CONTENTS
1. Marking Workflow for paper based assessments - Page 2
2. Marking Workflow for e-submissions - Page 3
3. Assessment Marking Procedure - Page 4
4. How to Select a Moderation Sample - Page 8
5. How to export marks from Sussex Direct to marks sheet - Page 11
6. BMEc Feedback policy – page 13
Version 2
Prepared 27th October 2014
1. Marking Workflow for paper based assessments
School Office
Following submission
deadline/date of exam, sort
scripts and email marker(s) to
notify them that work is ready
for marking. Provide mark
sheet.
Moderators
Marker(s)
15 WORKING (Term Time) DAYS – please advise the school
office if you are likely to exceed this deadline.
Note: Marking time for A2/Resit exams is sometimes less
Marker(s)
Moderator
Email markers/moderators
during marking to monitor
progress
Marking: Mark work and enter marks in SxD for
paper based CWK; directly on mark sheet for
exams.
Support Lead Marker (if
required) with export of marks
from Sussex Direct (SxD) to
mark sheet for marks checking
and moderation (if relevant).
Marks checking
For CWK –Marker/ Lead Marker to export marks
from SxD to mark sheet.
For all assessments, Lead Marker to check marking
and, where applicable, compare across markers to
ensure consistency.
If marks/feedback need to be adjusted, this is
done by the original marker in Sussex Direct (for
CWK only), on mark sheet and on assessments.
For Exams - enter marks on
database
Collate mark sheets and
samples for external examiners
Following results release, email
students to advise when work
is available to view
Lead Marker to produce
summary stats (overall marks
distributions) for moderator*.
Review marks distribution
and a sample* of
assessments
* refer to section 4 of the guide.
*Refer to page 7 for exemptions to
moderation.
Complete paperwork
Pass all scripts and the mark sheet
to the moderator
Is marking robust/approved?
YES
If
For coursework - Lead Marker releases marks and
feedback on SxD and passes all paperwork to Course
Coordinator.
For Exams - Lead Marker passes all paperwork to
Course Coordinator for marks entry.
2
NO
Communicate concerns to
Lead Marker and Exams
Convenor (see page 7 for
instructions).
When resolved…
2. Marking Workflow for e-submissions
School Office
Students submit work on Study
Direct. Following deadline,
send email to marker(s) to
remind them that work is ready
for marking.
Moderators
Marker(s)
15 WORKING (Term Time) DAYS – please advise the
school office if you are likely to exceed this deadline
1st Marker/marking team
Monitor progress of marking at
day 5 and 10 and alert module
convenor of any concerns
Mark work using GradeMark.
‘Push’ marks through to Sussex
Direct
Support Lead Marker (if
required) with export of marks
from SxD to mark sheet for
marks checking and
moderation (If relevant)
Lead Marker to export marks from
SxD to mark sheet.
Moderator
If marked by a team, Lead Marker
to check marking and analyse
distribution for each marker to
ensure consistency
If marks or feedback need to be
adjusted, this is actioned by the
original marker in GradeMark
and ‘pushed’ back through to SxD
Lead Marker to produce summary
stats (overall marks distributions)
for moderator.*
*Refer to page 7 for exemptions to
moderation.
Review marks distribution
and review a sample* of
assessments in GradeMark
* refer to section 4 of the guide.
Complete paperwork
Is marking robust/approved?
Alert Moderator that marking is
complete
YES
Lead marker to release marks
and feedback on SxD and notify
Course Coordinator that marking
is complete.
Moderator to communicate
concerns to Lead Marker and
Exams Convenor (see page 7
for instructions).
When resolved…
3
NO
3. Assessment Marking Procedure
INTRODUCTION
Please refer to the instructions in this document for marking all assessments, including paper
based coursework, exam scripts and e-submissions.1 Marking and Moderation should be
completed within 15 term time working days of the assessment submission, although our
experience, particularly with A2 final year assessments, is that the turnaround time is typically
much shorter. Any anticipated delays to return of coursework marks and feedback must be
communicated to students, course coordinators and the Exams Convenor in your department
with as much notice as possible.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
The Marking Procedure has three stages:
1. a Marking Stage involving one or more examiners in marking assessments, mark checking
and writing feedback. This phase allows for adjustments to marks to be made. Note that
there is no requirement for one person to mark all the assessments.
2. an Internal Moderation Stage which checks for consistent application of the marking phase
by reviewing marks and feedback for a sample of assessments, and
3. an External moderation Stage, conducted by the External Examiner on the same sample of
assessments, to provide further quality assurance of the marking phase.
TERMINOLOGY
 The Module Convenor is the member of faculty who is responsible for the management of
the module, including the assessments.
 The Marker is the person, or team of people in the case of modules with large numbers of
students or where a team of faculty and/or tutors have been involved in teaching a module,
who carries out the marking phase. This does not have to be the Module Convenor but must
be teaching staff who are familiar with assessing the subject material at the appropriate level.
Less experienced staff should be supervised carefully by the module convenor. If there is a
marking team, one person will act as a Lead Marker.
 The Moderator conducts the internal moderation phase of the Marking Procedure. The
Moderator is appointed by the Chair of the Board of Study or his/her nominee.
 The External Examiner is an academic from another institution, who checks that internal
assessment procedures have been followed properly.
1
The full set of regulations can be found here. The relevant section concerning Marking is in the appendix
of the Handbook.
4
MARKING STAGE
The Marker carries out the first round of marking, recording his/her marks (and for coursework,
individual feedback). For e-submissions this is done using GradeMark; for paper coursework, this
is done using Sussex Direct, and for exams, marks are entered using the electronic marks sheet
provided by the School Office. It is important that the Module Convenor establishes the
assessment criteria with the Marker(s), ideally in advance of assessments being submitted.
If there are a very large number of assessments, or if several members of faculty have been
engaged in teaching the module, then several Markers may carry out this stage. The Module
Convenor or a nominated Lead Marker (if the Module Convenor is to be the Moderator) must
oversee this process. Where possible, a small number of assessments should be marked and
shared with the marker(s) as exemplars. The Module Convenor or nominated lead Marker should
carry out a marks checking exercise to ensure consistency of marking between markers. This
should consist of comparing marks distributions (means and variances), sampling assessments
from across Markers, reviewing feedback detail, and making adjustments to marks where
necessary. The Module Convenor or nominated lead Marker should be alert to signs of
inconsistencies between Markers, for example, very high marks, or a higher fail rate, or a very
narrow range of marks, by one or more Markers relative to other Markers.
For modules such as PG Projects and Dissertations, a process of double marking will be
adopted. UG projects and dissertations may be single or double marked at the discretion of each
Board of Study.
The key point is that marks can be adjusted at this stage by the Module Convenor or nominated
Lead Marker if errors are spotted or if there is inconsistency between markers in marks and/or
feedback.
For Exams
An electronic mark sheet will be produced by the School Office. This should be edited by the
Lead Marker to capture marks per question, and where relevant, marks per sub-question, and
sent to all Markers. Markers should record their marks and any comments, before sending mark
sheet and scripts back to the Lead Marker, who then compiles marks into a single, master, mark
sheet, and checks for consistency across markers. It is good practise to take a small sample from
each marker to compare.
If adjustments have to be made to marks, for example to ensure consistency between markers,
or to correct errors, then
a) an additional column must be added to the mark sheet to show the final mark from the
Marking stage, and a comment added to explain.
b) a note should also be made by the Marker on the front of the script(s), crossing out the
original mark and then writing and initialling the new mark below.
Once the Marking stage is complete, the Lead Marker counts how many assessments are in
each grade class, completes the marks distribution table on the mark sheet and passes the entire
batch of assessments and the marks sheet to the Internal Moderator.
For paper coursework submissions
Markers will enter marks and feedback on Sussex Direct and when complete, will notify Lead
Marker for purposes of checking appropriateness and consistency. Lead Markers can use the
export function in Sussex Direct (see section 5 for instructions or ask Course Coordinators for
5
support if necessary) to facilitate marks checking, for example across markers, and to populate
the electronic mark sheet provided by the School Office.
Where an assessment consists of multiple parts or sub-parts, Markers may need to first record
marks on the electronic mark sheet, and only enter final, aggregate, marks on Sussex Direct. If
so, the mark sheet should be edited by the Lead Marker to capture marks per question, and
where relevant, marks per sub-question, and sent to all Markers.
If marks and/or feedback have to be adjusted, for example to ensure consistency between
markers, then
a) an additional column must be added to the mark sheet to show the final mark from the
Marking stage, and a comment added to explain.
b) Markers should edit marks/feedback in Sussex Direct.
Once the Marking stage is complete, the Lead Marker counts how many assessments are in
each grade class, completes the marks distribution table on the mark sheet and passes the entire
batch of assessments and the mark sheet to the Internal Moderator.
For e-submissions2
Markers will enter marks and feedback on GradeMark and when complete, will notify Lead
Marker for purposes of checking appropriateness and consistency. Lead Markers can use the
export function in Sussex Direct (see section 5 for instructions or ask Course Coordinators for
support if necessary) to facilitate marks checking, for example across markers, and to populate
the electronic mark sheet provided by the School Office.
Where an assessment consists of multiple parts or sub-parts, Markers may need to first record
marks on the electronic mark sheet, and only enter final, aggregate, marks on GradeMark. If so,
the mark sheet should be edited by the Lead Marker to capture marks per question, and where
relevant, marks per sub-question, and sent to all Markers.
If marks and/or feedback have to be adjusted, for example to ensure consistency between
markers, then
a) an additional column must be added to the mark sheet to show the final mark from the
Marking stage, and a comment added to explain.
b) Markers should edit marks/feedback in GradeMark.
Once the Marking stage is complete, the Lead Marker counts how many assessments are in
each grade class, completes the marks distribution table on the mark sheet and passes the entire
batch of assessments and the mark sheet to the Internal Moderator.
Advice on Annotations on Assessments
Markers should annotate assessments, including exam scripts, in order to provide an audit trail
for both the Internal Moderator and External Examiner and for the student. Annotations might
consist of ticks, crosses, short written comments etc. All assessments are available for return to
students after marks are released hence annotations must be legible and meaningful for the
Moderator and the External Examiner as well as students. Care should therefore be taken in
choice of language.
2
For resources and guidelines on e-submission and e-feedback, please see www.sussex.ac.uk/tel/submission/staff
6
Marks awarded per sub-part of questions may also be annotated on assessments. However it is
recommended, where several markers are involved in the Marking stage, that detailed marks
should not be written on assessments in case they have to be adjusted during this stage.
Inconsistencies between marks annotated on exam scripts for example and what appears as the
aggregate mark will confuse students as well as moderators.
INTERNAL MODERATION STAGE
The purpose of the Moderation stage is to provide overview of the Marking stage and is an
independent, internal check that the marking has been conducted consistently according to the
approved marking criteria. Note that the Moderator is not being asked to rule on borderline marks
or to reach agreement between two or more markers in the Marking Stage.
Up to and including 30% of a module's assessment can now be exempted from moderation. This
may be a single piece of coursework weighted at 30% or less, or a number of coursework
assignments that sum to 30%. Marks checking by the Module convenors, or Lead Markers if not
the Module Convenor, is still required in order to check for errors as well as to ensure consistency
in marks and feedback across markers. The marks distribution table on the mark sheet must also
be completed. Module convenors, or Lead Markers, are asked to ensure that any such
assessments that would ordinarily be exempt from moderation but have a failure rate in excess of
10% are referred to their Dept Exam/Assessment convenor [Piera in B&M, Rob in Econ, Puay for
SPRU] who will arrange for the assessment to be moderated.
For moderation, a representative sample of assessments is selected. The sample must be 10%
of the assessments in each grade class (with a minimum of 7 and a maximum of 25 in total) plus
all fails. The sample for moderation should be independently chosen by the Moderator. The
Moderator should be someone who was not involved in the first round of marking and who is
familiar with assessing the subject material at the appropriate level. See section 4 below.
The Moderator reviews marks and feedback from the Marking Stage for his/her sampled
assessments to ensure that the marking has been conducted consistently to the approved
marking criteria. The Moderator is not required to record any marks for any assessments but
should note on the marks sheet which assessments were sampled and may comment on the
marks and feedback.
If the Moderator approves the marks and feedback for the sample, he or she returns the batch of
assessments, the sampled assessments and the marks sheet to the School office. In the case of
e-submissions the Moderator should email the relevant Course Coordinator to confirm that the
marking process is complete, attaching the updated mark sheet.
Coursework marks should be entered in Sussex Direct by the Marker or the Module Convenor
and released to students once the Moderator has confirmed marks. Marks for unseen exams
taken in A1 or A2 will be entered into Sussex Direct by Course Coordinators.
Note that individual marks cannot be changed during the moderation process. Exceptionally,
where an administrative error has been made (e.g. in adding up marks), or an inconsistency has
been identified by the Moderator (e.g. between markers in the Marking Stage) then some or all of
the assessments, or parts of the assessment, can be remarked. In such a case the Chair of the
Board of Study or his/her nominee should oversee this.
7
If the Moderator is not able to confirm the marks and feedback then a second Moderator must be
appointed by the Chair of the Board of Study or his/her nominee and this stage repeated with a
different sample of assessments. If the Second Moderator is also unable to confirm marks and
feedback then the original marks are discounted and the marking process must begin again with
a new Marker(s). This is why the Marking stage must be carried out very carefully particularly
when more than one markers, or inexperienced markers are involved.
EXTERNAL MODERATION STAGE
This is carried out by the External Examiner who will review a sample of assessments used in the
Moderation Phase. Course coordinators send out sampled assessments and marks sheets along
with additional module documentation.
FEEDBACK ON ASSESSMENTS
1.
Individual feedback to students on all coursework assessments should be entered on Sussex
Direct, by the Marker(s). This may be copied and pasted from the marks sheet. Individual
feedback on exams is provided via the annotations on scripts.
2.
Module Convenors are required to provide generic feedback on assessments to be made
available to the External Examiner and to students. This may take the form of a document
with worked solutions to quantitative questions, or pointers to similar examples already
covered in class, brief descriptions of the expected answers to essay-style questions, and a
narrative describing common errors and failings as well as good answers. Model answers
are not required. See section 6 (page 13) for guideline on providing feedback.
3.
Students who fail the assessment are entitled to one-to-one feedback from the Module
Convenor in order to prepare for the resit.
8
4.
How to Select a Moderation Sample
Overview of the moderation process
Moderation is a quality assurance process which is an essential part of assessment at Sussex.
In the BMEc Assessment Procedure, moderation is defined as:
an independent, internal check that the marking has been conducted consistently according to the
approved marking criteria. Note that the Moderator is not being asked to rule on borderline marks or to
reach agreement between two or more markers in the Marking Stage.
Please remember that the Moderator should be someone who is familiar with the content of the
module, but is not one of the markers. The Moderator is also responsible for checking the
assessment instruments before they are set to students.
Getting started
In order to carry out moderation, the Moderator must be provided with the following:




All of the assessment scripts
The marksheet
Details of the assessment (e.g. the exam paper)
Marking criteria and/or model answers
It is the Module Convenor’s responsibility to provide the Moderator with these resources.
Selecting the sample
The Moderator should select the sample by referring to the marksheet, and in particular the
Marks Distribution table:
PG classification bands
Cohort
Sample
UG classification bands
0-44% (clear fail)
0-34% [clear Fail]
45-49% (marginal fail)
34-39% [marginal fail]
50-59%
40-49%
60-69%
50-59%
70%+
60-69%
N
70%+
Cohort
Sample
Mean mark
n/a
N
Standard deviation
n/a
Mean mark
n/a
Standard deviation
n/a
The Cohort column should be completed by
the Convenor or Marker after marking
The Sample column should be completed by
the Moderator when selecting the sample
9
Follow these instructions to select a representative sample:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Choose 10% of scripts that scored 70+
Choose 10% of scripts that scored 60-69
Choose 10% of scripts that scored 50-59
For UG assessments, choose 10% of scripts that scored 40-49
If the resulting batch is less than seven, increase proportionally
If the resulting batch is more than 25, reduce proportionally
Add all marginal and clear fail scripts
The aim is to create a sample that represents the marks awarded within the classification bands,
and contains approximately 10% of the passes, with a minimum of seven and a maximum of 25.
All the fails must be added to this to make the final sample for moderation.
If there was more than one marker, ensure the sample includes some assessments from each. It
is important to check whether there is consistency between the markers.
Here is an example from a medium-sized module:
PG classification bands
Cohort
Sample
0-44% (clear fail)
1
1
45-49% (marginal fail)
3
3
50-59%
26
3
10% from this band
60-69%
47
5
10% from this band
70%+
9
1
10% from this band
N
86
13
Mean mark
62.3
58
Standard deviation
16.4
17.1
Cohort
Sample
0-44% (clear fail)
3
3
45-49% (marginal fail)
2
2
50-59%
5
2
60-69%
8
4
70%+
1
1
N
19
12
60.2
59.3
9
9.8
All the fails
Example from a small module:
PG classification bands
Mean mark
Standard deviation
All the fails
Representative
sample of seven
scripts (the minimum)
10
Example from a large module:
PG classification bands
Cohort
Sample
0-44% (clear fail)
7
7
45-49% (marginal fail)
12
12
50-59%
101
8
60-69%
155
13
70%+
46
4
N
321
44
Mean mark
63.6
62.1
Standard deviation
22.5
23.3
All the fails
Representative
sample of 25 scripts
(the maximum)
If the sample is very big because of the number of fails
If you are moderating an assessment for a large module, and many students fail, then you could
easily end up with a big sample. If you believe that the size of the sample makes it
unmanageable, then please contact the Exams Convenor in your department.
Next steps
When you have chosen the sample, please complete the moderation process:
 Indicate on the marksheet which scripts you have chosen, by writing ‘Yes’ in the relevant
parts of the Selected for Moderation column.
 Fill in the Sample column of the Marks Distribution table. Remember to calculate the mean
and the standard deviation of the sample.
 Look at the scripts, and consider the marks and feedback given by the marker.
 Decide whether the marking is a fair reflection of the assessment criteria provided.
 If you have any specific comments, write them in the marksheet.
 Indicate whether you approve the marks by completing the Internal Moderation section at
the bottom of the marksheet.
 Email the completed marksheet to the Module Convenor and the appropriate Course Coordinator, and return all the scripts to the School Office (keeping the sample separate).
Remember that you should not provide your own marks for the scripts, and you cannot request
changes to the marks; you can simply approve or disapprove the marks. The only exception to
this is if you notice an administrative error (e.g. a mistake in adding up marks). Note that the
regulations allow for a partial remark of the cohort where a specific issue results in Moderator
being unable to approve all marks.
11
5. How to Export Marks from Sussex Direct to Excel
This is a guide for module convenors for exporting marks and feedback from Sussex Direct into Excel.
On Sussex Direct go to your Assessment Convening page, and click on the assessment from which you’d
like to export the marks, e.g.:
Then click on the ‘Marks and Feedback’ column, which will say something like ‘485 out of 485 marks
recorded/sent to exams’. This will bring you to the page where you can view the candidate numbers and
marks.
If the box is green like this:
…it means that the box it is in ‘edit’ mode so you will need to click ‘Cancel’ and this will turn the box a
blue/turquoise colour.
Next click on the two little squares on the right of the blue/turquoise ‘Convenor Record Marks…’ box, e.g.:
This will open a new tab or window. In the new tab/window, make sure you now scroll down and click on
the plus sign ‘+’ at the bottom of the page, so that all marks and feedback are shown (rather than the
default which is just the first 5 records).
Now scroll back to the top and click on ‘CSV’, which will open an Excel spread-sheet containing all the
marks and feedback you have entered into Sussex Direct.
From here you can ‘cut’ and ‘paste’ the candidate numbers and marks into the mark sheet provided by
the School Office.
If you need assistance with the above process, contact the Course Coordinator.
12
6. BMEc Feedback Policy
1. Feedback on coursework, eg essays, term papers, exercise sheets
Feedback is required within 15 term- time working days under current University regulations.
Module convenors should alert their course coordinator and HoD/SGL if they are likely to need
more time and ensure that students are kept informed in a timely fashion. Note that for small
cohorts, or easy to mark assessments, feedback may be provided before the 15 term-time
working day deadline.
Feedback on coursework should be both individual and generic.
Individual Feedback on Coursework
Individual marks and feedback are entered on Sussex Direct by the marker(s) or in GradeMark
for e-submissions. Individual feedback should reference the generic marking criteria, identify key
errors, omissions etc., recognise positive aspects of the work, and ideally make suggestions on
how the work might be improved to secure a higher grade.
Note that where a number of people are involved in marking coursework the module convenor
should oversee not just the marking but also the feedback to ensure consistency between
markers.
Generic Feedback on Coursework
The module convenor should produce a generic feedback document which contains
a) the marks distribution for the cohort (taken from the marks sheet) to enable students
to gauge their relative performance
b) a narrative covering common mistakes, errors, omissions as well as elements that
were done well. This should reference the generic marking criteria for UG/PGT work
by for example describing what a typical First class/Distinction answer covered.
c) brief/outline answers. These are not intended to be model answers but should
illustrate how the questions should have been approached, signposting to relevant
teaching materials such as examples in text books, key readings on reading list etc.
This generic feedback document should be posted on Study Direct as soon as the moderation
stage of marking has been completed. Students see their marks however on Sussex Direct
where there is space for individual and generic feedback: the module convenor should complete
the generic feedback text form to indicate that generic feedback is on Study Direct.
Examples of good practice include



lecturers providing an overview of answers, common mistakes etc, a week after the
submission deadline, even before marking is complete
using a seminar to go through assessments in detail
using the generic feedback document in “feed-forward” sessions with subsequent cohorts
as part of the advice and guidance offered by module convenors to students on
assessments.
Note that feedback reports (individualised and generic) for MCTs can be generated by our
scanner software.
13
2. Feedback on exam scripts
With the shorter turnaround for marking exam scripts in A1 and A2, individual written feedback
should be limited to very short annotations on exam scripts. Instead module convenors are asked
to provide a detailed generic feedback document as described above.
As for coursework, this generic feedback document should be posted on Study Direct as soon as
the moderation stage of marking has been completed. Students see their marks however on
Sussex Direct where there is space for generic feedback: the module convenor should complete
the generic feedback text form to indicate that generic feedback is on Study Direct.
As for coursework, the generic feedback documents can be used in “feed-forward” sessions with
subsequent cohorts as part of end of term revision sessions offered by module convenors.
3. Feedback to failing candidates
Our school policy is to offer one-to-one feedback to students who have failed module
assessments and are required to resit in order to secure credit. This might take place in person or
by telephone/Skype/email and should be offered by the module convenor or a delegated member
of staff familiar with the module content and assessments.
This one-to-one feedback is not routinely offered to students who have passed the module
assessments although module convenors have the discretion to offer this if numbers permit. A
well written generic feedback document and use of teaching sessions to provide feedback should
reduce or remove the need to provide one-to-one feedback.
14