Hybrid Assessment Process

Methodology

In order to find out the extent to which, the interpretation of results made by teachers-raters might bias assessment processes, one of the two oral performance assessment was intervened (Task 2: Ted Talk, see *appendix), examined and analysed, paying special attention to the assessment tool, which in this case is a hybrid rubric (see appendix), as its design obeys to, at least, two of the three different validation models previously presented: content and criterion; and the interpretation that each rater comes to, while contrasting the student’s performance to the criteria described in the rubric.

The performance assessment type in question, deals with interpretations of results and their use. Regarding this, perspectives may

It is important to highlight that, the framework and principles offered by the AR model fit for purpose, as they promote the improvement of assessment methods, in this case, a particular assessment procedure pointing out a specific skill and content; teachers’ continuous development of teaching/learning skills, professional empowerment, self-awareness, reflection and autonomy (Cohen et al, 2007).

In addition, being fairness the focus of this study, two of the Action Research principles stated by Hult and Lennung (1980) and Mc Kernan (1991), cited in Cohen el at (2007) perfectly fall into place, as they express that AR “seeks to understand particular complex situation” and “…to improve the quality of human actions.” (p.299). Therefore, the understanding of the nature of a, per se, unequal, top down process might be of help, making it moves towards an ethics of

Data Collection Methods

Regarding the examination of the intervened process, qualitative data collection methods were used.

First of all, field notes were taken during all stages of the process. These ones include conversations taken from the team’s Whatsapp group, an official channel of communication meant to coordinate and facilitate team daily planning and decision making processes. Informal lunch conversations and written register of my own thoughts were also included.

To continue with, one-to-one and collective (focus group) interviews were used to negotiate the interpretation of the rubric among teachers. Subsequently, the delivery of the concrete and aligned interpretations, minor points of negotiation, as well as students’ questions and perceptions were informed and discussed in the focus