Sambedömning för ökad likvärdighet?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24834/educare.2015.2.1137Keywords:
grading, moderation, reliability, teacher assessmentAbstract
Teachers’ assessment and grading of student achievement is often charged for not being reliable. Various suggestions of how to reach higher levels of reliability are advocated in different contexts, and one suggestion is “social moderation”. Social moderation involves teachers working together when assessing and grading student performance. Although the claim is often made that moderation practices lead to higher levels of reliability in teachers’ assessment and grading, such claims often lack scientific support. In this study, a literature review has been carried out in order to gain knowledge about the potential effects that moderation may have and whether these effects may in fact lead to more reliable assessment and grading. The results indicate that moderation practices do have an effect, which may ultimately lead to higher levels of reliability if these practices involve several levels in the assessment process. Moderation is also a process that can be affected by several factors, such as the organization of the moderation meetings and the selection of student performance.
References
Adie, Leonore E. (2010). Developing shared understandings of standards-based assessment: On-line moderation practices across geographically diverse contexts. Doktorsavhandling, Queensland University of Technology, Australien.
Adie, Leonore (2012). Learning as identity and practice through involvement in online moderation. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 24, 43-56.
Adie, Leonore E., Klenowski, Valentina & Wyatt-Smith, Claire (2012). Towards an understanding of teacher judgement in the context of social moderation. Educational Review, 64, 223-240.
Allal, Linda (2013). Teachers’ professional judgement in assessment: a cognitive act and a socially situated practice. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20, 20-34.
Baird, Jo-Anne, Greatorex, Jackie & Bell, John F. (2004). What makes marking reliable? Experiments with UK examinations. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 11, 331-348.
Biggs, John B. & Tang, Catherine S. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university: what the student does. (3. ed.) Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Society for Research into Higher Education.
Black, Paul, Harrison, Christine, Hodgen, Jeremy, Marshall, Bethan & Serret, Natasha (2010). Validity in teachers’ summative assessments. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17, 215-232.
Bolt, Susan (2011). Making consistent judgments: Assessing student attainment of systemic achievement targets. Educational Forum, 75,157-172.
Clarke, Shirley & Gipps, Caroline (2000). The role of teachers in teacher assessment in England 1996–1998. Evaluation and Research in Education, 14, 38-52.
Connolly, Stephen, Klenowski, Valentina & Wyatt-Smith, Claire M. (2012). Moderation and consistency of teacher judgement: teachers’ views. British Educational Research Journal, 38, 593-614.
Crisp, Victoria (2013). Criteria, comparison and past experiences: how do teachers make judgements when marking coursework? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20, 127-144.
Crooks, Terence J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58, 438–481.
Davison, Chris (2004). The contradictory culture of teacher-based assessment: ESL teacher assessment practices in Australian and Hong Kong secondary schools. Language Testing, 21(3), 305-334.
de Eca, Pereira & Torres, Maria T. (2005). Using portfolios for external assessment: An experiment in Portugal. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 24, 209-218.
Erickson, Gudrun (2009). Nationella prov i engelska – en studie av bedömarsamstämmighet. Hämtad 24 februari 2014, från http://www.nafs.gu.se/digitalAssets/1319/1319572_bed.np-eng-g.erickson-2009.pdf
Falk, Beverly & Ort, Suzanna (1998). Sitting down to score. Teacher learning through assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 59-64.
Forsberg, Christina & Wengström, Yvonne (2008). Att göra systematiska litteraturstudier: värdering, analys och presentation av omvårdnadsforskning. (2., [uppdaterade] utg.) Stockholm: Natur & Kultur.
Gipps, Caroline V. (1994). Beyond testing: towards a theory of educational assessment. London: Falmer.
Graneheim, Ulla H. & Lundman, Berit (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24(2), 105-112.
Gustavsson, Anders, Måhl, Per & Sundblad, Bo (2012). Betygssättning: en handbok. (1. uppl.) Stockholm: Liber.
Hall, Kathy & Harding, Austin (2002). Level descriptions and teacher assessment in England: towards a community of assessment practice. Educational Research, 44(1), 1-16.
Harlen, Wynne (Ed.) (1994) Enhancing Quality in Assessment. BERA Policy Task Group on Assessment, Paul Chapman Publishers.
Harlen, Wynne (2004). A systematic review of the evidence of reliability and validity of assessment by teachers used for summative purposes. In: Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.
Harlen, Wynne (2005). Teachers’ summative practices and assessment for learning - tensions and synergies. Curriculum Journal, 16(2), 207-223.
Holroyd, Colin (2000). Are assessors professional? Active Learning in Higher Education 1 (1), 28–44.
Klenowski, Val & Adie, Leonore (2009). Moderation as judgement practice: Reconciling system level accountability and local level practice. Curriculum Perspectives, 29, 10-28.
Klenowski, Valentina & Wyatt-Smith, Claire (2010). Standards-Driven Reform Years 1-10: Moderation an Optional Extra? Australian Educational Researcher, 37(2), 21-39.
Klenowski, Valentina (2012). Raising the stakes: the challenges for teacher assessment. The Australian Educational Researcher, 39(2), 173-192.
Korp, Helena (2006). Lika chanser i gymnasiet? En studie om betyg, nationella prov och social reproduktion. Doktorsavhandling, Malmö högskola.
Krippendorff, Klaus (1980). Content Analysis. An Introduction to its Methodology. The Sage Commtext Series, Sage Publications Ltd., London.
Linn, Robert L. (1993). Linking Results of Distinct Assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 6(1), 83-102.
Little, Judith W., Gearhart, Maryl, Curry, Marnie & Kafka, Judith (2003). Looking at student work for teacher learning, teacher community, and school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 185-192.
Malone, Larry, De Lucchi, Linda, & Long, Kathy (2004). All Things in Moderation. Science and Children, 41(5), 30-34.
Maxwell, Graham S. (2002). Progressive assessment: Synthesising formative and summative purposes of assessment. In Frank Ventura and Grace. Grima (eds), Contemporary issues in educational assessment: Proceedings of the ACEAB Second International Conference, Malta 2002, pp. 220–234. Msida, Malta: MATSEC Examinations Board.
Maxwell, Graham (2007). Implications for moderation of proposed changes to senior secondary school syllabuses. Paper commissioned by the Queensland Studies Authority. Brisbane: Queensland Studies Authority.
Morgan, Candia & Watson, Anne (2002). The interpretative nature of teachers’ assessments of students’ mathematics: Issues for equity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33, 78-110.
Moss, Pamela A. & Schutz, Aaron (2001). Educational standards, assessment, and the search for consensus. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 37-70.
Olofsson, Gunilla (2006). En studie av lärares bedömning av elevarbeten på ett nationellt prov i matematik kurs A. Stockholms universitet, PRIM-gruppen.
Queensland Studies Authority. (2012). Random sampling project 2012. Report on random sampling of assessment in Authority subjects. Brisbane: Queensland Studies Authority.
Reid, Lesley (2007). Teachers talking about writing assessment: valuable professional learning. Improving Schools, 10, 132-149.
Roberts, Lily, Wilson, Mark & Draney, Karen (1997). The SEPUP assessment system: An overview BEAR Report Series (Vol. SA-97-1). Berkeley: University of California.
Sadler, D. Royce (1998). Formative Assessment: revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 77-84.
Sadler, D. Royce (2009). Grade integrity and the representation of academic achievement. Studies in Higher Education, 34(7), 807-82.
Sadler, D. Royce (2013). Assuring academic achievement standards:
from moderation to calibration, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20 (1), 5-19.
Skolinspektionen (2012). Lika för alla? Omrättning av nationella prov i grundskolan och gymnasieskolan under tre år. Stockholm: Skolinspektionen.
Skolinspektionen (2013). Tillsyn av bedömning och betygssättning. Stockholm: Skolinspektionen.
Skolverket (2004). Handlingsplan för en rättssäker och likvärdig betygssättning. Stockholm: Skolverket.
Skolverket (2009a). Redovisning av regeringsuppdrag att ge förslag på hur det nationella provsystemet bör utvecklas och utformas. Stockholm: Skolverket.
Skolverket (2009b). Bedömaröverensstämmelse vid bedömning av nationella prov. Dnr 2008:286. Stockholm: Skolverket.
Skolverket (2011a). Läroplan för grundskolan, förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet 2011. Stockholm: Skolverket.
Skolverket (2011b). Läroplan, examensmål och gymnasiegemensamma ämnen för gymnasieskola 2011. (2011). Stockholm: Skolverket.
Skolverket (2012a). Betygsskalan A-E. Hämtad 24 februari 2014, från: http://www.skolverket.se/bedomning/betyg
Skolverket (2012b). Likvärdig utbildning i svensk grundskola? En kvantitativ analys av likvärdighet över tid. Rapport nr. 374. Stockholm: Skolverket.
Skolverket (2012c). Redovisning av uppdrag om avvikelser mellan provresultat och betyg i grundskolan årskurs 9. Dnr 75-2012:311. Stockholm: Skolverket.
Skolverket (2012d). Redovisning av uppdrag om avvikelser mellan provresultat och kursbetyg i gymnasieskolan. Dnr 75-2012:311. Skolverket: Stockholm.
Syverson, Margaret A. (2009). Social justice and evidence-based assessment with the Learning Record. Forum on Public Policy, 1-27.
Wilson, Mark (Ed.). (2004). Towards coherence between classroom assessment and accountability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
