Author:
Marshall Neil,Shaw Kirsten,Hunter Jodie,Jones Ian
Abstract
AbstractThere is growing interest in using comparative judgement to assess student work as an alternative to traditional marking. Comparative judgement requires no rubrics and is instead grounded in experts making pairwise judgements about the relative ‘quality’ of students’ work according to a high level criterion. The resulting decision data are fitted to a statistical model to produce a score for each student. Cited benefits of comparative judgement over traditional methods include increased reliability, validity and efficiency of assessment processes. We investigated whether such claims apply to summative statistics and English assessments in New Zealand. Experts comparatively judged students’ responses to two national assessment tasks, and the reliability and validity of the outcomes were explored using standard techniques. We present evidence that the comparative judgement process efficiently produced reliable and valid assessment outcomes. We consider the limitations of the study, and make suggestions for further research and potential applications.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference34 articles.
1. Alomran, M., & Chia, D. (2018). Automated scoring system for multiple choice test with quick feedback. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 8, 538–545. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2018.8.8.1096.
2. Assessment Research Group. (2009). Assessment in schools: Fit for purpose? A commentary by the teaching and learning research programme. London: Economic and Social Research Council.
3. Baird, J.-A., Andrich, D., Hopfenbeck, T. N., & Stobart, G. (2017). Assessment and learning: Fields apart? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 24, 317–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2017.1319337.
4. Berkowitz, B. W., Fitch, R., & Kopriva, R. (2000). The Use of Tests as part of high-stakes decision-making for students: A resource guide for educators and policy-makers. Washington, DC: Office for Civil Rights (ED).
5. Bisson, M., -J., Gilmore, C., Inglis, M., & Jones, I. (2016). Measuring conceptual understanding using comparative judgement. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 2, 141–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-016-0024-3.
Cited by
14 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献