(Un)reliable assessment : A case study.

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorReed, Yvonne
dc.contributor.authorGranville, Stella
dc.contributor.authorJanks, Hilary
dc.contributor.authorMakoe, Pinky
dc.contributor.authorSteyn, Pippa
dc.contributor.authorVan Zyl, Susan
dc.contributor.authorSamuel, Michael
dc.date.accessioned2016-06-21T12:28:16Z
dc.date.available2016-06-21T12:28:16Z
dc.date.issued2003-03
dc.description.abstractThe drive towards quality assurance at South African universities, with 'consistency' of approach being one of its key features, has profound implications for assessment policies and practices in relation to equity. In this article we present a case study discussion of an investigation we undertook, as a department, into certain anomalies which arose in the assessment of a particular group of post-graduate students' research reports. We were puzzled by the variability in the marks awarded by three different markers of the same reports and set out to investigate what factors were producing this 'inter-marker [un]reliability'. Through a content and discourse analysis of the different assessors' written reports, we uncovered the implicit assessment categories and criteria which assessors were working with in their assessments. We discovered shared categories and criteria, as well as differences in how these were weighted. In the interests of equity and increased inter-marker reliability, we have developed a set of banded criteria on generic features of the research report which we intend to develop a set of banded criteria on generic features of the research report which we intend to trial. We also surfaced two unresolved issues: the use of language and the role of the writer's 'voice' in the research report. As a result of this investigation, we argue that the 'consistency' of assessment within and across universities aspired to by quality assurers (such as the HEQC in the South African context) is difficult to achieve and much still depends on professional judgement, intellectual position and personal taste.en_ZA
dc.identifier.citationReed, Y., Granville, S., Janks, H., Makoe, P., Stein, P., Van Zyl, S., & Samuel, M. (2003). (Un)reliable assessment : A case study. Perspectives in Education, 21(1), 15-28.en_ZA
dc.identifier.issn0258-2236
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10539/20518
dc.language.isoenen_ZA
dc.subjectAssessment policies and practices – Higher Education – South Africaen_ZA
dc.subjectPostgraduate reportsen_ZA
dc.subjectCritical discourseen_ZA
dc.title(Un)reliable assessment : A case study.en_ZA
dc.typeArticleen_ZA
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
Reed, Y., Granville, S., Janks, H. ... (2003). (Un)reliable assessment.pdf
Size:
424.11 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Main article
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
Research Outputs (Education)
Academic Wits Research Outputs (All submissions)