The marking of open ended investigations can be challenging as each project varies in its content and project choice. These differences make it hard to assess using an analytic marking scale which contains a set of criteria for marking an assessment. In this case, applying a holistic marking criteria in which gives a core, rather then an initial variety of scores is the most effective means of marking the open ended projects.
Holistic marking criteria however, may be a less reliable marking system than the analytic marking system as it encourages personal opinion as to which mark is award, judged by questioning which mark it fits into best (Clapham, 2011). This is an issue that came about when we were marking the STANSW Young Scientist awards. Coupled with double marking however, the holistic marking criteria was effective as the differences amongst the projects was able to be taken into consideration and personal judgement to be made and discussed. The holistic marking criteria allowed assessment and judging based on not only the inclusion of the components but the level of complexity as well. This level of complexity is what influenced whether the mark awarded was a middle rage, or the top.
In the option topic of Biotechnology in the Senior Biology Syllabus, an open ended project could be used for the dot point: plan and perform a first-hand investigation to test the conditions that influence the rate of enzyme activity. My opinion on the application of holistic marking criteria is hat it is an effective means of marking open ended questions which vary in their content. The marking however involves personal choice and opinion and as a result should always be double marked, possibly even triple marked.
References:
Clapham, Caroline (2011) Principles of assessment. Retrieved from: http://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/1398
Board of Studies (2002) Biology Syllabus. NSW Board of Studies.
No comments:
Post a Comment