Repository logo
 

Judges’ views on pairwise Comparative Judgement and Rank Ordering as alternatives to analytical essay marking

Published version
Peer-reviewed

Change log

Authors

Walland, Emma 

Abstract

In this article, I report on examiners' views and experiences of using Pairwise Comparative Judgement (PCJ) and Rank Ordering (RO) as alternatives to traditional analytical marking for GCSE English Language essays. Fifteen GCSE English Language examiners took part in the study. After each had judged 100 pairs of essays using PCJ and eight packs of ten essays using RO, I collected data on their experiences and views of the methods through interviews and questionnaires. I analysed the data using thematic content analysis.

The findings highlight that, if the methods were to be used as alternatives to marking, examiners and other stakeholders would need reassurance that the methods are fair, valid and reliable. Examiners would also need more training and support to help them to judge holistically. The lack of detail about how judgements are made using these methods is a concern worth following up and addressing before implementation.

Description

Keywords

Comparative Judgement, Examiner Judgement

Journal Title

Research Matters

Conference Name

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Research Division, Cambridge University Press & Assessment

Publisher DOI

Publisher URL

Relationships