Search results

This paper aims to investigate the use of blind marking to increase the ability of criterion-referenced marking to discriminate students’ varied levels of knowledge and skill mastery in a business communication skills course.

The business communication course in this study involved more than 10 teachers and 350 students each semester. Data were collected from four semesters of assignment grades to compare the distribution of grades in semesters that used blind marking and in the one that did not (the control group). The standard deviations of marks for each assignment were calculated and compared.

Findings show that blind marking contributed to a wider spread of marks. The study concludes that blind marking, when implemented together with criterion-referenced marking rubrics, can improve the ability of qualitative assessments to discriminate student achievement levels.

Research in the use of criterion-referenced marking rubrics has revealed that assessing with marking rubrics resulted in a wider range of marks awarded because assessors felt that the rubrics helped them make more objective judgments of students’ work (Kuisma, 1999). By this token, it could be argued that because blind marking allows more objective judgment of students’ work (by reducing rater bias), it seems to reason that marks might be awarded on a wider range of the marking scale. However, current literature on blind marking and grade/mark dispersion has yet to reveal a study on whether blind marking is able to increase the spread of marks, and therefore, indicate that an assessment instrument is effective is discriminating a range of student achievement levels. This paper should add to the current research on higher quality of educational assessments.

Assessing learning outcomes for students who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing presents ongoing challenges given the largely verbal nature of classrooms and the presentation of information. Educators should carefully consider several factors when assessing their students who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing. Those factors include, but are not limited to: the format of the assessment, the format in which the student is expected to respond, classroom acoustics, as well as how to continue monitoring learning outcomes based on classroom instruction.

The National Information Center for Children and Youths with Disabilities (NICHCY, 1999) listed five purposes of assessment: (1) screening; (2) evaluation; (3) eligibility and diagnosis; (4) IEP development; and (5) instructional planning. Screening is concerned with identifying students who are suspected of having a disability. In the area of LD, assessors would be evaluating children who are exhibiting learning difficulties or delays in acquiring academic skills. Data from the screening would point out the degree to which these students with suspected LD are approximating average academic growth patterns. Students with extremely deficient skills would be recommended for a full evaluation. This evaluation would delineate the student’s strengths and weaknesses, and overall academic progress across the curriculum. Evaluation would encompass three areas, namely, pre-academic, academic, and learning style assessment. Pre-academic assessment provides information related to a student’s status on prerequisite behaviors (e.g. attention to task) that need to be acquired before instruction in an academic domain (e.g. math) occurs. Academic assessment allows educators to: pinpoint deficit academic readiness skills; describe a student’s overall skill performance level; identify academic skills necessary for learning a domain area; and delineate the steps of a learning task a student has mastered. Learning style assessment involves the identification of a student’s individual learning pattern that she has acquired based on her learning and behavior assets and weaknesses (e.g. active vs. passive learner, auditory vs. visual learner).

Purpose – To provide a resource for educators and graduate students that contains information about using formal assessment data to plan literacy instruction and intervention.

Design/methodology/approach – Several aspects of formal assessment are presented, including a definition of formal assessment, types of formal assessment scores, commonly used formal assessments, and recommendations for using formal assessments for individuals and groups. Information about formal assessment is informed both by documented sources and the experiences of the authors.

Findings – The authors provide an overview of common, commercially available assessments designed to measure literacy achievement in either individuals or groups. Reviews of formal assessments include scores, number of forms, literacy domains measured, and published reliability figures. Recommendations for formal assessment use include using assessment data to plan instruction and intervention for both individuals and groups. In addition, a case study is presented demonstrating the efficacy of using formal assessment data to plan instruction and intervention in a K-6 elementary school in the United States.

Research limitations/implications – The review of commercially available individual and group literacy assessments does not constitute an exhaustive list.

Practical implications – Information about formal assessments, assessment score types, and formal assessment uses is consolidated in one location for easy access by graduate students and other educators.

Originality/value – This chapter provides graduate students and others in the field of education an overview of formal assessments and how formal assessment data can be used to make instructional decisions for both individuals and groups.

Purpose – To provide classroom teachers with an overview of a range of assessments that can be administered either individually or to a group.

Design/methodology/approach – The chapter is organized from early literacy skill assessments (both individual and group based) to comprehension and standardized tests.

Findings – Provides detailed information on skills required for each element of reading, design of assessment, intended purpose, and process of administration.

Research limitations/implications – This is not an exhaustive list, the authors strove to highlight the most reliable and practical assessments from a large body of possible choices.

Practical implications – This is a valuable source for classroom teachers who are provided with a wide-range of assessment choices covering the breadth of reading skills with extensive details on each.

Originality/value of paper – Teachers need a range of assessments to choose from to make decisions at the individual, class and school level.

This paper aims to introduce current debates on assessment practice in higher education and to explore educational research on assessment.

The paper progresses by exploring a number of outcomes and highlights their role in helping one to understand the potential reasons for engaging in enterprise education. The paper then applies this outcomes framework to assessment practice. It does so by reporting a series of focus groups undertaken at the International Small Business and Entrepreneurship (ISBE) Conference in 2005.

The focus groups engaged over 40 entrepreneurship and small business academics in a brainstorming exercise, which explored forms of assessment that could be used to meet particular outcomes in enterprise education. These results are presented according to different potential entrepreneurial outcomes.

The concluding part of the paper categorises these practices to develop and present the views of the participants and it provides a detailed analysis of assessment practice in enterprise education.

Peninsula Technikon has for the past few years engaged in a review of their current qualifications with a view to transforming these curricula into Outcomes Based Education (OBE) format with learning specified in terms of broad, exit level outcomes. In turn the subjects making up these programmes were further broken down into enabling and sub‐enabling learning outcomes. The institution is currently engaged in designing tasks and assessment criteria which attempt to piece together these learning outcomes into projects which integrate student learning and introduce reflective assessment practices. The process underlying the design of these integrated projects has necessitated collaborative planning and assessment among academic staff at various levels of each programme. Through this process staff have grappled with and puzzled over the realities of implementing OBE at classroom level. This paper focuses on an integrated project designed for the exit level of the Civil Engineering diploma programme and explores the assessment practices from lecturer perspectives through unstructured focus group discussions, as well as individual, structured questionnaires and interviews. The outcomes of this research are presented as work in progress and tentative recommendations will be made regarding the implementation of integrated projects.

In Hong Kong higher education, students' learning outcomes are increasingly treated as evidence to inform course and teaching improvement. Therefore, outcome-based teaching and learning (OBTL) has been encouraged by the University Grants Committee (UGC) since 2007. OBTL has gradually been implemented by Hong Kong higher education institutions (HEIs) to enhance student learning outcomes. Relating OBTL to the social cohesion/regulation matrix, this chapter aims at analyzing how OBTL is being implemented by the HEIs in Hong Kong. Given the high institutional autonomy and academic freedom afforded to individual HEIs, each university has established its own systematic framework for integrating outcome-based approaches into its teaching, learning, and assessment. Unlike other higher education systems in Asia with strong government supervision, the government in Hong Kong acts as an enabler and facilitator, leaving the UGC to invite international experts as an independent audit body to assure the quality of student learning. As a result, this chapter chooses the eight UGC-funded universities to investigate how they engage their faculty members in OBTL, and what the enabling and hindering factors are. Based upon the social cohesion/regulation matrix, the Hong Kong higher education system is featured by the individualist way of promoting OBTL. Nonetheless, while universities are empowered with institutional autonomy to decide upon teaching, and student learning matters, their strong orientation with OBTL means they cannot simply do whatever they like. Adopting a robust quality assurance mechanism in evaluating university performance through University Accountability Agreements, the institutional autonomy that universities enjoy rests heavily upon their performance in teaching and student learning, which is assessed through rigorous international benchmarking via the Quality Assurance Audit conducted by the UGC and research performance through the Research Assessment Exercise. This chapter discusses the unique university governance of Hong Kong through the critical review of OBTL being adopted in teaching and learning in Hong Kong universities.

This article seeks to provide an overview of the development, construction and evaluation of an information literacy testing instrument connected with the VOILA! online information literacy tutorials, developed by librarians at Hunter College libraries for students enrolled in the college's first‐year orientation seminar (ORSEMs).

The VOILA! online information literacy tutorial, developed by librarians at Hunter College, has a test as one of its components. All incoming students registered in the college's orientation seminars (ORSEMs) are required to go through the VOILA! tutorials and take the test. The longitudinal development and evaluation of the test are reviewed, including initial statement of competencies, test creation, test construction (assessment type, question formulation and question type) and test evolution. Validity and reliability are also discussed in detail. Finally, a review of the test results including general statistics and the connection of student performance to test construction is provided.

Test construction was given a great deal of attention during the development of VOILA!, as librarians wanted an instrument that was valid and reliable. The importance of iterative test design and attention to the details of test construction is stressed in the article, and the methodology used to determine validity and reliability is presented. Those interested in testing information literacy skills must be able to examine the instrument, the results and the design process in a way that contributes meaningfully to the preparation of students to undertake research at the college level.

Librarians will continue to modify the VOILA! test in keeping with evaluation results, and the assessment will continue. Thus the results presented may not fully represent the final evaluative outcome.

This research is useful for information professionals who are interested in test design, construction and evaluation. The longitudinal study presents clear, practical information that can be used as a case study for other libraries interested in this area. The VOILA! test itself is included as an Appendix, and can be used as a model for other libraries to consult.

A literature review revealed a number of articles about testing and information literacy, but very few, if any, articles approached the discussion from a longitudinal test construction standpoint. In this way, the study presents information that is original. The study would be valuable for information professionals who are interested in test design, construction and evaluation.