Does your assessment really discriminate learning attainment? (part one)

Do the assessments we prepare for students allow them to fully showcase what they've learned? Do marking schemes affect the distribution of marks? And what kind of assessments lead to, or don't lead to, the full range of marks?

Today's episode, the fourth of our Learning and Teaching Conference series, features Dr. Michael Daw, Director of Quality in the Deanery of Biomedical Sciences. Michael's presentation from the conference, "The unintended consequences of approaches to marking and assessment & supporting criteria-based marking", caught our eye with its counterintuitive findings of marking schemes and assessment styles, along with Michael's commitment towards an evidence-based approach towards advising course organizers.

In this episode, Michael discusses what drew him to this analysis and showcases a few of his findings. The conversation then expands, introducing the idea of 'marking culture' within schools with Michael offering a few of his personal experiences. He also speaks about contextual marking and how different styles of assessment generally achieve different outcomes, at least in regards to the range of marks. This conversation begs the question: does your assessment really discriminate learning attainment? And if it doesn't, perhaps Michael's analysis can help steer you in the right direction.

This episode is part one of our conversation with Michael, with part two coming next week, which will entertain the question: why might it be beneficial to use the full range of marks? Is there anything wrong with using a narrow range of marks?

Timestamps

2:02 - Episode specific introduction and Michael on what drew him to this analysis

8:30 - Michael on some of his counterintuitive findings, and why marking schemes may not affect distribution of marks as much as initially thought

15:28 - Michael on marking culture, assessment styles and authentic vs non-authentic assessment