Kaili Rimfeld1, Margherita Malanchini1,2, Laurie J Hannigan1, Philip S Dale3, Rebecca Allen4, Sara A Hart5, Robert Plomin1. 1. Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK. 2. Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA. 3. Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA. 4. Institute of Education, University College London, London, UK. 5. Department of Psychology and Florida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children in the UK go through rigorous teacher assessments and standardized exams throughout compulsory (elementary and secondary) education, culminating with the GCSE exams (General Certificate of Secondary Education) at the age of 16 and A-level exams (Advanced Certificate of Secondary Education) at the age of 18. These exams are a major tipping point directing young individuals towards different lifelong trajectories. However, little is known about the associations between teacher assessments and exam performance or how well these two measurement approaches predict educational outcomes at the end of compulsory education and beyond. METHODS: The current investigation used the UK-representative Twins Early Development Study (TEDS) sample of over 5,000 twin pairs studied longitudinally from childhood to young adulthood (age 7-18). We used teacher assessment and exam performance across development to investigate, using genetically sensitive designs, the associations between teacher assessment and standardized exam scores, as well as teacher assessments' prediction of exam scores at ages 16 and 18, and university enrolment. RESULTS: Teacher assessments of achievement are as reliable, stable and heritable (~60%) as test scores at every stage of the educational experience. Teacher and test scores correlate strongly phenotypically (r ~ .70) and genetically (genetic correlation ~.80) both contemporaneously and over time. Earlier exam performance accounts for additional variance in standardized exam results (~10%) at age 16, when controlling for teacher assessments. However, exam performance explains less additional variance in later academic success, ~5% for exam grades at 18, and ~3% for university entry, when controlling for teacher assessments. Teacher assessments also predict additional variance in later exam performance and university enrolment, when controlling for previous exam scores. CONCLUSIONS: Teachers can reliably and validly monitor students' progress, abilities and inclinations. High-stakes exams may shift educational experience away from learning towards exam performance. For these reasons, we suggest that teacher assessments could replace some, or all, high-stakes exams.
BACKGROUND: Children in the UK go through rigorous teacher assessments and standardized exams throughout compulsory (elementary and secondary) education, culminating with the GCSE exams (General Certificate of Secondary Education) at the age of 16 and A-level exams (Advanced Certificate of Secondary Education) at the age of 18. These exams are a major tipping point directing young individuals towards different lifelong trajectories. However, little is known about the associations between teacher assessments and exam performance or how well these two measurement approaches predict educational outcomes at the end of compulsory education and beyond. METHODS: The current investigation used the UK-representative Twins Early Development Study (TEDS) sample of over 5,000 twin pairs studied longitudinally from childhood to young adulthood (age 7-18). We used teacher assessment and exam performance across development to investigate, using genetically sensitive designs, the associations between teacher assessment and standardized exam scores, as well as teacher assessments' prediction of exam scores at ages 16 and 18, and university enrolment. RESULTS: Teacher assessments of achievement are as reliable, stable and heritable (~60%) as test scores at every stage of the educational experience. Teacher and test scores correlate strongly phenotypically (r ~ .70) and genetically (genetic correlation ~.80) both contemporaneously and over time. Earlier exam performance accounts for additional variance in standardized exam results (~10%) at age 16, when controlling for teacher assessments. However, exam performance explains less additional variance in later academic success, ~5% for exam grades at 18, and ~3% for university entry, when controlling for teacher assessments. Teacher assessments also predict additional variance in later exam performance and university enrolment, when controlling for previous exam scores. CONCLUSIONS: Teachers can reliably and validly monitor students' progress, abilities and inclinations. High-stakes exams may shift educational experience away from learning towards exam performance. For these reasons, we suggest that teacher assessments could replace some, or all, high-stakes exams.
Authors: A C Heath; K Berg; L J Eaves; M H Solaas; L A Corey; J Sundet; P Magnus; W E Nance Journal: Nature Date: 1985 Apr 25-May 1 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Steven Boker; Michael Neale; Hermine Maes; Michael Wilde; Michael Spiegel; Timothy Brick; Jeffrey Spies; Ryne Estabrook; Sarah Kenny; Timothy Bates; Paras Mehta; John Fox Journal: Psychometrika Date: 2011-04-01 Impact factor: 2.500
Authors: Nicholas G Shakeshaft; Maciej Trzaskowski; Andrew McMillan; Kaili Rimfeld; Eva Krapohl; Claire M A Haworth; Philip S Dale; Robert Plomin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-12-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kaili Rimfeld; Margherita Malanchini; Thomas Spargo; Gemma Spickernell; Saskia Selzam; Andrew McMillan; Philip S Dale; Thalia C Eley; Robert Plomin Journal: Twin Res Hum Genet Date: 2019-09-23 Impact factor: 1.587
Authors: I C McManus; Katherine Woolf; David Harrison; Paul A Tiffin; Lewis W Paton; Kevin Yet Fong Cheung; Daniel T Smith Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Katie Hinde; Carlos Eduardo G Amorim; Alyson F Brokaw; Nicole Burt; Mary C Casillas; Albert Chen; Tara Chestnut; Patrice K Connors; Mauna Dasari; Connor Fox Ditelberg; Jeanne Dietrick; Josh Drew; Lara Durgavich; Brian Easterling; Charon Henning; Anne Hilborn; Elinor K Karlsson; Marc Kissel; Jennifer Kobylecky; Jason Krell; Danielle N Lee; Kate M Lesciotto; Kristi L Lewton; Jessica E Light; Jessica Martin; Asia Murphy; William Nickley; Alejandra Núñez-de la Mora; Olivia Pellicer; Valeria Pellicer; Anali Maughan Perry; Stephanie G Schuttler; Anne C Stone; Brian Tanis; Jesse Weber; Melissa Wilson; Emma Willcocks; Christopher N Anderson Journal: Elife Date: 2021-02-22 Impact factor: 8.140
Authors: Andrea G Allegrini; Ville Karhunen; Jonathan R I Coleman; Saskia Selzam; Kaili Rimfeld; Sophie von Stumm; Jean-Baptiste Pingault; Robert Plomin Journal: PLoS Genet Date: 2020-11-17 Impact factor: 5.917