Scope
Academic staff
Effective Date
June 2008
Responsible Dept.
Quality and Academic Standards, Registry
Equality Impact Assessment
No
Last Updated By,
and Date
Updated by Quality and Academic Standards, July 2011
Next Review Date
July 2012
Associated links
and webpages
No
York St John University
Marking, Feedback & Moderation
Guidance on marking assessments – feedback to students
1
Feedback from assessments is a vital element on the process of learning. It will
motivate students by letting them know how well they have done, where they need to
improve and how to improve. In all cases feedback should be given as soon as is reasonably
possible after the assessment to allow for development before the next assignment.
Individual Faculties should agree their own particular strategy for giving student feedback in
order to ensure consistency of student experience across the Faculty.
2
Effective feedback should:

be helpful, constructive and encouraging

indicate whether the learning outcomes are being achieved at that stage.

indicate strengths and weaknesses.

be legible ( if written) , relevant, useful and timely.

encourage the student to reflect on their work.

address inconsistencies.

identify areas that need to be strengthened by increased knowledge.

encourage critical and analytical thought.

avoid facetious and sarcastic comments.

be supported by verbal feedback if possible.


justify the grade/mark awarded.
indicate that the mark/grade is provisional subject to the confirmation of the
Subject-Area Assessment Panel.
Written Feedback should be made on an appropriate, purpose-designed feedback form. The
University has designed a form which can be used by Faculties but it is acceptable for
Faculties to design their own form and make their own arrangements.
Where written feedback is offered, the feedback form should be legible and make clear who
did the marking and is offering the feedback. The grade and mark should be justified in the
comments. A marking cover sheet and feedback form may also facilitate the recording of
second marking and moderating issues but these can be recorded separately.
It is also recognised that there are other formats for individual feedback and that faculties are
experimenting successfully with mp3 files.
5
Feedback on Examination Scripts
It is the policy of the University that examination scripts are the property of the University and
will not be released to students. Nevertheless students are entitled to feedback on
examination performance in the same way as they are entitled to feedback on other
assessed work. Furthermore the 1998 Data Protection Act entitles students to access the
comments of their examiners which are regarded as personal data. Comments on
examination scripts should be appropriate and in keeping with the approach of treating a
students work with respect. The comments should be written on a separate piece of paper
which can be returned to the student.
8
Penalties when marking
Faculties should develop a policy on the implementation of penalties. Penalties could be
used to flag up particular issues e.g. the breach of specific scientific or ethical conventions.
Such penalties should not normally exceed 10% of the total module mark for the component
or the effective lowering of a mark by a class. An exception to this might be where a piece of
work demonstrates unsafe practice in a professional area where a fail mark might justifiably
be recorded. Any system of penalty should be clearly notified to students in the module or
programme handbook. The University’s policy on dealing with over length work can be
found as document ASS19.
In the case of spelling, grammar or presentation of work, the preferred approach in the
University is that assessment criteria should be drafted in such a way as to cover such
issues. Such an approach is consistent with the University's expectations in respect of skills
in communication. Marking will, therefore, reflect the criteria and penalise unacceptable
levels of error in spelling, grammar and presentation as a matter of routine. The Faculty
should, however, adopt a consistent approach to identifying and addressing poor written
communication skills and presentation skills for the benefit of students through written
feedback.
A consistent approach to penalising poor referencing is important since decisions about
poor scholarship will pay a part in dealing with cases of suspected plagiarism. Faculties are
asked to deal with poor academic practice through normal marking procedures. They are
asked to ensure that their marking criteria are such that a student who does not reference
appropriately will obtain a mark confined to a low class band (assuming content is otherwise
acceptable). Such students will be offered detailed advice on how to improve their marks.
Faculties are asked to consider the use of formative assessed work for first year students
and possibly for international postgraduate students so that the students can attempt some
written work which will offer experience of academic writing and referencing outside an
assessment context.
9
Reliable marking
As well as being concerned with motivating students and contributing to their learning
through the provision of constructive feedback, marking must be reliable and consistent for
the purposes of differentiating between the performances of students on the same
programme of study and allowing a rank ordering of performance to take place.
A marker should aim for self-consistency in marking and the procedures of a panel of
examiners should seek to achieve inter-marker consistency. Aids to this are as follows.

The use of assessment criteria for each assessment task

Use of marking schemes

The use of grade performance descriptors

Anonymous marking to screen out possible assessor bias

Trial marking by module or course teams

Double-marking and moderation procedures.
The University has established arrangements for the anonymous marking of assessments
carried out under examination conditions and has agreed to establish similar arrangements
for essays and dissertations.
Faculties will decide the appropriate assessment criteria and marking schemes to be used
for particular assessment tasks and may choose to engage in trial marking.
The University has agreed that each Faculty will determine a policy for assuring itself of the
reliability of its marking through establishing procedures for the moderation of marking.
The following guidelines on Faculty Internal Moderation Procedures are provided.
It is important that the Faculty internal moderation procedures are rigorous, robust and
consistent. While the processes may vary to accommodate the style of learning and
teaching of a particular module, the procedures should reflect an agreed minimum threshold
of internal moderation. Double marking is one method of achieving moderation. Faculty is
not committed to a policy of enforcing double marking although it is acknowledged that it
might have a place eg in the marking of special studies, establishing marking standards with
a new member of staff or dealing with failed or disputed pieces of work.
10
Moderation
Moderation is an essential process of monitoring that assessment and marking have taken
place in a way that ensures consistency across the module and between modules of the
same level, matches learning outcomes, maintains standards and is fair to students.
Process of Moderation
This involves three stages.
Stage 1 To ensure:

That the assignments detailed in the module specification properly reflect the
academic, generic, and cognitive learning outcomes of the module.

That the total package of assignments for the module does not exceed the
specified word limit or its equivalent.

That assignment titles and tasks are appropriate and where necessary different
from the previous assignments for the same module.

That arrangements for the approval of individually negotiated assignments are
clear.

That mark schemes or specific assessment criteria for an assignment are agreed
in advance and published to students as necessary. This stage of the moderation
process MUST be completed before the module begins and the assignments are
published in the module handbook.

The external examiner should be involved in the moderation of all assessment
tasks for modules contributing to final degree classification.
Stage 2 To ensure:

That the marking properly reflects the intentions of the assignment and the learning
outcomes of the module.

To ensure that there is consistency of marking across the module and between
modules of the same level. This stage occurs after the module has been
completed and the first marking has taken place. This might be achieved by
second marking, blind second marking or sampling.

Second marking might usefully take place where a module has been taught for the
first time or where there is a new member of staff and should take place where the
piece of work is both substantial and highly individualised e.g. a special study, ILU
or Masters dissertation of 20 credits or more. In most other circumstances
satisfactory moderation might be achieved by sampling.

For modules where second marking does not take place, internal sampling will be
organised by the module leader and should normally include any potential failures,
first class work, borderlines and a sample across all other classifications. Academic
Standards Committee agreed (June 2003) that the total sample should typically be
the number equal to the square root of the total cohort on the module. A minimum
number should be set for very small groups, e.g. groups of 10. The smallest
sample should be 5 scripts. The internal moderated sample may usefully form the
basis of that which is sent to the external examiner. Some Faculties may require
moderation in addition to double marking in certain modules.

Special arrangements should be made for the marking and moderation of
assessed work and performance work. Often this can be achieved by more than
one member of staff being involved. Consideration should be given to capturing
ephemeral experiences for the purposes of moderation and external scrutiny.
Stage 3 Moderation Report

11
A brief report on the process and the outcomes of the process of moderation
should be included with the mark lists and presented to the Subject-Area
Assessment Panel.
External moderation
Our External Examiners are moderators of standards. Programme teams are responsible for
ensuring that appropriate samples of assessment from each module are sent to the External
Examiner for moderation. Samples should include examples from the full-range of grades
awarded. Samples should be a sensible size. The square root of the module cohort is a
guide. The important principle is that the External Examiner has a sufficient range of work to
reach a clear judgment about standards.
External Examiners are not involved routinely in moderating assessment at Level 1 of a
three year degree programme but would be involved with level 1 of a Foundation degree or if
the award is set entirely at that level.
Programme teams are responsible for ensuring that:

The examiner receives samples as quickly as possible after the internal
moderation.

The examiner receives accompanying information about the module (Module
Handbook) including assessment criteria.

The Examiner receives clear written information about any special cases
which s/he is being asked to consider (see d below).
As well as receiving samples of assessed work, External Examiners may be asked to
consider individual student cases. For example:

To adjudicate on a disputed grade following extensive internal moderation.

To advise on alleged plagiarism.

To consider exceptional/outstanding work, awarded very high grades.

To consider failed assessments.
External Examiners should normally see all failed assessments on a taught module
contributing to final awards where an overall fail mark for the module is likely to be recorded,
i.e. not bracketed marks. It would be sensible for external examiners to see failed and all
First Class Special Studies.
It is neither necessary, nor good practice, to send all assessments at “classification
borderlines” to the External Examiner. The internal moderation process should resolve most
individual cases. If that process produces a borderline grade, than we should be confident in
that grade and (through notes of the moderation process) be able to justify it.
In the event an External Examiner determines that the overall level of grading on a module
or modules is inappropriate, s/he will request that all work submitted for the assessment in
question be re-marked by module tutors, taking into account the Examiner’s judgement
about the original level of grading. If at all possible, this should be completed prior to the
SAP meeting. Where this is not possible, module grades will be approved through Chair’s
Action.
12
Disclosure of marks and feedback
In accordance with the 1998 Data Protection Act, it is university policy that provisional marks
be disclosed to students. This is important so that feedback is not delayed unduly by the
pace of the overall mark confirmation process. However all marks should be clearly
accompanied by the word “provisional” and the student made aware that the mark could go
up or down as part of the collective consideration by the Subject-Area Assessment Panel. It
would be prudent that any changes made at the Panel meetings are accompanied by the
justification for such changes.
Faculties should also develop good practice for the dissemination of marks. It is not
considered appropriate for marks to be disseminated by e-mail, by ‘phone or via the notice
boards with names. The Faculty strategy for dissemination of marks should be published in
advance and should be used consistently throughout the Faculty.
ASS14b
Maintained by: Registry
Last updated: July 2011