Sylvia Vitello

• Foreword Tim Oates
• Editorial Victoria Crisp
• The impact of taking Core Maths on students' higher education outcomesTim Gill
• Is one comparative judgement exercise for one exam paper sufficient to set qualification-level grade boundaries?Tom Benton
• Accessibility of GCSE science questions that ask students to create and augment visuals: Evidence from question omit ratesSanti Lestari
• How do candidates annotate items in paper-based maths and science exams?Joanna Williamson
• Learners’ annotations and written markings when taking a digital multiple-choice test: What support is needed?Victoria Crisp, Sylvia Vitello, Abdullah Ali Khan, Heather Mahy and Sarah Hughes
• Research NewsLisa Bowett

Crisp, V., Vitello, S., Khan, A. A., Mahy, H., & Hughes, S. (2025). Learners' annotations and written markings when taking a digital multiple-choice test: What support is needed? Research Matters: A Cambridge University Press & Assessment publication, 39, 90-109. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.116171

This research set out to enhance our understanding of the exam techniques and types of written annotations or markings that learners may wish to use to support their thinking when taking digital multiple-choice exams. Additionally, we aimed to further explore issues around the factors that contribute to learners writing less rough work and markings on scrap paper during a digital test than they write on paper-based tests, as observed in prior research.

In this research, 52 learners attempted a digital economics test with access to either scrap paper or a print of the test. Some learners were observed in order to capture their interactions with the paper materials, all learners completed a questionnaire, and most learners were interviewed.

The evidence collected provides insights regarding the types of annotations and written markings learners wished to use. Considerable variation was found in whether, and the extent to which, learners used paper materials. Scrap paper worked fairly well for some types of annotations or written markings, but not for others. The findings are informing additional developments to testing platform functionality.

Chambers, L., Vitello, S., & Vidal Rodeiro, C. (2024). Moderation of non-exam assessments: a novel approach using comparative judgement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice.

Vitello, S., Crisp, V., & Ireland, J. (2023). An example of redeveloping checklists to support assessors who check draft exam papers for errors Research Matters: A Cambridge University Press & Assessment publication, 36, 46-58. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.101744

Assessment materials must be checked for errors before they are presented to candidates. Any errors have the potential to reduce validity. For example, in the most extreme cases, an error may turn an otherwise well-designed exam question into one that is impossible to answer. In Cambridge University Press & Assessment, assessment materials are checked by multiple assessment specialists across different stages during assessment development. While human checkers are critical to this process, we must acknowledge that there is ample research showing the shortcomings of being human (e.g., we have cognitive biases, and memory and attentional limitations). It is important to provide assessment checkers with tools that help overcome or mitigate these limitations.

This article is about one type of checking tool – checklists. We describe a research-informed, collaborative project to support assessors in performing their checks of exam papers. This project focused on redesigning the instructional, training and task materials provided to assessors. A key part of this was to design checklists for assessors to use when performing their checks. In this article, we focus primarily on the approach that we took for these checklists in order to draw readers’ attention to the complexity that is involved in designing them and to provide a practical example of how research can be used strategically to inform key design decisions.

• Foreword Tim Oates
• Editorial Tom Bramley
• The prevalence and relevance of Natural History assessments in the school curriculum, 1858–2000: a study of the Assessment ArchivesGillian Cooke
• The impact of GCSE maths reform on progression to mathematics post-16Carmen Vidal Rodeiro, Joanna Williamson
• An example of redeveloping checklists to support assessors who check draft exam papers for errorsSylvia Vitello, Victoria Crisp, Jo Ireland
• An analysis of the relationship between Secondary Checkpoint and IGCSE resultsTim Gill
• Synchronous hybrid teaching: how easy is it for schools to implement?Filio Constantinou
• Research NewsLisa Bowett

Rushton, N., Vitello, S., Suto, I. (2021). What do we mean by question paper error? An analysis of criteria and working definitions. Research Matters: A Cambridge University Press & Assessment publication, 32, 67-81.

It is important to define what an error in a question paper is so that there is a common understanding and to avoid people’s own conceptions impacting upon the way in which they write or check question papers. We carried out an interview study to investigate our colleagues’ definitions of error. We found that there is no single accepted definition of a question paper error. There were three interacting aspects that participants considered when deciding whether a problem was an error: the manifestation of the error, the (potential) impact upon candidates, and the stage at which it was discovered.

• Foreword Tim Oates
• Editorial Tom Bramley
• Learning during lockdown: How socially interactive were secondary school students in England? Joanna Williamson, Irenka Suto, John Little, Chris Jellis, Matthew Carroll
• How well do we understand wellbeing? Teachers’ experiences in an extraordinary educational era Chris Jellis, Joanna Williamson, Irenka Suto
• What do we mean by question paper error? An analysis of criteria and working definitions Nicky Rushton, Sylvia Vitello, Irenka Suto
• Item response theory, computer adaptive testing and the risk of self-deception Tom Benton
• Research News Anouk Peigne

Vidal Rodeiro, C.L. and Vitello, S. (2021). Progression to post-16 education in England: the role of vocational qualifications. Research Papers in Education (ahead of print). 

Suto, I., Greatorex, J., Vitello, S., and Child, S. (2020). A way of using taxonomies to demonstrate that applied qualifications and curricula cover multiple domains of knowledge. Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment publication, 30, 26-34.

Educational taxonomies are classification schemes which provide the terminology that educationalists need to describe and work with different areas of knowledge. It is good practice to use taxonomies to formulate and review curricula, learning objectives, and associated assessments. Demonstrating sufficient coverage of each of an adequate range of knowledge domains is critical for authenticity, for assessment reliability, and for transparency surrounding what students are learning.

In this study we explored whether any educational taxonomies that were designed for general educational contexts (sometimes called ‘academic’ contexts) could be utilised in applied educational contexts (often called ‘vocationally-related’ in England) . To do this, we identified nine published taxonomies with sufficient potential, and selected and combined the most appropriate. This process led us to develop a new model of demand.  We then applied the selected taxonomies experimentally to existing curricula in a range of applied subjects which are taught at secondary and tertiary level in England. We also used the selected taxonomies to develop a tool for writing educational objectives. This article ends with suggestions for applying the selected taxonomies in other areas of assessment.

• Foreword Tim Oates, CBE
• Editorial Tom Bramley
• A New Cambridge Assessment Archive Collection Exploring Cambridge English Exams in Germany and England in JPLO Gillian Cooke
• Perspectives on curriculum design: comparing the spiral and the network models Jo Ireland, Melissa Mouthaan
• Context matters—Adaptation guidance for developing a local curriculum from an international curriculum framework Sinead Fitszimons, Victoria Coleman, Jackie Greatorex, Hiba Salem, Martin Johnson
• Setting and reviewing questions on-screen: issues and challenges Victoria Crisp, Stuart Shaw
• A way of using taxonomies to demonstrate that applied qualifcations and curricula cover multiple domains of knowledge Irenka Suto, Jackie Greatorex, Sylvia Vitello, Simon Child
• Research News Anouk Peigne

Vidal Rodeiro, C. L., & Vitello, S. (2020). Vocational Qualifications at Key Stage 4 and Key Stage 5: who takes them and how they fit into students' programmes of study. Cambridge Assessment Research Report. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Assessment.

Bramley, T. and Vitello, S. (2019). The effect of adaptivity on the reliability coefficient in adaptive comparative judgement.  Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 26(1), 43-58.

Vitello, S. and Williamson, J. (2018). Cambridge Assessment Research Report. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Assessment.

• 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