Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGrainger, Peteren_US
dc.contributor.authorPurnell, Kenen_US
dc.contributor.authorZipf, Reynaen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-03T14:56:57Z
dc.date.available2017-05-03T14:56:57Z
dc.date.issued2008en_US
dc.date.modified2012-04-03T22:51:08Z
dc.identifier.issn02602938en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/02602930601125681en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/44197
dc.description.abstractDecisions by markers about quality in student work remain confusing to most students and markers. This may in part be due to the relatively subjective nature of what constitutes a quality response to an assessment task. This paper reports on an experiment that documented the process of decision-making by multiple markers at a university who assessed the same written student assessment responses. The paper analyses the professional conversations between those markers around their conceptions of quality in the student assessment responses. It was found that the markers appeared to share common understandings of quality in the context of the marking criteria and standards across the achievement levels awarded. However, despite these apparently shared notions of quality, in some cases different levels of achievement were awarded to the same student assessment responses. This suggests that that there is a clear need for explicitly stated standard descriptors for each level of achievement and that this must be interpreted through substantive professional conversations in the context of real student work. The key driver is the student work, and conversations amongst markers about what constitutes 'quality' in the context of the written and explicit criteria and standards of achievement that are available to students and markers alike are a necessity.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_US
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.publisherRoutledgeen_US
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_US
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationNen_US
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom133en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto142en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissue2en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalAssessment & Evaluation in Higher Educationen_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume33en_US
dc.rights.retentionYen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchSpecialist Studies in Education not elsewhere classifieden_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode130399en_US
dc.titleJudging quality through substantive conversations between markersen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Peer Reviewed (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
gro.date.issued2008
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record