As graders go on grading, their comments become more frustrated and their good-will becomes much sloppier. At least that’s the hypothesis to explain this. Researchers found the reverse effect on graders who sorted in reverse-alphabetical order.
As graders go on grading, their comments become more frustrated and their good-will becomes much sloppier. At least that’s the hypothesis to explain this. Researchers found the reverse effect on graders who sorted in reverse-alphabetical order.
So, just the people who get marked last are randomly affected?
Well, yeah. I’d argue that’s better than people with certain names being consistently affected.
They both seem equally bad to me.
You don’t have to have either problem though; both can be avoided easily.
Not sure what you mean. Do you think that blind marking would somehow eradicate the bias onto these who get graded later?
No. Exactly the opposite. The problem continues to exist, but now it’s hidden.
It’s improved at least, randomized would be different each time and would influence everyone’s grades evenly in a spread out period (in theory.)
So, you’re arguing that randomness is an accurate and acceptable way to score a test?
I wonder how the students feel about that…
This isn’t a flippant remark either. There’s a much larger issue hiding in plain sight. If there’s no relationship between the test and the marking then there’s no point in using this process. In other words, this research appears to be saying something more profound than just commenting on the order of the tests.
It’s less about the individual test, and more so spreading the human error across many tests rather than “the last few tests”