Recently, comparative judgement has been introduced as an alternative method for scoring essays. Although this method is promising in terms of obtaining reliable scores, empirical evidence concerning its validity is lacking. The current study examines implications resulting from two critical assumptions underpinning the use of comparative judgement, namely its holistic characteristic and how the final rank-order reflects the shared consensus on what makes for a good essay. Judges' justifications that underpin their decisions are qualitatively analysed to obtain insight into the dimensions of academic writing they take into account. The results show that most arguments are directly related to the competence description. However, judges also use their expertise in order to judge the quality of essays. Additionally, judges differ in terms of how they conceptualize writing quality, and regarding the extent to which they tap into their own expertise. Finally, this study explores divergence conceptualisation of misfitting judges.

The study makes clear that the impact of teaching strategies on learning strategies in first-year higher education cannot be overlooked nor overinterpreted, due to the importance of students' personality and academic motivation which also partly explain why students learn the way they do.

Nowadays, comparative judgment (CJ) is used to assess competences. Judges compare two pieces of student work and judge which of both is better regarding the competence assessed. Using these pairwise comparison data, students' work is scaled according to its quality. Since student work is highly information loaded and heterogeneous of nature, this raises the question whether judges can handle this type of complex judgments? However, research into the complexity of CJ and its relation with decision accuracy is currently lacking. Therefore, this study initiates a theoretical framework on the complexity of CJ and relates it to decision accuracy. Based on this framework, two hypotheses are formulated and their plausibility is examined. The first hypothesis states that the distance between two pieces of student work on the rank-order (rank-order distance) is negatively related to experienced complexity, irrespectively of decision accuracy. In contrast, hypothesis 2 expects decision accuracy to moderate the relation between rank-order distance and experienced complexity. A negative relation is expected for accurate decisions. Meanwhile, inaccurate decisions are assumed to result in higher experienced complexity than accurate decisions, irrespective of rank-order distance. In both hypotheses, judges are expected to vary in mean experienced complexity as well as in the strength of the expected relationship between rank-order distance and experienced complexity. Using an information-theoretic approach, both hypotheses are translated into a statistical model and their relative fit is assessed. All analyses are replicated on three samples. Sample 1 and 2 comprise CJ data on the assessment of writing, while sample 3 contains pairwise comparison data on the assessment of visual arts. In all samples, results unambiguously confirm the moderating role of decision accuracy (hypothesis 2). Inaccurate decisions are experienced as more complex than accurate decisions, irrespective of rank-order distance. Meanwhile, for accurate decisions, rank-order distance is negatively related to experienced complexity. In line with expectations, differences between judges are found in mean experienced complexity and in the strength of the relationship between rankorder distance and experienced complexity. Suggestions for further theory development are formulated based on the results of this study.

No abstract

No abstract

Insight into aspects that guide teachers' decisions when assessing student text quality is crucial to an understanding of the validity of text scores. Such research has been lacking in the context of comparative methods which are, however, increasingly being used for text assessment purposes. This study reports on the aspects of argumentative texts that guide Flemish teachers' decisions when using the comparative judgement method. In using this method, teachers indicate which text of a pair is of higher quality. 27 teachers explained 23 comparative judgements in a decision statement, when comparing randomly selected texts written by 135 students in their fifth year of general secondary education. This resulted in 596 statements referring to 2054 segments of aspects of text quality. Firstly, an inductive analysis revealed that teachers consider a wide range of aspects with regard to text quality when making comparison decisions. Secondly, the deductive aggregation of these aspects showed that most decisions are informed by the organisation and argumentation of the texts. Lastly, almost all statements reported complex aspects of text quality, whereas half of the decision statements also showed a reflection on the rule-applying aspects of text quality. We conclude that comparative judgement encourages teachers to make decisions on complex and multiple aspects of text quality. Further research should elaborate on whether the aspects that informed teachers' decisions are related to the text they choose, and whether teachers differ in the aspects to which they refer.

No abstract

No abstract