Abstracts - Earli

which factors could explain the differences in results between the participating countries. Thepresentation will demonstrate that, despite efforts made by the OECD, the results obtained inanswering items of the survey are not independent of cultural characteristics, which can be seen aspotential biases of the measures. Three major results of our research study will be presented. Thefirst result shows that the responses to differently structured items are not independent of differentnational teaching methods. The second result demonstrates that the construct validity of themeasures, done in the framework of the a priori theoretical framework, is not satisfactory. Finally,the third result shows that social, familial, economic and personal characteristics are related to thecognitive performance of the students.N 331 August 2007 16:00 - 17:20Room: -1.63Paper SessionAssessment methodsChair:Kari Smith, University of Bergen, NorwayStudents’ criteria development as part of a formative assessment processKristin Holte Haug, Oslo University College, NorwayThis paper presents results of a two year study, conducted among 450 undergraduate students (200students in 2005 and 250 students in 2006) at the Faculty of Education (Early ChildhoodEducation Programme), Oslo University College. The framework is socio cultural theory. Theresearch question is: How do students approach an assignment where developing criteria ofassessment is included, and what impact does students’ work with criteria have on the students’learning potential? The students accomplished a four weeks examination entitled The Group as anInstrument for Learning, containing three parts: 1) Carrying out a written group discussion oncriteria, aimed to agree on three student developed criteria 2) Writing an individual essay based onthese three criteria 3) Writing a peer response on a peer’s essay based on the certain criteria. Keyfindings: A majority of the students expressed that developing criteria is a manageable task. Mostof them stated that they would prefer explicit criteria, and that they found their criteria helpfulduring their essay writing and peer response giving. A majority of the students demonstratedpositive attitudes in the criteria process. They stated that developing criteria gave them a feeling ofhaving control over their study in general, and over this specific exam. Further, they said that theylearned from developing criteria and would likely do it again. Only a handful were negative andstated that the criteria development had little impact on their learning potential. These few statedthat they had learned little from developing criteria, and they would rather not do it again. Basedon these findings, it is reasonable to claim that the students’ engagement in peer response and inthe criteria development process enhanced the learning potential for a majority of the students.(289 words)– 728 –