Redesigning a 20-mark internal assessment in a resource-poor B.A. classroom
You teach the paper 'Learner and Learning' to B.A. third semester (Education major) at a provincialised college in lower Assam. Seventy-two students are enrolled; average attendance in the first six weeks was 41, and it drops to about 25 on days when the shared LCD projector is booked by another department. Most students come from Assamese-medium schools: they discuss concepts confidently in class but write weak English, and their internal answers reproduce guidebook definitions verbatim. The 20-mark internal assessment must be completed in the next five weeks, you have six periods a week, and the terminal examination carries 80 marks. The principal has asked every department to 'improve internal assessment quality' before the accreditation peer team visits. One student, Pallabi, has submitted an assignment copied word-for-word from a coaching website, and two others have asked whether they can 'just do a project on a famous educationist' instead of sitting the class test.
1. Design the 20-mark internal assessment for the next five weeks so that it is feasible with 72 students, six periods a week and no dependable projector, and so that it reduces verbatim reproduction. Justify each component.
Read the worked answer
Constraint check first. Six periods a week over five weeks gives 30 contact periods for 72 students. Any design needing individual viva-style assessment, or in-class video viewing, is not feasible.
Proposed 20 marks
| Component | Marks | Timing |
|---|---|---|
| Five in-class retrieval quizzes (best four count) | 5 | first 10 minutes of one period each week |
| Micro-teaching in triads against a four-criterion rubric | 6 | weeks 2-4 |
| School observation note (300-400 words) | 4 | submitted week 4 |
| Reflective portfolio, five short entries | 5 | submitted week 5 |
Why each choice. Weekly low-stakes quizzes create spaced retrieval, and the items are application-based ('identify the conditioning principle operating in this classroom incident'), so students cannot memorise an answer key they have never seen. Best-four-of-five protects students who miss a week for work or illness and raises attendance without a punitive rule. Micro-teaching in triads (24 triads) is assessable within class time, needs no projector, and peer feedback under a rubric builds the evaluation skill the syllabus demands. The observation note forces contact with a real school, which is where concept application actually lives. The portfolio is where reflection becomes visible rather than recall.
Marking load. Quizzes are peer-swapped against your key and you spot-check 15 scripts; the rubric is scored live during micro-teaching; the portfolio is marked once. Total 20 marks, each component mapped to a stated learning outcome.
2. How will you handle Pallabi's copied assignment so that the rule is upheld, learning occurs, and the record is defensible if challenged?
Read the worked answer
Sequence matters: verify, then talk, then decide, then record.
- Verify before accusing. Ask Pallabi to explain two sentences of her submission orally. If she cannot, the copying is established without a confrontation you would lose.
- Private conversation. Name the behaviour, hear the reason (time pressure, unclear instructions, advice from a senior batch), and state the consequence. Public shaming in front of 72 students would destroy the trust the portfolio component depends on.
- Proportionate consequence. A zero converts a learning event into a drop-out risk. Better: resubmit on a different question within seven days, marks capped at 50 per cent of that component, with the original submission retained.
- Record it. A dated note in the departmental assessment register: the original, the source URL, the outcome of the oral check, the decision. This is what protects you if the case is challenged and what an accreditation team later wants to see.
- Close the loop for the class. One 15-minute session on quoting, paraphrasing and citation, plus a written statement of what collaboration is permitted. A rule announced after the offence is not a rule - announce it now for the remaining components.
- Say in advance that a second offence goes to the departmental committee.
3. Two students ask to substitute a project on a famous educationist for the class test. What do you decide, and on what grounds?
Read the worked answer
Decline the substitution, but not the underlying request.
- Construct validity. The class test assesses application of learning theory to unseen classroom situations. A descriptive biography assesses recall and summarising. Swapping them means those two students are graded on an easier construct than their classmates, and the mark no longer means the same thing.
- Fairness. Identical conditions for 72 students is the core of defensible internal assessment. An individually negotiated alternative is a privilege unless everyone has the same option, and it invites a charge of favouritism that you cannot answer.
- Offer real choice within the construct. The test can offer a choice of case scenarios, and the portfolio entry can be a short profile of an educationist applied to a classroom problem. Autonomy without changing the target.
- If the real issue is performance anxiety or a documented disability, route it to the institutional accommodation mechanism rather than handling it as a personal favour; that protects both the student and the integrity of the mark.
- Say all of this in class on the day the test is announced, so the reasoning is public and no one has to negotiate privately.