Confidence assessment marking

I thank Con for replying. Unfortunately, we don’t see eye to eye and seem to be talking past each other a little. Mark Inflation Being a key point of the debate and other points being secondary (in the sense that if Con was right my system looks rather pathetic), we’ll spend a while on this point. First, Con states that I’m inflating marks by setting a floor of 0. This is done to keep percentages in line. I already said last round that educationally the issue is to distinguish between various degrees of confidence as opposed to handling marking schemes with optimal precision. On grades, I addressed that last round as they are percentage based (percentages are still based on marks from 0 to the max score). Furthermore, Con blames my system for not making good student’s marks rise (‘ignores the fact that good students do no better’). Well isn’t that shocking! By getting rid of inflated marks that aren’t reflective of true understanding scores drop! I take this as proof that this system is making an impact. On Con’s ‘it’s okay to not learn the hard stuff’, he’s wrong. If a student just coasts on ‘1’ level answers they lose 2/3 of the potential marks. There’s still marks for the ‘hard stuff’ as he puts it, the exact same percentage of marks as in the current system. The key point to consider is that the scheme encourages people to accurately report their confidence. If people inflate confidence they will end up losing marks, same with undervaluing it. I also remind people that while people will often go 1 in this system there’s NO reason not to guess under a traditional scheme. System Complications I already conceded that there would be slight additional complications. However, as computers improve and exams are done on computers (meaning no problems with scanning) these complications will diminish. Note this was the first year of a new system, so improvements will swiftly be made. This minor inconvenience is well worth the advantages of confidence assessment. Also, here’s a quote from con’s source (1st) ‘the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), which oversees exams, denied that the use of the new technology is "the main issue" ’ Puzzle that one. Extra Pressure I’ve shown previously evidence that shows students intuitively pick up the system and are comfortable with it. I give evidence of this and Con simply tries to dismiss it. Con should face the idea that students can prefer the system. Test marking systems don’t make people leave university. Here’s more evidence of students being extremely comfortable with the extra ‘pressure’: “96% of the students found the system either easy or very easy to use” - http://www.ucl.ac.uk... I’ve shown the pressure to be nearly non-existent, and extra time can be added to cope with any extra pressure if needed. No Problem? I don’t want to penalise risks, I want to support knowledge, judgement and sound decisions. I figure improving things is good. I’ve said this in various places. I particularly urge readers to remember my guessing example from R1 involving investment. Statistical Reliability Con was bordering on irrelevant here. Yes, the less questions one has the more the distribution of grades is skewed to 0. However, confidence is assessed this is somewhat counteracted. I provided ample evidence last round of confidence assessment of say, 100 questions being equivalent to current tests of easily over 150 questions. I’ll even give an example for readers. For every 79 questions in a current test, using only 50 questions under confidence assessment teachers and students get the same level of feedback! Confidence assessment therefore allows for major reductions in marking time, test creation time (a bigger time issue) and so on for the exact same level of insight into student knowledge (the main purpose of testing, although the system has other advantages)! Or, we can have the same number of questions and a far deeper insight into student understanding. Look at the evidence, not Con’s assertions. I personally quite like the dilemma of the 2 appealing choices above (less resources spent on tests or greater test reliability and accuracy) . On the off topic point of UCL, it seems rather fitting that one of the world’s top universities utilises a marking scheme that is superior, doesn’t it? More on guessing Yet again, I provide evidence contrary to Con’s assertions and Con merely claims his assertions are right, believing that regardless of the evidence to the contrary. I use numbers below to indicate a direct reply to that sentence of Con’s (1 means the first sentence and so forth) 1- Same percentages, no reason not to study the whole course, plus their undervaluing of their marks LOST them marks based on where their percentages should be (my sources shows a person utilising ‘2’ and being right 90% of the time. They could get 50% extra marks by using ‘3’ ; cut-off for 3 is 80%) 2- Contrary to evidence... Also, guessing is even more encouraged in the current system. This quote (see below source under ‘Rote Learning’) directly contradicts Con here: “Students rarely describe their choice of confidence level in terms of explicit probabilities, even after the principles are explained” 3- The reverse occurs through the exposure of student lack of knowledge. Rote Learning Again, we’re speaking past each other. If students do want to leave questionable answers at higher confidence levels (as opposed to realising they are bad from critiquing) then they’ll just lose marks. In the words of http://www.ucl.ac.uk...: (starts off on traditional scheme) “Experience with students suggests that many of the stronger ones find they can do well by relying on superficial associations, with little incentive (on conventional right/wrong mark schemes) to think rigorously or understand the issues thoroughly: the first thing they think of is usually good enough. At the same time, weaker students try to emulate this with diligent rote learning, rejecting deeper learning as unnecessarily challenging. A properly designed scheme for CBM ensures that in order to get the best marks students must discriminate between responses based on sound knowledge or understanding, and those where there is a significant risk of error.” The system is inclined to reward correct indications of confidence. Stops rush answers Con’s words here are quite instructive, if only to demonstrate to readers common misconceptions. I’d reply to everything, but I don’t have space, so here’s a smaller part of Con’s words: “Besides, who is dumb enough to rush an answer with confidence '3'? Students under the status quo can see where they need to improve - assessing self-esteem does not improve this process.” This is key. Anybody putting down 3 is fairly sure of their answer, so those times when one is wrong really show up under confidence assessment (because it affects them a lot) . This means that students are more likely to realise their conceptual errors and fix them. I showed student testimony of this last round and the logic is sound. On the status quo being able to do this, I agree. I merely state that confidence assessment is far more likely to correct bad student habits as mistakes are less likely to be glanced over. Conclusion I ask readers to not just consider what I’ve stated this round, but that which Con has left unanswered in previous rounds / I’ve shown to be true in previous rounds. Together, I believe the resolution to be affirmed. I thank Con for being a serious and strong opponent. Also, if anybody wants to learn more on the subject (after the debate) read my sources or contact me. Voting I don’t think voters have any reason to give spelling/grammar or conduct either way. People should consider the issue of sources though, as I’ve used what I believe to be more and higher quality sources, although this isn’t a significant issue. As for arguments, I’m not about to endorse the Con position; I suggest a Pro vote. Thanks again to Con and readers.