Journals / International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education / 2019 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2

Investigating a new method for standardising essay marking using levelsbased mark schemes

Pages
218–234
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It isconcluded that the Ranking Procedure is unsuitable for use in publicexaminations in its current form.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Standardisation is a procedure used by Awarding Organisations tomaximise marking reliability, by teaching examiners to consistently judgescripts using a mark scheme.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Thisstudy investigated the marking reliability yielded by traditionalstandardisation and ranking standardisation.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It isconcluded that the Ranking Procedure is unsuitable for use in publicexaminations in its current form.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Standardisation is a procedure used by Awarding Organisations tomaximise marking reliability, by teaching examiners to consistently judgescripts using a mark scheme. However, research shows that people are betterat comparing two objects than judging each object individually.Consequently, Oxford, Cambridge and RSA (OCR, a UK awardingorganisation) proposed investigating a new procedure, involving rankingessays, where essay quality is judged in comparison to other essays. Thisstudy investigated the marking reliability yielded by traditionalstandardisation and ranking standardisation. The study entailed a markingexperiment followed by examiners completing a questionnaire. In the controlcondition live procedures were emulated as authentically as possible withinthe confines of a study. The experimental condition involved ranking thequality of essays from the best to the worst and then assigning marks. Aftereach standardisation procedure the examiners marked 50 essays from an ASHistory unit. All participants experienced both procedures, and markingreliability was measured. Additionally, the participants’ questionnaireresponses were analysed to gain an insight into examiners’ experience. It isconcluded that the Ranking Procedure is unsuitable for use in publicexaminations in its current form. The Traditional Procedure producedstatistically significantly more reliable marking, whilst the Ranking Procedureinvolved a complex decision-making process. However, the RankingProcedure produced slightly more reliable marking at the extremities of themark range, where previous research has shown that marking tends to be lessreliable.

🔖

Cite This Article

WERNO, M., GREATOREX, J., SUTCH, T., DUNN, K., BOWYER, J. (2022). Investigating a new method for standardising essay marking using levelsbased mark schemes. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2, 218–234. https://ajindex.com/articles/540170

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Ahmed, A., & Pollitt, A. (2011). Improving marking quality through a taxonomy of mark schemes. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(3), 259-278. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.546775
  2. Baird, J.-A., Greatorex, J., & Bell, J. F. (2004). What makes marking reliable? Experiments with UK examinations. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 11(3), 331-348.
  3. Barkaoui, K. (2011). Effects of marking method and rater experience on ESL essay scores and rater performance. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(3), 279- 293. Benton, T., & Gallagher, T. (2018). Is comparative judgement just a quick form of multiple marking. Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment Publication (26), 22-28.
  4. Billington, L., & Davenport, C. (2011).
  5. On line standardisation trial, Winter 2008: Evaluation of examiner performance and examiner satisfaction. Manchester: AQA Centre for Education Research Policy. Black, B., Suto, W. M. I., & Bramley, T. (2011). The interrelations of features of questions, mark schemes and examinee responses and their impact upon marker agreement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(3), 295-318.
  6. Bramley, T. (2009). Mark scheme features associated with different levels of marker agreement. Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment Publication (8), 16-23.
  7. Bramley, T. (2015). Investigating the reliability of Adaptive Comparative Judgment Cambridge Assessment Research Report. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Assessment. Bramley, T., & Vitello, S. (2018). The effect of adaptivity on the reliability coefficient in adaptive comparative judgement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 1-16. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2017.1418734 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
  8. Çetin, Y. (2011). Reliability of raters for writing assessment: analytic - holistic, analyticanalytic, holistic-holistic. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 8(16), 471-486.
  9. Chamberlain, S., & Taylor, R. (2010). Online or face to face? An experimental study of examiner training. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), 665-675.
  10. Greatorex, J., & Bell, J. F. (2008a). What makes AS marking reliable? An experiment with some stages from the standardisation process. Research Papers in Education, 23(3), 333- 355. Greatorex, J., & Bell, J. F. (2008b). What makes AS marking reliable? An experiment with some st