Koc - WordPress.com
Download
Report
Transcript Koc - WordPress.com
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?