Research Proposal

Pre-service Secondary English Teachers Knowledge of Marking Essays and Providing Written Feedback to Students

Name : Student no: Degree: School:

Rochelle Coleman 21089837 Master of Teaching, University of Western Australia Graduate School of Education

Table of Contents
Abstract Introduction/Context Key Terms and Concepts Conceptual Framework/Literature Review Study Rationale Potential Impact of Research Aims/Questions Central Question Guiding Questions Method Design Participants Instruments/Protocols Data Collection and Analysis Conformity to Standards for Ethical Research Practice References Appendix A: Proposed Timeline Appendix B: Interview Questions Before Practicum Appendix C: Interview Questions After Practicum 3 3 4 5 9 10 10 10 10 11 11 13 13 14 15 16 18 19 20

Rochelle Coleman

Student no. 21089837

Abstract
This research will examine if pre-service English teachers at the University of Western Australia feel that their teacher training has adequately prepared them to effectively mark student essays for the purpose of improving student outcomes. Marking English essays is a contentious issue even for experienced English teachers, and is even more difficult for pre-service and newly graduated teachers who are yet to establish the professional judgment that is required when marking English essays. Interviews to discover the experiences of a small group of preservice English teachers will be conducted, both before and after their final practicum, to gauge the pre-service teachers feelings of preparedness for giving effective feedback to students.

Introduction/Context
Despite the popularity of other assessment tools such as oral presentations, electronic submissions, and short answers, essays remain a major tool of assessment in the subject area of English. Essays are an appropriate way for a student to demonstrate higher order thinking in relation to a problem or to maintain an extended argument in relation to a text. However, marking English essays is problematic as it can be highly subjective. This subjectivity in relation to marking is a contentious issue for experienced teachers, let alone pre-service or graduate teachers. This subjectivity is related to the professional judgment that must be exercised when marking essays. Even when utilising a marking key or rubric, judgment must be exercised as to what degree a student has met each criteria in the rubric. It is difficult to determine how much of the essay you should correct/edit to help students make improvements in their own writing. Pre-service teachers have not yet had the opportunity to develop the necessary professional judgment required for marking English essays and must rely on their university training to inform their practice regarding assessment. However, the question remains, is the training received by pre-service English teachers sufficient to make up for this gap in experience? My decision to investigate this issue arose following conversations held with other members of my course. Anecdotally, it appears that many pre-service English teachers did not feel confident with assessment as a whole, but particularly, marking Rochelle Coleman Student no. 21089837 3

essays. While I had a successful practicum, I was still not confident in was marking student essays. I feel that this was because the training in assessment in my

English curriculum course was insufficient for me to grasp the complexities of marking student essays and what sort of feedback to provide to students. I feel that

this experience could be common amongst pre-service English teachers and I would like to determine if this is the case.

Key Terms and Concepts

The following key terms and concepts will be used in this proposal:

Pre-service teachers: Teaching students who are yet to complete their qualification.

UWA:

The University of Western Australia

English teachers:

Refers to those pre-service teachers undertaking an English curriculum major as part of their degree. Minor subjects vary in the group. the term typically used to describe the activities undertaken by a teacher to obtain information about the knowledge, skills, and attributes of students. Activities can be summative, a formal assessment piece designed to check students understanding of a unit of work, or summative, continuous observation of student understanding (Marsh, 2010, p. 31). This paper will focus on summative assessment, in particular essays. An essay can be defined as any planned piece of written coursework which is submitted for assessment. (Haines, C, 2004, p. 76).

Assessment:

Essay:

Rochelle Coleman

Student no. 21089837

Conceptual Framework/Literature Review

There are a number of issues that need to be examined in order to put this issue into context. The main issues that arose when examining the context for this issue was that the issue is controversial, marking essays is subjective, that moderation can mitigate the subjectivity in marking, what feedback should be given, what students want in marking feedback, and how teacher training deals with these issues. Marking English essays can be a controversial subject. Taber et al (2011) discussed the challenges of marking for experienced teachers and that it was even more challenging for new entrants to the profession, given that:

(i) new teachers entering the profession bring their own existing conceptions of teaching and learning, and that these inevitably influence their interpretation of what they are taught during initial teacher education; and (ii) the process of moving from a laypersons understanding to a practitioners understanding is more difficult where the concept area itself is contested and confused. (Taber et al, 2011, p. 171-172).

Taber et al highlight the difficulties experienced by pre-service teachers and newlygraduated teachers to understand the best way in which to mark student essays when the issue is so highly controversial and contested amongst experienced teachers. The reason that marking English essays is such a controversial subject is because it is viewed as a highly subjective process. Valentine (1932), as quoted in Black (1962), made the point that different examiners give such different marks to the same essay that it is doubtful whether an essay or an examination question resembling an essay can be marked fairly and accurately. Black also considered the view of Ballard (1923) that 'In any other science an instrument so imperfect would have been cast on the dust-heap. Nobody can mark a given essay with a feeling of certainty that any other equally competent examiner would give the same mark if he had to deal with the same paper again after he had forgotten his previous appraisal.' (1962, p62). These quotes show that the controversy about the correct way in which to mark essays has been around a long time. It is unsurprising that pre-service and graduate teachers have difficulty with this matter.

Rochelle Coleman

Student no. 21089837

Newton (1996) agrees that the process of marking English essays is more subjective than in other subjects. He investigated the consistency with which marks were awarded to scripts during the summer 1994 examinations in mathematics and English. It was demonstrated that the reliability of marking of mathematics scripts was extremely high. The consistency of marking in English was notably lower (1996, p. 405). Newtons article demonstrates the importance of undertaking further research in this area for the subject area of English. Brookes (2012) concurs that subjectivity is problematic when marking English essays. He discusses the need to consider the judgment process underpinning Brooks argues that without considering these

subjective decisions when marking.

underlying biases and processes informing the markers judgment, and focusing instead on the manifestations of marking, we are ignoring a fundamental component of the process. This professional judgment required to mark essays is still being developed in new teachers. Assessment rubrics attempt to make the marking

process less subjective, but there is still plenty of room for teachers to exercise their professional judgment when marking when considering the degree to which an individual student has met specified criteria. Broyles (1985) disagrees with the assertion that marking English essays is a subjective process. Broyles, describes subjectivity as whimsical, personal, illusory, immeasurable witchcraft and says that marking is not subjective because marking criteria are used and distributed to students for transparency (1985, 127). However, this stance does not take into account the professional judgment that must be exercised when deciding whether a student has met the marking criteria, and to what degree they have done so, assuming that the criteria allows for achievement on a spectrum. It is this judgment that pre-service teachers are yet to develop. Of course, moderation is often used in English departments in schools to mitigate some of the subjectivity in marking English essays. Brooks (2004) suggests that double marking, otherwise known as moderation, can be used to reduce some of the subjectivity in marking English essays. Brooks study sought to explore whether double marking of scripts in subjects such as English to determine whether the strategy would significantly reduce errors of judgment (2004, p. 29). She found that it increased the reliability of the marks awarded significantly, and since there was a significant measure of agreement between the markers (2004, p. 38-39). It removed bias and inconsistency in essay marking (2004, p. 39). Rochelle Coleman Student no. 21089837 6

Other researches agree that moderation can be useful. exams. (1996, p.405).

Newton (1996)

determined that moderation was found to be effective when marking English Williams (1991) also discussed the importance of

moderation.

His paper outlined the process of moderation for marking four

randomly-selected papers. These papers were independently rated by three course planners (who were responsible for planning coordinating, and tutoring in the course), and agreement as to the assignment of grades for each paper was established. (1991, 679). The reliability of marks received was improved in this process. While all of the researchers agreed that moderation or double marking would improve the reliability of marking English essays, it must be stated that moderation is an onerous and time-consuming process and it would not be feasible to use it in day-to-day teaching practice. Inexperienced teachers need to determine a more effective way in which to mark English essays. Having explored the difficulties in marking English essays due to the subjectivity of the process, it is important to consider if it is worthwhile to give students feedback on essays. Mansell (2008) argues Assessment remains, overall, the weakest aspect of teaching. Many teachers still struggle to use the information from assessment to plan work that is well matched to pupils' needs." (2008). Mansell discusses how assessment should involve gauging pupils needs to improve their understanding, instead of simply recording the stage that they have reached. Student understanding of their competency in essay writing is greatly assisted by constructive teacher feedback on their work. Without such feedback, the

assessment is meaningless in terms of student learning. The question then remains: What feedback should be given to students, and how should it be given? Feedback to students should clearly be constructive, because the intent is to improve students outcomes. Voerman et al (2012) argue that feedback in the classroom is rarely given, and on the occasion it is, tends to be in the form of praise, rather than something that enhances student learning. Faulkner (2011) discusses the benefits of providing feedback verbally, via recorded podcasts, to enable her to better model the way in which she wanted a student to expand on their ideas or make improvements. However, others mark in a more traditional way, but writing annotations on a physical copy of the students work. What annotations are written, how many, and their focus is contentious, even amongst experienced teachers. Giusto (1998) He Rochelle Coleman Student no. 21089837 7

knew he'd never have lasted these 20 years in the classroom if he had read every line and corrected every spelling error. (1998, p. 79). Broyles (1985) explored what should be marked by English teachers in more detail; the unity of the paper, the coherence of the essay, is it understandable (i.e. correct sentence structure, grammar etc), does it have strong continuity, is there an economy of language (i.e. no waffling), variety of vocabulary, emphasis on important points, energy relating to the use of language such as imagery, and originality. (1985, p. 127). While this is technically correct, it does not take into account higher-order content-focused responses. Bardine (1999) considers the relationship between content and form more deeply. He considers that content should be more important than form and that teacher comments should relate to breaks in logic, disruptions in meaning, or missing information (1999, p. 241). He states that, whatever a teacher focuses most of their comments on, is what students will give their most attention to when revising work. Bardines paper considered students responses to the teacher remarks on their English essays. Atwell (1987), as quoted in Bardine, explains that she believes, based on her own experiences as a teacher and writer, writers want "response that is courteous and gentle, that gives help without threatening the writer's dignity. . . A writer wants response that takes the writer seriously and moves him or her forward. (1999, p240). Students do not want to feel negative about the feedback received. Student participants in Bardines research stated that they wanted comments that were specific and detailed; Comments that are vague, nonspecific, or are simply commands with little purpose don't assist students when it's time for revision. (1999, p240). Students seem to most appreciate those comments that "explained why things were wrong (1999, p. 240). Many students also appreciated praise about their work. Daiker (1986), as quoted in Bardine, found that the vast majority of the comments (89.4%) "cited error or found fault; only . . . 10.6% of them were comments of praise. (1999, p2. 40). This praise can assist students become better writers because they can model future work on the successes they have achieved. It is important that pre-service teachers understand students needs in relation to feedback on essays so that they can assist students to improve their writing skills. It is important to examine how teacher training at universities deal with the subjectivity of essay marking and how to provide feedback to students. A key piece of literature for my research is the New Zealand study by Hill et al (2010) which Rochelle Coleman Student no. 21089837 8

examined what teachers learned about assessment during their teacher training and how this compared with teachers values, conceptions and the critical skills needed to implement assessment aligned with improving learning. (2010, p. 43). This study examines how teachers learn about assessment at university. It explores how formative assessment is critical to student learning and consequently, it is critical that teachers be prepared to assess. Assessment literate teachers are more able to tailor their teaching to student needs (2010, p. 43-44). Hill discussed what graduate teachers should know regarding assessment of students: superior knowledge about the content or substance of what is to be learnt a set of attitudes or dispositions towards teaching as an activity, and towards learners, including their own ability to empathise with students who are learning, their desire to help students develop, improve and do better, their personal concern with the validity of feedback and the veracity of their own judgments, and their patterns in offering help skill in constructing or compiling tests, in devising tasks, and generally in working out ways to elicit revealing and pertinent responses from students a deep knowledge of criteria and standards appropriate to the assessment task evaluative skill or expertise in having made judgments about student efforts on similar tasks in the past expertise in framing feedback statements for students. (2010, p. 46) The concerning aspect in Hills list in relation to my research is the requirement for professional judgment. As outlined above, it is difficult for pre-service teachers to develop this judgment and require further training at university to be proficient.

Study Rationale
While there are numerous articles about assessment, and a few that deal with teacher education in relation to assessment, there does not appear to be sufficient evidence for pre-service English teachers knowledge of marking essays and providing effective feedback to students. As outlined above, assessment is vital to

Rochelle Coleman

Student no. 21089837

student learning and essays continue to be an important tool with which to assess student learning in the subject area of English. Essay marking is highly subjective due to the myriad of ways in which an answer can be correct and this subjectivity requires the marker to demonstrate professional judgment. Pre-service English teachers have not yet had the

opportunity and experience to develop this professional judgment and require explicit and effective training in English Curriculum units at university to mitigate this lack of judgment. Further research is required in this area to determine if pre-service

English teachers at the University of Western Australia feel that they are given sufficient training on how to mark English essays and training on what feedback to provide to students so that they can perform this part of their role confidently when working as a graduate teacher.

Potential Impact of Research

This research could potentially improve teacher training for English teachers at the University of Western Australia. If such a gap could be closed, the quality of English curriculum graduates from Bachelor of Education, Diploma of Education, and Master of Teaching courses would be greatly improved. This would have a flow-on effect to better student assessment by new graduate teachers in schools.

Aims/Questions
Central Question
The central question that the research will focus on is: Do pre-service English teachers at the University of Western Australia feel that their teacher training has adequately prepared them to effectively mark student essays?

Guiding Questions
To support the understanding of this key question, research will be guided by the following questions: What is effective feedback? effective feedback to students? Are pre-service teachers aware of what makes

Rochelle Coleman

Student no. 21089837

10

What sort of training exists at the University of Western Australia in essay feedback in the English curriculum unit? How long does it take per essay for a pre-service teacher to provide effective feedback to a student? Is the length of time it takes to provide good feedback a barrier to doing so? Do pre-service teachers think that the time spent marking essays will improve as they become more experienced? What should actually be marked on an essay? Every single spelling,

grammatical and syntax mistake, or just the information on the assignment rubric? Do teachers focus more on the content or the form of the essay? Is feedback given different for students with higher academic abilities, than students with lower abilities? If so, why? Is it more important to get feedback to students quickly, or is it more important to provide in-depth feedback? Exactly what needs to be written as a comment on a marked essay? Do preservice teachers know what needs to be written? What happens to student outcomes if pre-service teachers are not given sufficient training? Is feedback from pre-service teachers to students given only on the end product, or is it given as an integral part of the learning process?

These guiding questions have been utilised to create the interview questions for participants in the data collection phase. However, more questions may arise during the course of the interviews, depending on participant responses.

Method
Design
In order to provide an in-depth understanding of the issue regarding teacher training at the University of Western Australia, only information about practice at this university will be sought. Research will focus on the experience of pre-service

teachers with an English curriculum major in order to find out their perspectives on

Rochelle Coleman

Student no. 21089837

11

the training they have received, specifically training received on formative assessment and marking student work. Volunteers will be sought from the English Curriculum unit EDUC5470 to participate in interviews regarding their views on formative assessment, specifically marking essays and providing effective feedback to students. As the participants sought are English curriculum majors, they are nearing the end of their course and should be close to the competencies of a graduate teacher by this time. Therefore, their views on essay marking and feedback are important as it indicates the way in which the pre-service teachers will be interacting with their students when they gain a teaching position in 2014. Interviews will be conducted in two rounds. The first round of interviews will take place in the two weeks before the pre-service teachers final practicum to determine what they believe they know in relation to assessment and essay marking. The second round of interviews will be undertaken in the week after pre-service teachers return from their practicum period. The purpose of the second round of interviews will be to follow-up the information from the first round of interviews and to investigate whether pre-service teachers felt that their teacher training was sufficient for purposes of student assessment and essay marking after their experiences on their practicum. While interview questions will be used (detailed in the appendices), these will be used as a guide for the interview. Questions may not be asked in order or may be skipped if already answered at another point. Clarifying and follow-up questions will be used where participants answers are unclear or require further ex ploration. While relatively structured, the interview will be conducted in a conversational manner in order to put the participant at ease and build rapport. This approach should provide rich and meaningful data for analysis. It is intended that each interview will take forty-five to sixty minutes and will take place in a meeting room in the Education, Fine Arts, and Architecture (EDFAA) Library. As participants are all University of Western Australia Education students, this is an appropriate and convenient location to conduct the interviews. Interview times will be scheduled at a time that is suitable to participants, but it is anticipated that these will happen during business hours. Preference will be given to times that are before or after pre-service teachers university lectures and tutorials for the convenience of participants. Rochelle Coleman Student no. 21089837 12

Participants
A small group containing pre-service English teachers from the University of Western Australia will be sought to participate. This small sample will allow me to gain a deeper understanding of the views of pre-service English teachers on any perceived gaps in their teacher training, while still giving enough data to look for commonalities across the experience of all participants. These commonalities may assist with the transferability of findings to the experience of other pre-service English teachers at the university. Five pre-service English teachers from the University of Western Australia will be sought to participate. These pre-service teachers will be undertaking a Bachelor of Education, Diploma of Education, or Master of Teaching and must be English majors undertaking unit EDUC5470 English Curriculum II during Semester 2, 2013. Participants need to be undertaking their final practicum period during this semester, if they are Bachelor of Education or Diploma of Education students, or the second half of their first practicum period, if they are Master of Teaching students. Effort will be taken to seek a balance of genders and ages of participants. There are many mature-aged students studying education with varied life experiences, as well as younger students who have studied education directly after finishing their secondary schooling. It is important that a broad range of ages is included to take into account this wide spectrum of experiences of pre-service teachers as these experiences may influence their views of education, assessment, and feedback.

Instruments/Protocols
Given that research will be undertaken in the form of interviews for presentation in a qualitative report, it is important to acknowledge my background and potential bias in this area. I am a second-year Master of Teaching student with a major in English and a minor in Special Education. I have recently completed by final practicum period and noted that I was not confident in marking student essays, even though I am confident in other areas of assessment. I do not recall going through this subject in any detail in my English curriculum unit and my understanding was confirmed in conversations with others in my course.

Rochelle Coleman

Student no. 21089837

13

Data Collection and Analysis

Data will be collected in two stages. The first stage will be interviewing each of the participants individually before their practicum period. With participant consent,

interviews will be voice-recorded, as well as notes taken during the interview. Following these interviews, transcripts will be written up and forwarded to participants within 48 hours of their interview for their information and comments. Participants will then have the opportunity to clarify their responses. After receiving any changes or additional information from participants, any findings from the first round of interviews can be collated. The findings will also be examined to determine if there is need to change or add any questions to the second round of interview questions. The second stage of data collection will occur following the completion of the practicum period. (This will occur earlier for Master of Teaching students, as their practicum period is shorter). The same participants will be interviewed again to determine if their views about assessment and essay marking were confirmed or challenged during their practicum. As with the first round of interviews, data will be recorded with via the means of voice recording and written notes. Again, transcripts will be written and forwarded to participants within 48 hours of their interview to give them the opportunity for clarification. A potential limitation with this approach is that, asking pre-service teachers about assessment and essay marking before they undertake their practicum period will ensure that they pay higher attention to this matter during their practicum. However, the benefit of potential improvement to English teacher education at the University of Western Australia outweighs the minor impact of this intervention. A further limitation is that discussion may occur between participants about the topic of the interviews outside of the interview times. This is likely as all participants will be colleagues who have been in the same units together all year. However, this

limitation could be a benefit if it assists participants to clarify their thoughts regarding the subject before their interviews and would consequently provide more meaningful data. Data will be collated and written into a narrative research report. At this stage, I am undecided if I will keep the interviewees data separate and distinct from

Rochelle Coleman

Student no. 21089837

14

each other, or amalgamate them into one pre-service teacher that is representative of the experiences of the group. A decision on the manner in which the report will be written will be made following the first round of interviews to see if this is an appropriate approach.

Conformity to Standards for Ethical Research Practice

All participants will be assured of the confidentiality of their responses. Digital copies of information from the interview (such as voice recordings, transcripts, notes, and participant details) will be kept on an external hard drive in a locked cabinet in my home. Physical copies of notes or any other information will also be kept in this locked cabinet. Written consent will be sought from all participants, including written consent to allow voice recording of the interview. Each participant will receive a letter

detailing my research and their participation requirements, as well as a consent form for their records and a consent form for the researcher to keep. Participants will be referred to by a pseudonym to maintain their confidentiality.

Rochelle Coleman

Student no. 21089837

15

References
Ballard, P. B. (1923). The New Examiner. London. Bardine, B. (1999). Students' perceptions of written teacher comments: What do they say about how we respond to them? High School Journal, April, 1999, Vol.82(4), p.239. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier. Black, E. (1962). The Marking of G.C.E. Scripts. British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Nov., 1962), pp. 61-71. Retrieved from JStor. Brooks, V. (2004). Double Marking Revisited. British Journal of Educational Studies, 2004, Vol.52(1), pp.29-46. Retrieved from JStor. Brooks, V. (2012). Marking as judgment. Research Papers in Education, 27(1), 6380. Retrieved from Taylor and Francis Online. Broyles, B. Another Look at Grading Essays. The Clearing House, Vol. 59, No. 3 (Nov., 1985), pp. 127-128. Retrieved from JStor. Faulkner, N. (2011). How to maximise student learning after assessment whilst minimizing the pain of correction (in search of the Holy Grail). English in Australia, 46(3), 87-88. Giusto, B. (1998). Miles Smile. The Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 80, No. 1 (Sep., 1998), pp. 79-83. Retrieved from JStor. Haines, C. (2004). Assessing Essays in Haines, C. Assessing Students Written Work: Marking Essays and Reports. Retrieved from EBL Reader. Hill, M., Cowie, B., Gilmore, A., Smith, L. (2010). Preparing assessment-capable teachers: what should preservice teachers know and be able to do? Assessment Matters, Annual, 2010, Vol.2, p.6(22). Retrieved from Informit. Johnson, M., Nadas, R., Bell, J. (2010). Marking Essays on Screen: An Investigation into the Reliability of Marking Extended Subjective Texts. British Journal of Educational Technology, 2010, Vol.41(5), p.814-826. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier. Mansell, W. (2008). A marking revolution. The Times Educational Supplement, (4785), 19. Retrieved from Proquest. Marsh, C. (2010). Becoming a Teacher (5th ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Australia. Newton, P. (1996). The reliability of marking of General Certificate of Secondary Education scripts: Mathematics and English. British Educational Research Journal, 22(4), 405. Retrieved from JStor.

Rochelle Coleman

Student no. 21089837

16

Taber, K., Riga, F., Brindley, S., Winterbottom, M., Finney, J., Fisher, L. (2011). Formative conceptions of assessment: trainee teachers thinking about assessment issues in English secondary schools. Teacher development (1366-4530), 15 (2), 171. Retrieved from Education Source. Valentine, C. W. (1932). The Reliability of Examinations. London. Voerman, L., Meijer, P., Korthagen, F., Simons, R. (2012). Types and frequencies of feedback interventions in classroom interaction in secondary education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(8), 1107-1115. Retrieved from ScienceDirect. Williams, R. (1991). Grading Written Essays: A Reliability Study. Physical Therapy, Sept, 1991, Vol.71(9), p.679(8).

Rochelle Coleman

Student no. 21089837

17

Appendix A: Proposed Timeline

29/07/13 With the lecturers permission, approach class in unit EDUC5470 three weeks prior to the second professional practicum to seek volunteers for research. An earlier approach could unduly influence participants into being more attentive to the subject of assessment when it arises in lectures. around sheet to students at this time to sign up. details to students. 5/08/13 Start first round of interviews with participants before their practicum period. 19/08/13 Practicum period commences. complete prior to this date. 19/08/13 - 1/11/13 Type transcripts for interviews and forward to participants. Write up preliminary findings from the first round of interviews. Determine if a change in questions is needed for the second round of interviews. 9/09/13 Second round of interviews for Master of Teaching students (if applicable). 4/11/13 Second round of interviews for Bachelor of Education and Diploma of Education students to commence. 11/11/13 11 15/11/13 Second round of interviews to be completed Collate findings and write report for submission. All interviews are to be Pass

Give my

Rochelle Coleman

Student no. 21089837

18

Appendix B: Interview Questions Before Practicum

Warm up/introduction: 1. I am going to record this session for my own information and reference. Is that ok? 2. What course are you doing? (i.e. BEd, DipEd, MTeach) 3. What year are you in? 4. Is this your final prac? 5. What is your minor? 6. What do you like about teaching English?

Questions relating to practicum I 7. How did you enjoy your first prac? 8. Did anything happen on your first prac that you didnt anticipate? What was it? 9. How did you deal with this situation?

Questions regarding assessment in general: 10. Have you had any experience marking yet? 11. How comfortable are you with marking student work?

Questions regarding marking essays: 12. Do you think you will get to mark essays during your prac? 13. How long do you think it will take you to mark an essay?

Questions regarding UWA training: 14. What training have you had at uni on assessment? 15. Did you receive much training on marking essays? 16. Have you looked at any exemplars on the DET website to check their marks? 17. Are you confident your training on assessment and marking is sufficient for a graduate teacher?

Rochelle Coleman

Student no. 21089837

19

Appendix C: Interview Questions After Practicum

Warm up/introduction: 1. I am going to record this interview for my own reference. Is this ok?

Questions relating to practicum II 1. How was your prac?

Questions regarding assessment in general: 2. What sort of assessment did you do during your prac? 3. Did you create assessment as well as mark it? 4. If not, why not? Was it your lack of confidence, or did your mentor choose not to give you marking to do? 5. Did you also create an assessment rubric for marking? Did you distribute it to students? 6. Did you volunteer to mark any essays during prac?

Questions regarding marking essays: 7. Did you have the opportunity to mark essays during your prac? 8. If so, how confident were you that you were marking them correctly? 9. Did your mentor provide you with advice on marking? What advice did he/she give you? Did you find this advice useful? 10. Did you find that you spent more time writing feedback on the essay of higherability students or lower-ability students? 11. How long did it take you to mark an essay?

Questions regarding UWA training: 12. Do you think that your training at UWA provided you with enough information to confidently mark student work? 13. How do you think teacher training at UWA could improve in this area?

Rochelle Coleman

Student no. 21089837

20