Comparing Examination Standards without Graded Candidate Scripts

Author:

Jones IanORCID,Foster ColinORCID,Hunter JodieORCID

Abstract

<p style="text-align: justify;">Comparative judgement methods are commonly used to explore standards in examination papers over time. However, studies are limited by a paucity of graded candidate scripts from previous years, as well as the expense and time required to standardise scripts. We present three studies that attempted, without the use of graded candidate scripts, to replicate and extend previous results about standards in mathematics examination papers. We found that re-typesetting examination papers into a consistent format was necessary, but that comparative judgement of examination papers without an archive of graded candidate scripts offered a reliable and efficient method for revealing relative demand over time. Our approach enables standards comparison where previously this was not possible. We found a reasonable correlation between judgments of actual student scripts and judgments of the items only, meaning that conclusions may be drawn about the demand of examination papers even when graded candidate scripts are not available.</p>

Publisher

Eurasian Society of Educational Research

Subject

Pharmacology (medical),Complementary and alternative medicine,Pharmaceutical Science

Reference30 articles.

1. Bradley, R. A., & Terry, M. E. (1952). Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. The method of paired comparisons. Biometrika, 39(3/4), 324–345. https://doi.org/10.2307/2334029

2. Bramley, T. (2007). Paired comparison methods. In P. Newton, J.-A. Baird, H. Goldstein, H. Patrick, & P. Tymms (Eds), Techniques for monitoring the comparability of examination standards (pp. 264–294). QCA. https://bit.ly/3vBiUmA

3. Bramley, T., & Gill, T. (2010). Evaluating the rank-ordering method for standard maintaining. Research Papers in Education, 25(3), 293–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2010.498147

4. Bramley, T., Bell, J., & Pollitt, A. (1998). Assessing changes in standards over time using Thurstone paired comparisons. Education Research and Perspectives, 25(2), 1–24. https://bit.ly/3SlfgqH

5. Brumberger, E. R. (2003). The rhetoric of typography: the persona of typeface and text. Technical Communication, 50(2), 206–223. https://bit.ly/3ztXoBf

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3