Weighting the School Assessment Folio
A Year 12 Korean beginners class of 14 students completes four school assessment tasks across the year. The school's approved assessment plan assigns: an oral interaction (20%), a written response in Korean (20%), a listening and reading comprehension test (30%), and a final in-school examination (30%). One student, Mina, was absent for the written response and completed it two weeks later under supervision. Her marks are: oral 17/20, written response 14/20, comprehension test 24/30, final examination 21/30. A second student, Jae, scored 18/20, 16/20, 27/30 and 25/30 respectively. The teacher must report a single school assessment grade out of 100 to the SACE Board and must decide how the missed task and the raw scores convert into the reported mark.
1. Calculate each student's weighted school assessment mark out of 100 and explain how the rescheduled task should be treated.
Read the worked answer
Convert each raw score to a percentage, then apply the weights.
Mina: oral 17/20 = 85% x 0.20 = 17.0; written 14/20 = 70% x 0.20 = 14.0; comprehension 24/30 = 80% x 0.30 = 24.0; exam 21/30 = 70% x 0.30 = 21.0. Total = 76.0/100.
Jae: 18/20 = 90% x 0.20 = 18.0; 16/20 = 80% x 0.20 = 16.0; 27/30 = 90% x 0.30 = 27.0; 25/30 = 83.3% x 0.30 = 25.0. Total = 86.0/100.
The rescheduled task is treated as a legitimate assessment, not as a penalty or an automatic zero. Because Mina completed the same task under comparable supervised conditions, her 14/20 stands at full weight. If the school had instead granted an approved variation, the plan would need to show how the weighting was preserved; simply dropping the task would distort the 20% allocation. The teacher reports 76 and 86 as the school assessment component, keeping records of the rescheduled conditions.
2. A colleague argues Mina should be given the class average for the missed task because she was absent. Evaluate this proposal against assessment principles.
Read the worked answer
The proposal conflicts with the principle that a grade reflects the student's own demonstrated achievement against the performance standards. Awarding the class average would report evidence Mina never produced, inflating or deflating her result for reasons unrelated to her Korean proficiency.
It also creates inequity: two students with identical demonstrated work could receive different reported marks depending on whether they were absent. The defensible path is to assess Mina on the same task under equivalent conditions, which the school did. If completion were impossible, the plan should specify an approved variation that maintains the weighting and comparability, with documentation. The colleague's approach might be administratively convenient, but it undermines validity and fairness and would be difficult to justify in moderation.