"Good," "Average," or "Poor"? Examiner Interpretation of Qualifying Terms in Assessment Criteria

• In Event: 63.084 - Roundtable Session 22
  In Roundtable Session: 63.084-3 - Validity and Construction in Assessment of Student Learning

Abstract

How examiners in high stakes assessment situations interpret qualifying words in pre-published criteria used to assess open-ended essay type student responses depends on many factors. About 120 International Baccalaureate examiners of varying levels of experience and cultural background will be asked to describe what they expect to see in Diploma level student work (age 16-19) when awarding a mark for performance as described by various qualifying terms (i.e. ‘good’, ‘adequate’, ‘some’) commonly used in the pre-published criteria for Psychology and History Diploma courses. The data are analysed qualitatively via phenomenographic and grounded theory coding approaches. Results will describe the themes and observable indicators that examiners use to establish student performance by criterion and level, illuminating possible sources of examiner disagreement.

Authors

• Rebecca N. Hamer, International Baccalaureate

• Sarah Manlove

• Antony Furlong, International Baccalaureate