Hawthorne Kamila, Wood Fiona, Hood Kerenza, Cannings-John Rebecca, Houston Helen
Department of General Practice, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Neuadd Meirionnydd, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XN, UK.
BMC Med Educ. 2006 Apr 25;6:25. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-6-25.
Although there is published research on the methods markers use in marking various types of assessment, there is relatively little information on the processes markers use in approaching a marking exercise. This qualitative paper describes the preparation and experiences of general practice (GP) teachers who undertake marking a written assessment in an undergraduate medical course.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven of the 16 GP tutors on an undergraduate course. The purposive sample comprised two new markers, two who had marked for a couple of years and three experienced markers. Each respondent was interviewed twice, once following a formative assessment of a written case study, and again after a summative assessment. All interviews were audio-taped and analysed for emerging themes. A respondent validation exercise was conducted with all 16 GP tutors.
Markers had internal concerns about their ability to mark fairly and made considerable efforts to calibrate their marking. They needed guidance and coaching when marking for the first time and adopted a variety of marking styles, reaching a decision through a number of routes. Dealing with pass/fail borderline scripts and the consequences of the mark on the student were particular concerns. Even experienced markers felt the need to calibrate their marks both internally and externally
Previous experience of marking appears to improve markers' confidence and is a factor in determining the role which markers adopt. Confidence can be improved by giving clear instructions, along with examples of marking. The authors propose that one method of providing this support and coaching could be by a process of peer review of a selection of papers prior to the main marking. New markers in particular would benefit from further guidance, however they are influenced by others early on in their marking career and course organisers should be mindful of this when arranging double marking.
尽管已有关于评分者在各类评估中所使用方法的研究发表，但关于评分者进行评分工作时所采用流程的信息相对较少。这篇定性研究论文描述了在本科医学课程中承担书面评估评分工作的全科医生（GP）教师的准备工作及经历。
对本科课程中16名GP导师中的7名进行了半结构化访谈。目的抽样包括两名新评分者、两名有几年评分经验的评分者和三名经验丰富的评分者。每位受访者接受了两次访谈，一次是在对一个书面案例研究进行形成性评估之后，另一次是在总结性评估之后。所有访谈均进行了录音，并对出现的主题进行了分析。对所有16名GP导师进行了受访者效度检验。
评分者对自己能否公平评分存在内在担忧，并为校准评分付出了巨大努力。他们首次评分时需要指导和培训，采用了多种评分方式，通过多种途径做出决定。处理及格/不及格临界分数的答卷以及分数对学生的影响是特别令人关注的问题。即使是经验丰富的评分者也觉得有必要在内部和外部校准自己的分数。
以前的评分经验似乎能提高评分者的信心，并且是决定评分者所采用角色的一个因素。通过给出明确的指示以及评分示例可以提高信心。作者建议，提供这种支持和培训的一种方法可以是在主要评分之前对一系列论文进行同行评审。特别是新评分者将从进一步的指导中受益，然而他们在评分生涯早期会受到他人的影响，课程组织者在安排双人评分时应考虑到这一点。
