Model D
| This tutor works on an IWLP. He too calculates an error quotient by dividing the number of errors by the total number of words written but multiplies this by 100. So, if there are 20 errors and 200 words were written: 20/200 = 0.1 x 100 = 10. To simplify marking, the tutor does not distinguish between errors, counting them all as 1, does not penalize spelling mistakes or repeat errors. He also counts multiple errors in a complex construction as one mistake only. |
These various approaches all have one thing in common: any score obtained via calculation of an error quotient still has to be converted into the local marking currency. For example, if final essay marks are expressed as marks out of 100, then a further calculation has to be performed to convert, say, 450/40.5 into a percentage.
Apart from this complication, the tutors interviewed were aware of some disadvantages in their approach. These can be summarized as follows:
- Calculating total errors is an essentially negative approach to marking and fails to acknowledge what students manage to get right. (The approach of the tutor in Model C provides a partial solution to this).
- Focusing on errors, fails to award good organization, rich content or originality of ideas. Consequently, quantitative approaches need to be supplemented by qualitative judgements of these issues, using clearly expressed criteria.
- Even apparently objective mark schemes can hide subjective elements. One tutor is likely to differ from another in his or her understanding of what 'major', 'minor', 'significant', 'distorts message', etc, actually mean when allocating marks to different types of error.
Activity 10
EITHER
|
Read the piece below written by a learner of English as a foreign language, an ethnic Korean raised in Japan. This a very shameful experience to me. When I visited to Korea first time in 1980. I took a taxi from airport. It was rainny night and really hard to cought the taxi. Because there are so many people at the airport. At last I caught the taxi after I waited about 40 minutes. The taxi was begin to run. After drove about 5 minutes the driver went to other way that was made me feel some fear. I asked him "why you going this way?" He said "Oh, don't worry this is a short cut!!" After a little while he made stop a car and he said "I think there is some troble with engine." I was really scared because it was was really dark and became terrible rain. He said "I'm sorry but I need your help. Whoud you push my car?" Then I did. I was of course leave all of my stuff in the car. At the time, I suspected what I going to happen from now. I added all of my power and push the car. Then he was gone.Yes. he steal all of my stuffs. And I never find my stuff again. I was really sad, but I couldn't tell any my Japanese friends. Because I am Korean. Length: 215 words (Quoted in Bailey 1998: 200) Mark the work using each of the following three schemes in turn:
Express your mark as a percentage in each case. Did the marks you awarded differ significantly? Why do you think this is? Which approach did you feel happiest with? |
OR
| Ask two colleagues to do this exercise with you. Each of you should employ one of the above mark schemes. Compare your results. |
Activity 11
For this activity you will first need to read or remind yourself of the
key criteria for evaluating assessment tasks. (See Module 13, section
13.1.4). Referring to the box
below, decide how many of these criteria apply to each of the three approaches
to marking essays.
| Holistic | Analytic | Objective | |
| Validity | |||
| Reliability | |||
| Transparency | |||
| Practicality | |||
| Washback |
Click on 'Commentary' for feedback on this task.
The three approaches to marking students' written work discussed in this section differ considerably and, as Activity 11 shows, each has its strengths and weaknesses. In the particular context of higher education, holistic marking is unlikely to prove sufficiently flexible or to discriminate student performance adequately for the purposes of learning and teaching. While analytic schemes are becoming widely accepted, many feel their lack of reliability in assessing students' command of grammar and vocabulary require an element of objective scoring alongside descriptive criteria for other components of writing.
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
