Grading criteria and marking schemes A presentation given at the Australian and New Zealand College of Veterinary Scientists Examination Writing Workshop, November 2013 Liz Norman, Massey University, New Zealand

1. Grading criteria
and marking schemes
Liz Norman
Massey University
Australian and New Zealand College of Veterinary Scientists,
Exam Writing Workshop, November 2013

2. Validity again…
• The questions must elicit the behaviour we want
to evaluate
• Different markers need to award similar/scores
for the same candidate response
• Markers need to reward features we want to
evaluate and not reward features we do not
want to evaluate

3. Chain of inferences
1. Fellows have sufficient knowledge, skills, attitudes and
judgement to be considered specialists
2. The things we can measure in examinations are things
that are necessary to be a Fellow
3. A particular examination (all 4 components) is
representative of all that we could measure in an
examination
4. The examination score is a measure of achievement in
the examination
5. The passing score of 70% correctly separates someone
with sufficient knowledge, skills, attitude and judgement
to be a Fellow from someone without

4. Purpose of marking schemes
• To help you during Q writing
– What content is important
– Whether the Q asks what you intended it to ask
– Whether it is do-able in the time available
• To help you during Q marking
– helps you decide whether an answer is good enough
to be awarded a mark
– facilitates reliable and fair marking

5. Types of marking scheme
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Model answer – “ideal” answer
Point-based schemes
Generic criteria- & level-based schemes
Specific criteria- & level-based schemes
Specific criteria- & level-based schemes with
incorporated principle(s) for discriminating
levels

6. Model answers
• Not recommended
• Usually more than would be expected to be
given by any candidate
• No guidance on how to assess alternative
answers to the model provided
• No guidance on how to award marks

7. Point-based schemes
• Points for each objectively identifiable content
point
• Does not indicate the relative importance of the
points it awards
• Sum can be more or less than the whole
• Rewards quantity not quality

8. Criteria- & level-based schemes
• Criteria – different dimensions of performance
• Level – different quality/standards of
performance on a given criteria

9. Criteria- & level-based schemes
• Generic vs specific for the Q
• Explicit vs implicit weighting

10. Southern Cross University (2013) http://scu.edu.au/teachinglearning/download.php?doc_id=12921&site_id=301&file_ext=.pdf

11. Standards
Very poor
Analysis and 0-2 marks
interpretation Interpretation not
of results
provided or incorrect.
Total 8 marks
Criteria
Quality of
planning
Total 8 marks
0-2 marks
No plans provided or
plans not appropriate
or dangerous
Poor
2-4 marks
Lacks one or more key
elements.
Fair
4-6 marks
Adequate interpretation
that addresses key
elements. Misses nuances
of interpretation or
uncommon differentials
Excellent
6-8 marks
Thorough accurate
interpretation of results.
Well justified and
appropriately prioritised
list of differentials.
2-4 marks
Plans miss some key
aspects or overly
general
4-6 marks
Adequate plans that
address all key
differentials. Some
displaced in priority or not
pragmatic
6-8 marks
Thorough detailed and
well-prioritised and
pragmatic plan that
addresses all defined
differentials.
Knowledge of 0-2 marks
3-4 marks
current
Little or no literature referred to or incorrectly Answer refers to some of
literature
referred to.
the key literature
Total 5 marks
4-5 marks
Answer refers to current
literature including
controversies and
comparative work from
other species.
Logical
presentation
Total 4 marks
4 marks
The answer shows a high
degree of logical thought
and well-constructed
argument.
1 mark
Answer is disorganised
and includes a large
amount of irrelevant
material
2 marks
Answer is somewhat
disorganized and
includes some
irrelevant material
3 marks
The answer is relatively
well organized and
contains little irrelevant
material.

12. Analytical vs holistic schemes
• Both are valid
• Analytical (criteria scored separately)
– Better agreement between examiners
– Insufficient criteria
– Overlapping criteria
• Holistic (scored as a whole)
– Challenging, especially for longer answers
– Less agreement between examiners

13. Whittem (2013) Guidelines for Oral Examiners, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Melbourne

14. Armstrong et al. (2008) University of Western Sydney http://www.uws.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/449860/Assessment_Guide.pdf

15. Armstrong et al. (2008) University of Western Sydney http://www.uws.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/449860/Assessment_Guide.pdf

16. Wood (2012). Macquarie University http://staff.mq.edu.au/public/download.jsp?id=56594

17. Incorporating principles/rules
• Ideal is a specific criteria- & level-based
schemes with incorporated principle(s) for
discriminating levels

18. Quality vs quantity
• More complex and unstructured the Q the more
assessing quality not quantity
• In very constrained tasks only judging how
correct the answer is
• In very open tasks, “correctness” is less
important and its quality that's judged instead

19. Prestructural
Question may be rephrased as the answer; almost completely
misses the point of the question.
Unistructural
Able to identify, list, name, enumerate but does not describe,
explain, relate or elaborate multiple aspects of a response
Multistructural
Able to list as well as describe distinct aspects of a response (such
as being able to describe aetiology, clinical features, management
of thrombotic stroke) but unable to explicitly explain causes for
observations; unable to present cause-effect relationships.
Relational
Able to describe multiple aspects of a process and additionally
explain or elaborate observations into cause-effect relationships;
able to compare similarities and differences between apparently
distinct phenomena. This level is taken as suggesting that the
learner has understood.
Extended
abstract
Highly developed; able to explain mechanisms of phenomena and
apply this information to a novel context — able to develop novel
hypotheses, theories, and deduce principles; creative thinking.
Prakash et al. (2010) Adv Physiol Educ, 34(3):145-149

20. Content vs connections
Lucander et al. (2010). European Journal of Dental Education, 14(3), 145-150.

21. Writing marking schemes
• Select and organise the criteria/dimensions
• Develop clear descriptions for each
level/standard of each criteria
• Need to think about poor answers as well as
good ones

22. Revising mark schemes in use
• Hopefully all types of answer are anticipated
• Sometimes though it is not – can indicate
unanticipated problems with the Q
• Marking schemes might need revising after first
few candidates marked
• HSE should moderate marking and should
encourage team members to report marking
issues early in the piece.