Large class teaching: How does one go about the task of moderating large volumes of assessment?

There is limited research on the quality of assessment moderation in large classes. Effective moderation practices can improve reliability, as well as reduce marker bias, attenuate prevalence of ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ markers, increase student and staff confidence in marking, and enhance the development of staff. This article shares a marking moderation practice used in large class teaching (>1500 students). The article highlights the importance of (1) including resources/communication that are provided to markers in order to facilitate a shared understanding and interpretation of the marking criteria; (2) incorporating multiple points of double marking to detect differences in marker performance over time that may have been brought on by fatigue, tight timelines or inexperience; and (3) developing markers’ skills early through formative feedback to acquire self-sufficiency, accuracy and expertise in the grading process. The practice of moderation utilised in this article overcomes some of the challenges of moderating large volumes of assessments. Particularly, the use of audio feedback and video resources was deemed the most novel and useful.

[1]  John Partington Double‐marking Students' Work , 1994 .

[2]  Lenore Adie,et al.  Identifying discourses of moderation in higher education , 2013 .

[3]  D. Boud,et al.  Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design , 2013 .

[4]  A. Mutch Exploring the Practice of Feedback to Students , 2003 .

[5]  Sarah K. Nielsen Instructional Insights: Audio Feedback as Means of Engaging the Occupational Therapy Student , 2016, Occupational therapy in health care.

[6]  V. Shute Focus on Formative Feedback , 2007 .

[7]  Eric C. Nemec,et al.  Comparison of Audio Versus Written Feedback on Writing Assignments , 2016 .

[8]  Sandra Wills,et al.  The RED Resource, Recognition - Enhancement - Development: The contribution of sessional teachers to higher education (Complete report) , 2008 .

[9]  Andrea Gorra,et al.  Assessment feedback only on demand: Supporting the few not supplying the many , 2013 .

[10]  Debbie Clewes,et al.  Marking the Difference: An investigation of the criteria used for assessing undergraduate dissertations in a business school , 2000 .

[11]  Susan Bloxham,et al.  Marking and moderation in the UK: false assumptions and wasted resources , 2009 .

[12]  Win Hornby,et al.  Assessing Using Grade-related Criteria: A single currency for universities? , 2003 .

[13]  Peter Bolan,et al.  ‘I like the sound of that’ – an evaluation of providing audio feedback via the virtual learning environment for summative assessment , 2015 .

[14]  Lenore Adie,et al.  What’s the point of moderation? A discussion of the purposes achieved through contemporary moderation practices , 2016 .

[15]  G. Nash,et al.  Can a systematic assessment moderation process assure the quality and integrity of assessment practice while supporting the professional development of casual academics? , 2016 .

[16]  M. Price,et al.  Let’s stop the pretence of consistent marking: exploring the multiple limitations of assessment criteria , 2016 .

[17]  Kathy Everts Danielson,et al.  Formative Feedback: Involving Students as Partners in Assessment to Enhance Learning , 2010 .

[18]  Tom Lunt,et al.  ‘Are you listening please?’ The advantages of electronic audio feedback compared to written feedback , 2010 .

[19]  Mantz Yorke,et al.  Mark Distributions and Marking Practices in UK Higher Education , 2000 .

[20]  Sonja Kuzich,et al.  Building team capacity: sustaining quality in assessment and moderation practices in a fully online unit , 2010 .

[21]  D. Hounsell,et al.  The quality of guidance and feedback to students , 2008 .

[22]  Anders Jonsson,et al.  Facilitating productive use of feedback in higher education , 2013 .

[23]  Claire Maree Wyatt-Smith,et al.  Standards, Teacher Judgement and Moderation in Contexts of National Curriculum and Assessment Reform , 2010 .

[24]  Mantz Yorke Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice , 2003 .

[25]  Elaine Mowat,et al.  Audio feedback: richer language but no measurable impact on student performance. , 2014 .

[26]  P. Grainger,et al.  Judging quality through substantive conversations between markers , 2008 .

[27]  Chris Rust,et al.  A social constructivist assessment process model: how the research literature shows us this could be best practice , 2005 .

[28]  M. Taras,et al.  Perceptions and realities in the functions and processes of assessment , 2013 .

[29]  D. Nicol,et al.  Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice , 2006 .

[30]  T. Jessop,et al.  Mind the gap: An analysis of how quality assurance processes influence programme assessment patterns , 2012 .

[31]  Jon Yorke,et al.  Towards sustainable marking practices and improved quality of feedback in short-answer assessments , 2010 .