Het opstel: beoordeling, en didactiek
Ben Wilbrink
inleiding op het thema
Literatuur
Nederlands
A. G. van Melle (1967). Het stelonderwijs in de hogere klassen. Levende Talen, 38, februari, 37-44.
- "Op de bijeenkomsten in Eindhoven en Amsterdam werd aan de deelnemers gevraagd een oordeel te geven over een drietal opstellen, handelend over de ‘beat’ en gemaakt voor het laatste eindexamen H.B.S.-A. Door een misverstand was in Eindhoven de op het examen verstrekte titelomschrijving niet bijgevoegd, zodat de becijfering hier lager uitviel dan verantwoord was., Het behaalde eindexamencijfer was voor opstel I, II en III resp. 7, 4 1/2, 6.
In Eindhoven, waar 11 deelnemers een beoordeling inleverden, werd het volgende gemiddelde bereikt:
opstel I: 5,5 (scala lopend van 3 1/2 tot 7 1/2!)
opstel II: bijna 5,4 (scala lopend van 4 1/2 tot 6)
opstel III: 6,6 (scala lopend van 5 tot 8)
In Amsterdam, waar 13 schriftelijke waarderingen binnen kwamen, was het resultaat als volgt:
opstel I: ruim 5,8 (scala lopend van 4 tot 8!)
opstel II: bijnna 5 (scala lopend van 4 tot 6)
opstel III: bijna 6,8 (scala lopend van 5 tot 8)
Hierbij dient te worden opgemerkt, dat zich bij docenten een zekere specialisatie voordoet: het maakt een groot verschil, of men levenslang op jongensgymnasia of op meisjesscholen les geeft en aan welke sfeer men bij het korrigeren van opstellen gewned is.
Bij het boven vermelde onderzoek van de Nijmeegse Universiteit (82 vragen) liep een vijfde deel der medewerkers in zijn beoordeling méér dan twee punten uiteen.
Of hier inderdaad sprake is van ‘een brevet van onvermogen’ zoals in Eindhoven werd opgemerkt en of deze gegevens de noodzaak van een hiërarchie der normen illustreren, is een open vraag gebleven. Het laatste woord in deze materie is zeker nog niet gesproken.
De opstellen zijn integraal beschikbaar op de forum-website van Bon blog 7001.
Engelstalig
Brian Huot (1990). The literature of direct writing assessment: major concerns and prevailing trends. Review of Educational Research, 60, 237-264.
- The abstract fails to do what it should do: abstract the major findings. Instead, it specifies what the article will look into. A pity. Is Brian Huot a poor writer?
Sarah Warshauer Freedman (1979). Why do teachers give the grades they do? College Composition and Communication, 30, 161-164. http://gse.berkeley.edu/faculty/swfreedman/79ccc.pdf opstelbeoordeling experiment met in vier opzichten gemanipuleerde opstellen: content, organization, sentence structure, spelling e.d. Dit is een populaire (leesbare) versie van het JEP-artikel 1979
Sarah Warshauer Freedman (1979). How characteristics of student essays influence teachers’ evaluations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 328-338. http://gse.berkeley.edu/faculty/swfreedman/79jep.pdf Ook in John R. Hayes, Richard E. Young, Michele L. Matchett, Maggie McCaffrey, Cynthia Cochran & Thomas Hayduk (Eds.) (1992). Reading Empirical research Studies: The Rhetoric of Research. Erlbaum.
Spencer, Sharon L. Spencer & Jill Fitzgerald (1993). Validity and structure, coherence, and quality measures in writing. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 209-232.
- Small group of sixth graders, so forget the results.
- “K. L. Greenberg, H. S. Wiener & R. A. Donovan (1986). Writing assessment: Issues and strategies. Longman.” [p. 201]
- “” [p. 201]
- “” [p. 201]
- “” [p. 201]
- “” [p. 201]
K. L. Greenberg, H. S. Wiener & R. A. Donovan (1986). Writing assessment: Issues and strategies. Longman.
- Ik heb dit boek niet gezien. Mogelijk zijn afzonderlijek hoofdstukken online te vinden?
- Eric abstract Data compiled from more than 2,000 member institutions of the National Testing Network in Writing were the source of this guide to writing assessment. Using an interdisciplinary approach, with insights from cognitive psychology, sociology, linguistics, educational measurement, rhetoric, and English education, the book gives suggestions on designing accurate measures of writing ability and how to score these measures, and discusses the relationship of writing assessment theory and research to classroom practices and teacher concerns. The authors and titles of the chapters are as follows: (1) "The Past--and Future--of Writing Assessment" (Andrea A. Lunsford); (2) "Literacy and the Direct Assessment of Writing: A Diachronic Perspective" (Stephen P. Witte, Mary Trachsel, and Keith Walters); (3) "Why Test?" (Marie Jean Lederman); (4) "A Personal Statement on Writing Assessment and Education Policy" (Rexford Brown); (5) "Pitfalls in the Testing of Writing" (Edward M. White); (6) "Writing Samples and Virtues" (Daniel Fader); (7) "Beginning a Testing Program: Making Lemonade" (Kenneth A. Bruffee); (8) "Testing Black Student Writers" (Roscoe C. Brown, Jr.); (9) "'Objective' Measures of Writing Ability" (Gertrude Conlan); (10) "Testing ESL Student Writers" (Sybil Carlson and Brent Bridgeman); (11) "How Do We Judge What They Write?" (Rosemary Hake); and (12) "Current Research and Unanswered Questions in Writing Assessment" (Gordon Brossell). A bibliography by William Lutz is included. (HOD)
Mary Trachsel (1992). Institutionalizing Literacy: The Historical Role of College Entrance Examinations in English. Southern Illinois University Press. questia.com
- viii: “In this book I have chosen to confine my analysis of current entrance examinations in English to the verbal portion of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). I do this because although I realize that the verbal SAT is by no means the only instrument used to define literacy as a college entry-level requirement, I am also aware of the overwhelming tendency on the part of those concerned about the nation's literacy education to draw conclusions about the condition of academic literacy and the quality of literacy education from the single measure of verbal SAT scores.”
- p. 1: “Two theoretical currents that animate discussions of literacy today are those that emphasize formal aspects of written text and those that focus on ways that written text functions to mediate human social interactions. ”
- p. 2:“Because of the importance of assessment within the institutional structure of the American educational system from the early grades on through advanced levels of higher education, measurability becomes profoundly significant in determining how the academy will conceptualize its various subject areas and their methods of instruction. Judith Langer's 1984 study of the role of testing in classroom teaching suggests that the evaluative function of education often, in fact, usurps the instructional, nonevaluative function. Langer summarizes her findings by noting that "what seems to be happening in the classrooms . . . is that the instructional phase of the model has virtually disappeared, being replaced by an incessant cycle of practice and testing" (114).” [Judith Langer (1984). Literacy in American Schools: Problems and Perspectives. American Journal of Education 93, 107-32.
- Een toelatingstoets Engels uit 1870 zie hier is onthullend: 10 vragen vooral over grammaticale regels. ]
Michelle Meadows & Lucy Billington (2005). A review of the literature on marking reliability. National Assessment Agency. pdf
- "Marking reliability is the focus of this literature review, which will cover the levels of marking reliability achieved in different forms of assessment and research into methods of improving marking reliability. It concentrates upon the marking of externally assessed examination scripts, rather than on the assessment of coursework, performance or of competence (although research in these areas is drawn on where appropriate)."
Braddock, Richard Braddock, Richard Lloyd-Jones & Lowell Schoer (1963).Research in written composition. Champaign, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English. http://www.coe.uga.edu/~smago/Books/Braddock_et_al.pdf
Donald Laming (2003). Marking university examinations: some lessons from psychophysics. Psychology Learning and Teaching 3, 89-96. pdf
- abstract This paper looks at four simple psychophysical experiments and spells out the implications that their results have for the marking of examinations on the basis that: (i) the process of marking examination scripts is dominated by the psychology of the assessor, not by the material that is being marked; (ii) the examiner marking a psychology essay is, psychologically speaking, the same assessor as the participant who participates in a psychophysical experiment; and (iii) the psychology of assessment (in general) can be inferred from a psychophysical experiment to an extent that is impossible with examination scripts. The difference is that psychophysical stimuli admit physical measurement, from which accuracy of assessment can be calculated, while examination scripts do not. The paper finishes with some suggestions how the reliability (not necessarily the validity) of examination marking might be improved.
http://www.benwilbrink.nl/opstel.htm