Kristina Kakoulidou

The empirical material was collected from six teachers at five different upper secondary schools, and consisted of, on the one hand, authentic students’ assignments and exams, along with partial grades and resulting final grades, and, on the other hand, the teachers’ reflections on the processes involved in assessing and grading said assignments and exams, and subsequently awarding final grades. The teachers’ reflections were obtained through interviews, in which the informants were asked to go through their students’ work and “think aloud” about the reasons for their assessments.

The empirical material was analysed based on a modified version of Bloom’s revised taxonomy, in terms of how well it aligned with the syllabus, as well as in terms of whether assignments and exams differed between student groups as a result of the teachers’ different interpretations of the syllabus. The results of the analysis were subsequently used to discuss the equivalence of grades.

In conclusion, the study shows that there are clear differences in how the teachers participating in the study translate and implement the intentions of the syllabus in their assignments and exams – as regards content as well as cognitive levels. Whereas some teachers base their assignments and exams on the full range of content categories and cognitive levels covered by the syllabus, others focus on fewer content categories at less advanced cognitive levels. It seems reasonable to assume that this, in turn, affects grading in that it will be harder for students belonging to the former group to achieve a high final grade, than it will for students belonging to the latter group. Consequently, the equivalence of grades is negatively affected.

In my doctoral thesis I will shift focus to the recipient of the teaching and to the encounter with and the effects of the history teaching i terms of developed competencies in relation to the skills and needs that history teaching should lead to.