Year: 2013
Author: Bloxham, Sue, Price, Margaret, den Outer, Birgit, Hudson, Jane
Type of paper: Abstract refereed
Abstract:
The assurance of standards in higher education is assuming greater significance globally. External oversight of standards is taking place through national frameworks for describing and safeguarding award standards and regulating quality systems, for example the Australian Higher Education Standards Framework and the UK Academic Infrastructure and the
Within this broader context, a system of independent (external) examiners is seen in some jurisdictions as a key tool in assuring assessment standards. However, studies have not investigated the central tenet that external examining rests on which is the capacity of examiners to hold and consistently apply a shared understanding of academic standards. This is despite broader research on grading providing little confidence regarding academic standards in use in higher education. Such research consistently emphasises the individualised, tacit, interpretive nature of standards. Whilst there is a view (e.g. Shay 2005; Orr 2010) that the subjectivity implied by this concept of standards is mediated by membership of an academic community with its mutual engagement (Crisp, 2008), the evidence for such ‘intersubjectivity' (Bruner 1996) is not very compelling.
This study aimed to investigate how individuals' standards for judgement are shaped by their personal assessment histories, involvement in professional/disciplinary communities, experience of student work, exposure to different universities and institutional and national reference points. It also investigated the consistency of standards between examiners within and between disciplines.
24 experienced examiners working in four contrasting disciplines were recruited. A repertory grid exercise was used to reflect on borderline B/C assignments followed by an interview leading to construction of a social world map, the purpose of which was to explore the situated and social constructs that frame academic standards in the practice of the participant.
Initial results indicate that each external examiner's personal standards framework (Bloxham, Boyd & Orr, 2011) is influenced by a differing range of experiences. The variety in the provenance of their standards and the range of influences explains the limited power of ‘intersubjectivity' to achieve a consensus over standards. Indeed, whilst examiners in the same field focused on some roughly common criteria, the judgements made about those aspects of students' work and their overall assessment of assignments varied enormously.
It would appear from provisional findings that we should be considerably more sceptical about the power of external examiners to assure and calibrate academics' standards across programmes and universities without the intensive moderating processes more commonly associated with standards- based assessment in schools.
References will be supplied at the conference.
Within this broader context, a system of independent (external) examiners is seen in some jurisdictions as a key tool in assuring assessment standards. However, studies have not investigated the central tenet that external examining rests on which is the capacity of examiners to hold and consistently apply a shared understanding of academic standards. This is despite broader research on grading providing little confidence regarding academic standards in use in higher education. Such research consistently emphasises the individualised, tacit, interpretive nature of standards. Whilst there is a view (e.g. Shay 2005; Orr 2010) that the subjectivity implied by this concept of standards is mediated by membership of an academic community with its mutual engagement (Crisp, 2008), the evidence for such ‘intersubjectivity' (Bruner 1996) is not very compelling.
This study aimed to investigate how individuals' standards for judgement are shaped by their personal assessment histories, involvement in professional/disciplinary communities, experience of student work, exposure to different universities and institutional and national reference points. It also investigated the consistency of standards between examiners within and between disciplines.
24 experienced examiners working in four contrasting disciplines were recruited. A repertory grid exercise was used to reflect on borderline B/C assignments followed by an interview leading to construction of a social world map, the purpose of which was to explore the situated and social constructs that frame academic standards in the practice of the participant.
Initial results indicate that each external examiner's personal standards framework (Bloxham, Boyd & Orr, 2011) is influenced by a differing range of experiences. The variety in the provenance of their standards and the range of influences explains the limited power of ‘intersubjectivity' to achieve a consensus over standards. Indeed, whilst examiners in the same field focused on some roughly common criteria, the judgements made about those aspects of students' work and their overall assessment of assignments varied enormously.
It would appear from provisional findings that we should be considerably more sceptical about the power of external examiners to assure and calibrate academics' standards across programmes and universities without the intensive moderating processes more commonly associated with standards- based assessment in schools.
References will be supplied at the conference.