Scope / Academic staff
Effective Date / June 2008
Responsible Dept. / Quality and Academic Standards, Registry
Equality Impact Assessment / No
Last Updated By,
and Date / Updated by Quality and Academic Standards, July 2011
Next Review Date / July 2012
Associated links
and webpages / No

York St John University

Marking, Feedback & Moderation

Guidance on marking assessments – feedback to students

1Feedback from assessments is a vital element on the process of learning. It will motivate students by letting them know how well they have done, where they need to improve and how to improve. In all cases feedback should be given as soon as is reasonably possible after the assessment to allow for development before the next assignment. Individual Faculties should agree their own particular strategy for giving student feedback in order to ensure consistency of student experience across the Faculty.

2Effective feedback should:

  • be helpful, constructive and encouraging
  • indicate whether the learning outcomes are being achieved at that stage.
  • indicate strengths and weaknesses.
  • be legible ( if written) , relevant, useful and timely.
  • encourage the student to reflect on their work.
  • address inconsistencies.
  • identify areas that need to be strengthened by increased knowledge.
  • encourage critical and analytical thought.
  • avoid facetious and sarcastic comments.
  • be supported by verbal feedback if possible.
  • justify the grade/mark awarded.
  • indicate that the mark/grade is provisional subject to the confirmation of the Subject-Area Assessment Panel.

Written Feedback should be made on an appropriate, purpose-designed feedback form. The University has designed a form which can be used by Faculties but it is acceptable for Faculties to design their own form and make their own arrangements.

Where written feedback is offered, the feedback form should be legible and make clear who did the marking and is offering the feedback. The grade and mark should be justified in the comments. A marking cover sheet and feedback form may also facilitate the recording of second marking and moderating issues but these can be recorded separately.

It is also recognised that there are other formats for individual feedback and that faculties are experimenting successfully with mp3 files.

5Feedback on Examination Scripts

It is the policy of the University that examination scripts are the property of the University and will not be released to students. Nevertheless students are entitled to feedback on examination performance in the same way as they are entitled to feedback on other assessed work. Furthermore the 1998 Data Protection Act entitles students to access the comments of their examiners which are regarded as personal data. Comments on examination scripts should be appropriate and in keeping with the approach of treating a students work with respect. The comments should be written on a separate piece of paper which can be returned to the student.

8Penalties when marking

Faculties should develop a policy on the implementation of penalties. Penalties could be used to flag up particular issues e.g. the breach of specific scientific or ethical conventions. Such penalties should not normally exceed 10% of the total module mark for the component or the effective lowering of a mark by a class. An exception to this might be where a piece of work demonstrates unsafe practice in a professional area where a fail mark might justifiably be recorded. Any system of penalty should be clearly notified to students in the module or programme handbook. The University’s policy on dealing with over length work can be found as document ASS19.

In the case of spelling, grammar or presentation of work, the preferred approach in the University is that assessment criteria should be drafted in such a way as to cover such issues. Such an approach is consistent with the University's expectations in respect of skills in communication. Marking will, therefore, reflect the criteria and penalise unacceptable levels of error in spelling, grammar and presentation as a matter of routine. The Faculty should, however, adopt a consistent approach to identifying and addressing poor written communication skills and presentation skills for the benefit of students through written feedback.

A consistent approach to penalising poor referencing is important since decisions about poor scholarship will pay a part in dealing with cases of suspected plagiarism. Faculties are asked to deal with poor academic practice through normal marking procedures. They are asked to ensure that their marking criteria are such that a student who does not reference appropriately will obtain a mark confined to a low class band (assuming content is otherwise acceptable). Such students will be offered detailed advice on how to improve their marks. Faculties are asked to consider the use of formative assessed work for first year students and possibly for international postgraduate students so that the students can attempt some written work which will offer experience of academic writing and referencing outside an assessment context.

9 Reliable marking

As well as being concerned with motivating students and contributing to their learning through the provision of constructive feedback, marking must be reliable and consistent for the purposes of differentiating between the performances of students on the same programme of study and allowing a rank ordering of performance to take place.

A marker should aim for self-consistency in marking and the procedures of a panel of examiners should seek to achieve inter-marker consistency. Aids to this are as follows.

  • The use of assessment criteria for each assessment task
  • Use of marking schemes
  • The use of grade performance descriptors
  • Anonymous marking to screen out possible assessor bias
  • Trial marking by module or course teams
  • Double-marking and moderation procedures.

The University has established arrangements for the anonymous marking of assessments carried out under examination conditions and has agreed to establish similar arrangements for essays and dissertations.

Faculties will decide the appropriate assessment criteria and marking schemes to be used for particular assessment tasks and may choose to engage in trial marking.

The University has agreed that each Faculty will determine a policy for assuring itself of the reliability of its marking through establishing procedures for the moderation of marking.

The following guidelines on Faculty Internal Moderation Procedures are provided.
It is important that the Faculty internal moderation procedures are rigorous, robust and consistent. While the processes may vary to accommodate the style of learning and teaching of a particular module, the procedures should reflect an agreed minimum threshold of internal moderation. Double marking is one method of achieving moderation. Faculty is not committed to a policy of enforcing double marking although it is acknowledged that it might have a place eg in the marking of special studies, establishing marking standards with a new member of staff or dealing with failed or disputed pieces of work.

10Moderation

Moderation is an essential process of monitoring that assessment and marking have taken place in a way that ensures consistency across the module and between modules of the same level, matches learning outcomes, maintains standards and is fair to students.

Process of Moderation

This involves three stages.

Stage 1 To ensure:

  • That the assignments detailed in the module specification properly reflect the academic, generic, and cognitive learning outcomes of the module.
  • That the total package of assignments for the module does not exceed the specified word limit or its equivalent.
  • That assignment titles and tasks are appropriate and where necessary different from the previous assignments for the same module.
  • That arrangements for the approval of individually negotiated assignments are clear.
  • That mark schemes or specific assessment criteria for an assignment are agreed in advance and published to students as necessary. This stage of the moderation process MUST be completed before the module begins and the assignments are published in the module handbook.
  • The external examiner should be involved in the moderation of all assessment tasks for modules contributing to final degree classification.

Stage 2 To ensure:

  • That the marking properly reflects the intentions of the assignment and the learning outcomes of the module.
  • To ensure that there is consistency of marking across the module and between modules of the same level. This stage occurs after the module has been completed and the first marking has taken place. This might be achieved by second marking, blind second marking or sampling.
  • Second marking might usefully take place where a module has been taught for the first time or where there is a new member of staff and should take place where the piece of work is both substantial and highly individualised e.g. a special study, ILU or Masters dissertation of 20 credits or more. In most other circumstances satisfactory moderation might be achieved by sampling.
  • For modules where second marking does not take place, internal sampling will be organised by the module leader and should normally include any potential failures, first class work, borderlines and a sample across all other classifications. Academic Standards Committee agreed (June 2003) that the total sample should typically be the number equal to the square root of the total cohort on the module. A minimum number should be set for very small groups, e.g. groups of 10. The smallest sample should be 5 scripts. The internal moderated sample may usefully form the basis of that which is sent to the external examiner. Some Faculties may require moderation in addition to double marking in certain modules.
  • Special arrangements should be made for the marking and moderation of assessed work and performance work. Often this can be achieved by more than one member of staff being involved. Consideration should be given to capturing ephemeral experiences for the purposes of moderation and external scrutiny.

Stage 3 Moderation Report

  • A brief report on the process and the outcomes of the process of moderation should be included with the mark lists and presented to the Subject-Area Assessment Panel.

11External moderation

Our External Examiners are moderators of standards. Programme teams are responsible for ensuring that appropriate samples of assessment from each module are sent to the External Examiner for moderation. Samples should include examples from the full-range of grades awarded. Samples should be a sensible size. The square root of the module cohort is a guide. The important principle is that the External Examiner has a sufficient range of work to reach a clear judgment about standards.

External Examiners are not involved routinely in moderating assessment at Level 1 of a three year degree programme but would be involved with level 1 of a Foundation degree or if the award is set entirely at that level.

Programme teams are responsible for ensuring that:

  • The examiner receives samples as quickly as possible after the internal moderation.
  • The examiner receives accompanying information about the module (Module Handbook) including assessment criteria.
  • The Examiner receives clear written information about any special cases which s/he is being asked to consider (see d below).

As well as receiving samples of assessed work, External Examiners may be asked to consider individual student cases. For example:

  • To adjudicate on a disputed grade following extensive internal moderation.
  • To advise on alleged plagiarism.
  • To consider exceptional/outstanding work, awarded very high grades.
  • To consider failed assessments.

External Examiners should normally see all failed assessments on a taught module contributing to final awards where an overall fail mark for the module is likely to be recorded, i.e. not bracketed marks. It would be sensible for external examiners to seefailed and all First Class Special Studies.

It is neither necessary, nor good practice, to send all assessments at “classification borderlines” to the External Examiner. The internal moderation process should resolve most individual cases. If that process produces a borderline grade, than we should be confident in that grade and (through notes of the moderation process) be able to justify it.

In the event an External Examiner determines that the overall level of grading on a module or modules is inappropriate, s/he will request that all work submitted for the assessment in question be re-marked by module tutors, taking into account the Examiner’s judgement about the original level of grading. If at all possible, this should be completed prior to the SAP meeting. Where this is not possible, module grades will be approved through Chair’s Action.

12 Disclosure of marks and feedback

In accordance with the 1998 Data Protection Act, it is university policy that provisional marks be disclosed to students. This is important so that feedback is not delayed unduly by the pace of the overall mark confirmation process. However all marks should be clearly accompanied by the word “provisional” and the student made aware that the mark could go up or down as part of the collective consideration by the Subject-Area Assessment Panel. It would be prudent that any changes made at the Panel meetings are accompanied by the justification for such changes.

Faculties should also develop good practice for the dissemination of marks. It is not considered appropriate for marks to be disseminated by e-mail, by ‘phone or via the notice boards with names. The Faculty strategy for dissemination of marks should be published in advance and should be used consistently throughout the Faculty.

ASS14b

Maintained by: Registry

Last updated: July 2011