Comparability of Assessment of Students Studying for Two Degrees from Two Universities
Author(s):
Jeffrey Lockshin Oleg Zamkov
Conference:
ECER 2009
Network:
9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Format:
Paper

Session Information

09 SES 08 B, Assessment in Higher Education (I)

Paper Session

Time:
2009-09-30
08:30-10:00
Room:
HG, Marietta- Blau-Saal
Chair:
Nadja Pfuhl

Contribution

The Bologna Declaration (1999) calls for, among other things, promotion of inter-institutional co-operation and integrated programmes of study, and the development of comparable criteria and methodology in quality assurance in higher education. However, these goals need to be implemented in national contexts, sometimes leading to differing interpretations of the Process (Saarinen and Ala-Vahala, 2007; Ursin et al, 2008). Comparability of national systems of higher education and mutual academic and professional recognition depend on shared qualitative standards and recognized quality assurance approaches, which has proved to be a challenge (Heitmann, 2005). One approach to resolving problems such as these, lies in the development of double-degree programmes. The International College of Economics and Finance (ICEF), an autonomous division of the Higher School of Economics (HSE), provides a “double” Bachelor degree in Economics from two leading Economics universities in Russia and Britain. The British degree, from the University of London (UoL), is conferred via the University’s External programme, by which students are marked to the same standard as students studying in London. The core of the programme consists of the curriculum for Economics-related degrees that is common for both the HSE and the University of London in accordance with the standards of the Lead College, the LSE. The remaining subjects in the programme were also dictated by the needs of both programmes. However, aside from the inherent difficulties in making two very different national standards comparable, there is also the issue of ensuring that assessment standards are comparable as well. Assessment of students is carried out by both ICEF and the UoL. ICEF has a continual assessment system, which includes coursework, mid-term examinations and term examinations. The External System of the UoL assesses students only by examination, once per year. This final assessment is also used by ICEF to calculate the final mark for the HSE degree. It is vital to know how well these two standards operate in tandem. What is the relationship between the student marks awarded by ICEF and by UoL? What factors can explain differences in assessment outcomes? How does external assessment form and contextualise ICEF’s forms of assessment? Comparability of assessment outcomes is necessary for creating a healthy academic atmosphere at ICEF, and is thus of major concern to all parties: the students, the teachers, and the administration. Also, the lessons learned here may be of interest to other integrated programmes of study.

Method

ICEF has years of exhaustive information on students’ academic performance. We consider the factors that determine performance on the final UoL examinations, as well as on the final examinations in the same subjects for Russian BSc degree. We expect that: 1) coursework and examination marks awarded by ICEF are highly significant for the final examination marks awarded by UoL; 2) there is a high degree of explanation for the observed variation of student marks (R2); 3) the means and other descriptive statistics of examination scores awarded by ICEF and by UoL are comparable. Various econometric models and estimation techniques are used, in accordance with each particular relationship under investigation. A wide range of econometric tools are applied in the analysis. Cases in which we are unable to achieve the announced goals to the proper extent are considered separately, and we conduct interviews with the teachers of those subjects.

Expected Outcomes

The analysis confirms a rather high degree of comparability between the two systems of assessment, Russian (ICEF) and British (UoL). The average final scores (out of 100) usually vary around 50-60, while the standard deviations are around 10-12 (for UoL) and 16-18 for ICEF examinations. The correlation coefficients between students’ results in particular subjects are usually high and vary around 0.6-0.7. We also analyse marks for mid-terms examinations and coursework in order to determine how knowledge and skills were acquired throughout the academic year for both degrees. However, examination scores are only a proxy for actual knowledge; they are also influenced by academic ability, motivation, initial level of preparation, social environment, etc. Cases of non-comparability are considered carefully and in detail. The interviews, which shed additional light on the reasons for the cases of non-convergence, are also used to suggest ways of re-aligning the assessment system to achieve comparability.

References

Bologna Declaration 1999, The European Higher Education Area, Joint declaration of the european ministers of education, Bologna, 19 June 1999. Bridges, P., Cooper, A., Evanson, P., Haines, C., Jenkins, D., Scurry, D., Woolf, H., & Yorke, M. (2002). Coursework marks high, examination marks low: discuss. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(1), 35-48. Frankland, S., Moody, J., Cowdroy, R., Williams, A., Muldoon N., & Lee, C. (2008). Perspectives of teachers and students towards assessment. In S. Frankland (Ed.), Enhancing teaching and learning through assessment (pp. 63-108). Dordrecht: Springer. Handelsman, M.M., Briggs, W.L., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. (2005). A measure of college student course engagement, The Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 184-191. Havnes, A. (2004). Examination and learning: an activity-theoretical analysis of the relationship between assessment and educational practice. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(2), 159-176. Heitmann, G. (2005) Challenges of engineering education and curriculum development in the context of the Bologna process, European Journal of Engineering Education, 30(4), 447-458. Lawrence, J.J., & Pharr, S. (2003). Evolution of admission standards in response to curriculum integration, Quality Assurance in Education, 11(4), 222-233. Lockshin, J. and O. Zamkov. (2008) Predictors of academic achievement and their possible applications, presented at the International Conference on Education, Economy & Society, Paris, 2008 Osterwald, K. (2001) Conclusion of the work of the thematic groups, Convention of European Higher Education Institutions, Salamanca. Rauhvargers A. (2004) Improving the recognition of qualifications in the framework of the bologna process, European Journal of Education, 39(3), 331-347. Saarinen, T. and Ala-Vähälä, T. (2007) Accreditation, the Bologna Process and national reactions: Accreditation as Concept and Action, Higher Education in Europe, 32(4), 333-345. Simonite, V. (2003). The impact of coursework on degree classifications and the performance of individual students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(5), 460-470. Torrance, H. (2007). Assessment as learning? How the use of explicit learning objectives, assessment criteria and feedback in post-secondary education and training can come to dominate learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 14(3), 281-294. Ursin, J., Huusko, M., Aittola, H., Kiviniemi, U. and Muhonen, R. (2008) Evaluation and Quality Assurance in Finnish and Italian Universities in the Bologna Process, Quality in Higher Education, 14(2), 109-120. Wagner, M.J., Powers, S., & Irwin, P. (2001). The prediction of achievement motivation using performance and attributional variables, The Journal of Psychology, 119(6), 595-598. Van der Wende M.C. (2000) The Bologna Declaration: Enhancing the transparency and competitiveness of european higher education, Higher Education in Europe, 25(3), 306-310.

Author Information

Jeffrey Lockshin
International College of Economics and Finance
Moscow
180
Oleg Zamkov
International College of Economics and Finance, Russian Federation

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.