Lucy Chambers

• Foreword Tim Oates
• Editorial Tom Bramley
• A summary of OCR’s pilots of the use of Comparative Judgement in setting grade boundaries Tom Benton, Tim Gill, Sarah Hughes, Tony Leech
• How do judges in Comparative Judgement exercises make their judgements? Tony Leech, Lucy Chambers
• Judges' views on pairwise Comparative Judgement and Rank Ordering as alternatives to analytical essay marking Emma Walland
• The concurrent validity of Comparative Judgement outcomes compared with marks Tim Gill
• How are standard-maintaining activities based on Comparative Judgement affected by mismarking in the script evidence? Joanna Williamson
• Moderation of non-exam assessments: is Comparative Judgement a practical alternative? Carmen Vidal Rodeiro, Lucy Chambers
• Research News Lisa Bowett

Vidal Rodeiro, C. L. & Chambers, L.(2022). Moderation of non-exam assessments: is Comparative Judgement a practical alternative? Research Matters: A Cambridge University Press & Assessment publication, 33, 100-119.

Many high-stakes qualifications include non-exam assessments that are marked by teachers. Awarding bodies then apply a moderation process to bring the marking of these assessments to an agreed standard. Comparative Judgement (CJ) is a technique where two (or more) pieces of work are compared at a time, allowing an overall rank order of work to be generated.

This study explored the practical feasibility of using CJ for moderation via an experimental moderation task requiring judgements of pairs of authentic portfolios of work. This included aspects such as whether moderators can view and navigate the portfolios sufficiently to enable them to make the comparative judgements, on what basis they make their decisions, whether moderators can be confident making CJ judgements on large pieces of candidate work (e.g., portfolios), and the time taken to moderate.

Leech, T. & Chambers, L. (2022). How do judges in Comparative Judgement exercises make their judgements? Research Matters: A Cambridge University Press & Assessment publication, 33, 31–47.

Two of the central issues in comparative judgement (CJ), which are perhaps underexplored compared to questions of the method’s reliability and technical quality, are “what processes do judges use to make their decisions” and “what features do they focus on when making their decisions?” This article discusses both, in the context of CJ for standard maintaining, by reporting the results of both a study into the processes used by judges when making CJ judgements, and the outcomes of surveys of judges who have used CJ. In the first instance, using insights from observations of judges and their being asked to think aloud while they judged, we highlight the variety of processes used when making their decisions, including comparative reference, re-marking and question-by question evaluation. We then develop a four dimension model to explore what impacts what judges attend to, and explore through survey responses the distinctive ways in which the structure of the question paper, different elements of candidate responses, judges’ own preferences and the CJ task itself affect decision-making. We conclude by discussing, in the light of these factors, whether the judgements made in CJ (or in the judgemental element of current standard maintaining procedures) are meaningfully holistic, and whether judges can properly take into account differences in difficulty between different papers.

Chambers, L., Williamson, J. and Child, S. (2019). Moderating artwork: Investigating judgements and cognitive processes.  Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment publication, 27, 19-25.

In this article, we explore the cognitive process and resources drawn upon when moderating artwork. The cognitive processes involved in the external moderation of non-exam assessments has received little attention; the few research studies that exist investigated moderation where the candidates’ submissions were in mostly written form. No studies were found which explicitly looked at a non-written submission, such as artwork. In this small- scale study, participating moderators were asked to “think aloud” whilst moderating candidates’ Art and Design submissions. An analysis of the resulting verbal protocol and observational data enabled timelines of moderator activity to be produced. From these, a process map containing moderation stages, activities, cognitive processes, and resource use was developed.

Bowyer, J. and Chambers, L. (2017). Evaluating blended learning: Bringing the elements together. Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment publication, 23, 17-26.

This article provides a brief introduction to blended learning, its benefits and factors to consider when implementing a blended learning programme. It then concentrates on how to evaluate a blended learning programme and describes a number of published evaluation frameworks. There are numerous frameworks and instruments for evaluating blended learning, although no particular one seems to be favoured in the literature. This is partly due to the diversity of reasons for evaluating blended learning systems, as well as the many intended audiences and perspectives for these evaluations.  The article concludes by introducing a new framework which brings together many of the constructs from existing frameworks whilst adding new elements. It is aim is to encompass all aspects of the blended learning situation to permit researchers and evaluators to easily identify the relationships between the different elements whilst still enabling focussed and situated evaluation.

• Variations in aspects of writing in 16+ English examinations between 1980 and 2014 Gill Elliott, Sylvia Green, Filio Constantinou, Sylvia Vitello, Lucy Chambers, Nicky Rushton, Jo Ireland, Jessica Bowyer, David Beauchamp

Chambers, L., Elliott, M., and Jianguo, H. (2012). The Hebei Impact Project: A study into the impact of Cambridge English exams in the state sector in Hebei province, China. Research Notes, 50, 20-23.

Chambers, L., Galaczi, E., and Gilbert, S. (2012). Test taker familiarity and speaking test performance: Does it make a difference? Research Notes, 49, 33-40.

Chambers, L. (2011). Composition and revision in computer-based written assessment. Research Notes, 43, 25-32.

Chambers, L., and Ingham, K. (2011). The BULATS online speaking test. Research Notes, 43, 21-25.

Chambers, L. (2009). Using the CEFR to inform assessment criteria development for Online BULATS speaking and writing. Research Notes, 38, 29-31.

Chambers, L. (2008). Computer-based and paper-based writing assessment: a comparative text analysis. Research Notes, 34, 9-15.