overview, (f) internalised understanding of critical issues, (g) structural logic, (h) critical engagement with the material.
  3. For example in the otherwise admirable Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Enhancing Academic Practice, edited by Heather Fry, Steve Ketteridge and Stephanie Marshall, London 2000. See also George, J & Cowan, J A Handbook of Techniques for Formative Evaluation: Mapping the student's learning experience. London (1999). For other web based articles see bibliography.
  4. All that really emerges from this study is that these particular students are highly articulate and committed to their chosen subject. Joughi, G. 'Dimensions of Oral Assessment and Student Approaches to Learning', in Brown, S and Glasner,G (1999) Assessment Matters in Higher Education. OU p.146f.
  5. Sophie Gilliat-Ray, 'Breaking Down the Classroom Walls: Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods in Religious Studies and Theology' in PRS-LTSN Journal Vol. 2 no 2 Winter 2003, pp.200-10.
  6. Race, P, 2001, 'Designing Assessment to Improve Physical Sciences' pp.31-2 in his LTSN Physical Science Practice Guide.
  7. Wakeford, R, 'Principles of Assessment' in Fry, H, Ketteridge, S & Marshall, S (eds.) (2000) A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, London.
  8. See University of Derby CAMS Guide for Academic and Administrative Staff 1999/2000 pp.7-21
  9. Programme handbooks for Religions: Culture and Belief students also draw their attention to the fact that there is no right or wrong way of actually doing a presentation. Blackboard and chalk may be as good as PowerPoint in a presentation.
  10. On examination of the assessment profiles presented to the Combined Subjects Programme Assessment Board, 1997-2002, it seems to be almost universally the case that students perform better in modules where assessment is by coursework only, and examinations deflate their marks.
  11. It is beyond the scope of this study to investigate fully the question of social class. The University of Derby is reported to receive special funding in recognition of its having 85-90% of its students from working class backgrounds or drawn from inner city areas. One question in the questionnaire probes this by asking about regional accents. At Graduation 2001 in response to the Chancellor's question, practically all graduates present indicated that they were the first in their family to have a graduate education.
  12. Among the criteria for assessment is evidence of the ability to work as a team (formative). Failure to do so almost invariably produces a poor final submission (summative). An excellent discussion of the distinction between formative and summative methods of assessment can be found in Light, G and Cox R (2001) Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. London p.169f.
  13. QAA 1997 as quoted by Richard Wakeford, 'Principles of Assessment', in Fry, H, Ketteridge, S and Marshall S (2000) A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. London p.59.
  14. Light, G and Cox, R (2001) Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. The Reflective Professional. London, ch. 4 & 10.
  15. Lindsay, A (1932) Christian Higher Education in India. Ranson, C, (1945) The Christian Minister in India, His Vocation and Training describes the pressures on theological colleges which are unresolved to this day despite the greater emphasis on contextualisation and liberation theology.
  16. Readers will be aware of the many UK studies on the dominance of males in mixed seminar groups. See case studies in George, J & Cowan, J (1999) p.41.
  17. Students at Derby begin at Level 4 by giving a 5-8 minute talk on a visit to a place of worship and answer questions from their peers, then may opt to take modules with group presentations of 20-30 minutes and finally at Level 6 produce presentations based on group research projects. A detailed explanation of aims and procedures is given in the Religious Studies programme handbooks.
  18. The progress of several students has been traced through the modules with presentations. Two standard entry 18 year old females were typical in that they arrived intensely shy and soft spoken, but by doing group presentations with a partner or partners have vastly improved and feel much better about themselves. One is seriously overweight and the other acutely dyslexic with the attendant problems of self-organisation. Lees, S (1986) Losing Out. London. The strategies discussed in Light and Cox (2001) Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: the Reflective Practitioner pp.119-123 can be recognised in our practices.
  19. It should be noted that dyslexia is not a disease of the English middle classes, a preferred label for the 1950s 'word-blindness', but a disability probably caused by neurological problems processing visual information, and it occurs as a phenomenon throughout Asia. Many of our students had their problems blamed on their lack of English-which their dyslexia made difficult for them to acquire.
  20. October 1999, 'Code of Practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in education', p15. Standards are laid down which one would think were the rightful expectation of all students, not just the disabled-e.g. that procedures are applied consistently across the institution.
  21. The following level 5 modules carried presentations: Indian Religious Traditions 1/ Hindu and Jain Ways of Salvation 1996 -2002: Indian Religious Traditions2/1996-1998: Cross Cultural Field Experience 1&2/1999-2002: Christian Encounters with African and Afro-Caribbean Religious Experience/1998-2000: Revalidated for level 6 2001/2002: Zoroastrianism 2002: Level 6 Modules: New Religious Movements/ 1996-2000: Inter-Religious Dialogue/1996-2002: Advanced Fieldwork 2000. Students have to pass a total of 16 modules across level 5 and 6 to graduate with honours
  22. To obtain the requisite number of credits, students have to pass eight modules at each level, including the double module for coursework, Independent Studies. They usually take nine.
  23. QAA Subject Review Report, April 2001, Q353/2001. University of Derby Theology and Religious Studies, p6.
  24. A University of Derby leaflet printed in 2000 gives 40% as the level of mature students, but this has changed dramatically with the ending of grants and the increase in fees since 1998. Only 2 out of 9 students beginning the same pathway in 2001 were over 25.
  25. Hufford D J 1999, 'The Scholarly Voice and the Personal Voice: Reflexivity in Belief Studies' in McCuthcheon R T, The Insider/Outsider Problem in the Study of Religion, pp.294-5.
  26. Hampson, D (1991) Theology and Feminism, London; Hampson, D, ed, 1996, Swallowing a Fishbone, SPCK, London.
  27. Professor Ian Markham, External Examiner's Report received 16 July 1999.
  28. The tape proved invaluable when a student 'giving a lecture' in New Religious Movements made a formal complaint that another student had ruined things for him by releasing a child's toy across the table. The tape substantiated her explanation that she accidentally yanked out her toddler's clockwork mouse with a handkerchief and apart from laughter, disruption was minimal.
  29. Annual report: Social, Cultural and Religious Studies Programme, 1997-8.
  30. Assessment in each module is either by 100% coursework, or 50% coursework, 50% examination in the former, the number of written pieces submitted is variable, usually either 50% for each of two essays, or 30% presentation, 70% essay. All submissions have to meet Learning Outcomes. Presentations are never found in modules that are assessed by examination.
    31. See CSP Annual Programme Reports produced by Graham Parker 1996-2001 which I have compared with my Religions: Culture and belief Reports, quoted in the QAA Review April 2001.
  31. Religious Studies modules are an option equivalent to a minor pathway for (Third World) Development studies students who being in the School of Environmental and Applied Sciences were much more difficult to trace.
  32. Statistics produced by the Guardian education Supplement, August 2001, showed the University of Derby religious Studies Department as 3/50 ( Theology and Religious Studies) Universities for value-addedness. Derby scored the same rating (3/50) for employability of students.
  33. RS denotes Religious Studies students across all programmes. The name of the subject area was changed to Religious and Philosophical Studies (RPS) in August 2001
  34. This temporary down turn has been reversed as the 2001 figure shows 2780 CSP students
  35. Mertens, R. 1998, 'What is to be Done? (With apologies to Lenin!)', in Parker, I. ed, Social Constructionism, Discourse and Realism, London, Sage, p.95.
  36. Robson C, 2002, Real World Research, 2nd Edition, London, Blackwell, p.264.
  37. Despite the mention of sixty three returned questionnaires at the beginning of this report, which includes the eight late postscript questionnaires, the working analysis is from the original fifty-five (55) returned questionnaires.
  38. Thanks are also due to Professor Paul Weller, as line manager, and those who provided secretarial and technical assistance, and especially to the students who returned their questionnaires.

Bibliography

  1. Albert , J.(2001) Guardian Education Supplement (Aug), Guardian, London.
  2. Ashcroft, K. and Palacio, D. (1996) Researching into Assessment and Evaluation in Colleges and Universities, London, Kogan Page.
  3. Brockbank, A. and McGill, I. (1998) Facilitating Reflective Learning in Higher Education, Buckingham, Open University Press.
  4. Brown, S. Assessment Matters in Higher Education: Choosing and using Diverse Approaches, Milton Keynes, Open University Press.
  5. Fry H., Ketteridge. S. and Marshall, S., (2000) A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, London, Kogan Page.
  6. George, J. and Cowan, J. (1999) A Handbook of Techniques for Formative Education: Mapping the Students learning Experience, London, Kogan Page.
  7. Hampson, D. (1991) Theology and Feminism, London, SPCK.
  8. Hampson, D. ed. (1996) Swallowing a Fishbone, London, SPCK.
  9. Hufford, D. J. (1999) 'The Scholarly Voice and the Personal Voice: Reflexivity in Belief Studies' in McCutcheon, R. T. (1999).
  10. Kell, C. C. P. (1980) Fundamentals of Effective Group Communication, London, Macmillan.
  11. Lees, S. (1976) Losing Out, London, Ashcroft.
  12. Mertens, R. (1998) 'What is to be Done (With Apologies to Lenin)' Social Constructionism Discourse and Realism, Parker, I. London, Sage.
  13. McCutcheon R.T. ed. (1999) The Insider/Outsider Problem in the Study of Religion, London, Cassell.
  14. Quality Assurance Agency (2001), 'QAA Subject Review Report: University of Derby Theology and Religious Studies'
  15. Race, P. (2001) 'Designing Assessment to Improve Physical Sciences Learning', LTSN Physical Sciences, Hull.
  16. Robson, C. (2000) Real World Research, Oxford, Blackwell.
  17. SPSS (1998) SPSS Applications Guide, Chicago, USA, SPSS Inc.
  18. University of Derby (1997/8) 'Social Cultural and Religious Studies Programmes: Annual Report', Derby, University of Derby.
  19. University of Derby (1999) 'Code of Practice for the Assurance of Academic Quality & Standards in Education' Derby, University of Derby.
  20. University of Derby (1999) 'External Examiner's Report' Derby, University of Derby.

Appendix One

Questionnaire

Questionnaire concerning the use of presentations in assessment at the University of Derby. This questionnaire forms a vital part of a research project into the effectiveness of modes of assessment such as presentations where there is no right or wrong answer. We need your reflections to assist in this research. All replies will be treated with the utmost confidence, and the data extrapolated will be processed in such a way as to ensure complete anonymity. The project has been funded by the Philosophical and Religious Studies Subject Centre of the Learning and Teaching Support Network, Leeds, who will publish it in due course. Please circle your chosen answer. The initial questions concern personal identity because one thesis that needs to be tested is that presentations enable people to achieve fairer grades closer to their natural ability and their acquired skills than formal examinations and essays.

A Academic details 1. Circle the year in which you entered Level 2 (5) 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001. 2. For how many further years did you study? 2 3 4 5 3. Were you a) Full time? Y/N b) Part time? Y/N 4. Did you change your pathway or programme during Level 2 or 3? Y/N 5. a) Are you a Religions: Culture and Belief student ? Y/N b) A Specialist degree programme student? Y/N c) A Development Studies Student? Y/N B Personal Details 6. Are you Male ? Female? 7. Do you consider yourself to belong to an ethnic minority in Derby? Y/N 8. Is English your mother tongue? Y/N 9. Do you consider you speak a) BBC English ? Y/N b) reasonably grammatically? Y/N c) with a regional dialect? Y/N 10. a) Do you consider yourself physically disabled? Y/N b) Are you registered disabled? Y/N c) Are you dyslexic ? Y/N d) Are you dyspraxic (exceptionally unco-ordinated or clumsy) Y/N C Analysis of presentation experience 11. What was your general experience of assessment by group presentation: a) An opportunity to gain transferable skills ? (such as data handling, use of classroom technology, public speaking, team work etc) Y/N b) An opportunity to test vocational skills relevant for my future career? Y/N c) An academically satisfying experience? Y/N d) A chance to be more imaginative and creative than in conventional assessment such as examinations? Y/N e) A personal challenge because of my lack of self-confidence etc? Y/N 12. Why primarily did you choose the modules you did choose which had assessment by means of presentation? a) Interest in the subject for its own sake Y/N b) An opportunity to test vocational skills relevant to my future career Y/N c) Professional requirement for teaching that I study that religion Y/N d) I liked the lecturer's style Y/N e) I was trying to avoid taking a module with an examination instead Y/N 13. Did you find it relatively easy to relate the module Learning Outcomes to the assessment exercise, given that learning outcomes are achieved collectively and not individually? Y/N 14. Did you generally find the assessment fair? Y/N 15. Did you on the whole enjoy doing presentations? Y/N 16. If you did New Religious Movements , did you consider the system of awarding the same grade to all members of the group fair? Y/N 17. If your experience spans the validation changes introduced in Autumn 2000, do you consider the removal of a written group submission, and individual pieces as logical and fair? Y/N 18. Over the years, three types of group presentation emerged. Tick which you experienced, and circle your preference: 'Open sandwich' type slices of material piled up as one student after another dealt with aspects of the topic; Inter-active (Blue Peter style) 2-3 students co-presenting material; Illustrative drama or sketch with commentary 19. What problems did you encounter? Finding appropriate resources and visual aids Uneven division of labour among the group Finding time to meet as a group Unco-operative or absentee individuals Inadequate tutor support 20. Were you aware that assessment criteria (as set out in programme handbooks) did not require presentation of a 'right' or 'wrong' answer ? Thank you very much for completing this questionnaire. We are greatly indebted to you for your co-operation.

Appendix 2

SPSS Frequency Outputs Question 1 to 5: Academic Details Frequency Tables

Question 1

degree year
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1996 6 10.9 12.0 12.0
1997 4 7.3 8.0 20.0
1998 14 25.5 28.0 48.0
1999 7 12.7 14.0 62.0
2000 13 23.6 26.0 88.0
2001 6 10.9 12.0 100.0
Total 50 90.9 100.0
Missing System 5 9.1
Total 55 100.0

Question 2

years studied
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 2 Years 34 61.8 70.8 70.8
3 Years 11 20.0 22.9 93.8
4 Years 1 1.8 2.1 95.8
5 Years 2 3.6 4.2 100.0
Total 48 87.3 100.0
Missing System 7 12.7
Total 55 100.0

Question 3

full/part time
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
full time 49 89.1 90.7 90.7
part time 5 9.1 9.3 100.0
Total 54 98.2 100.0
Missing System 1 1.8
Total 55 100.0

Question 4

path change
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid no 36 65.5 66.7 66.7
yes 18 32.7 33.3 100.0
Total 54 98.2 100.0
Missing System 1 1.8
Total 55 100.0

Question 5

type of student
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid rcb 33 60.0 62.3 62.3
specialist 16 29.1 30.2 92.5
dev studies 4 7.3 7.5 100.0
Total 53 96.4 100.0
Missing System 2 3.6
Total 55 100.0

Appendix 3

SPSS Frequency Outputs Question 6-10: Personal Details

Question 6

gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid male 12 21.8 21.8 21.8
female 43 78.2 78.2 100.0
Total 55 100.0 100.0

Question 7

ethnic minority
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid no 46 83.6 83.6 83.6
yes 9 16.4 16.4 100.0
Total 55 100.0 100.0

Question 8

English tongue
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid no 5 9.1 9.3 9.3
yes 49 89.1 90.7 100.0
Total 54 98.2 100.0
Missing System 1 1.8
Total 55 100.0

Question 9(a)

language
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid BBC English no 38 69.1 71.7 71.7
BBC English yes 15 27.3 28.3 100.0
Total 53 96.4 100.0
Missing System 2 3.6
Total 55 100.0

Question 9b

language
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid reasonable grammar no 19 34.5 35.8 35.8
reasonable grammar yes 34 61.8 64.2 100.0
Total 53 96.4 100.0
Missing System 2 3.6
Total 55 100.0

Question 9c

language
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid regional dialect no 35 63.6 66.0 66.0
regional dialect yes 18 32.7 30.4 100.0
Total 53 96.4 100.0
Missing System 2 3.6
Total 55 100.0

Question 10a

disability
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid physical disability no 51 92.7 94.4 94.4
physical disability yes 3 5.5 5.6 100.0
Total 54 98.2 100.0
Missing System 1 1.8
Total 55 100.0

Question 10b

reg disabled
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid reg disabled no 53 96.4 98.1 98.1
reg disabled yes 1 1.8 1.9 100.0
Total 54 98.2 100.0
Missing System 1 1.8
Total 55 100.0

Question 10(c)

dyslexic
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid dyslexic no 49 89.1 89.1 89.1
dyslexic yes 6 10.9 10.9 100.0
Total 55 100.0 100.0

Question 10(d)

dyspraxic
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid dyspraxic no 54 98.2 98.2 98.2
dyspraxic yes 1 1.8 1.8 100.0

Appendix 4

SPSS Frequency Outputs Question 11 to 20: Analysis of Presentation Experience

Question 11(a)

presentation experience
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid transferable skills no 5 9.1 9.3 9.3
transferable skills yes 49 89.1 90.7 100.0
Total 54 98.2 100.0
Missing System 1 1.8
Total 55 100.0

Question 11(b)

presentation experience
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid test voc skills no 13 23.6 24.5 24.5
test voc skills yes 40 72.7 75.5 100.0
Total 53 96.4 100.0
Missing System 2 3.6
Total 55 100.0

Question 11(c)

presentation experience
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid academic satisfaction no 14 25.5 26.9 26.9
academic satisfaction yes 38 69.1 73.1 100.0
Total 52 94.5 100.0
Missing System 3 5.5
Total 55 100.0

Question 11d

presentation experience
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid more imag creative no 7 12.7 13.0 13.0
more imag creative yes 47 85.5 87.0 100.0
Total 54 98.2 100.0
Missing System 1 1.8
Total 55 100.0

Question 11(e)

presentation experience
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid challenge lack self no 23 41.8 42.6 42.6
challenge lack of self yes 31 56.4 57.4 100.0
Total 54 98.2 100.0
Missing System 1 1.8
Total 55 100.0

Question 12(a)

why presentation
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid interest own sake no 4 7.3 7.5 7.5
interest own sake yes 49 89.1 92.5 100.0
Total 53 96.4 100.0
Missing System 2 3.6
Total 55 100.0

Question 12(b)

why presentation
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid test voc skills no 32 58.2 61.5 61.5
test voc skills yes 20 36.4 38.5 100.0
Total 52 94.5 100.0
Missing System 3 5.5
Total 55 100.0

Question 12(c)

why presentation
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid teaching requirement no 39 70.9 78.0 78.0
teaching requirement yes 11 20.0 22.0 100.0
Total 50 90.9 100.0
Missing System 5 9.1
Total 55 100.0

Question 12(d)

why presentation
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid like lecturer's style no 23 41.8 42.6 42.6
like lecturer's style yes 31 56.4 57.4 100.0
Total 54 98.2 100.0
Missing System 1 1.8
Total 55 100.0

Question 12(e)

why presentation
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid avoid exam module no 39 70.9 73.6 73.6
avoid exam module yes 14 25.5 26.4 100.0
Total 53 96.4 100.0
Missing System 2 3.6
Total 55 100.0

Question 13

ease of learning outcomes to assessment process
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid no 14 25.5 25.5 25.5
yes 41 74.5 74.5 100.0
Total 55 100.0 100.0

Question 14

was assessment fair
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid no 5 9.1 9.3 9.3
yes 49 89.1 90.7 100.0
Total 54 98.2 100.0
Missing System 1 1.8
Total 55 100.0

Question 15

enjoyment of presentations
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid no 14 25.5 26.9 26.9
yes 38 69.1 73.1 100.0
Total 52 94.5 100.0
Missing System 3 5.5
Total 55 100.0

Question 16

was NRM grading fair
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid no 15 27.3 53.6 53.6
yes 13 23.6 46.4 100.0
Total 28 50.9 100.0
Missing System 27 49.1
Total 55 100.0

Question 17

was removal of written submission reasonable
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid no 11 20.0 45.8 45.8
yes 13 23.6 54.2 100.0
Total 24 43.6 100.0
Missing System 31 56.4
Total 55 100.0

Question 18

what type of group presentation did you prefer
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid a open sandwich 15 27.3 28.3 28.3
b inter-active 33 60.0 62.3 90.6
c illustrative drama 5 9.1 9.4 100.0
Total 53 96.4 100.0
Missing System 2 3.6
Total 55 100.0

Question 19(a)

problems encountered
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid finding resources no 38 69.1 71.7 71.7
finding resources yes 15 27.3 28.3 100.0
Total 53 96.4 100.0
Missing System 2 3.6
Total 55 100.0

Question 19(b)

problems encountered
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid uneven labour division no 21 38.2 39.6 39.6
uneven labour division 32 58.2 60.4 100.0
Total 53 96.4 100.0
Missing System 2 36
Total 55 100.0

Question 19(c)

problems encountered
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid finding time to meet no 13 23.6 24.5 24.5
finding time to meet yes 40 72.7 75.5 100.0
Total 53 96.4 100.0
Missing System 2 3.6
Total 55 100.0

Question 19(d)

problems encountered
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid unco-op or absentees no 21 38.2 39.6 39.6
un co-op or absentees 32 58.2 60.4 100.0
Total 53 96.4 100.0
Missing System 2 3.6
Total 55 100.0

Question 19(e)

problems encountered
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid inadequate tutor support no 46 86.3 86.8 86.8
inadequate tutor support yes 7 12.7 13.2 100.0
Total 53 96.4 100.0
Missing System 2 3.6
Total 55 100.0

Question 20

awareness of no right or wrong in presentation assessment
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid no 39 70.9 75.0 75.0
yes 13 23.6 25.0 100.0
Total 52 94.5 100.0
Missing System 3 5.5
Total 55 100.0

Appendix 5(a)

Case Summary Cross-tabulation: Chi-Square Test: Transferable Skills

Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
gender* type of student* presentation experience 52 94.5% 3 5.5% 55 100.0%
gender* type of student* presentation experience Crosstabulation
type of student Total
presentation experience rcb specialist dev studies
transferable skills no gender male 1 1 2
female 3 3
Total 1 3 1 5
transferable skills yes gender male 4 3 2 9
female 27 10 1 38
Total 31 13 3 47
Chi-Square Tests
presentation experience Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
transferable skills no Pearson Chi-Square 5.000a 2 .082
Likelihood Ration 6.730 2 .035
Linear-by-Linear Association .000 1 1.000
N of Valid Cases 5
transferable skills yes Pearson Chi-Square 5.286b .2 .035
Likelihood Ration 4.201 2 .122
Linear-by-Linear Association 4.125 1 0.42
N of Valid Cases 47
a. 6 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .40. b. 3 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .57. Appendix 5(b) dyslexic * why presentation Crosstabulation Count
why presentation
avoid exam module no avoid exam module yes Total
dyslexic dyslexic no 37 11 48
dyslexic yes 2 3 5
Total 39 14 53

Why Presentation? Avoid Exams: Dyslexic Students

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided) Exact sig. (1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 3.204b 1 .073
Continuinity Correction a 1.580 1 .209
Likelihood Ratio 2.796 1 .095
Fisher's Exact Test .108 .108
Linear-by-Linear Association 3.143 1 .076
N of Valid Cases 53
aComputed only for a 2x2 table b 2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.32. [INSERT GRAPH HERE]

Appendix 5c

ethnic minority* English tongue* Cross tabulation

Count
English tongue
language no yes Total
regional dialect no ethnic minority no 1 26 27
yes 3 4 7
Total 4 30 34
regional dialect yes ethnic minority no 16 16
yes 1 1 2
Total 1 17 18
Chi-Square Tests
language Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided) Exact sig. (1-sided)
regional dialect no Pearson Chi-Square 8.209b 1 .004
Continuinity Correction a 4.871 1 .27
Likelihood Ratio 6.515 1 .011
Fisher's Exact Test .021 .021
Linear-by-Linear Association 7.968 1 .005
N of Valid Cases 34
regional dialect yes Pearson Chi-Square 8.471c 1 .004
Continuinity Correction a 1.621 1 .203
Likelihood Ratio 4.952 1 .026
Fisher's Exact Test .011 .011
Linear-by-Linear Association 8.000 1 .005
N of Valid Cases 18
a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .82. c 3 cells (75.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .11. ethnic minority* English tongue* language Cross Tabulation
English
language no yes Total
BBC English no ethnic minority no 1 33 34
yes 1 3 4
Total 2 36 38
BBC English yes ethnic minority no 9 9
yes 3 2 5
Total 3 11 14

Appendix 5(d)

presentation experience * ethnic minority Cross-tabulation Count
ethnic minority
no yes Total
presentation experience challenge lack self no 21 2 23
challenge lack of self yes 24 7 31
Total 45 9 54
[INSERT GRAPH HERE]

Appendix 5(e)

Why presentation* gender Cross-tabulation Count
gender
male female Total
why presentation avoid exam module no 9 30 39
avoid exam module yes 3 11 14
Total 12 41 53
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided) Exact sig. (1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 3.204b 1 .073
Continuinity Correction a 1.580 1 .209
Likelihood Ratio 2.796 1 .095
Fisher's Exact Test .108 .108
Linear-by-Linear Association 3.143 1 .076
N of Valid Cases 53
aComputed only for a 2x2 table b2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.32 [INSERT GRAPH HERE]

Return to vol. 3 no. 1 index page

This page was originally on the website of The Subject Centre for Philosophical and Religious Studies. It was transfered here following the closure of the Subject Centre at the end of 2011.

-
The British Association for the Study of Religions
The Religious Studies Project