|
Marking tests
The marking of tests is reasonably simple if the markers only have to tick boxes or individual
words (though even here hum an error can often creep in). Things are a lot more complex,
however, when we have to evaluate a more integrative piece of work.
One way of m arking a piece of writing, for example, is to give it an overall score (say
A or B, or 65%). This will be based on our experience of the level we are teaching and on
our ‘gut-instinct’ reaction to what we read. This is the way that many essays are marked
in various different branches of education and sometimes such marking can be highly
appropriate. However, ‘gut instinct’ is a highly subjective phenom enon. O ur judgm ent can
be heavily swayed by factors we are not even conscious of. All students will remember
times when they didn’t understand why they got a low m ark for an essay which looked
remarkably similar to one of their classmates’ higher-scoring pieces.
There are two ways of countering the danger of marker subjectivity. The first is to involve
other people. W hen two or three people look at the same piece o f work and, independently,
give it a score, we can have m ore confidence in the evaluation o f the writing than if just one
person looks at it.
The other way of making the marking more objective is to use marking scales for a
range of different items. If we are marking a student’s oral presentation, we m ight use the
following scales:
0
1
2
3
4
5
Gramm ar
Vocabulary
Pronunciation
Coherence
Fluency
This kind of scale forces us to look at our student’s speaking in more detail than is allowed
by an overall impressionistic mark. It also allows for differences in individual performance:
a student may get marked down on pronunciation, but score more highly on use of
grammar, for example. As a result, the student’s final m ark out of a total of 25 may reflect
his or her ability more accurately than a one-m ark impression will do. But we are still left
with the problem of knowing exactly why we should give a student 2 rather than 3 for
pronunciation. W hat exactly do students have to do to score 5 for grammar? W hat would
make us give students 0 for fluency? Subjectivity is still an issue here (though it is less
problematic because we are forcing ourselves to evaluate different aspects of the students’
performance).
One way of trying to make marking scales more objective is to write careful descriptions
of what the different scores for each category actually represent. Here, for example, is a
scale for assessing writing, which uses descriptions:
17 2
Testing
5
Exemplary
4
Strong
3
Satisfactory
2
Developing
l Weak
Id
ea
s/C
o
nt
en
t
Original treatment
of ideas, well-
developed from
start to finish,
focused topic with
relevant, strong
supporting detail.
Clear, interesting
ideas enhanced
by appropriate
details.
Evident main
idea with some
supporting details.
May have some
irrelevant material,
gaps in needed
information.
Some attempt
at support but
main topic may
be too general
or confused by
irrelevant details.
Writing lacks
a central idea;
development is
minimal or non
existent, wanders.
Or
ga
ni
sa
ti
on
Effectively
organised in
a logical and
interesting way.
Has a creative
and engaging
introduction and
conclusion.
Structure moves
the reader
smoothly through
the text. Well
organised with
an inviting
introduction and a
satisfying closure.
Organisation is
appropriate but
conventional.
There is an
obvious attempt
at an introduction
and conclusion.
An effort has been
made to organise
the piece, but it
may be a ‘list’
of events. The
introduction and
conclusion are not
well developed.
A lack of structure
makes this
piece hard to
follow. Lead and
conclusion may
be weak or non
existent.
Vo
ice
Passionate,
compelling, full
of energy and
commitment.
Shows emotion
and generates
an emotional
response from the
reader.
Expressive,
engaging,
sincere tone with
good sense of
audience. Writer
behind the words
comes through
occasionally.
Pleasant but not
distinctive tone
and persona. Voice
is appropriate
to audience and
purpose.
Voice may be
mechanical,
artificial or
inappropriate.
Writer seems to
lack a sense of
audience.
Writing tends to
be flat or stiff.
Style does not
suit audience or
purpose.
W
or
d
Ch
oic
e
Carefully chosen
words convey
strong, fresh,
vivid images
consistently
throughout the
piece.
Word choice is
functional and
appropriate with
some attempt at
description; may
overuse adjectives
and adverbs.
Words may
be correct but
mundane; writing
uses patterns
of conversation
rather than book
language and
structure.
Word choice is
monotonous; may
be repetitious or
immature.
Limited vocabulary
range.
Se
nt
en
ce
Fluenc
y
High degree of
craftsmanship;
control of rhythm
and flow so the
writing sounds
almost musical
to read aloud.
Variation in
sentence length
and forms adds
interest and
rhythm.
The piece has an
easy flow and
rhythm with a
good variety of
sentence length
and structures.
The writing shows
some general
sense of rhythm
and flow, but many
sentences follow a
similar structure.
Many similar
sentence
beginnings and
patterns with little
sense of rhythm;
sounds choppy to
read aloud. May
have many short
sentences or run-
ons.
No real sentence
sense - may
ramble or sound
choppy to read
aloud.
Co
n
v
e
n
tio
n
s
The writing
contains few,
if any, errors in
conventions. The
writer shows
control over a
wide range of
conventions for
this grade level.
Generally, the
writing is free from
errors, but there
may be occasional
errors in more
complex words
and sentence
constructions.
Occasional errors
are noticeable but
minor. The writer
uses conventions
with enough skill
to make the paper
easily readable.
The writing
suffers from more
frequent errors,
inappropriate to
the grade level,
but a reader can
still follow it.
Errors in
conventions
make the writing
difficult to follow.
The writer seems
to know some
conventions, but
confuse many
more.
A
marking scale for writing
17 3
Chapter
13
This framework suggests that the students’ writing will be marked fairly and objectively.
But it is extremely cumbersome, and for teachers to use it well, they will need training and
familiarity with the different descriptions provided here.
W hen marking tests - especially progress tests we design ourselves - we need to strike
a balance between totally subjective one-m ark-only evaluation on the one hand, and over
complexity in marking-scale frameworks on the other.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
