Fundamento psicológico

When asked about the assessment standards or requirements for evaluation in Vietnam, all the participants agreed that there was no clear assessment criteria provided to them by the lecturers in the Vietnamese universities where they studied. Students were only provided with some general information about the assessments, such as how many and what kinds of tests students were going to take to complete the subject, which parts of the subject the test would focus on and the weight of each test (Toan, Ha, Khanh & Truong, Int.1). Khanh described a process which was similar to that experienced by other participants:

At the beginning of the subject, students were just generally advised of assessments for each subject. Normally, there were three tests for each subject: Random tests or tests at the beginning of the term accounting for 10%, midterm tests accounting for 20% and end-term tests occupying 70%. The lecturers didn’t specify the objectives of the subjects or specific criteria such as requirements to be conformed to or what ability students needed to present in such tests. (Khanh, Int.1)

The lack of assessment criteria provided at the beginning of a course did not appear to bother at least three of the participants in this study, as they had developed a familiarity with the manner of assessments they had experienced in previous courses. For example, Thu explained:

120

Some students like me often thought that assessment criteria were not really necessary because we were quite familiar with previous requirements that we had to remember or learn all provided knowledge by heart to pass the tests. (Thu, Int.1)

However, the other participants asserted that the lack of assessment criteria was confusing and caused difficulty in learning; “students could not know what to learn or what they should focus on to fulfil the course” (Phung, Int.1). Similarly, Ha said “we couldn’t build up learning orientation, and passively waited and followed what made the lecturers satisfied” (Ha, Int.1). Without clear criterion, students did not know what they should do, to deal with assessments. In particular, Tri elucidated:

Because the main purpose of examination and test was for us to get high scores, I had to follow what the lecturers had instructed us to do.…Assessments were based on responding or reporting on what they had been provided by their lecturers. Thus, students had to follow closely to the content provided by the lecturers to be able to get good marks. (Tri, Int.1)

Without the assessment criteria, all the participants concurred that most of the time they could only focus on studying at the end of the term or just before the exams. This was because they could not regulate their study when requirements for evaluation were not provided at the beginning of each subject. For example, Toan said “I could not study or prepare for assessments and exams right from the beginning because I did not know what I should study…, therefore, I was just able to focus at the end of the semester” (Toan, Int.1). Similarly, Huyen described that Vietnamese students were not encouraged or required to study during the semester. Students normally just waited until the end of the semester to have lecturers’ guides for assessments or narrowed parts of the subjects that lecturers said the tests would focus on, and then they started to learn (Huyen, Int.1).

Seven participants revealed the difficulty of judging their learning achievements by themselves. They felt confused with their learning results, and could not judge their performance after the assessments. For example, Tri illustrated “we even were not able

121

to estimate whether we passed the exam or not and at what level” (Tri, Int.1). In addition, Toan said “students did not actually know why they obtained the score, so they did not know what level they had reached to orient their future study” (Toan, Int.2). The participants, therefore, had to rely on their lecturers’ judgment for their learning progress.

In the Australian University, all of the students had been provided with necessary information about what requirements they had to follow in assessments from the beginning of every subject. For example, Toan described:

Students [in Australia] are provided with quite clear information for examination and assessment. Specifically, through subject outlines, students can know the form of examination and assessment, requirements for assessments in detail as well as weights and specific time for the examination or assessment. Besides, lecturers often give further guidance to help students master the requirements for examination and assessment. (Toan, Int.2)

When compared with the assessment criteria in Vietnam, Lan thought the criteria she experienced in Australia were clearer and more objective, because they were based on tangible outcomes and not heavily influenced by the lecturers’ own judgement:

Most subjects have clear criteria for testing and assessing. It is different from those in Vietnam, where there was no clear assessment requirement provided formally, and the judgment of students’ performance depended profoundly on the lecturers’ experiences and feelings. It means that if lecturers thought it was right, it should be right and vice versa. The criteria in Australia as I can see are stipulated clearly for an assignment such as the percent of the overall assessment rating, the limitation on the number of words, of references, requirements on format and content… (Lan, Int.2)

The clear requirement for assessments provided students with a guide to help them direct their own study. Seven participants agreed that requirements for a subject or assessments were presented clearly and formally in the subject outline, providing them necessary information about the subject such as the purpose of studying that subject, what kind of knowledge and skills they were expected to achieve and how to meet the subject’s requirements. The evidence for this could be seen in Phung’s quotation:

122

Assessment here is quite clear. Students are provided with objectives and specific requirements for each subject in general and assessment in particular, helping students to orient their study. This is because they know what they are studying and how to study from the beginning of each subject. This is different to what I experienced in Vietnam, where students did not know what to learn at the beginning, so they often waited until the time the subjects were nearly finished to have some suggestions from their lecturers to prepare for tests or exams then they started to learn. (Phung, Int.1)

The clear assessment criteria also helped students to self-assess. When provided with clear requirements for assessments students could know what aspects needed to be judged, and based on the criteria they could tell how well they had met the requirements (Thu, Toan & Tri, Int. 2). Four participants commented that they did not feel confused with the results they had because they could tell the reasons why they achieved it. For example, Khanh commented that when studying in Vietnam he had a number of surprises relating to test or exam results, because sometime he thought he did very well, but the results were low, and vice versa. However, studying in Australia, he described, “we could guess quite well what our results would be right after the tests or exams because the criteria are clear, so students can easily accept their results instead of blaming their lecturers…” (Khanh, Int.1 & Int. 2).