Search

Unreliability in marking is well documented, yet we lack studies that have investigated assessors' detailed use of assessment criteria. This project used a form of Kelly's repertory grid method to examine the characteristics that 24 experienced UK assessors notice in distinguishing between students' performance in four contrasting subject disciplines: that is their implicit assessment criteria. Variation in the choice, ranking and scoring of criteria was evident. Inspection of the individual construct scores in a sub-sample of academic historians revealed five factors in the use of criteria that contribute to marking inconsistency. The results imply that, whilst more effective and social marking processes that encourage sharing of standards in institutions and disciplinary communities may help align standards, assessment decisions at this level are so complex, intuitive and tacit that variability is inevitable. We conclude that universities should be more honest with themselves and with students, and actively help students to understand that application of assessment criteria is a complex judgement and there is rarely an incontestable interpretation of their meaning.

An increasingly regulated higher education sector is renewing its attention to those activities referred to as "moderation" in its efforts to ensure that judgements of student achievement are based on appropriate standards. Moderation practices conducted throughout the assessment process can result in purposes identified as equity, justification, accountability and community building. This paper draws on the limited studies of moderation and wider relevant research on judgement, standards and professional learning to test commonly used moderation practices against these identified purposes. The paper concludes with recommendations for maximising the potential of moderation practices to establish and maintain achievement standards.

In the continuing concern about academic standards in the higher education sector a great deal of emphasis has been placed on quality assurance procedures rather than on considering how university tutors learn to grade the quality of work produced by students. As part of a larger research project focused on how tutors grade student coursework, this paper offers a new metaphor for such tutor learning, based on a sociocultural perspective. The research project used think-aloud protocols recorded as university tutors graded student coursework, and this was followed by semi-structured interviews. The voluntary participants consisted of 25 lecturers in four contrasting domains--humanities, art and design, medicine and teacher education--in three universities, two teaching-led and one research intensive. We developed a metaphorical framework that helps to understand the work and learning of the lecturers and tested it by applying it to analysis of the tutor interview data. Grading, writing feedback, second marking and moderation are important situated professional learning opportunities for tutors to debate and reach agreement on the academic standard demonstrated by student coursework. The metaphor considers professional learning as interplay between the vertical domain of public knowledge and the horizontal domain of teachers' practical wisdom. The metaphor presented in this paper is proposed for critical consideration and wider use by academics, teachers, academic developers and teacher educators as an aid to better understanding of teacher's professional learning.

This article, using a student outcomes definition of academic standards, reports on academics' sense of standards as enacted through marking practices. Twelve lecturers from two UK universities were asked to "think aloud" as they graded written assignments followed by a semi-structured interview. The interview data were used to investigate the source of tutors' standards, their sense of accountability for their grading judgements, their use of artefacts and their attitude to internal and external moderation. The findings suggest that tutors believe there are established and shared academic standards in existence for their discipline and they endeavour to maintain them. There was no evidence of significant pressure or practice related to lowering of standards, although differences in tutors' tacit "standards' frameworks" have the potential for bias. Whilst moderation has some power to secure standards within teams, the article discusses the implications of the research for assuring standards across universities and disciplines.

This article seeks to illuminate the gap between UK policy and practice in relation to the use of criteria for allocating grades. It critiques criterion-referenced grading from three perspectives. Twelve lecturers from two universities were asked to "think aloud" as they graded two written assignments. The study found that assessors made holistic rather than analytical judgements. A high proportion of the tutors did not make use of written criteria in their marking and, where they were used, it was largely a post hoc process in refining, checking or justifying a holistic decision. Norm referencing was also found to be an important part of the grading process despite published criteria. The authors develop the notion of tutors' "standards frameworks", influenced by students' work, and providing the interpretive lens used to decide grades. The implications for standards, and for students, of presenting the grading process as analytical and objective are discussed.

This article challenges a number of assumptions underlying marking of student work in British universities. It argues that, in developing rigorous moderation procedures, we have created a huge burden for markers which adds little to accuracy and reliability but creates additional work for staff, constrains assessment choices and slows down feedback to students. In this under-researched area of higher education, the article will explore whether there are other ways to provide confidence in marking and grading. These might divert this energy into productive activities with useful outcomes for students and learning.

Students need to understand assessment processes in order to succeed in higher education. However, recent research has identified how difficult it is for students to become absorbed into the assessment culture of their disciplines, with a recognition that providing written criteria and grade descriptors is not enough to make this tacit "knowledge" transparent to novice students. This paper reports on an exercise where sports studies students used assessment criteria to mark their peers work coupled with an assessment of their peer marking and feedback comments. The latter was included to encourage students to engage seriously with the peer assessment. Analysis of the data indicates considerable benefits for the students in terms of use of criteria, awareness of their achievements and ability to understand assessment feedback.

This article considers the failure of theory to provide a workable model for academic standards in use. Examining the contrast between theoretical perspectives, it argues that there are four dimensions for which the academy has failed to provide an adequate theoretical account of standards: documented or tacit knowledge of standards; norm or criterion referenced grading; analytical or holistic judgement processes; and broad or local consensus on standards. It concludes that whilst a techno-rational perspective poorly represents the actual practice of standards in use, alternative, interpretivist accounts do not satisfy demands for reliability, transparency and fairness. It concludes by outlining an alternative framework for safeguarding standards: systematising a range of processes for learning about and safeguarding standards, particularly for new staff; reviewing the role and potential of documented standards; building staff awareness and assessment literacy; and establishing trust in standards by students and other stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]