Mark scheme design for school- and college-based assessment in VTQs

References

• Acquah, D. K., and P. Huddleston. 2014. “Challenges and Opportunities for Vocational Education and Training in the Light of Raising the Participation Age.” Research in Post-Compulsory Education 19 (1): 1–17. doi:10.1080/13596748.2013.872915.
   Google Scholar
• Acquah, D. K., and D. Malpass. 2017. “The Technical Baccalaureate: Providing Excellence in Vocational Education?” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 24 (1): 96–117. doi:10.1080/0969594x.2015.1112253.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahmed, A., and A. Pollitt. 2011. “Improving Marking Quality through a Taxonomy of Mark Schemes.” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 18 (3): 259–278. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2010.546775.
   Google Scholar
• Alton, A., K. Brown, and S. Maughan. 2018. Features of Effective Mark Schemes in Knowledge-Based Qualifications: Evidence from a Literature Review and Expert Interviews. Qualifications Wales: AlphaPlus.
   Google Scholar
• Baird, J.-A., A. Beguin, P. Black, A. Pollitt, and G. Stanley. 2012. “The Reliability Programme: Final Report of the Technical Advisory Group.” In Reliability Compendium, edited by D. Opposs and Q. He, 771–838. Coventry: Ofqual.
   Google Scholar
• Baird, J.-A., J. Greatorex, and J. F. Bell. 2004. “What Makes Marking Reliable? Experiments with UK Examinations.” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 11 (3): 331–348. doi:10.1080/0969594042000304627.
   Google Scholar
• Barkaoui, K. 2011. “Effects of Marking Method and Rater Experience on ESL Essay Scores and Rater Performance.” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 18 (3): 279–293. doi:10.1080/0969594x.2010.526585.
   Google Scholar
• Beach, P. 2018. “Applied Generals and Tech Level Qualifications: Additional Guidance [Open Letter].” Ofqual, March 15. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/applied-generals-and-tech-levels-additional-guidance
   Google Scholar
• Billington, L., and M. Meadows. 2005. A Review of the Evidence on Marking Reliability. Manchester: AQA Centre for Education Research and Practice.
   Google Scholar
• Black, B., I. Suto, and T. Bramley. 2011. “The Interrelations of Features of Questions, Mark Schemes and Examinee Responses and Their Impact upon Marker Agreement.” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 18 (3): 295–318. doi:10.1080/0969594x.2011.555328.
   Google Scholar
• Bloom, B. S., ed. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. London: Longmans, Green and .
   Google Scholar
• Bramley, T. 2009. “Mark Scheme Features Associated with Different Levels of Marker Agreement.” Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment Publication 8: 16–23.
   Google Scholar
• Brockmann, M., L. Clarke, and C. Winch. 2008. “Knowledge, Skills, Competence: European Divergences in Vocational Education and Training (VET) - the English, German and Dutch Cases.” Oxford Review of Education 34 (5): 547–567. doi:10.1080/03054980701782098.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooks, V. 2012. “Marking as Judgment.” Research Papers in Education 27 (1): 63–80. doi:10.1080/02671520903331008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cadwallader, S. 2014. Developing Grade Descriptions for the New GCSEs: Considerations and Challenges. Manchester: AQA Centre for Education Research and Practice.
   Google Scholar
• Carter, A., and A.-M. Bathmaker. 2017. “Prioritising Progression over Proficiency: Limitations of Teacher-Based Assessment within Technician-Level Vocational Education.” Journal of Further and Higher Education 41 (4): 460–474. doi:10.1080/0309877x.2015.1135881.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Child, S., J. Munro, and T. Benton. 2015. An Experimental Investigation of the Effects of Mark Scheme Features on Marking Reliability. Cambridge: Cambridge Assessment. http://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/Images/417277-an-experimental-investigation-of-the-effects-of-mark-scheme-features-on-marking-reliability.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Cresswell, M. J. 1988. “Combining Grades from Different Assessments: How Reliable Is the Result?” Educational Review 40 (3): 361–382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cresswell, M. J. 1994. “Aggregation and Awarding Methods for National Curriculum Assessments in England and Wales: A Comparison of Approaches Proposed for Key Stages 3 and 4.” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 1 (1): 45–62. doi:10.1080/0969594940010104.
   Google Scholar
• Crisp, V. 2013. “Criteria, Comparison and past Experiences: How Do Teachers Make Judgements When Marking Coursework?” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 20 (1): 127–144. doi:10.1080/0969594x.2012.741059.
   Google Scholar
• Dawson, P. 2017. “Assessment Rubrics: Towards Clearer and More Replicable Design, Research and Practice.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 42 (3): 347–360. doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1111294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DfE. 2017. Technical and Applied Qualifications for 14 to 19 Year Olds. Key Stage 4 and 16 to 18 Performance Tables from 2020: Technical Guidance for Awarding Organisations. London: Department for Education.
   Google Scholar
• Eraut, M., S. Steadman, J. Trill, and J. Parkes. 1996. The Assessment of NVQs. Brighton: University of Sussex.
   Google Scholar
• Gillis, S., and P. Griffin. 2004. “Using Rubrics to Recognise Varying Levels of Performance.” Training Agenda: A Journal of Vocational Education and Training 12 (2): 22–24.
   Google Scholar
• Gillis, S., and P. Griffin. 2005. “Principles Underpinning Graded Assessment in VET: A Critique of Prevailing Perceptions.” International Journal of Training Research 3 (1): 53–78. doi:10.5172/ijtr.3.1.53.
   Google Scholar
• Greatorex, J. 2001. “Can Vocational a Levels Be Meaningfully Compared with Other Qualifications?” Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK, September 13- 15.
   Google Scholar
• Griffin, P., and M. Francis. 2017. “Writing Rubrics.” In Assessment for Teaching, edited by P. Griffin, 113–140. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Griffin, P., M. Francis, and P. Robertson. 2017. “Judgement-Based Assessment.” In Assessment for Teaching, edited by P. Griffin, 90–112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gulikers, J. T. M., P. Runhaar, and M. Mulder. 2017. “An Assessment Innovation as Flywheel for Changing Teaching and Learning.” Journal of Vocational Education & Training 70 (2): 212–231. doi:10.1080/13636820.2017.1394353.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harlen, W. 2004. A Systematic Review of the Evidence of Reliability and Validity of Assessment by Teachers Used for Summative Purposes, Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Harsch, C., and G. Martin. 2013. “Comparing Holistic and Analytic Scoring Methods: Issues of Validity and Reliability.” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 20 (3): 281–307. doi:10.1080/0969594x.2012.742422.
   Google Scholar
• He, Q., and D. Opposs. 2012. “The Reliability of Results from National Tests, Public Examinations, and Vocational Qualifications in England.” Educational Research and Evaluation 18 (8): 779–799. doi:10.1080/13803611.2012.731777.
   Google Scholar
• Humphry, S. M., and S. A. Heldsinger. 2014. “Common Structural Design Features of Rubrics May Represent a Threat to Validity.” Educational Researcher 43 (5): 253–263. doi:10.3102/0013189x14542154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isaacs, T. 2013. “The Diploma Qualification in England: An Avoidable Failure?” Journal of Vocational Education & Training 65 (2): 277–290. doi:10.1080/13636820.2013.783613.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, M. 2008a. “Assessing at the Borderline: Judging a Vocationally Related Portfolio Holistically.” Issues in Educational Research 18 (1): 26–43.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, M. 2008b. “Exploring Assessor Consistency in a Health and Social Care Qualification Using a Sociocultural Perspective.” Journal of Vocational Education & Training 60 (2): 173–187.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, M. 2008c. “Grading in Competence‐Based Qualifications – Is It Desirable and How Might It Affect Validity?” Journal of Further and Higher Education 32 (2): 175–184.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, S. 2011. A Focus on Teacher Assessment Reliability in GCSE and GCE. Coventry: Ofqual.
   Google Scholar
• Johnston, B. 2004. “Summative Assessment of Portfolios: An Examination of Different Approaches to Agreement over Outcomes.” Studies in Higher Education 29 (3): 395–412.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonsson, A., and G. Svingby. 2007. “The Use of Scoring Rubrics: Reliability, Validity and Educational Consequences.” Educational Research Review 2 (2): 130–144. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2007.05.002.
   Google Scholar
• Laming, D. 2004. Human Judgment: The Eye of the Beholder. London: Thomson Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Massey, A., and T. Dexter. 2002. “An Evaluation of Spelling, Punctuation and Grammar Assessments in GCSE.” Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK, September 11- 14.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, C. 2010. “The Teacher as Examiner: The Case of Mathematics Coursework.” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 3 (3): 353–375. doi:10.1080/0969594960030305.
   Google Scholar
• Nádas, R., I. Suto, and R. Grayson. 2012. “Analyse, Evaluate, Review ….how Do Teachers with Differing Subject Specialisms Interpret Common Assessment Vocabulary? ” Paper presented at the European Conference for Educational Research, University of Cádiz, Spain.
   Google Scholar
• Newton, P. 2018. Grading Vocational & Technical Qualifications (Ofqual/18/6441/3). Coventry: Ofqual.
   Google Scholar
• Ofqual. 2017. “Guidance: Glossary for Ofqual’s Statistics.” Ofqual. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/glossary-for-ofquals-statistics/glossary-for-ofquals-statistics
   Google Scholar
• Pinot de Moira, A. 2013. Features of a Levels-Based Mark Scheme and Their Effect on Marking Reliability. Manchester: AQA Centre for Education Research and Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Pinot de Moira, A. 2014. Levels-Based Mark Schemes and Marking Bias. Manchester: AQA Centre for Education Research and Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Pollitt, A., A. Ahmed, J.-A. Baird, J. Tognolini, and M. Davidson. 2008. Improving the Quality of GCSE Assessment. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
   Google Scholar
• Raffe, D. 2015. “First Count to Five: Some Principles for the Reform of Vocational Qualifications in England.” Journal of Education and Work 28 (2): 147–164. doi:10.1080/13639080.2014.1001334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raikes, N., J. Fidler, and T. Gill. 2010. “Must Examiners Meet in order to Standardise Their Marking? An Experiment with New and Experienced Examiners of GCE AS Psychology.” Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment Publication 10: 21–27.
   Google Scholar
• Suto, I., and J. Greatorex. 2008. “What Goes through an Examiner’s Mind? Using Verbal Protocols to Gain Insights into the GCSE Marking Process.” British Educational Research Journal 34 (2): 213–233. doi:10.1080/01411920701492050.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, M., J. Pritchard, and E. Gray. 2006. Grading the Specialised Diploma. Manchester: AQA Centre for Education Research and Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Williamson, J. 2018. “Characteristics, Uses and Rationales of Mark-Based and Grade-Based Assessment.” Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment Publication 26: 15–21.
   Google Scholar
• Wolf, A. 1993. Assessment Issues and Problems in a Criterion-Based System. London: Further Education Unit.
   Google Scholar
• Wolf, A. 1995. Competence-Based Assessment. Buckingham: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wyatt-Smith, C., V. Klenowski, and S. Gunn. 2010. “The Centrality of Teachers’ Judgement Practice in Assessment: A Study of Standards in Moderation.” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 17 (1): 59–75. doi:10.1080/09695940903565610.
   Google Scholar