| Summary: | It is relatively straightforward to assess procedural knowledge and difficult to assess conceptual understanding in mathematics. One reason is that conceptual understanding is better assessed using open-ended test questions that invite an unpredictable variety of responses that are difficult to mark. Recently a technique, called comparative judgement, has been developed that enables the reliable and valid scoring of open-ended tests. We applied this technique to the peer assessment of calculus on a first-year mathematics module. We explored the reliability and criterion validity of the outcomes using psychometric methods and a survey of participants. We report evidence that the assessment activity was reliable and valid, and discuss the strengths and limitations, as well as the practical implications, of our findings.
|
|---|