Discipline‐related Marking Behaviour Using Percentages: a potential cause of inequity in assessment

This study set out to ascertain whether percentage mark distributions show evidence of discipline‐related marking behaviour and, if so, to consider the implications of this for equity in assessment outcomes. Performance data were obtained for 10 subjects at seven English universities for 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96. The data showed that mark distributions at universities using percentages may be categorised into three Types (A,B and C). Type A distributions (English and History) are characterised by a steep‐sided negatively skewed distribution with a narrow spread. Pronounced microscale variation in the frequency is evident only in the vicinity of the mode between 55‐65%. Type B distributions (Biology, Business Studies, Fine Art, French, Law and Sociology) have a slightly broader spread and display microscale variation in frequency across a wider range of percentiles [40‐70%]. Type C distributions (Computer Studies and Mathematics) are characterised by a subdued, slightly negatively skewed distribution with a considerably wider spread. Type C distributions show conspicuous microscale variation in frequency across most of the percentile range. The types of distributions appear to reflect the relative confidence of assessors in different disciplines in awarding marks. The extremities of the percentage scale are perceived as insecure territory for the assessors of qualitative subject matter. Type A distributions are characteristic of disciplines in which the assessment is qualitative. Type B distributions may reflect the assessment of combined qualitative‐quantitative subject matter. Type C distributions are typical of disciplines in which more quantitative matter is assessed. The existence of discipline‐related patterns of distribution is a potential cause of inequity of outcomes for students on joint or multidisciplinary programmes. Data derived from institutions using grading scales show that discipline‐related patterns are less evident.     

Philosophy and Educational Research: a reconsideration of epistemological boundaries

This paper examines what logically is or ought to be the relationship between philosophy and educational research. It explores the sense in which philosophising itself constitutes a form of research and notes the role of philosophy in addressing the ethical, epistemological and political issues which underpin other forms of educational research of an empirical character. The paper goes on to examine more fully the role of philosophy in empirical research. It explores the complex interplay of logic and psychology in the history and biography of the development of ideas and suggests that this picture argues for freedom of movement between the two in academic lives and institutions. It then takes a step further and, drawing on Quine and Kuhn, challenges the epistemological status of the dichotomy between a posteriori and a priori reasoning.     

Coursework Marks High,Examination Marks Low: Discuss

It is commonly believed that the standard of student performance in coursework tends to be higher than that achieved in formal examinations. This view was tested by analysing undergraduate performances in six subjects at four UK universities. Two measures of relative coursework performance were employed. The first is the difference between the mean coursework and examination marks for each module. The second considers the proportion of students in each module who achieve a higher mark in the coursework than in the examination. The measures showed that in English and History coursework performances are slightly higher, equivalent to one-third of one honours class (or division) while, in Biology, Business Studies, Computer Studies and Law, coursework performances are higher by as much as two-thirds of one honours class (or division). The differences observed in the latter subjects are very significant and have serious implications for parity of treatment in degree programmes where students may choose modules with contrasting modes of assessment.