ABSTRACT

In Sweden, grades are used for selection to upper-secondary school and higher education, even though agreement in teachers’ grading is low and the selection therefore potentially unfair. Furthermore, measures taken to increase the agreement have not been successful. This study has explored how to increase agreement in teachers’ grading by comparing analytic and holistic grading. Teachers (n = 74) have been randomly assigned to two different conditions (i.e. analytic or holistic grading) in either English as a foreign language (EFL) or mathematics. Findings suggest that analytic grading is preferable to holistic grading in terms of agreement among teachers. The effect was stronger and statistically significant in EFL, but could be observed in mathematics as well. However, teachers in the holistic conditions provided more references to criteria in their justifications, whereas teachers in the analytic conditions to a much larger extent made references to grade levels without specifying criteria.

摘要

在瑞典，即使教师评分的一致性较低，因此选择可能不公平，但仍使用成绩来选择高中和高等教育。此外，为增加协议而采取的措施也没有成功。本研究探讨了如何通过比较分析评分和整体评分来提高教师评分的一致性。教师（n = 74）被随机分配到两种不同的条件（即分析或整体评分），无论是英语作为外语 (EFL) 还是数学。研究结果表明，就教师之间的一致性而言，分析评分优于整体评分。这种效果在 EFL 中更强且具有统计学意义，但也可以在数学中观察到。然而，