Improving sessional teachers’ reliability and consistency in marking through processes of standardisation and moderation
Gasper, Roz; Simpson, Peter
Authors
Roz Gasper Roz.Gasper@uwe.ac.uk
Senior Lecturer in Organisation Studies
Peter Simpson Peter.Simpson@uwe.ac.uk
Associate Professor
Abstract
It is rare, but quite possible, that a mark that is low by just a few percentage points in one module can alter a student’s final degree classification. Consequently, seeking consistency across a marking team assessing a cohort of students is as much an ethical challenge as it is a practical one. What tools do module leaders have at their disposal to support a staff team to exercise their duty of care for each student? The design and administration of a rigorous standardisation and moderation process can contribute to this. This chapter outlines an approach taken on an undergraduate final year large core module, with a cohort of seven hundred students and a staff team of twelve (Gasper and Simpson, 2021). Standardisation aspires to achieve consistency across the team (Bloxham et al, 2016), which is best addressed through all aspects of a module, as discussed in other chapters. Once the assessment has been submitted, effective marking by the staff team requires a shared understanding of the task and assessment criteria that are applied consistently to the variety of unique student responses. Moderation is the process by which the module leader attempts to build confidence that the standards have, indeed, been applied consistently across the cohort. Our approach has been to address this in a range of ways, including, for example, staff selection and development, building a community of practice (Price, 2005), providing extensive support materials (guidelines, FAQs, script exemplars, videos), consensus moderation (Mason et al, 2022), benchmarking, statistical calibration (Sadler, 2013), and ongoing dialogue between module leaders and the marking team (for example, discussion of atypical scripts). We concur with the view that consistency is not fully achievable (Ajjawi et al, 2021) but our approach is aspirational, believing that improvements are always possible.
References
Ajjawi, R., Bearman, M. and Boud, D., 2021. Performing standards: A critical perspective on the contemporary use of standards in assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 26(5), pp.728-741
Bloxham, S., den-Outer, B., Hudson, J. and Price, M., 2016. Let’s stop the pretence of consistent marking: exploring the multiple limitations of assessment criteria. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(3), pp.466-481.
Gasper, R. and Simpson, P., 2021. Module design, delivery and assessment for large student numbers. Organisation Studies and Human Resource Management: An Educator's Handbook.
Mason, J., Roberts, L.D. and Flavell, H., 2022. Consensus moderation and the sessional academic: valued or powerless and compliant? International Journal for Academic Development, pp.1-13.
Price, M., 2005. Assessment standards: the role of communities of practice and the scholarship of assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(3), pp.215-230.
Sadler, D. R. 2013. Assuring academic achievement standards: From moderation to calibration. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20(1), 5–19.
Deposit Date
Jan 7, 2025
Publisher
UCL IOE Press
Peer Reviewed
Peer Reviewed
Book Title
Creating a Framework for Developing Sessional Teachers in Higher Education: A practical guide for education leaders
