Dear Colleagues,
Further to Steve Rutherford's recent timely posting about categorical marking, we are also looking into the pros and cons of categorical marking, where markers do not use the full range of scores from 0 to 100%, but are restricted to a choice between a limited number of specific points (eg only 2, 5 and 8% within each 10% band).
Categorical marking does appear to be in use within certain institutions, or in certain departments or programmes, and is also widely used in areas of language assessment (also referred to as "pegged marking"). There seems to be a general understanding that this helps deal with the challenge of using analytic marking rubrics which provide textual descriptors for broad bands, but are not detailed enough to make meaningful distinctions at the percentage point level. This is also set in the context of the work of Mantz Yorke, Chris Rust, Sue Bloxham and others, with discussion of the "measurement fallacy", "fuzzy marking" and the role of judgement in marking.
Like Steve, I would also be very interested to find any evidence-based studies around categorical marking in particular and I agree that it would be very useful to hear other people's experiences and local practices with this approach to marking.
Best regards
John
John Dermo
Academic Developer (Academic) SFHEA,
Quality and Enhancement Office
Crescent House, Room G06,
University of Salford, M5 4WT
[log in to unmask] | www.salford.ac.uk
________________________________________
From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development Association [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Stephen Rutherford [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 03 March 2017 13:54
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Categorical Marking
Dear Colleagues,
I was wondering if anyone out there knew of any studies that have been done, or had any personal experience, of the use of categorical marking (i.e. marking to specific points within a % scale, e.g. 2, 5 and 8% points in each 10% boundary) vs using the full 100% mark range?
We introduced categorical marking some years ago, but it would be useful to have some robust studies I could point to that support (or even refute!) the concept that categorical marking is more robust. If nothing else, it would be useful to hear other people's experiences and local practices.
Many thanks in advance for any thoughts!
Steve Rutherford
Dr. S. M. Rutherford SFHEA FRSB
National Teaching Fellow
Deputy Director of Undergraduate Education
School of Biosciences
Cardiff University
Museum Avenue
Cardiff
CF10 3AX
United Kingdom
Tel: (+44) 2920 870251
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
|