Disruptive Effects in Highschool Studentsʼ Assessment

Abstract

According to the literature invoked in our paper, assessment can be a means of subjective measurement, a factor of issuing a value judgment based on certain particular theory, which has the status of preventing the continuous study that could lead towards improvement or the achievement of the highest possible performance. Regarding the disturbing factors, once settled, they induce quite significant and at the same time relevant variations either at the same examiner at different times or at different examiners. Disruptive effects that may occur in school assessment are: the Halo effect, the anchoring effect, the Pygmalion effect or Oedipal effect, the examiner's personal equation, the central tendency effect, the similarity effect, the contrast effect, the order effect, the logic error and role effect. In our paper we will present several of these disruptive effects found by students in different situations in high school classes. These are disruptive effects reported in a research that involved a number of one hundred students. They were asked to describe one of the assessment errors they had experienced during the evaluation process. The main conclusion of the research is that all these students were subjectively assessed in some situations, so there were various disruptive effects in the assessment.

Keywords: Disruptive effects, school assessment, students

Introduction

The entire evaluation process represents feedback for both the teacher and the students. Feedback that can lead to assessment of the activities which are carried out, but also to their improvement (Herlo, 2020).

In this evaluation process, value judgments about the process and product of learning are exposed on the basis of certain pre-established criteria (Manolescu, 2010).

Through evaluation of the school results one can determine the extent to which the objectives and goals of the training program have been achieved and one will be able to see whether the teaching and learning methods applied have been effective for the students (Joița, 2003).

The evaluation is an integral part of the theory of education in its entirety, which includes principles, concepts, but also techniques related to the measurement and assessment of school results and the entire didactic process (Cerghit & Radu, 1990).

The concept of evaluation is considered a continuous process from the moment a development project is conceived until the results are correlated and compared with the objectives that are pursued (Todoran, 1982).

The evaluation activity brings forward the valorisation, assessment and interpretation of the information that resulted from the learning process (Schaub & Zenke, 2001).

According to Charles Hadji (1992): there are only three philosophies of evaluation, to which we can associate the same number of emblematic figures: the expert evaluates in order to measure, the judge assesses in order to give the value, and the philosopher interprets in order to tell the meaning.(Hadji, 1992, p. 74)

The evaluation has been present for a very long time in this process of educating the individual, but it has not been given as much attention as before (Figari & Lopez, 2012).

The disruptive effects that may occur in school evaluation are: the Halo effect, anchoring effect, Pygmalion effect or Oedipal effect, the examiner's personal equation, the central tendency effect, the similarity effect, the contrast effect, the order effect, the logical error and the role effect (Trif & Voiculescu, 2013).

The Halo effect „conveys a wrong component in the assessment of performance or personality characteristics arising from the irradiation of a sequential impression” (Schaub & Zenke, 2001, pp. 92-93).

The anchoring effect refers to the overevaluation of certain results obtained because they draw attention to the less expected things, recognized in the forms of answer offered by students (Cucoș, 2006).

The Pygmalion effect, or Oedipus effect, presents the teacher’s preconceived idea of the studentsʼ abilities and performances (Miron, 2020).

The personal equation of the examiner refers to the different requirement of the teacher (Cucoș, 2014).

The effect of the central tendency: the teacher avoids giving both high and low grades in order not to make errors in his assessment and not to underestimate the students (Cucoș, 2014).

The similarity effect is based on the fact that the teacher tends to evaluate his students in relation to himself (Cucoș, 2006).

The contrast effect consists of „subjective amplification of the difference in value between the answers or successive papers of two subjects, when there is an appreciable difference between them” (Miron, 2020, p. 179).

The order effect occurs when the teacher has to evaluate a considerable number of students. The first students who are evaluated are favored because their answers are overvalued, except for the first student and in his case the effect is contrary. Within this effect the teacher should have a pre-defined examination grid and use it while assessing (Miron, 2020).

The logical error „consists in substituting important evaluation objectives and parameters through secondary purposes, such as the accuracy and systematicity of exposure, the effort of the student to achieve certain (even mediocre) results, the degree of conscientiousness, etc.” (Cucoș, 2006, p. 402).

The role effect is highlighted by the internalization of certain standards that are unknown to the forming space, due to constraints imposed by the role that the teacher has to play or by the expectations that are to be reached in the evaluation (Cucoș, 2014).

Problem Statement

Evaluation can be a subjective means of measurement, a factor for issuing a value judgment centered on particular theories, and it has the status of preventing the continuous study that could lead to improvement or achieveing the highest performance. Regarding disruptive factors, once they are established they can induce quite significant and at the same time relevant variations either for the same examiner at different times or for different examiners. The disruptive effects that may occur in the school evaluation are: the Halo effect, the anchoring effect, the Pygmalion effect or Oedipus effect, the examiner's personal equation, the central tendency effect, the similarity effect, the contrast effect, the order effect, the logical error and the role effect.

The study includes the presentation of these disruptive effects encountered in different situations in high school classes by students.

Research Questions

Throughout our research we wanted to identify the disruptive factors that may appear in school evaluation by presenting various examples offered by students. The disruptive effects that may occur in the school evaluation are: the Halo effect (see the table 1), the anchoring effect, the Pygmalion effect or Oedipus effect (see the table 2), the examiner's personal equation (see the table 3), the central tendency effect (see the table 4), the similarity effect (see the table 5), the contrast effect (see the table 6), the order effect (see the table 7), the logical error and the role effect (see the table 8). We point out that, before carrying out this exercise of identifying the disruptive effects encountered in the evaluation, the students were presented in turn what each of these effects means.

Purpose of the Study

Identifying certain disruptive factors that may occur in school assessment in high school classes.

Research Methods

During the research, the way of investigating the disruptive factors that may appear in the school evaluation in high school classes was the case study method.

Findings

The sample of subjects included one hundred students from three high schools in Alba County, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th grade.

Conclusion

As we can observe from the examples provided above by the students, we do not find two of the disruptive factors that could exist in evaluation. Those who were not found in our study refer to the anchoring effect, respectively the effect of logical error.

Unfortunately, there are still such errors that some teachers make either willingly or without realizing it. It would certainly be appropriate to reflect more on how we conduct the assessment of our students. It would be beneficial to try to be objective in the assessment process we provide in the classroom, taking into account each student, the aspirations that each individual has, the way they reflect their opinions on some topics and be as correct as possible in order to avoid these disruptive effects that can interfere with the evaluation of knowledge and beyond.

References

• Cerghit, I., & Radu, I. T. (1990). Didactica [Didactic]. Didactic și Pedagogy publishing house.

• Cucoș, C. (2006). Pedagogie. Ediția a II-a revăzută și adăugată [Pedagogy. Second edition, revised and reviewed]. Polirom publishing house.

• Cucoș, C. (2014). Pedagogie. Ediția a III-a revăzută și adăugată, [Pedagogy. Third edition revised and reviewed]. Polirom publishing house.

• Figari, G., & Lopez, L. (2012). Modelisations de l”evaluation en education [Models of evaluation in education]. De Boeck Universite.

• Hadji, C. (1992). L”Evaluation, regles du jeu. Des intentions aux outils [Evaluation, rules of the game. From intentions to tools]. ESF editeur.

• Herlo, D. (Coord). (2020). Devenire în profesorat [Becoming in Teaching]. Cluj University Press.

• Joița, E. (Coord). (2003). Pedagogie și elemente de psihologie școlară [Pedagogy and Elements of School Psychology]. Arves publishing house.

• Manolescu, M. (2010). Teoria și metodologia evaluării [The Theory and Methodology of Evaluation]. University publishing house.

• Miron, A. D. (2020). Introducere în pedagogie. Considerații teoretice și metodologice [Introduction in Pedagogy. Theoretical and Methodological Appcreciations]. University publishing house.

• Schaub, H., & Zenke, K. G. (2001). Dicționar de pedagogie [Dictionary of Pedagogy]. Polirom publishing house.

• Todoran, D. (1982). Probleme fundamentale ale pedagogiei [Fundamental Problems of Pedagogy]. Didactic and Pedagogy publishing house.

• Trif, L., & Voiculescu, E. (2013). Teoria și metodologia instruirii [The Theory and Methodology of Teaching]. Didactic și Pedagogy publishing house R.A.