Marking and moderation

First marker marks all assessed work. Second marker marks all work, without seeing the first marker’s grades/comments. Where there are any differences in mark, the two markers discuss and agree the final mark (usually meeting in person, but potentially by email/phone/other).

Pros

• Reduces ‘random distortions’ which might occur in an individual’s marking, increasing reliability
• Markers can have slightly different perspectives, leading to a more rounded evaluation
• Students may understand this to be a fair and reliable form of marking

Cons

• Agreeing marks may be mainly done by ‘splitting the difference’ which draws marks towards the middle of the available range
• Writing and grading with an eye to justification may lead to ‘defensive’ grading (and thus lower grades)
• High overall marking loads for each marker

First marker marks all assessed work. Second marker reads all work, with sight of the first marker grades/comments, and evaluates the appropriateness of the first markers’ grades/comments. If the second marker proposes any changes to marks, markers discuss and agree the mark, or second marker changes marks.

Pros

• Less time-intensive than double-blind marking, while retaining the potential for students to benefit from different perspectives

• Can be a good way to introduce new markers into an established process

• Works as a check on the markers as well as the marking

Cons

• For handwritten exams, sighted marking can require a long turnaround time, as the second marker must wait for all work and marks/comments from the first marker

• Second marker may be influenced by the marks/comments of the first

• Pre-existing hierarchies of expertise or experience may impact the process

First marker marks all assessed work. Second marker considers (with sight of first marker’s marks/comments) a selection of pieces of work, similar to that sent to an external examiner. A typical sample might include all borderline cases; all work graded ‘fail’; all first class work, and 10% of all other pieces.

Pros

• On a larger course, moderated single marking can be significantly quicker than double marking

• A representative sample of work can allow markers to clarify the specific qualities that establish a grade; in this way, the approach need not be less reliable than double marking. The scrutiny of borderline pieces of work can have a positive impact on student’s programme outcomes and degree classification

Cons

• Some pieces of work only receive one academic’s judgement

• A sample of pieces of work may not adequately represent the first marker’s work, and thus not allow an evaluation of their overall judgement

• If the second marker substantially challenges the first marker’s judgement, it may be necessary for another academic to re-do the first marker’s marking

In-class assessment (presentations, group work etc.) can be marked by any of these methods. For moderated single marking, the seminar or class tutor would be the first marker. The course leader would be the moderator, attending a sample of the work/activity (e.g. 2-3 presentations in a seminar group).

Assessment/exam questions are agreed by academic colleagues, and their potential interpretations discussed. This can help clarify expectations for markers. Some departments also agree questions with their external examiner.

Marking criteria or standards are agreed in advance by discussion between academic colleagues. As with the agreement of assessment questions, this can help clarify the scope of potential valid answers.

Academics meet in advance of marking and discuss 2-3 pieces of work. This can help make explicit the tacit understandings of attainment, and bring markers into closer agreement, reduce the time required later for agreeing marks. It may also widen the kinds of attainment that academics see as valid. (If the marking period is too brief to permit a meeting, academics might wish to use sample work from the preceding year and meet in advance.)

Feedback sheets can offer students detail on specific aspects of their work, in a tick-box section or as comments under different headings.

Pros

• Helps staff and students identify strengths and weaknesses of a piece

• Saves time (ticks can communicate with more brevity than written comments, particularly for less nuanced areas)

• If used across different courses, helps students to map performance across different pieces of assessed work

Cons

• Can be hard to agree relevant categories across courses

• May not work as well at a high level (for high achievers and in later years) where grade is most likely to be determined by more complex and less obvious factors

Additional informaion - including pro-forma to use - are available on our Effective Feedback page.

The Equality Act 2010 requires Higher Education Institutions not to discriminate against students with disabilities (including dyslexia) in the following ways:

• Failing to make a reasonable adjustment where any arrangement or physical feature places a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage;
• Unjustifiably treating someone less favourably for a reason relating to their disability.

LSE utilises appropriate mechanisms to support students with a Specific Learning Difficulty (SpLD). In some cases, one of these is the provision of a Letter of Notification which advises markers where a student has a SpLD which may have affected their sentence structure, spelling and grammar. Students with a SpLD must have been seen by the Disability and Wellbeing Service, and have provided evidence of the SpLD in order for a Letter of Notification to be attached to their work.