Search

This article is based on a qualitative study that investigated a particular type of task given in the German Abitur (the exam that grants access to university studies) in Religious Education – one prompting the students to take a considered position, and the corresponding notes for grading the exams. It investigates which criteria might serve to validly assess the positioning taken by students in the context of exams. By relating the insights regarding exams in Religious Education to research on the didactics of other subjects, the article describes both subject-specific and general pedagogical challenges related to the assessment of student positionings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ausgehend von der Problemfrage „Wie verhält man sich möglichst rational innerhalb eines irrationalen Systems?“ thematisiert der Beitrag zunächst die Ansprüche, die in Deutschland seitens der Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK) an die gymnasiale Oberstufe formuliert werden (Kap. 1). Kontrastierend zu diesen Ansprüchen auf vertiefte Allgemeinbildung, allgemeine Studierfähigkeit sowie wissenschaftspropädeutische Bildung wird dann die Benotung als Bewertungsmaßstab problematisiert, da mit ihr streng genommen systematisch eine Praxis organisiert wird, die den von der KMK geforderten Maximen entgegensteht, da ihr das Paradox einer Gradierbarkeit von Studierfähigkeit inhärent ist (Kap. 2). Als Grund für diese Widersprüchlichkeit werden dann die diesem System zugrunde liegenden unpädagogischen Gerechtigkeitsvorstellungen diskutiert (Kap. 3) sowie deren Niederschlag und die mit ihnen verbundene unfaire Chancengleichheit im Notensystem (Kap. 4), bevor dann eine Kritik an den klassischen Bezugsnormen der Notengebung erfolgt und das Programm einer Inklusiven Oberstufe jenseits der asozialen und der pseudoindividuellen Bezugsnorm formuliert wird (Kap. 5). Abschließend (Kap. 6) folgt ein Plädoyer für eine Differenzierung zwischen einer pädagogischen und einer bildungspolitischen Rolle, um einen Ausweg aus dem eingangs formulierten Problemkomplex zu finden, also der Versuch einer Antwort auf die Frage: „Wie verhält man sich möglichst rational innerhalb eines irrationalen Systems?“ Starting from the problem of “How to behave as rationally as possible within an irrational system?”, the article first discusses the demands that the Conference of Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Laender in Germany (KMK) formulates for the upper secondary schools in Germany (chap. 1). Contrasting these demands for in-depth general education, general study skills, and scientific education, grading as a standard of assessment is then problematized, since, strictly speaking, it systematically organizes a practice that contradicts the maxims demanded by the KMK, since the paradox of gradability of study skills is inherent in it (chap. 2). As a reason for this contradictoriness, the uneducational ideas of justice underlying this system are then discussed (chap. 3), as well as their precipitation and the unfair equality of opportunity associated with them in the grading system (chap. 4), before a critique of the classical reference norms of grading is then made and the program of an inclusive upper secondary school beyond the asocial and the pseudo-individual reference norm is formulated (chap. 5). Finally (chap. 6) follows a plea for a differentiation between a pedagogical and an educational role in order to find a way out of the problem complex formulated at the beginning, i.e., the attempt to answer the question: “How does one behave as rationally as possible within an irrational system?”

Aim: The aim of this study is to analyze the grades given for the oral/prac-tical part of the German State Examination at the Medical Faculty of Freiburg. We examined whether or not the grades given for the written and the oral/practical examinations correlated and if differences in grading between the Freiburg University Medical Center (UMC) and the other teaching hospitals could be found. In order to improve the quality of the state examination, the medical school has been offeringstandardized training for examiners for several years. We evaluated whether or not trained and untrained examiners differed in their grading of the exam and how these differences have changed over time. Methods: The results of the 2012 spring and fall exams were analyzed (N=315). The relevant data set was made available to us by the Baden-Württemberg Examination Office (Landesprüfungsamt). The data were analyzed by means of descriptive and inferential statistics. Results: We observed a correlation of p=0.460** between the grades for the written and the oral/practical exams. The UMC and the teaching hospitals did not differ significantly in their grade distributions. Com-pared to untrained examiners, trained ones assigned the grade of "very good" less often. Furthermore, they displayed a significantly higher variance in the grades given (p=0.007, phi=0.165). This effect is stronger when concentrating specifically on those examiners who took part in the training less than a year before. Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that the standardized training for examiners at the Medical Faculty of Freiburg is effective for quality assurance. As a consequence, more examiners should be motiv-ated to take part in the training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Sportwissenschaft is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)