# Educational assessment: align a judgement with its evidence — Study worksheet [Study guides](https://unireadinglist.com/guides/educational-assessment/) [Course topic: Assessment and Evaluation](https://unireadinglist.com/subjects/education/#course-assessment) Sources checked: 2026-11-04 Study route and exercise: University Reading List editorial project. For education students and teachers who can identify a learning outcome and calculate percentages. McConlogue is situated in higher education; Wiliam emphasizes classroom evidence and response; Brookhart/Nitko supplies a broader measurement and task-construction route. Scores and policies below are entirely fictional, with no actual learner records or claim about a real institution’s rules. ## Choose your starting point - [ ] I need a free design-and-marking spine Use McConlogue for course-level alignment, academic standards, calibration and feedback. Translate the setting carefully if your work is outside higher education. - [ ] I need evidence that changes the next lesson Use Wiliam to design a prompt, interpret responses and choose an instructional response. Recording a grade alone does not specify that response. - [ ] I need measurement and score interpretation Use Brookhart/Nitko for validity, reliability, item/task construction and grading. Keep the intended interpretation of a score visible at each calculation. ## Compare the three books ### Assessment and Feedback in Higher Education: A Guide for Teachers Teresa McConlogue · 2020 Free higher-education design spine Choose it when: You want to connect learning outcomes, assessment tasks, shared standards and marking. Use another route when: You need a universal school-testing manual or expect a rubric to remove all judgement. Selected reading: 2020 free PDF: chapters 3 course-unit design,6 marker reliability,7 peer assessment and 8 feedback. Limits and trade-offs: The selected ISBN 9781787353640 is the PDF, not the paperback. It is a complete free reading route with specific reuse conditions; higher-education examples require adaptation of the educational context elsewhere. #### Try before choosing Write a two-criterion rubric, then describe one disagreement that needs calibration rather than averaging. Check your work: Each criterion names observable evidence and a quality distinction. A numeric total alone does not explain the disagreement. Your notes: ________________________________ ISBN: 9781787353640 [Official free reading](https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10096352/) [Book record and access options](https://unireadinglist.com/subjects/education/assessment-feedback-mcconlogue/) ### Embedded Formative Assessment Dylan Wiliam · 2 · 2017 Formative evidence-and-response companion Choose it when: You need practical ways to elicit understanding and use it during teaching. Use another route when: You want a techniques list to prove an effect without checking its use or purpose. Selected reading: Second edition,2017, ISBN 9781945349225: select the strategies for eliciting evidence, feedback and learner participation by title. Limits and trade-offs: Its practical classroom focus differs from a psychometrics text. The separately published handbook is another work; no unverified chapter/page assignment or free-full-book claim is made. #### Try before choosing Design a brief response prompt and two different next teaching actions for two plausible response patterns. Check your work: The prompt discriminates the intended misconception; the planned response uses that evidence while learning can still change. Your notes: ________________________________ ISBN: 9781945349225 [Book record and access options](https://unireadinglist.com/subjects/education/embedded-formative-assessment/) ### Educational Assessment of Students Susan M. Brookhart; Anthony J. Nitko · 8 · 2018 Measurement and task-construction spine Choose it when: You need to distinguish validity, reliability, feedback, performance tasks and grading. Use another route when: You expect one reliability number or a published cut score to justify every use. Selected reading: Selected eighth-edition 2018 print ISBN 9780134807072: chapters 3–4 validity/reliability,7–8 formative assessment/feedback,15 grading. Limits and trade-offs: The same product page also advertises later digital offerings; match the selected print date and format. Access codes and courseware are separate entitlements. #### Try before choosing Calculate the original weighted score, then write what interpretation its task design would and would not support. Check your work: Separate the arithmetic rule, achievement evidence and decision threshold; none substitutes for the other. Your notes: ________________________________ ISBN: 9780134807072 [Book record and access options](https://unireadinglist.com/subjects/education/educational-assessment-of-students/) ## Check your preparation ### What is being judged? Your notes: ________________________________ ### Validity or reliability? Your notes: ________________________________ ### What is the uncertainty interval below? Your notes: ________________________________ ## A six-step study plan - [ ] Map purpose to evidence Selected reading: McConlogue design or Brookhart/Nitko goals/validity. What to do: Write an outcome→task→criterion→decision map. Check your work: Every claimed outcome has actual evidence; an attractive task is not enough. Your notes: ________________________________ - [ ] Make the rule explicit Selected reading: Grading discussion in the chosen spine. What to do: Record maxima, achieved marks, weights, thresholds and any essential-component rule. Check your work: Weights sum to 1, and raw maxima do not silently become intended weights. Your notes: ________________________________ - [ ] Calculate both summaries Selected reading: The original scoring packet. What to do: Compute the published weighted percentage and the raw pooled percentage. Check your work: Explain which weighting each number actually implements. Your notes: ________________________________ - [ ] Inspect mark uncertainty Selected reading: McConlogue marker reliability and the follow-up. What to do: Propagate the stated project-mark range through the decision rule. Check your work: Do not label a stipulated interval a statistical confidence interval. Your notes: ________________________________ - [ ] Plan calibration and feedback Selected reading: McConlogue calibration/feedback or Wiliam’s evidence strategies. What to do: Write one calibration comparison and an actionable feedback response tied to a criterion. Check your work: The comparison targets a disagreement; the feedback gives a next step, not just another number. Your notes: ________________________________ - [ ] Audit the decision Selected reading: Brookhart/Nitko grading and validity. What to do: State whether the decision is stable, the evidence needed to resolve it and the limits of the score. Check your work: Do not average away disagreement or infer an unmeasured competence from a composite. Your notes: ________________________________ ## Worked exercise: Original scoring packet: the maxima are not the weights An invented course awards a quiz 18/20 and project 48/80. Its published composite weights are 40% quiz and 60% project. A pass requires overall≥70% and project≥60%. Compute the composite and decision; compare with pooling raw points. Assumptions: The two marks are exact in this main case. Percentages are not rounded before a decision and equality passes each threshold. The quiz is stipulated to elicit recall and the project application; no empirical validity or reliability estimate is supplied. The rule is invented, not an institutional policy. Your notes: ________________________________ ## Change an assumption: Changed assumption: a plausible mark range crosses the rule Now the project’s true mark is only known to lie between 44 and 52 inclusive out of 80; quiz 18/20 stays exact, and the same 40/60 weights and pass thresholds apply. Find the composite range and whether a pass is robust. Your notes: ________________________________ ## Before moving on - I can map a learning claim to a task and decision rule. - I can reproduce the weighting and binding-threshold calculations. - I can distinguish a stable decision, a conditional mark and the evidence needed for moderation. ## Answer and interpretation ### What is being judged? Name the learning outcome and the evidence that could demonstrate it. A recall quiz and an application project can have different roles even when both yield percentages. ### Validity or reliability? Validity concerns evidence for a proposed interpretation/use; reliability concerns consistency of the result. Consistent marking can still consistently reward the wrong thing. ### What is the uncertainty interval below? It is a stipulated set of plausible marks, not a confidence interval, estimated standard error or probability of passing. A robust decision must be the same for every mark in the set. ### Original scoring packet: the maxima are not the weights 1. Quiz percentage=18/20=90%; project=48/80=60%. Weighted composite=0.40×90+0.60×60=72%. 2. Overall 72≥70 and project 60≥60, so the packet’s decision is pass. Both conditions must be checked; the total alone is not the rule. 3. Raw pooling gives (18+48)/(20+80)=66%. This is correct arithmetic for 20% quiz and 80% project weighting, which is a different rule from the published 40/60 weights. 4. The score does not itself establish whether the tasks justify every proposed learning claim. Report recall/application evidence separately when that distinction matters. Published composite 72%, project 60%, therefore pass under both stipulated thresholds. Raw pooling 66% implements a different weighting. Test the result: Verify that 0.40+0.60=1. If a quiz weight w were chosen instead, the same exact marks would produce 60+30 w percent; changing weights changes the decision basis, not the underlying work. ### Change an assumption: Changed assumption: a plausible mark range crosses the rule 1. Project percentages range 55% to 65%. The composite is 36+0.75 p, where p is the raw project mark; hence the composite range is 69% to 75%. 2. The overall threshold needs 36+0.75 p≥70, or p≥45⅓. The essential project threshold needs p/80≥0.60, or p≥48, which is the binding requirement. 3. At p = 44 the result fails; at p = 48 it passes with 72 overall; at p = 52 it passes with 75. The allowed interval crosses 48, so neither pass nor fail is robust across all allowed marks. The composite range is 69–75%, and the decision switches at raw project 48. The stated evidence does not support one stable classification; calibration/moderation is needed to resolve the mark. Test the result: Check both endpoints and the binding threshold. The interval is not a probability distribution, so no probability of passing can be calculated without further information. ## Common mistakes ### Raw pooling masquerades as stated weights Adding points uses the maxima as implicit weights; that can change the policy. ### One total replaces a learning claim A composite can conceal different evidence across outcomes and essential components. ### Uncertainty averaged away Averaging two disputed marks does not establish which judgement is justified; examine criteria and evidence. ## Sources and edition checks - [UCL Discovery: free complete assessment and feedback book](https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10096352/) The free 2020 book supports course design, standards, calibration and feedback in higher education. - [UCL Press: edition, format, contents and licence](https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10096352/1/Assessment-and-feedback-in-higher-education.pdf) The PDF contents and format-specific ISBN anchor the named reading route. - [Solution Tree: Embedded Formative Assessment second edition](https://www.solutiontree.com/embedded-formative-assessment-second-ed.html) The selected second edition is a formative evidence-and-response companion, not a measurement manual. - [Solution Tree: primary second-edition catalogue receipt](https://solutiontree.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/solutiontree.com/media/pdf/catalogs/2026-Spring-Summer-Comprehensive-Catalog-June.pdf) The publisher distinguishes the selected book from its separate handbook; no classroom effects are invented here. - [Pearson: selected eighth-edition print and assessment contents](https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/educational-assessment-of-students/P200000000835) The selected paperback is explicitly the 2018 eighth-edition update; later digital dates on the page do not overwrite that identity. These are proposed study activities, not official course assignments or a claim that every book has been read cover to cover. [How we curate](https://unireadinglist.com/editorial/)