Grade Correspondence between Internal andExternal Examiners of Occupational Therapy Students’ Bachelor Theses

Bonsaksen, Tore; Thørrisen, Mikkel Magnus; Sveen, Unni; Kjeken, Ingvild; Wågø, Randi; Lund, Anne

doi:10.18261/issn.1893-8981-2018-03-11

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are principled arguments anchored in autonomy -for institutions, departments and instructors to make pedagogical decisions about how they structure their educational offerings without government interference. There is some research evidence that evaluators regularly disagree and that two evaluators may provide a fairer assessment than one, but the effects are variable and depend on subject discipline (Rye, 2014, Bonsaksen et al, 2018. Then there are the arguments that posit that extensive use of two evaluators will drain resources away from research-based pedagogical practices in teaching and assessment.…”

Section: The Two-evaluator Challengementioning

confidence: 99%

Maintaining quality assessment practices in Norwegian higher education after the two-evaluator law

Harlap

Jørgensen

Cotner

2022

NJSTEME

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In May 2021, the Norwegian parliament voted unanimously to again require the use of two evaluators to assess all student work given a grade on the A-F scale in higher education. This revision of the law regulating higher education marks a return to a rule that had been rescinded with the Quality Reform of 2001, and has the potential to lead to a cascade of negative consequences for the quality of practices in STEM higher education. We first provide an overview of the problem, and then offer practical, constructive, and evidence-based suggestions for how instructors can meet these requirements while still offering students opportunities to gain formative feedback, to engage in deep and meaningful learning, and be assessed in ways that are aligned with the intended learning outcomes of the course. These recommendations are certainly not exclusive to a STEM learning context, but two of us (CJ and SC) are STEM educators and bring that perspective to this work.

show abstract

Section: The Two-evaluator Challengementioning

confidence: 99%

Maintaining quality assessment practices in Norwegian higher education after the two-evaluator law

Harlap

Jørgensen

Cotner

2022

NJSTEME

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Factors Considered in the Assessment of Computer Science Engineering Capstone Projects and Their Influence on Discrepancies Between Assessors

Domínguez

Arturo

García‐Izquierdo

et al. 2020

ACM Trans. Comput. Educ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A capstone project is an extensive learning experience traditionally developed during a student's final academic year. Assessing such a complex assignment involves several challenges and is usually based upon the evaluations of at least two different people: the capstone project advisor, and one or more other assessors. Quantitative studies comparing only different assessors' grades and qualitative studies investigating the origin of possible discrepancies have been conducted. In both cases, contradictory conclusions were reached. The objective of this study is to analyze the factors that are given consideration by assessors of engineering capstone projects and the influence of these factors on the discrepancies between different assessors’ opinions of the same project. This study quantitatively examined 162 computer science engineering capstone projects developed by one student and supervised by one advisor. Each project was assessed by the project advisor and a committee. For each project, the advisor and the committee were asked to complete an additional questionnaire on product characteristics, student competences, and project supervision. Competences demonstrated by the student were found to be the most relevant element when a capstone project was evaluated by the advisor and the committee; product characteristics were found to be second in influence. Furthermore, advisors grant minor significance to the advisor-involvement component. Discrepancies between grades seem to be associated with those aspects to which one assessor has access, while the other does not, such as student skills demonstrated during project development or their performance in the oral defense. Both the advisor's and the committee's perspectives are important in the assessment of this complex task and they complement one another.

show abstract

Maintaining quality assessment practices in Norwegian higher education after the two-evaluator law

Harlap¹,

Jørgensen²,

Cotner³

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In May 2021, the Norwegian parliament voted unanimously to again require the use of two evaluators to assess all student work given a grade on the A-F scale in higher education. This revision of the law regulating higher education marks a return to a rule that had been rescinded with the Quality Reform of 2001, and has the potential to lead to a cascade of negative consequences for the quality of educational practices. We first provide an overview of the problem, and then offer practical, constructive, and evidence-based suggestions for how instructors can meet these requirements while still offering students opportunities to gain formative feedback, to engage in deep and meaningful learning, and be assessed in ways that are aligned with the intended learning outcomes of the course.

show abstract

Grade Correspondence between Internal andExternal Examiners of Occupational Therapy Students’ Bachelor Theses

Cited by 3 publications

References 20 publications

Maintaining quality assessment practices in Norwegian higher education after the two-evaluator law

Maintaining quality assessment practices in Norwegian higher education after the two-evaluator law

Factors Considered in the Assessment of Computer Science Engineering Capstone Projects and Their Influence on Discrepancies Between Assessors

Maintaining quality assessment practices in Norwegian higher education after the two-evaluator law

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About