This paper argues that a modest re-allocation of teaching time into interview marking, a system in which the teacher marks each examination script in conference with the student who wrote it, provides benefits which more than compensate for the slight increase in resources needed -- but available from the re-allocation of resources. The argument is based on (1) an analysis of a teacher's accountability for the time spent in assessing students, (2) a survey of the responses of staff and students to a course in which interview marking was used. The survey formed part of a general evaluation of the course and did not attempt to gather information capable of resolving every point which will be discussed. Some of these must, therefore, be put forward as hypotheses which are supported by general considerations and preliminary data but not proven. A major purpose in writing this paper is to invite wider experimentation with the form of assessment and more complete evaluation of it. Almost every account of teaching in higher education points out the many problems in current methods of assessing students (1, 2). Some (5, 6, 7) make specific charges of deficiencies in validity, reliability and feedback to students and also point to harmful effects of undue competition and to outright alienation. The case against the status quo is indeed clear enough to require every responsible teacher to re-examine his or her current methods and alternatives to them.
Tijdschrift beschrijving