Teacher Judgment in Student Evaluation: A Comparison of Grading Methods

Teacher ratings of student engagement with educational software: An exploratory study

“…In the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS) (Perry & Meisels, 1996), following 23,000 children from kindergarten through the fourth grade, teachers made accurate assessments of student academic performance, sometimes predicting future achievement better than standardized measures. Similarly, Wright and Wiese (1988) found high correlations (ranging from +.57 to +.71) between teacher ratings of achievement and student performance on standardized achievement tests. Hoge and Coladarci (1989) reviewed 17 studies yielding 56 measures of the concurrent validity of teacher judgments of student achievement.…”

“…Are teachers effective in assessing learner motivation? Wright and Wiese (1988) found that teachers rated student effort and achievement on distinguishable, correlated criteria. These authors found no motivation criterion to validate the teachers' effort ratings and did not investigate the relations between effort ratings and standardized test achievement.…”

General education teacher judgments of their low‐performing students' short‐term reading progress

“…In some studies, teachers were asked to rank-order the students in their classroom according to competence with a given skill (e.g., Luce & Hoge, 1978). In other studies, teachers were asked to provide global ratings on a Likert-type scale (e.g., Wright & Weise, 1988). These methods are referred to as "indirect" (Hoge & Coladarci, 1989) or "dissimilar" (Feinberg & Shapiro, 2003) because the teacher rating and the criterion are measured using different methods (i.e., global ratings or rankings vs. test scores).…”

Primary School Teachers' Judgements of Reading Achievement

“…For example, teacher measures compared with standardised test results for reading have generally been positively and signi cantly correlated, ranging from 0.41 to 0.73 (Airasian et al, 1977;Luce & Hoge, 1978;Hopkins et al, 1985;Wright & Wiese, 1988). Sharpley & Edgar (1986) separated reading into two components, vocabulary and comprehension, nding correlations between teachers and student measures of 0.42-0.44 and 0.50-0.56 for vocabulary and comprehension, respectively.…”

“…Sharpley & Edgar (1986) separated reading into two components, vocabulary and comprehension, nding correlations between teachers and student measures of 0.42-0.44 and 0.50-0.56 for vocabulary and comprehension, respectively. Such correlations have been interpreted as indicating the validity of teachers' judgements (Hoge & Coladarci, 1989;Hopkins et al, 1985;Wright & Wiese, 1988), although many have accounted for only small shared variance between teacher and test measures. However, Hoge & Coladarci (1989) suggested that this may be a consequence of indirect estimates of achievement by teachers in the form of ratings and rankings; asking teachers to estimate directly student performance scores for a particular test does appear to improve correlations to a range of 0.68-0.82 (Doherty & Conolly, 1985;Wright & Wiese, 1988;Freeman, 1993).…”