When precedence sets a bad example for reform: Conceptions and reliability of a questionable high stakes assessment practice in Norwegian universities

Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 5-27

  Dahl, Tove I ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TROMSØ   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 36349012459     PISSN: 0969594X     EISSN: 1465329X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09695940600563579     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Ackerman, T. A., and Smith, P. L., 1988. A comparison of the information provided by essay, multiple choice, and free-response writing tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12: 117–128.
2. Ashburn, R. R., 1938. An experiment in the essay-type question. Journal of Experimental Education, 7: 1–3.
3. Bertelsen, R., and Salvesen, I. B., 1999. Universitetets karaktersystem har et stort reformbehov [The university grading system has a large need for reform]. Tromsøflaket,: 7
4. Cunningham, G. K., 1986. Educational and psychological measurement, New York: Macmillan.
5. Ebel, R. L., and Frisbie, D. A., 1986. Essentials of educational measurement, (4th edn), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
6. Elwood, J., and Klenowski, V., 2002. Creating communities of shared practice: the challenges of assessment use in learning and teaching. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27: 243–256.
7. Engvik, H., Kvale, S., and Havik, O. E., 1970. Rater reliability in evaluation of essay and oral examinations. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 14: 195–220.
8. Entwistle, A., and Entwistle, N., 1992. Experiences of understanding in revising for degree examinations. Learning and Instruction, 2: 1–22.
9. Goulden, N. R., and Griffin, C. J. G., 1997. Comparison of university faculty and student beliefs about the meaning of grades. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 31: 27–37.
10. Gronlund, N. E., 1985. Measurement and evaluation in teaching, New York: Macmillan Publishing.
11. Hanna, G. S., 1993. Better teaching through better assessment, Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
12. Hornby, W., 2003. Assessing using grade-related criteria: a single currency for universities?. Assessment and Evaluation in Education, 28: 435–454.
13. Kvale, S., 1996. InterViews, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14. Kvale, S., 2000. Eksamen som konstruksjon av kunnskap [The exam as a construction of knowledge]. Uniped, 3: 6–22.
15. Mehrens, W. A., and Lehmann, I. J., 1991. Measurement and evaluation in education and psychology, (4th edn), Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
16. Michael, W. B., Cooper, T., Schaffer, P., and Wallis, E., 1980. A comparison of the reliability and validity of ratings of student performance on essay examinations by professors of English and by professors in other disciplines. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 40: 183–195.
17. Nichols, D. P., 1998. “ Choosing an intraclass correlation coefficient ”. In SPSS Keywords no. 67
18. Norwegian Council for Higher Education. 2000. Mål og mening. En utredning om etablering av en felles nasjonal karakterskala [Goals and intentions. A report about the establishment of a common national grading scale], Oslo: Norwegian Council for Higher Education. (Norway, UHR Report no. 1/2000)
19. Popham, W. J., 2000. Modern educational measurement: practical guidelines for education, (3rd edn), Boston: MA, Allyn & Bacon.
20. Raaheim, A., 1998. Grunnfag psykologi ved Universitetet i Bergen. Noen tanker om kontroll, kvalitet, læring og eksamen (PLF-rapport nr. 1) [Undergraduate psychology at the University of Bergen. Some thoughts about control, quality, learning and the exam, PLF-report no. 1], Bergen: Programme for læringsforskning.
21. Raaheim, A., 2000. An investigation of inter-rater reliability at the PS 101 exam in psychology. Tidsskrift for Norsk Psykologforening, 37: 203–213.
22. Ritter, L., 2000. The quest for an effective form of assessment: the evolution and evaluation of a controlled assessment procedure (CAP). Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25: 307–319.
23. Sadler, D. R., 1987. Specifying and promulgating achievement standards. Oxford Review of Education, 13: 191–209.
24. Sadler, D. R., 1989. Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18: 119–144.
25. Sadler, D. R., 1998. Formative assessment: revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education, 5: 77–84.
26. Sanders, J. R., Hills, J.R., Nitko, A. J., Merwin, J.C., Trice, C., Dianda, M., and Schneider, J., 1990. Standards for teacher competence in educational assessment of students. Educational Measurement: issues and practices, 9: 30–32.
27. Starch, D., and Elliott, E. C., 1912. Reliability of the grading of high-school work in English. School Review, 20: 442–457.
28. Starch, D., and Elliott, E. C., 1913a. Reliability of grading work in mathematics. School Review, 21: 254–259.
29. Starch, D., and Elliott, E. C., 1913b. Reliability of grading work in history. School Review, 21: 676–681.
30. Teigen, K. H., 1986. Karaktersetting ved grunnfagseksamen i psykologi, Stensil [Grading of undergraduate exams in psychology, Handout], Bergen: Psychology Department of the University of Bergen.
31. TenBrink, T., 1974. Evaluation: a practical guide for teachers, New York: McGraw Hill.
32. Utdannings- og forskningsdepartementet [Ministry of Education and Research]. 1995. Lov om universiteter og høyskoler, Lov-1995-05-12-22 [Law of universities and colleges, Law–1995–05–12–22], Oslo: Utdannings- og forskningsdepartementet.
33. Wiliam, D., and Black, P., 1996. Meanings and consequences: a basis for distinguishing formative and summative functions of assessment?. British Educational Research Journal, 22: 537–548.
34. Yorke, M., Barnett, G., Bridges, P., Evanson, P., Haines, C., Jenkins, D., 2002. Does grading method influence honours degree classification. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27: 269–279.
35. Ytreberg, Ø., 2002. Eksamen i høyere utdanning i Norge—myter og realiteter [Exams in higher education in Norway—myths and realities]. Uniped, 2: 18–29.