Grading criteria

and marking schemes

Liz Norman

Massey University

Australian and New Zealand College of Veterinary Scientists,

Exam Writing Workshop, November 2013

Validity again…

• The questions must elicit the behaviour we want

to evaluate

• Different markers need to award similar/scores

for the same candidate response

• Markers need to reward features we want to

evaluate and not reward features we do not

want to evaluate

Chain of inferences

1. Fellows have sufficient knowledge, skills, attitudes and judgement to be considered specialists

2. The things we can measure in examinations are things that are necessary to be a Fellow

3. A particular examination (all 4 components) is representative of all that we could measure in an examination

4. The examination score is a measure of achievement in the examination

5. The passing score of 70% correctly separates someone with sufficient knowledge, skills, attitude and judgement to be a Fellow from someone without

Purpose of marking schemes

• To help you during Q writing

– What content is important

– Whether the Q asks what you intended it to ask

– Whether it is do-able in the time available

• To help you during Q marking

– helps you decide whether an answer is good enough

to be awarded a mark

– facilitates reliable and fair marking

Types of marking scheme

1. Model answer – “ideal” answer

2. Point-based schemes

3. Generic criteria- & level-based schemes

4. Specific criteria- & level-based schemes

5. Specific criteria- & level-based schemes with

incorporated principle(s) for discriminating

levels

Model answers

• Not recommended

• Usually more than would be expected to be

given by any candidate

• No guidance on how to assess alternative

answers to the model provided

• No guidance on how to award marks

Point-based schemes

• Points for each objectively identifiable content

point

• Does not indicate the relative importance of the

points it awards

• Sum can be more or less than the whole

• Rewards quantity not quality

Criteria- & level-based schemes

• Criteria – different dimensions of performance

• Level – different quality/standards of

performance on a given criteria

Criteria- & level-based schemes

• Generic vs specific for the Q

• Explicit vs implicit weighting

Southern Cross University (2013) http://scu.edu.au/teachinglearning/download.php?doc_id=12921&site_id=301&file_ext=.pdf

Standards

Very poor Poor Fair Excellent C

rite

ria

Analysis and

interpretation

of results

Total 8 marks

0-2 marks

Interpretation not

provided or incorrect.

2-4 marks

Lacks one or more key

elements.

4-6 marks

Adequate interpretation

that addresses key

elements. Misses nuances

of interpretation or

uncommon differentials

6-8 marks

Thorough accurate

interpretation of results.

Well justified and

appropriately prioritised

list of differentials.

Quality of

planning

Total 8 marks

0-2 marks

No plans provided or

plans not appropriate

or dangerous

2-4 marks

Plans miss some key

aspects or overly

general

4-6 marks

Adequate plans that

address all key

differentials. Some

displaced in priority or not

pragmatic

6-8 marks

Thorough detailed and

well-prioritised and

pragmatic plan that

addresses all defined

differentials.

Knowledge of

current

literature

Total 5 marks

0-2 marks

Little or no literature referred to or incorrectly

referred to.

3-4 marks

Answer refers to some of

the key literature

4-5 marks

Answer refers to current

literature including

controversies and

comparative work from

other species.

Logical

presentation

Total 4 marks

1 mark

Answer is disorganised

and includes a large

amount of irrelevant

material

2 marks

Answer is somewhat

disorganized and

includes some

irrelevant material

3 marks

The answer is relatively

well organized and

contains little irrelevant

material.

4 marks

The answer shows a high

degree of logical thought

and well-constructed

argument.

Analytical vs holistic schemes

• Both are valid

• Analytical (criteria scored separately)– Better agreement between examiners

– Insufficient criteria

– Overlapping criteria

• Holistic (scored as a whole)– Challenging, especially for longer answers

– Less agreement between examiners

Whittem (2013) Guidelines for Oral Examiners, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Melbourne

Armstrong et al. (2008) University of Western Sydney http://www.uws.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/449860/Assessment_Guide.pdf

Armstrong et al. (2008) University of Western Sydney http://www.uws.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/449860/Assessment_Guide.pdf

Wood (2012). Macquarie University http://staff.mq.edu.au/public/download.jsp?id=56594

Incorporating principles/rules

• Ideal is a specific criteria- & level-based

schemes with incorporated principle(s) for

discriminating levels

Quality vs quantity

• More complex and unstructured the Q the more

assessing quality not quantity

• In very constrained tasks only judging how

correct the answer is

• In very open tasks, “correctness” is less

important and its quality that's judged instead

Prestructural Question may be rephrased as the answer; almost completely

misses the point of the question.

Unistructural Able to identify, list, name, enumerate but does not describe,

explain, relate or elaborate multiple aspects of a response

Multistructural Able to list as well as describe distinct aspects of a response (such

as being able to describe aetiology, clinical features, management

of thrombotic stroke) but unable to explicitly explain causes for

observations; unable to present cause-effect relationships.

Relational Able to describe multiple aspects of a process and additionally

explain or elaborate observations into cause-effect relationships;

able to compare similarities and differences between apparently

distinct phenomena. This level is taken as suggesting that the

learner has understood.

Extended

abstract

Highly developed; able to explain mechanisms of phenomena and

apply this information to a novel context — able to develop novel

hypotheses, theories, and deduce principles; creative thinking.

Prakash et al. (2010) Adv Physiol Educ, 34(3):145-149

Content vs connections

Lucander et al. (2010). European Journal of Dental Education, 14(3), 145-150.

Writing marking schemes

• Select and organise the criteria/dimensions

• Develop clear descriptions for each

level/standard of each criteria

• Need to think about poor answers as well as

good ones

Revising mark schemes in use

• Hopefully all types of answer are anticipated

• Sometimes though it is not – can indicate unanticipated problems with the Q

• Marking schemes might need revising after first few candidates marked

• HSE should moderate marking and should encourage team members to report marking issues early in the piece.