Competent+and+Weak+Students

// Richard Fuller, Godrey Pell and Matt Homer (University of Leeds) // // Wednesday, 29 August, Workshop // // Verslag door: Caspar Groeneveld // The most important with assessment of students is whether or not they pass or fail; everything else is detail. But the cut off score of passing is hardly a precise science. Some students will pass where they should have failed (false positives) and vice versa. The presenters have therefore started with a different way of assessing students in a medical programme in the last year of their studies.
 * Assessment needs of Competent and Underperforming Students **
 * Korte Samenvatting **

They did an experiment with sequential testing. Break up tests in smaller tests and then test students on these smaller tests: if they are close to failing or passing, test them again on a new test, if they fail again, and again, they will be put back a year (in the case of this experiment). In other words: failing or passing doesn’t depend on one big test, but the group of students close to the critical border will be tested more frequently. It’s important to realize that students don’t get resits, but they get tested more frequently.

This leads to more reliable assessments on these students. Students who had a bad day, can correct for it, while weak students will fail again on the next test. Good students, on the other hand, will be tested less often than other students.

What is interesting, is that of the students who failed in the new system, 16% would have passed in previous years. These false positives are identified by the sequential testing. Students find the system fairer than the old system, and make less appeals than before. It also means that good students get less tests. If they receive high marks, they don’t have to be tested as often. Exactly those students who are in the pass/fail area will do more tests. Interestingly, the total number of assessments went down for the cohort, though the assessment number for the weak students went up. Something comparable is used in the Netherlands by Meta Kamminga. She allows students who get good marks on Maple T.A. tests to do less tests that are more important. This choice is left to students though and doesn't have the same consequences. Two very enthusiastic teachers who only had 9 people or so in their workshop. Applicability is evident for my programme (which is why I went). At the Psychology programme, we ‘force’ students to take very small tests once or twice a weak. By putting good students in a different track, you can deal with their complaints about needless testing, while the weaker students, who need the tests more, get these, get more information on their performance, and will not appeal when they fail a year or the programme.
 * Inzichten **
 * Review **
 * Toepasbaarheid **