Psychological theory and research have contributed significantly to learning and teaching but have been less frequently applied to student assessment. This article reviews some of the ways in which psychology can be applied to the behaviours involved in assessment, from the formulation of assessment criteria to the reduction of biases and errors in marking. It is argued that one of the most important ways that psychology can contribute to assessment is by providing theory and methods to make implicit influences more explicit. The point is illustrated with examples of how personal construct theory has been used to develop grade descriptors and how judgement analysis has been used to investigate markers' decisions about students' work.
References
1.
BairdJ. (1999, December). Are examination standards all in the head? Experiments with examiners' judgements of standards in A-level examinations. Paper presented at the British Psychological Society Conference, Institute of Education, London.
2.
BairdJ.GreatorexJ.BellJ. F. (2002, September). What makes marking reliable? Experiments with UK examinations. Paper presented at the International Association for Educational Assessment Conference, Hong Kong.
3.
BannisterD.FransellaF. (1971). Inquiring man: The theory of personal constructs. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
4.
BradleyC. (1984). Sex bias in the evaluation of students. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 147–163.
5.
CarylP. G. (1999). Psychology examiners re-examined: A 5-year perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 24, 61–74.
6.
DennisI.NewsteadS. E.WrightD. E. (1996). A new approach to exploring biases in educational assessment. British Journal of Psychology, 87, 515–534.
7.
DracupC. (1997). The reliability of marking on a psychology degree. British Journal of Psychology, 88, 691–708.
8.
DreyfusH. L.DreyfusS. E. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the area of the computer. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
9.
EcclestoneK. (2001). “I know a 2.1 when I see it”: Understanding degree standards in programmes franchised to colleges. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 25, 301–313.
10.
EinhornH. J. (1972). Expert judgement and mechanical combination. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 7, 86–106.
11.
EinhornH. J. (2000). Expert judgement: Some necessary conditions and an example. In ConnollyT.ArkesH. R.HammondK. R. (Eds.), Judgement and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader (2nd edition, pp. 324–335). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
ElanderJ. (2002). Developing aspect-specific assessment criteria for examinations and coursework essays in psychology. Psychology Teaching Review, 10, 31–51.
13.
ElanderJ. (2003). A discipline-based undergraduate skills module. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 3, 48–55.
14.
ElanderJ.HardmanD. (2002). An application of judgement analysis to examination marking in psychology. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 303–328.
15.
ErautM. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 113–136.
16.
GibbsG.LucasL. (1997). Coursework assessment, class size and student performance: 1984–94. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 21, 183–192.
17.
GigoneD.HastieR. (1993). The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 959–974.
18.
GreatorexJ. (2001). Making the grade – how question choice and type affect the development of grade descriptors. Educational Studies, 27, 452–464.
19.
GreatorexJ. (2002). Making accounting examiners' tacit knowledge more explicit: Developing grade descriptors for an accounting A-level. Research Papers in Education, 17, 211–226.
20.
GreatorexJ.BairdJ.BellJ. F. (2002, August). ‘Tools for the trade’: What makes GCSE marking reliable? Paper presented at the Learning Communities and Assessment Cultures: Connecting research with practice conference, University of Northumbria, Newcastle upon Tyne. Retrieved 26 February 2004 from http://www.ucles-red.cam.ac.uk/conferencepapers.htm.
21.
GreatorexJ.JohnsonC.FrameK. (2001). Making the grade – developing grade descriptors for accounting using a discriminator model of performance. Westminster Studies in Education, 24, 167–181.
22.
HallK.HardingA. (2002). Level descriptors and teacher assessment in England: Towards a community of practice. Educational Research, 44, 1–16.
23.
HartogP.RhodesE. C. (1935). An examination of examinations. London: Macmillan.
24.
Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC) (1997). Assessment in higher education and the role of ‘graduateness’London: Higher Education Quality Council.
25.
HorvathJ. A.SternbergR. A.ForsytheE. B.BullisR. C.WilliamsW. M.SweeneyP. J. (1996). Implicit theories of leadership practice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), New York.
26.
KarauS. J.WilliamsK. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681–706.
27.
KellyG. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.
28.
LamingD. (1984). The relativity of ‘absolute’ judgements. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 152–183.
29.
LamingD. (1990). The reliability of a certain university examination compared with the precision of absolute judgements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42A, 239–254.
30.
LenneyE.MitchelL.BrowningC. (1983). The effect of clear evaluation criteria on sex bias in judgements of performance. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 7, 313–327.
31.
LunzM. E.WrightB. D.LinacreJ. M. (1990). Measuring the impact of judge severity on examination scores. Applied Measurement in Education, 3, 331–345.
32.
MillerA. H.ImrieB. W.CoxK. (1998). Student assessment in higher education: A handbook for assessing performance. London: Kogan Page.
33.
NewsteadS. E.DennisI. (1990). Blind marking and sex bias in student assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 15, 132–139.
34.
NewsteadS. E.DennisI. (1994). Examiners examined: The reliability of exam marking in psychology. The Psychologist, 7, 216–219.
35.
NicholsonJ. (1984). Men and women: How different are they?Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36.
NortonL. S.DickinsT. E.CookA. N. McLaughlin (1996). Rules of the Game in essay writing. Psychology Teaching Review, 5, 1–14.
37.
PainR.MowlG. (1996). Improving geography essay writing using innovative assessment. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 20, 19–31.
38.
PolanyiM. (1967). The tacit dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
39.
PollittA.MurrayN. L. (1996). What raters really pay attention to. In MilanovicM.SavilleN. (Eds.), Studies in language testing 3: Performance testing, cognition and assessment: Selected papers from the 15th language testing research colloquium. Cambridge and Arnhem: Cambridge University Press.
40.
PriceM.RustC. (1999). The experience of introducing a common criteria assessment grid across an academic department. Quality in Higher Education, 5, 133–144.
41.
Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) for Higher Education (2000). Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education. Section 6: Assessment of students. Gloucester: QAAHE. Retrieved 26 February 2004 from http://www.qaa.ac.uk/public/cop/copaosfinal/COP_AOS.pdf.
42.
RustC. (2002). The impact of assessment on student learning: How can research literature practically help to inform the development of departmental assessment strategies and learner-centred assessment practices. Active Learning in Higher Education, 3, 145–158.
43.
RustC.PriceM.O'DonovanB. (2003). Improving students' learning by developing their understanding of assessment criteria and processes. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 147–164.
44.
SambellK.McDowellL. (1998). The construction of the hidden curriculum: Messages and meanings in the assessment of student learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 23, 391–402.
45.
SpearM. (1997). The influence of contrast effects upon teachers' marks. Educational Research, 39, 229–233.
46.
TulvingE. (1972). Episodic and semantic memeory. In TulvingE.DonaldsonW. (Eds.), Organisation of memory. New York: Academic Press.
47.
WeigleS. (1998). Using FACETS to model rater training effects. Language Testing, 15, 263–287.
48.
WengerE. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49.
ZinkiewiczL.HammondN.TrappA. (2003). Applying psychology disciplinary knowledge to psychology teaching and learning. Report and evaluation series no 2. York: LTSN Psychology, University of York.
