評估方式轉變對教師評分的影響及對策反思

自2015年始，在香港的高等院校，學生學業評估由常模參照評估轉為標準參照評估。評估方式的轉變需要教師打破以往的評分習慣，對他們有一定挑戰。在標準參照評估實施初期，教師評分有兩個特點：一是評分依然受到常模評估方式影響，二是評分自主權有所提升。教師是否保留常模參照評分取決於院系能否就評估標準的使用和闡釋提供足夠的評分交流，以及院系對評估結果所採取的問責方式；教師對評分自主的要求則是標準參照評估本身的精神和教師對學術自由的捍衞所共同決定。要幫助教師更好地過渡至一種新的評估方式，需要關注學校問責、院系支持、教師學術自由三個層面並作反思。

關鍵字

標準參照評估；問責；評分過程；評分自主權；學術自由

並列摘要

Since 2015, student assessment has been transferred from norm-referencing to criterion-referencing in all public universities of Hong Kong. During the transitional period, teachers have to face lots of challenges such as adapting to the new assessment and changing the previous grading habits. This study revealed two characteristics of grading behavior existing in the transitional period. On the one hand, grading has been greatly affected by the pattern of norm-referencing; on the other hand, demands for grading autonomy have increased comparing to the time when norm-referenced assessment was used. Whether teachers would go back to seek for the guide of norm-referencing is primarily depended on how the institution supervises the results of grades as well as whether adequate communications are created between department and teachers. Meanwhile, demands of grading autonomy are inspired by the spirit of criterion-referenced assessment as well as the desire for defending academic freedom from teachers. The study suggested that to facilitate the change of assessment and to better implement criterion-referenced assessment, supports, cooperation and reflections from different spheres of organizations and agencies (including the administration) are necessary, as well as its considerations on the grade accountability, resources and grading communication opportunities provided by departments, and the deep understanding of academic freedom from individual teachers.

並列關鍵字

criterion-referenced assessment ； accountability ； grading process ； grading autonomy ； academic freedom

參考文獻

Bloxham, S., & Boyd, P. (2012). Accountability in grading student work: Securing academic standards in a twenty-first century quality assurance context. British Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 615–634. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2011.569007

Bloxham, S., Boyd, P., & Orr, S. (2011). Mark my words: The role of assessment criteria in UK higher education grading practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36(6), 655–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075071003777716

Bloxham, S., den-Outer, B., Hudson, J., & Price, M. (2016). Let’s stop the pretence of consistent marking: Exploring the multiple limitations of assessment criteria. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(3), 466–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1024607

Brower, R., Jones, T. B., Tandberg, D., Hu, S., & Park, T. (2017). Comprehensive developmental education reform in Florida: A policy implementation typology. The Journal of Higher Education, 88(6), 809–834. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2016.1272091

Brown, G. T. L., & Wang, Z. (2016). Understanding Chinese university student conceptions of assessment: Cultural similarities and jurisdictional differences between Hong Kong and China. Social Psychology of Education, 19(1), 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-015-9322-x

主題瀏覽