Investigating Assessment in Higher Education: Demystifying Marking and Grading to Reveal Expert Practices. A phenomenological analysis of marking and grading practices of novice and experienced health academics

Abstract

This thesis is focused on exploring marking and grading in higher education. Using a phenomenological approach 26 interviews were undertaken with a heterogeneous sample of health academics at four universities. The sample included novice lecturers with two years or less experience in the academy to those with academic careers spanning more than 20 years. Two interview methods were utilised, Protocol Analysis (PA) and Cognitive Interviewing (CI). Protocol Analysis enables close contact with the marking and grading, in the moment, whilst Cognitive Interviewing is a novel method for exploring lecturer practices in higher education. Analysis was completed by applying a modified framework analysis to both data sets, facilitating synthesis of the two series of research findings. A wealth of rich data was gathered which resulted in close exploration of marking and grading practices, with the production of corroboratory evidence for issues previously identified on these phenomena. Close connection as an insider practitioner researcher has enabled close exploration and the gaining of new insights into practice, resulting in the identification of previously unexplored areas. My original contributions to knowledge in this area are: identifying the messiness of marking and grading and troublesome knowledge, the ‘rubric paradox’, importance of communities of practice, dual identity of health academics, working environments, experience recast as expertise, and using current interview techniques (PA and CI) for supporting continuing professional development. This thesis develops these themes suggesting ways in which they could impact upon contemporary marking and grading practice.