Mark distribution is affected by the type of assignment but not by features of the marking scheme in a biomedical sciences department of a UK university

IF 4.1 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education Pub Date : 2022-10-22 DOI:10.1080/02602938.2022.2134552
M. Daw
{"title":"Mark distribution is affected by the type of assignment but not by features of the marking scheme in a biomedical sciences department of a UK university","authors":"M. Daw","doi":"10.1080/02602938.2022.2134552","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Marking schemes are a tool to ensure fairness in assessment of student work. Key features of fairness are that different markers would award the same mark to the same work and that the resulting marks effectively discriminate between different levels of student attainment. This study focuses on the ability of assessment to discriminate by analysing the mark distributions resulting from the use of different types of marking scheme in a real-world setting in a research-intensive UK university. This analysis shows that, in qualitative assessment, the mark distribution is unaffected by features of the marking scheme used. Instead, it shows that the type of assignment used has a significant effect on the mark distribution and that these effects are sometimes counterintuitive. Marking schemes are unlikely to be an effective tool in shaping mark distributions. To determine the effectiveness of approaches to assessment, we need to interrogate data rather than make assumptions.","PeriodicalId":48267,"journal":{"name":"Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education","volume":"48 1","pages":"806 - 819"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2134552","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Marking schemes are a tool to ensure fairness in assessment of student work. Key features of fairness are that different markers would award the same mark to the same work and that the resulting marks effectively discriminate between different levels of student attainment. This study focuses on the ability of assessment to discriminate by analysing the mark distributions resulting from the use of different types of marking scheme in a real-world setting in a research-intensive UK university. This analysis shows that, in qualitative assessment, the mark distribution is unaffected by features of the marking scheme used. Instead, it shows that the type of assignment used has a significant effect on the mark distribution and that these effects are sometimes counterintuitive. Marking schemes are unlikely to be an effective tool in shaping mark distributions. To determine the effectiveness of approaches to assessment, we need to interrogate data rather than make assumptions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在英国一所大学的生物医学科学系中,分数分布受作业类型的影响,而不受评分方案特征的影响
摘要评分方案是确保学生作业评估公平性的一种工具。公平的主要特征是,不同的分数会给同一项工作授予相同的分数,由此产生的分数有效地区分了不同水平的学生。本研究通过分析英国一所研究密集型大学在现实世界中使用不同类型的评分方案所产生的分数分布,重点关注评估的辨别能力。该分析表明,在定性评估中,分数分布不受所用评分方案特征的影响。相反,它表明所使用的分配类型对分数分布有显著影响,这些影响有时是违反直觉的。标记方案不太可能成为形成标记分布的有效工具。为了确定评估方法的有效性,我们需要询问数据,而不是做出假设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
11.20
自引率
15.90%
发文量
70
期刊最新文献
‘There was very little room for me to be me’: the lived tensions between assessment standardisation and student diversity Perceptions of feedback and engagement with feedback among undergraduates: an educational identities approach Feedback engagement as a multidimensional construct: a validation study Interacting with ChatGPT for internal feedback and factors affecting feedback quality Diversity of pedagogical feedback designs: results from a scoping review of feedback research in higher education
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1