Unit 3

1. Graduate Certificate in the Assessment of Student Learning Unit 3 Estimating Student Achievement Challenges of making reliable and objective judgements

2. Reliable & objective judgement challenges Reliable - dependable, consistent, trustworthy Objective – impartial, detached, unbiased Awareness of potential biases or judgement ‘errors’

3. Common ‘errors’ • Pre-judging • Confusing achievement with effort • Different standards different students • Cultural stereotyping • Gender stereotyping • ‘halo’ effect • ‘proximity’ error • ‘central tendency’ error • ‘severity/leniency’ error

4. Prejudging Letting expectation rule over actual evidence of learning when A student exceeds our expectations Doesn’t demonstrate the capacity we expect To minimise potential to prejudge Assess each piece of evidence of learning on its own merits.

5. Confusing achievement with effort Effort does not always equate to ability bigger/longer is not necessarily better Appearance may not match response quality To minimise potential to confuse achievement with effort Assess each piece of evidence of learning on its own merits.

6. Different standards different students Building tolerance standards applied ‘More able’ students +/- 6mm ‘Average’ students +/- 8mm ‘Less able’ students +/- 10mm Potentially fraught difference. Might preclude some students meeting highest standard.

7. Cultural stereotyping Extensive research available • Klenowski & Gertz (2009) • culture fair assessment • Kraiger & Ford (1985) • 74 studies race effect, bias to own race • Baker (2005) • Potential cultural group sabotage • Perry & Delpit (1998) • Potential to dismiss legitimate responses

8. Gender stereotyping Assuming girls and boys will perform at higher/lower levels than each other Gender effect on rating Performance effect due to gender mix Review items demonstrating gender diff.

9. Other common ‘errors’ • Halo effect • One aspect of performance influences rating on another aspect • Proximity error • Tendency to give similar rating to criteria located near each other • ‘central tendency’ error • Rarely award very high or very low ratings

10. Severity or leniency Comparability/reliability impacted Tendency to be hard or easy marker Congdon & McQueen (2000) To minimise potential to be severe or lenient assessor Access to: work samples across levels; moderation; and, professional dialogue.

11. Common ‘errors’ • Pre-judging • Confusing achievement with effort • Different standards different students • Cultural stereotyping • Gender stereotyping • ‘halo’ effect • ‘proximity’ error • ‘central tendency’ error • ‘severity/leniency’ error

12. Assessment mantra Ensure fair and equitable assessment practices Learning to be established by the evidence

13. Participant requirements summary Note potential biases that may exist in your context Consider ways to expose biases Consider ways to minimise biases/ ‘errors’ Share examples of best practice. Initiate and build discussion, explore issues related to providing fair and equitable assessment and assessment results. See participant requirements for further details.