Session Information
09 SES 08 C, Assessments, Examinations and Grades
Paper Session
Contribution
Theoretical framework, objectives and research questions
Exit exams for students finishing upper secondary education are rather the rule than exception worldwide. The main differences between them regard the share of the age cohort sitting for them, the form and content of the exam, the organisation and implementation of the exam, and the educational function of the exam (Noah & Eckstein 1992; Bishop 1998). Especially in literature on economics of education, there prevails a widely shared understanding that centralised exit exams improve student performance (Bishop 1998; Bishop et al. 2001; Jürges et al. 2003). Bishop singles out curriculum-based external exit exam systems (CBEEES) as the form most germane for advancing student achievement. Bishop defines these as having the following characteristics: Student’s accomplishment in the exam has real consequences; the exam defines achievement relative to an external standard; the exams are organized by discipline and keyed to the content of specific course sequences; the exams signal multiple levels of achievement in the subject; and the exams cover almost all secondary school students.
The Finnish matriculation examination conforms to Bishop’s definition for a CEEEBS almost to the full. However, the goal of (full) discipline coverage, combined with the Finnish curriculum and the increased choice in the matriculation exam, meant to support especially the weaker students, has lead to an examination with some 40 different exams in 24 subjects, of which each student only has to take four with only the exam in Mother tongue (Finnish/Swedish/Sami) is mandatory for all. Exams are graded by outside referees, conforming to a scale based on normal distribution for commensurability across subjects and years (see Béguin et al. 2008).
An earlier study (Kupiainen 2011) indicates that students’ choice of exams reflects their ability level, leading to different exams being taken by different sub-groups of students and undermining the prerequisites for the Gaussian distribution of grading. The result is an array of different exams where “good compete with the good” and “weak compete with the weak”, leading to exam-specific grades with limited compatibility across subjects. This endangers the interests of students willing to choose the more advanced courses and exams, and the universities hoping to get the most promising students to enrol to their programmes.
In view of this, the objective of the present study is to replicate the earlier limited study (N=700) with full data of the 131 000 students who have passed their matriculation exam between years 2006 and 2009. The main research questions are:
1. Are there systematic differences in the exams (subject/level) taken by students of different competence level?
2. Are there systematic differences in the exams (subject/level) taken by male and female students?
3. How do differences in students’ exam choice affect their chances for entering university?
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Béguin, A. (2000) Robustness of Equating High-Stakes Tests. PhD Thesis. University of Twente. Druk: FEBODRUK B.V., Enschede. Béguin, A., Alberts, R. & Kremers, E. (2008). Normhandhaving bij examens. Retrieved 21.1.2011 from http://toetswijzer.kennisnet.nl/html/normering/home.htm. Bishop, J. (1998). The effect of curriculum-based external exit exam systems on student achievement. Journal of Economic Education 29, 172–182. Bishop, J.H., Mañe, F. & Bishop, M. (2001). How external exit exams spur achievement. Educational Leadership / September 2001 Howie, S.J., Long, C., Sherman, V. & Venter, E. (2008) The role of IRT in selected examination systems. An Umalusi Research Report, September 2008 / May 2009. Jürges, H., Schneider, K. & Büchel, F. (2003) The Effect of Central Exit Examinations on Student Achievement: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from TIMSS Germany. CESifo Working Paper No. 939. Category 1: Public Finance. May 2003. Kupiainen, S. (2011) Students’ freedom of choice vs. commensurability of results. The case of the Finnish matriculation exam. ICSEI 24th International Conference for School Effectiveness and Improvement. January 4-7. 2011, Limassol, Cyprus. Noah, H. J. and Eckstein, M. A. (Eds.) (1992). Examinations. Comparative and International Studies. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.