Discipline‐related Marking Behaviour Using Percentages: a potential cause of inequity in assessment

Abstract

This study set out to ascertain whether percentage mark distributions show evidence of discipline-related marking behaviour and, if so, to consider the implications of this for equity in assessment outcomes. Performance data were obtained for 10 subjects at seven English universities for 1993English universities for -94, 1994English universities for -95 and 1995. The data showed that mark distributions at universities using percentages may be categorised into three Types (A,B and C). Type A distributions (English and History) are characterised by a steep-sided negatively skewed distribution with a narrow spread. Pronounced microscale variation in the frequency is evident only in the vicinity of the mode between 55-65%. Type B distributions (Biology, Business Studies, Fine Art, French, Law and Sociology) have a slightly broader spread and display microscale variation in frequency across a wider range of percentiles [40-70%]. Type C distributions (Computer Studies and Mathematics) are characterised by a subdued, slightly negatively skewed distribution with a considerably wider spread. Type C distributions show conspicuous microscale variation in frequency across most of the percentile range. The types of distributions appear to reflect the relative confidence of assessors in different disciplines in awarding marks. The extremities of the percentage scale are perceived as insecure territory for the assessors of qualitative subject matter. Type A 0260-2938/99/030285-16 ©1999 Taylor & Francis Ltd Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 03:13 03 January 2015 286 P. Bridges et al.distributions are characteristic of disciplines in which the assessment is qualitative. Type B distributions may reflect the assessment of combined qualitative-quantitative subject matter. Type C distributions are typical of disciplines in which more quantitative matter is assessed. The existence of discipline-related patterns of distribution is a potential cause of inequity of outcomes for students on joint or multidisciplinary programmes. Data derived from institutions using grading scales show that discipline-related patterns are less evident.

Mathematics lecturers' views of examinations: tensions and possible resolutions

“…Yorke (2011) notes a tension within higher education more generally between "retention and completion (with their implications for institutional funding) and ... the need for academics to uphold standards" (p. 258). This concern in the context of mathematics may also relate to the tendency of mathematics to have a far wider mark distribution than other subjects being coupled with the need to map that wider range onto a similar set of degree classifications without serious imbalances (Bridges et al, 1999) Thus the lecturers in this sample feel they 'fall back' on questions which test memory and computation. This, paired with the ease of marking of memory and computational questions, seems to have driven the written examination to a test of reproduction and routine applications of techniques.…”

Pan‐European Grading Scales: Lessons from National Systems and the ECTS

“…… the use of percentage scales leads to inequities that are hard to justify" [p.451]. Moving to European style grades should lessen such inequities for, as Bridges et al [1999] found, there is "evidence of discipline-related marking behaviour when percentages are used … (but that) … differences between subjects are less marked when grading systems are used" [p.298].…”

Assessment in Higher Education: The Potential for a Community of Practice to Improve Inter-marker Reliability

“…However, some empirically based concern is starting to emerge. In a study across 10 subjects in seven English universities, Bridges et al (1999) found that the higher the qualitative content was, the narrower the distribution of marks tended to be. Thus, their main conclusion is that:…”