09 SES 10 B, Challenges in Educational Assessments (II)
Parallel Paper Session<br /> Joint Session with NW 13
Many teachers in the UK teach and assess subjects outside their fields of expertise, for a range of reasons including teacher shortages; the growing popularity of interdisciplinary courses; and the emergence of qualifications not rooted within any particular subject disciplines, for example the Project Qualifications developed recently in England and Wales. Interdisciplinary courses and Project Qualifications are frequently designed to grant students the invaluable freedoms of choosing and exploring their personal fields of interests and also of developing personal styles of expression. However,teachers with different subject backgrounds may have different interpretations of assessment terms, leading to inconsistencies in judgements during assessment (Sadler, 1989). This is an international phenomenon, characteristic of a range of subjects, and independent of the local vernacular. Recently, a series of research studies in various European countries has confirmed that the background discipline of teachers and assessors affects their conceptualisation of good performance. Analysing students’ academic writing in the history of science in the United Kingdom, North (2005) found that ‘arts’ students received higher marks than ‘science’ students because the typical features of writing required by the arts (e.g. requiring careful expression and re-drafting, dealing with interpretations, balancing different opinions) were valued more by the assessors. In Norway, Dysthe, Engelsen and Lima (2007) also found significant, discipline-related differences among teacher-assessors of ‘soft’ disciplines (e.g. arts) and ‘hard’ disciplines (e.g. maths, sciences and engineering). Working in the Netherlands, Joosten-ten Brinke, Sluijsmans and Wim (2010, 71) found that the decision-making process is “identical for assessors in the same domain, but differs from those in different domains”, leading to differences in their understanding of the assessment criteria. These differences in interpretations may have implications for the reliability and for the validity of the outcomes of assessment and therefore bear a critical impact on the career prospects and identities of many individuals.
Stemming from the international literature, two research questions were addressed in this study:
1. Do teachers from different disciplines, such as in the humanities and in the sciences, have different understandings of common generic assessment terms such as ‘analyse’ and ‘evaluate’?
2. Do individual differences arise in interpreting the assessment terms?
The aims of the present study were to answer the above research questions by elucidating tacit, semantic understanding of educational assessment terms and by collecting and analysing evidence of any differences among subject experts with different subject specialisms.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1971). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. London: Longman. 16th Edition. Dysthe, O., Engelsen, K. S. & Lima, I. (2007). Variations in Portfolio Assessment in Higher Education: Discussion of Quality Issues Based on a Norwegian Survey across Institutions and Disciplines. Assessing Writing, 12(2), 129-148. Joosten-ten Brinke, D., Sluijsmans, D. M. A. & Jochems, W. M. G. (2010). Assessors' Approaches to Portfolio Assessment in Assessment of Prior Learning Procedures. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(1), 59-74. North, S. (2005). Different values, different skills? A comparison of essay writing by students from arts and science backgrounds. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 517-533. Sadler, D.R. (1989) Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119-144.
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- 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 you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.