hkr.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Analytic or holistic: a study of agreement between different grading models
Kristianstad University, Faculty of Education, Research environment Learning in Science and Mathematics (LISMA). Kristianstad University, Faculty of Education, Avdelningen för matematik- och naturvetenskapernas didaktik. (LISMA)ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3251-6082
City of Helsingborg.
2018 (English)In: Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, ISSN 1531-7714, E-ISSN 1531-7714, Vol. 23, no 12Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Research on teachers’ grading has shown that there is great variability among teachers regarding both the process and product of grading, resulting in low comparability and issues of inequality when using grades for selection purposes. Despite this situation, not much is known about the merits or disadvantages of different models for grading. In this study, a methodology for comparing two models of grading in terms of (a) agreement between assessors (reliability) and (b) justifications for the grades assigned (validity) was used with a small sample of teachers (n = 24). The design is experimental, with teachers being randomly assigned to two conditions, where they graded the same student performance using either an analytic or a holistic approach. Grades have been compared in terms of agreement and rank correlation, and justifications have been analyzed with content analysis. Findings suggest that the analytic condition yields substantively higher agreement among assessors as compared to the holistic condition (66 versus 46 percent agreement; Cohen's kappa .60 versus .41), as well as higher rank correlation (Spearman's rho .97 versus .94), without any major differences in how the grades were justified. On the contrary, there was a relatively strong consensus among most raters in the sample.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2018. Vol. 23, no 12
National Category
Didactics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hkr:diva-18727OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hkr-18727DiVA, id: diva2:1250082
Available from: 2018-09-21 Created: 2018-09-21 Last updated: 2018-09-21Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(328 kB)94 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 328 kBChecksum SHA-512
49f959c3c17fc780eab1d46276a05e97cd7eebf5b33e54aa11890bb680599c34cdffe8ce2485db56a09e39ea440f7dc5810d36c7b5f93bcdd9c4a17f80fc3292
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Jönsson, Anders
By organisation
Research environment Learning in Science and Mathematics (LISMA)Avdelningen för matematik- och naturvetenskapernas didaktik
In the same journal
Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation
Didactics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 94 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 304 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf