1 / 11

Grading severity, choice and uptake Ofqual ISC conference 4 th February 2016

Grading severity, choice and uptake Ofqual ISC conference 4 th February 2016. Charles Tracy Institute of Physics charles.tracy@iop.org. Overview. The unhelpful language of difficulty Differences in grading severity: direct and adversely affect choice

isidroj
Download Presentation

Grading severity, choice and uptake Ofqual ISC conference 4 th February 2016

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Grading severity, choice and uptake Ofqual ISC conference 4th February 2016 Charles TracyInstitute of Physics charles.tracy@iop.org

  2. Overview • The unhelpful language of difficulty • Differences in grading severity: • direct and adversely affect choice • restrict choice (via performance measures) • distort the exam and grading system • Why the differences in grading severity need to be addressed • How should we address the problem?

  3. 1. The unhelpful language of difficulty • Different facets • Threshold aptitude • Threshold achievement • Objective correctness • Emotional response • Hierarchy of knowledge (and genius myth) • Distribution in mass participation activity • Opposite of hard is soft (effect on gendering) • But argument is undermined by evidence of grade severity • Physics is graded by up to 1.5 grades more severely than some subjects

  4. 2a. Directing and affecting choice • Some principles • Purpose of comparing exams results • Determine aptitiudes • Inform next steps • Selection for next steps • School performance measures • Students should be allowed to choose what is is right for them. • Grade outcomes • What it leads to • The intellectual development • The interest/enjoyment/engagement • But currently, they do not or cannot

  5. 2a. Directing and adversely affecting choice • Students do not choose the subjects that are graded more severely • Direct • ALIS predictor • Directly determines choice (best or better likely grade) • Indirect • Severe grading feeds notion of difficulty • Modal grade is A*/A • No longer a likely option for a predicted C/D

  6. 2b. Restricting choice • Student cannot make a completely free choice • When combined with performance measures, variations in grading severity can remove choices • School priority • Schools advising students for league table place • Required grades • Students self-selecting

  7. 2c. Distorting the exam and grading system • The system of grades at A-level has been distorted • Positive feedback from selection and self-selection has: • distorted the intake • reduced the use of lower grades • removed differentiation at the top • Physics has become a gateway subject • No longer a route to technical futures • No longer a workaday option

  8. 3. The need to address the issue • Who is affected? • The perfectionists – choosing (low) hurdles rather than springboards • The border liners – choosing a safe combination for HE offers • Those who lack confidence (including girls)- fatal combination with messaging about difficulty • Those who would get lower grades- directed into a route with higher grades (but no more utility) • Students in schools clambering up league tables- why would they offer physics?

  9. 3. The need to address the issue • Should we be bothering to try to address the differences in grading? • Yes – because: • Would we design a system in which subjects are graded with different severity? Two possibilities for a starting point:Getting high grades in different subjects, for a given prior performance is: • Equally rare • Less rare in some subjects • If some subjects deserve to be graded less severely, the reasons should be demonstrable • Because there are other inequities does not diminish this one • This is not about equivalence or parity but enabling free choice • Enable and encourage transparency • Have a system that can be justified rather than rationalised

  10. 4. How should we address it? Statistically. Based on reference back to whole population • Weighting in performance measures • Has to be incentive for schools to enter students for severely graded subjects • Overhaul the grading system • Realign all subjects bringing to bear all we know • Open up more headroom • Opportunity for openness: GCSE grading is changing (1 to 9) • Different grading systems: without equivalence • Driving test/music grades • UCAS weighting?? Prefer better information • Different exam - diploma/baccalaureate

  11. Grading severity, choice and uptake Ofqual ISC conference 4th February 2016 Charles TracyInstitute of Physics charles.tracy@iop.org

More Related