Repository logo
 

Moderation of non-exam assessments: is Comparative Judgement a practical alternative?

Published version
Peer-reviewed

Change log

Authors

Vidal Rodeiro, Carmen 
Chambers, Lucy 

Abstract

Many high-stakes qualifications include non-exam assessments that are marked by teachers. Awarding bodies then apply a moderation process to bring the marking of these assessments to an agreed standard. Comparative Judgement (CJ) is a technique where two (or more) pieces of work are compared at a time, allowing an overall rank order of work to be generated.

This study explored the practical feasibility of using CJ for moderation via an experimental moderation task requiring judgements of pairs of authentic portfolios of work. This included aspects such as whether moderators can view and navigate the portfolios sufficiently to enable them to make the comparative judgements, on what basis they make their decisions, whether moderators can be confident making CJ judgements on large pieces of candidate work (e.g., portfolios), and the time taken to moderate.

Description

Keywords

Comparative Judgement, Impact of assessment

Journal Title

Research Matters

Conference Name

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Research Division, Cambridge University Press & Assessment

Publisher DOI

Publisher URL

Relationships