Koc - WordPress.com

Report
KOÇ UNIVERSITY
Standardization Practices & Marker Training
FOAI-3 @ Özyeğin University
21st March 2014
Melinda Moss-Șenel
Koç University
English Language Center (ELC)
Midterms and Finals
 Exams created by assessment committee with level
coordinator/course leader feedback.
 All instructors teaching the course take the exam the
week prior and decide acceptable answers. The finalized
answer key is mailed after the exams conclude.
 Exam proctoring guidelines are sent a day before the
exams.
 Norming for productive assessment for the midterm and
final is done by level.
 Additional in-class assessments are often left to course
leader and instructor discretion, within certain
parameters. Some classes are task-based with no
midterms or finals.
PROFICIENCY EXAM
KOÇ UNIVERSITY ENGLISH PROFICIENCY EXAM
(KUEPE)
Component
Weight (%)
Reading
Use of English
Listening
Reading-into-Writing
Speaking
20
20
15
25
20
55%
45%
Training Exam Administrators for KUEPE
• Mock exams in fall and spring for the
objective section of the exam and the
writing section
• Exam proctoring guidelines clarifying roles
and responsibilities in normal and
unexpected exam conditions are sent prior
to the exams
• Experienced supervisor in each room
• KUEPE and curriculum connection
Marker Training
Speaking Sessions and Writing Sessions
Min. of 3 short sessions/semester. Evaluation prior to the sessions.
Session 1: All instructors (10 max/group) with a range of samples
and scores from previous exams (or volunteers), with some scoring
Session 2: All instructors with more practice samples from previous
exams (or speaking volunteers) and justification of scores
Session 3: Only for instructors scheduled to evaluate that part of
the exam: core group, with other instructors rotated every year or so
SPEAKING: Prior to exam, using samples
WRITING: Following the exam using actual essays from that exam,
to familiarize markers with the question and article
Scoring Procedures
for KUEPE Productive Sections
Speaking
Writing
2 assessors + 1 examiner
2 readers (1st and 2nd reads)
Rotation of roles during exam
Double-blind scoring, no discussion
Double-blind scoring, no discussion
Average taken by AC
Average taken by AC
Discrepancy more than 3 > 3rd
reader (AC member/head reader)
who decides the final score
Discrepancy more than 3 > 3rd
listener (AC member) by listening to
recording
THANK YOU!

Questions?

similar documents