Assessment Handbook: Section 13
©University of Reading 2024 Sunday 1 September 2024 Page 1
SECTION 13:
MODERATION
Please note that Schools are responsible for moderation arrangements both in the UK and at branch
campuses.
‘Moderation’ refers to the arrangements that are put in place to assure the proper application of the
assessment criteria, including consistency of marking. The moderation process will typically consist of
various steps, including a form of second marking (see below for the different types), possibly some
sampling of student work, and confirmation of marks. Section 13.1.6 gives suggestions for moderation
arrangements for types of assessment where second marking is not possible.
Types of second marking are:
• double marking where each marker makes a separate judgement and in the event of
disagreement a resolution is sought;
o open marking where the second marker is informed of the first marker's mark before
commencing;
o blind marking where the second marker is not informed of the first marker's mark;
• review marking where the second marker/moderator reviews the accuracy and
appropriateness of the marking, and brings any issues to the attention of the first marker.
Second marking can apply to the whole cohort (full second marking) or to a sample selected according
to defined criteria (sampled second marking). Second marking is an area where practice between
disciplines necessarily varies, reflecting differences in the type of assessment task and the submission
media. An approach suitable for the discipline, assessment task and submission media is encouraged.
Note that the term ‘moderator’ is mainly used below in preference to second marker to ensure
consistency with other University policies and guidance. Where the stand alone term ‘marker’ is used,
this indicates the first marker.
Please also refer to the full policy in relation to External Examining published in the University’s Code of
Practice on the External Examining of Taught Programmes.
Contents
13.1 Internal moderation .............................................................................................................................................2
13.2 Scaling .....................................................................................................................................................................4
13.3 Additional assurance for specified marks ......................................................................................................5
Levels 4-6 .....................................................................................................................................................................6
Level 7 ...........................................................................................................................................................................6
13.4 External moderation ............................................................................................................................................6
13.5 Timing of moderation in relation to awarding and progression decisions ...........................................7
Assessment Handbook
Unit name goes here
Assessment Handbook: Section 13
©University of Reading 2024 Sunday 1 September 2024 Page 2
13.1 INTERNAL MODERATION
13.1.1 All marking which counts towards a formal mark for awarding or progression should be
moderated appropriately internally. Such moderation arrangements should be sufficient to
give reasonable assurance that the marking is accurate to common standards applied to
shared understandings of the criteria, and that the marking at the boundaries of classification
bands is accurate. In terms of the investment of staff effort, the moderation arrangements
should be commensurate with the weight of the assessment task and the size of the cohort.
13.1.2 Good practice to support internal moderation arrangements includes:
a. Early publication of dates of: submission, feedback of marks, meetings of marking
teams, and any dates relating to resubmissions, for example, at the start of the
academic year. If this is possible across a programme, ‘bunching of deadlines’ for staff
and students can also be identified.
b. Early publication of marking teams for each assessment task, identifying first, second
and third markers ensures staff are aware of the assessment tasks they are marking
and/or involved in moderation arrangements. Pairing experienced with inexperienced
markers as first and second marker can support professional development.
c. Activities that can support marking teams develop a shared understanding of marking
criteria and common standards, and ensure parity of feedback practices, include:
i. Conducting calibration activities with a small sample of selected scripts very
early in the marking period. The scripts are blind marked by all markers and a
calibration meeting is held to discuss and agree a final mark. A summary of the
judgments is circulated to all markers to inform subsequent marking.
ii. Staff development activities are carried out for staff new to the marking team
where moderated scripts from previous cohorts are considered. This can be
done before the assignment submission deadline. Blind marking of the scripts
prior to a meeting allows any questions to be brought to the meeting.
Experienced markers new to the marking team should also be included.
iii. Having a portfolio of moderated scripts from earlier cohorts available for all
markers can assist understanding of marking criteria and the common
standards.
iv. ‘Face-to-face’ moderation meetings including experienced staff are invaluable
for those staff new to a marking team or inexperienced as agreeing the
common standards is a socially constructed process.
13.1.3 Second marking of the whole cohort (full second marking) is a suitable method of moderation
for cohorts of eight or fewer, for work which is automatically marked by a panel of two or more
assessors or for assessed work of sufficient weight and significance to warrant the workload
(some major final part dissertations, for example).
13.1.4 Otherwise, where possible, second marking of a sample should be arranged. Various
approaches to sampling can be adopted but the main criteria for selecting an appropriate
method are that the sample should be sufficient for the purpose of ensuring appropriate
application of criteria and consistency of marking, and administering the sample should be
simple and easily achieved within the time scale. The sample should enable the moderator:
• to establish that marking is accurate to common standards applied to shared
understandings of the criteria; and
• to confirm that marking at the boundaries of each classification band is accurate.
13.1.5 The sample should contain a meaningful proportion of the total candidates, which enables
the purposes of moderation to be achieved. It is suggested that a minimum of eight
candidates might in most cases be appropriate with:
• a number of exemplars from each class which represents the distribution of the cohort’s
marks across that band
• some failed candidates
Assessment Handbook: Section 13
©University of Reading 2024 Sunday 1 September 2024 Page 3
• sufficient First Class or Distinction candidates to illustrate the range from lowest First
Class/Distinction mark given to highest
• any individual candidates the first marker finds significant difficulty in marking.
13.1.6 Where second-marking of a sample is not possible (notably those which take place in real
time such as oral presentations, performance or field work activity), some other form of
moderation should take place, subject to the two conditions of being sufficient for and
commensurate with the assessment task. Alternative moderation arrangements which might
be considered include:
• Recording (video or audio) and moderating a sample of the recordings;
• Assessors’ notes (and possibly photographs) which explain how the marking criteria were
applied and moderating a sample of the notes;
• Co-operative staff development, where staff carry out sample assessments in pairs or
groups to establish a shared understanding of the criteria and the standards to apply;
• Comparison with peer assessment, where the staff assessment is compared (for
example, by rank order) with peer assessment. (It should be noted that University policy
requires that peer assessment per se is not to be used for a formal mark; the formal mark
must be determined by an appropriate member of staff. What is suggested here is the
use of peer assessment as one check on the reasonable accuracy of the marks of staff,
not its use to produce an actual mark.)
13.1.7 For each assessment, the Module Convenor (in collaboration with the relevant Programme
Director, where appropriate) shall propose suitable moderation arrangements to be
approved by the School Director of Teaching and Learning who will report on moderation
processes to the External Examiners. The External Examiners have the right to comment on
and suggest changes to moderation arrangements.
13.1.8 If more than two markers are involved in marking an assessment, appropriate arrangements
for moderation across the cadre of markers should be agreed in advance and a report on the
outcomes and process provided to the relevant School Director of Teaching and Learning
and made available to the External Examiner responsible for the module.
13.1.9 Statistical comparison of mark distributions for modules may be a useful tool in the
moderation process but is not sufficient in itself.
13.1.10 Unless it is impracticable, the marking, selection of the sample and moderation arrangements
should be made while the candidates remain anonymous.
13.1.11 Moderation is essentially an iterative process depending on the kind and degree of variation
between marker and moderator. If there is no significant difference, the marks can be simply
agreed. If there is systematic variation throughout the range, moderator and marker must
negotiate an agreed shift in the marking and all the work remarked and re-moderated until no
significant difference remains (a third marker may be called in to assist). If there is variation
which is not systematic, the moderator and marker should discuss the differences and all the
work re-marked and re-moderated in the light of the discussion. Where moderation is by
double-marking of the full cohort, marker and moderator should negotiate an agreed mark
for each individual instance of difference on a case by case basis (again a third marker may
assist).
13.1.12 The outcome of moderation should normally be that a single, internally agreed mark for each
module is recommended to the External Examiners.
13.1.13 The moderation arrangements must be adequately documented: a record must be kept in
respect of each module indicating:
• the pieces of work which have been moderated internally and those which have been
moderated externally
• how moderation was undertaken
• any action taken as a result of moderation
• the rationale for those actions
Assessment Handbook: Section 13
©University of Reading 2024 Sunday 1 September 2024 Page 4
• (in the case of internal moderation only) confirmation that the full range of first
class/distinction marks has been used, where appropriate.
13.1.14 Schools will keep a record of which pieces of work have been moderated.
13.1.15 The internal moderator should explicitly confirm that the full range of the first class band has
been used, where appropriate.
13.1.16 Where a piece of work has been referred to a third marker, following an irreconcilable
difference between the first and second markers, the third marker should prepare a brief
report on the resolution of the mark.
13.1.17 Records of internal moderation arrangements must be made available to the External
Examiner.
13.1.18 Where possible, internal moderation (as distinct from full double-marking) of coursework and
in-class tests should take place within the 15 working day period. Please refer to the Policy on
providing feedback to students on their performance.
13.1.19 Specific requirement relating to University of Reading Malaysia (UoRM):
13.1.19.1 All work from the first intake of a new programme at UoRM must be read and marks
checked by the moderator regardless of the number of students enrolled. This
applies to both coursework and exams.
13.1.19.2 If a new module is delivered for the first time but it is not the first intake of students on
the programme, then the moderation applied is increased appropriately.
13.1.19.3 Subsequent to the first delivery of each module, students at UoRM may either:
a) be treated as part of the UoR cohort for moderation purposes and will be
subject to the schedule above, if a coursework assignment is identical across
campuses (i.e. the essay questions are the same at both campuses); or
b) when assessments differ significantly in wording, or timing, the two groups of
students will be treated as different cohorts and their work moderated
separately. When UoRM work is moderated separately to UoR work, this may be
done internally at UoRM rather than sent to the UK.
13.1.19.4 For exams taken at both a branch campus and in the UK, the module convenor is
normally responsible for moderating exam scripts marked by other markers at both
campuses. Another member of UoR staff is usually allocated to moderate work that
is first marked by the module convenor.
13.1.19.5 For exams taken at a branch campus only, moderation will normally be completed
within the branch campus. However, for the first delivery of each module on a new
programme, all scripts will be scanned and sent to the UK for moderation. Thereafter,
future exams will be moderated within the branch campus rather than in the UK. All
scripts must be available to view at the external exam board, therefore, even if
moderation is completed at the branch campus, scripts will be scanned and sent to
the UK.
13.2 SCALING
13.2.1 Scaling is a method by which the marks initially given for an assessment are
systematically adjusted, upwards or downwards, to produce a final mark for the
assessment.
13.2.2 Scaling is applied to remedy evidenced anomalies in assessment which have meant
that the initial marks for a group of students does not represent the standard which
they have achieved.
13.2.3 Scaling is exceptional and should be used only rarely. The design and quality
assurance of assessment (including the approval of examination papers by External
Examiners), together with the conditions for assessment, normally ensure that
assessment is fair and that anomalies should not occur.
Assessment Handbook: Section 13
©University of Reading 2024 Sunday 1 September 2024 Page 5
13.2.4 Anomalies in assessment which might lead to scaling include significant disruption to
an examination (e.g. a fire alarm), a flaw in the design of an assessment (e.g. in
hindsight, a question/assessment is recognised to be significantly more difficult than
originally supposed), unforeseen disruption to the delivery of a module, and must be
evidenced. Particular care should be taken in deciding that an assessment is flawed;
supporting evidence may include statistical comparison with similar modules within
year and across years, together with feedback from students, but evidence needs to
be carefully evaluated by the Examiners and must be considered compelling.
13.2.5 Scaling is not used to achieve a set distribution of marks, where x% achieve a First
Class mark, y% achieve a 2:1 mark, etc. The University does not mark on the basis of
norm-referencing.
13.2.6 It is expected that scaling would only be used in respect of assessments which have
a prescriptive, detailed marking scheme which allows very limited scope for
interpretation. Such assessments are likely to be quantitative in nature.
13.2.7 Where the marking scheme for a module allows the mark to reflect a holistic
judgment on a piece of work (e.g. a marking scheme for an essay), the need for
scaling would be highly unusual. There may, however, be circumstances where
scaling might be appropriate, for example where there was a defect in the delivery of
the module.
13.2.8 The Internal Examiners, in consultation with the External Examiners, are responsible
for considering anomalies in assessments and determining whether and how scaling
should be applied. In making such decisions, the Examiners must exercise their
academic judgment following consideration of relevant statistical data (e.g. the
mean and distribution of marks before and after the proposed scaling, the mean and
distribution of marks for the module from previous years, and the mean and
distribution of marks for other modules for the same cohort).
13.2.9 The approach adopted to scaling will depend on the issue being addressed.
13.2.10 Scaling can be applied at the level of a part of a question, a question, or an
assessment. It cannot be applied at the level of a Part or a Final result, nor at the level
of a Module when there is more than one item of assessment.
13.2.11 Scaling can be applied to all marks for the assessment, question or part of a question,
or to specific mark ranges, or to groups of similarly affected students; different
adjustments may apply to different mark ranges or groups of students, depending
on the circumstances, provided in all cases the principle of equity is maintained and a
rationale for such differences is stated.
13.2.12 Marks can be scaled up or down.
13.2.13 The School is required to keep a record of any decision to apply scaling, which should
specify the rationale for the decision, the evidence used in reaching the decision, the
views of the External Examiner and the method of scaling used.
13.2.14 Possible methods of scaling include: adding or subtracting a number to/from the
marks of all students within an affected group (with marks truncated to 0% or 100%
if necessary), changing grade boundaries for some or all classes and linearly mapping
the mark (e.g. an undergraduate pass could become 35% and the third class/2.2
boundary could become 48%, meaning if the original mark was z%, lying between 35
and 48, then the scaled mark would be
40 + (z – 35)×(50 – 40)/(48 – 35)).
13.3 ADDITIONAL ASSURANCE FOR
SPECIFIED MARKS
13.3.1 Given that specified marks are critical to a student progressing from one Part to the next, or
passing or failing a final award, the University seeks additional assurance in respect of these
marks.
Assessment Handbook: Section 13
©University of Reading 2024 Sunday 1 September 2024 Page 6
Levels 4-6
13.3.2 Schools are required to give specific consideration to module marks of 29 and 39 and assure
themselves that the marks are well-founded and accurate, and similarly review any mark of 34
in a final year module which has a specific bearing on the classification.
Level 7
13.3.3 Schools are required to give specific consideration to module marks of 39 and 49 at Level 7,
and assure themselves that the marks are well-founded and accurate..
13.3.4 Where a Part 3 student is taking a Level 7 module and achieves a mark of 34, the School
should review the mark if it has a specific bearing on their classification..
This process is different from Examiners’ discretion, which is outlined in Section 16.4 and only applies to
awards.
13.4 EXTERNAL MODERATION
13.4.1 The University requires that the standard and consistency of the marking of assessments
which contribute directly to an award be confirmed by the appropriate External Examiners.
13.4.2 External Examiners have the right of access to all assessed work. In practice, in most cases
External Examiners will necessarily concentrate on a sample of assessed work. The School
Director of Teaching and Learning or a member of staff designated by the School Director of
Teaching and Learning (for example, a Programme Director) should seek the agreement of
the External Examiners as to how the sample is selected, bearing in mind that, in the first
instance, the same principles as for internal moderation should determine the selection of
the sample, but that, in the case of external moderation, consideration should be given to
candidates’ profile of marks and indicative overall classification as well as to marks for
individual modules.
13.4.3 In considering candidates’ profile of marks and indicative overall classification, External
Examiners may wish to give consideration to: (a) those candidates who fall within the
borderline and who fail marginally to fulfil one or other of the criteria for promotion; (b) those
who fall marginally short of the threshold overall average which qualifies for inclusion in the
borderline and who have fulfilled one or other of the criteria for promotion; and (c) candidates
whose profile is marginal and sufficiently unusual to give rise to concerns about the security
of the implied classification. Statistics from previous Sessions indicate that the numbers of
students who fall within these categories for any programme will be small.
13.4.4 For the undergraduate Part 1 Examination, External Examiners would be expected to
consider a sample which allows them to moderate the full range of marks, and to attend
particularly to the pass/fail borderline and the borderline at the 30% threshold. It is expected
that the sample may be smaller than the samples for the Part 2 and Part 3/4/Final
Examination.
13.4.5 The School Director of Teaching and Learning (or other designated member of staff) should
seek to establish whether External Examiners wish for access to any assessed work which
might not be readily available, and should make appropriate arrangements to accommodate
such requests.
13.4.6 External Examiners are asked to comment on the monitoring of assessment and to report
that moderation arrangements were satisfactory.
Assessment Handbook: Section 13
©University of Reading 2024 Sunday 1 September 2024 Page 7
13.5 TIMING OF MODERATION IN
RELATION TO AWARDING AND
PROGRESSION DECISIONS
13.5.1 Marks must be agreed, following internal and external moderation, before awards or
progression decisions are determined.
13.5.2 Normally, Semester 1 marks must be internally moderated by the Semester 1 Mark Entry
Deadlines, which will commonly fall before the Easter vacation. Semester 2 marks must be
internally (and preferably externally) moderated by the Semester 2 Mark Entry Deadlines.
Semester 1 and Semester 2 Mark Entry Deadlines and arrangements for confirmation of
marks following external moderation will be notified annually to all stakeholders.
13.5.3 This implies a two-stage external examining process – first the confirmation of all marks and
then awarding. Given the flexible, modular structure of programmes, agreement of some
marks may depend on external examiners outwith the programme. It is expected that, in such
cases, module marks will, where possible, be moderated in advance of the period in which
Programme Examiners’ Meetings are held. In those instances where a student’s marks have
not been moderated, a final decision on the recommended award should be deferred. This
imposes tight constraints on the moderation process.
Confirmation of moderation for <module code>
Marking and internal moderation must be in line with the Assessment Handbook.
The module convenor is responsible for completing this form for the module.
Please complete the form below:
For each assessment, the Module
Convenor shall propose a suitable
method of moderation to be
approved by the Programme
Director who will report on
moderation processes to the
External Examiners. The External
Examiners have the right to
comment on and suggest changes
to moderation processes.
If more than two markers are
involved in marking an
assessment, appropriate
arrangements for moderation
across the cadre of markers should
be agreed in advance and a report
on the outcomes and process
provided to the relevant
Programme Director and made
available to the External Examiner
responsible for the module.
Were candidates anonymous
during the marking, selection of the
sample and moderating
The mark sheet template has been
used to clearly indicate the pieces
of work which have been
moderated internally and those
which have been / will be
moderated externally.
Any action taken as a result of
moderation
The rationale for those actions
Where a piece of work has been
referred to a third reviewer,
following an irreconcilable
difference between the first marker
and moderator, the third reviewer
should prepare a brief report on the
resolution of the mark – this should
be given here.
(In the case of internal moderation
only) confirmation that the full
range of first class/distinction
marks has been used, where
appropriate
Name of module convenor:
Signature
Date:
Please give this to your Programme Administrator at the same time that you submit your mark sheet.
©University of Reading 2018 Monday 18 June 2018 Page 1
ASSESSED COURSEWORK
MODERATION FORM
University regulations require that marking of assessed coursework is moderated and that this
process is documented. It is the lecturer's responsibility to ensure that the moderation of
marking does not interfere with the prompt return of work to students. Note that the role of
the moderator is to check accuracy and consistency of marking, though if there are problems
then the moderator can suggest an alternative mark scheme. The Module Convenor shall
propose a suitable method of moderation to be approved by the Programme Director who will
report on moderation processes to the External Examiners. The External Examiners have the
right to comment on and suggest changes to moderation processes.
All adjustments to marks need to be noted on this form, together with the reason for them.
MARKING DETAILS
Module:
Module Convenor*:
Marker:
Moderator:
Description of
Assignment:
Return date to
Students:
*The Module Convenor is responsible for checking the accuracy of marking carried out on their behalf by any other
markers, as well as the quality of feedback, before the moderator receives the scripts.
MODERATION OF MARKS FOR ALL CANDIDATES
After moderation (see details on the reverse of this page):
☐
☐
☐
Date:
Date:
Date:
Student & Academic Services
Unit name goes here
©University of Reading 2018 Monday 18 June 2018 Page 2
Moderation of a sample of work
The sample should contain a meaningful proportion of the total candidates, but it is suggested that a
minimum of eight candidates might in most cases be appropriate with
a number of exemplars from each class which represents the distribution of the cohort’s marks
across that band
all failed candidates
sufficient First Class or Distinction candidates to illustrate the range from lowest First
Class/Distinction mark given to highest
any individual candidates the first marker finds significant difficulty in marking.
for classes smaller than 8, all scripts must be moderated
Unless it is impossible, the marking, selection of the sample and moderating should be made while the
candidates remain anonymous. Where the agreed mark differs from the original one, the reason must be
noted.
N.B. a record of which scripts were moderated, including fails, must be given below. For large classes
please continue on a separate sheet.
MODERATION RECORDS
Student name OR
Anonymous marking number
Mark proposed by
marker
Agreed moderated
mark
Reasons for change made to proposed mark (if
applicable
Proposed adjustment to mark scheme, with reason (this adjustment has not yet been made:
©University of Reading 2018 Monday 18 June 2018 Page 3
Exams Officer comment:
DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND STATISTICS
ASSESSED COURSEWORK MODERATION AND CONFIRMATION OF MARKS FORM
University regulations require that marking of assessed coursework is moderated and that this
process is documented. It is the lecturer's responsibility to ensure that the moderation of marking
does not interfere with the prompt return of work to students. Note that the role of the moderator is
to check accuracy and consistency of marking, though if there are problems then the moderator can
suggest an alternative mark scheme. All adjustments to marks need to be noted on this form,
together with the reason for them. The Examinations Officer, on behalf of the Moderating Group will
determine whether changes to the marking scheme are applied.
.
Module: ………………………………… Lecturer*: ……………………………………………
Marker: ………………………………… Moderator: …………………………………………..
* The lecturer is responsible for checking the accuracy of marking carried out on their behalf by a
Teaching Assistant, as well as the quality of feedback, before the moderator receives the scripts.
Description/title of assignment Returned to students by
………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………
Confirmation of mark spreadsheet
The transcription of marks from scripts to a spreadsheet to be held in the School Office has been
checked
School Office: ………………………… Date: ………………………………………………….
Moderation of marks for all candidates
After moderation(details over the page) we
[ ] agree the marks for this item of coursework
[ ] propose that an adjustment (e.g. addition of 5 marks for all students) should be made to the marking
scheme: this adjustment and the reason for it is given over the page (pre-adjustment marks are
otherwise agreed)
[ ] The individual feedback given is sufficient to clarify to students where they lost marks and to
correct any misunderstanding of the material as well as re-enforcing good technique.
Marker: …………………………………… Date: ……………………………………………………
Moderator: ……………………………….. Date: ……………………………………………………
Exams Officer (where adjustment has been proposed):
Moderation of a sample of work
A sample of 10% of the class (or 8 scripts for classes smaller than 80) must be taken: for classes smaller than
8, all scripts must be moderated. The sample should include some exemplars and some borderline pieces of
work, and should cover a range of marks similar to the range of the whole class. All failures should be looked
at, whether or not they are recorded below. Where the agreed mark differs from the original one, the reason
must be noted
Student
name/anonymous
marking number+
Marked
proposed
by marker
Agreed
Moderated
mark
Reason for change
made to proposed
mark (if applicable)
+ All assessments submitted anonymously must remain so at the moderation stage.
Proposed adjustment to mark scheme, with reason (this adjustment has not yet been made):
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Exams Officer comments:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
.......................................................................................................................…………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..