Review

Principles for Minimizing Errors in Examination Papers and Other Educational Assessment Instruments

Volume: 8 Number: 2 June 10, 2021
  • Irenka Suto *
  • Jo Ireland
EN TR

Principles for Minimizing Errors in Examination Papers and Other Educational Assessment Instruments

Abstract

Errors in examination papers and other assessment instruments can compromise fairness. For example, a history question containing an incorrect historical date could be impossible for students to answer. Incorrect instructions at the start of an examination could lead students to answer the wrong number of questions. As there is little research on this issue within the educational assessment community, we reviewed the literature on minimizing errors in other industries and domains, including aviation, energy, and medicine. We identified generalizable principles and applied them to our context of educational assessment. We argue that since assessment instrument construction is a complex system comprising numerous interacting components, a holistic approach to system improvement is required. Assessment instrument errors stem primarily from human failure. When human failure occurs, it is not good enough to suggest that ‘to err is simply human’. Instead it is necessary to look deeper, evaluating the latent working conditions that underpin the efficacy of procedures, making the human failure more or less likely. Drawing from the aviation industry’s ergonomic SHELLO model, we articulate and explore three of the most critical working conditions that relate to our context: (i) time pressure, (ii) workload and stress, and (iii) wider organizational culture, including good error data collection. We conclude with recommendations for best practice in minimizing errors in assessment instruments. A ‘good’ error culture should be promoted, which avoids blaming individuals. Errors should be acknowledged readily by all, and system owners should take a scientific approach to understanding and learning from them.

Keywords

References

  1. Achtenhagen, F. (1994, June). Presentation to Third International Conference of Learning at Work, Milan, Italy.
  2. Akinci, B. (2014). Situational Awareness in Construction and Facility Management. Frontiers of Engineering Management, 1(3), 283-289. https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FEM-2014037
  3. Aimola Davies, A., Waterman, S., White, R. & Davies, M. (2013). When you fail to see what you were told to look for: Inattentional blindness and task instructions. Consciousness and Cognition, 22(1), 221-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2012.11.015
  4. Baddeley, A. (2010). Working memory. Current Biology, 20(4), R136-R140.
  5. Baranowski, R. (2006). Item editing and editorial review. In S. Downing & T. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of Test Development (pp. 349-357). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  6. Battmann, W., & Klumb, P. (1993). Behavioural economics and compliance with safety regulations. Safety Science, 16, 35 46. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/092575359390005X BBC (2017, November 21) NZ minister orders probe into 'impossible' maths exam. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-42065574
  7. Bleetman, A., Sanusi, S., Dale, T., & Brace, S. (2012). Human factors and error prevention in emergency medicine. Emergency Medicine Journal, 29, 389 393. http://emj.bmj.com/content/29/5/389.long
  8. Borchard, E. M. (2013). Convicting the innocent and state indemnity for errors of criminal justice. The Justice Institute. (Original work published 1932)

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Studies on Education

Journal Section

Review

Authors

Irenka Suto * This is me
0000-0001-6871-901X
United Kingdom

Jo Ireland This is me
0000-0003-1237-7860
United Kingdom

Publication Date

June 10, 2021

Submission Date

December 3, 2020

Acceptance Date

March 15, 2021

Published in Issue

Year 2021 Volume: 8 Number: 2

APA
Suto, I., & Ireland, J. (2021). Principles for Minimizing Errors in Examination Papers and Other Educational Assessment Instruments. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 8(2), 310-325. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.897874

Cited By

23823             23825             23824