GCU Assessment and Moderation Policy

GCU Assessment

and

Moderation Policy

September 2020

Prepared By

Academic Quality and Development

Approved By

APPC 10 May 2017/Senate 2 June 2017

Source Location

GCU Intranet > Registry > Assessment & Exams > Ass Reg Assoc

Docs > Policies

Published

Location

http://www.gcu.ac.uk/academicqualityanddevelopme

nt/academicquality/regulationsandpolicies/

Other documents

referenced

documents

University Assessment Regulations

Version

Number

Date issued

Author

Update information

V1.0

01.09.2017

Academic

Quality and

Development

First Published version

V2.0

01.09.2020

Academic

Quality

Title Updated.

Revisions to section 4 with

regards to moderation sample

sizes.

Update to section 5 to stipulate

that external moderation is

mandatory at SCQF levels 9,

10 and 11 only.

Updated references to Quality

Code for Higher Education

throughout policy.

3 |

GCU Assessment and Moderation Policy

1. Definitions

2. The process outlined in brief

SECTION ONE: PRE-MODERATION

3. Principles informing confirmation of work set for assessment purposes

SECTION TWO: POST-MODERATION

4. Internal moderation

5. External moderation

6. External moderation of dissertations/projects

7. Further general moderation principles

The following moderation principles have been designed to comply with the UK Quality Code for

Higher Education Advice and Guidance: Assessment.

The outcome of any stage of the marks

moderation process will be an agreed set of marks to proceed to the next stage of moderation or to

the relevant Assessment Board. ‘Agreed’ in this context refers to agreement that marking has been

carried out to the appropriate standards, which have been applied consistently and equitably

across the range of marks in relation to the criteria set for the assessment task.

1 Definitions

Marking may be defined as the process of reviewing student work with the aim of the first marker

(the person designated to apply a mark to a piece of assessment) giving it a mark/grade. Where

second/double or double blind marking takes place, the aim is to give an agreed mark. Additional

marking may be required where there is significant difference between the marks awarded to a

piece of assessment following second/double or double blind marking that cannot be resolved

without the opinion of another marker.

1.1 Second / Double Marking: Marking of an assessment by a second marker WITH knowledge

or sight of the first markers comments.

1.2 Double Blind Marking: Marking of an assessment by a second marker with NO knowledge or

sight of the first markers comments e.g. dissertations/ projects.

1.3 Third/ Additional Marking: Marking of an assessment by a third (or subsequent) marker

following second/double or double blind marking, where there is significant difference

between the marks awarded that cannot be resolved without the opinion of another

marker.

1.4 Anonymous Marking: Concealing the identity of the student who submitted the assessment

from the staff member marking their work, until a mark is agreed by the marker. Only once

a mark has been agreed will the student’s identity be revealed and feedback confirmed.

1.5 Moderation: Moderation is a key element of the summative assessment process and is

https://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/quality-code/advice-and-guidance/assessment

4 |

undertaken to ensure that the assessment process undertaken by academic staff in terms of

the outcome is fair, transparent, equitable and reliable, providing assurance that marking is

of an appropriate standard and that assessment criteria have been applied consistently.

1.6 Moderation:

 is concerned particularly with reliability meaning that ‘as far as possible markers acting

independently of each other but using the same assessment criteria would reach the same

judgement on a piece of work’ (QAA, 2012).

 ensures that the assessment process has been carried out with rigour, probity and fairness.

 is complemented by processes which assure validity including the design, setting and

approval of the assessment tasks (to measure achievement of module and programme

learning outcomes).

 provides an opportunity to engage with the quality of student feedback which will monitor

and inform enhancement of assessment and feedback practices.

1.7 Pre-moderation is defined as the review, prior to module delivery, of all instruments of

assessment, internally and externally. Post-moderation is defined as the internal

moderation of assessed work on all taught undergraduate and postgraduate

programmes and external moderation of assessed work at SCQF levels 9, 10 and 11.

2 The processed outlined in brief

2.1 Once initial marking has been undertaken a sample of all assessed work (undergraduate and

postgraduate taught), with the exception of dissertation/projects, will be subject to Second/

Double Marking.

2.2 All dissertation/projects will be Double Blind marked on a comment/mark concealed basis.

2.3 A sample of all assessed work will be made available for External Examiner scrutiny at SCQF

levels 9, 10 and 11.

2.4 A transparent moderation policy will be evidenced using the University Moderation

Template which will contribute to programme, School and institutional monitoring, in

addition to the External Examiner’s report. This will demonstrate the fairness, rigour and

equity of the assessment process to stakeholders.

2.5 The process of moderation must be included within Programme/ Module handbooks.

2.6 Challenges to this moderation process are acknowledged; for instance large cohorts and

teams of markers, assessment types such as practice placement assessment which may

require alternative approaches to moderation. These situations are addressed in the

principles below.

2.7 Alternative assessment arrangements required as a result of provisions under the Equality

Act 2010 are followed.

5 |

SECTION ONE: PRE-MODERATION

3 Principles informing confirmation of work set for assessment purposes

3.1 Prior to module delivery, all instruments of assessment must be internally reviewed.

External Examiners must be fully consulted on assignments, examination papers and

marking schemes for SCQF Levels 9 and above. This includes demonstrable consultation on

all summative assessment tasks (including resit activities) before issue to students.

3.2 The confirmation of assessment tasks should be informed by the following principles:

3.2.1 Assessment tasks are aligned with the learning outcomes of the module.

3.2.2 Assessment workload is appropriate to the credit value of the module being assessed,

particularly if there are multiple assessment components within the module.

3.2.3 Assignment briefs/examination papers are checked to ensure unambiguous questions and to

correct typographical /grammatical errors. Note that all multiple choice questions (MCQ)

and online examinations should have been tested and approved.

3.2.4 Assessment task instructions are expressed clearly with particular attention being given to

correct student guidance on examination papers.

3.2.5 Word limits and penalties for course work are communicated clearly to students.

3.2.6 Students are provided with module descriptors and marking schemes/criteria in assessment

briefs, at the commencement of the module and also detailed within module handbooks.

3.2.7 Assessment design has minimised opportunities for plagiarism and other forms of academic

misconduct.

3.2.8 Feedback process and timeframe for return of work is clearly stated within Programme/

Module handbooks and aligns with the University’s Student Performance Feedback

policy.

3.2.9 Alternative assessment arrangements required as a result of provisions under the Equality

Act 2010 are followed.

3.3 Assessment tasks should be internally reviewed against the above principles prior to being

sent to External Examiners. External Examiners should have a minimum of 10 working days

to consider assessment tasks and provide comments.

SECTION TWO: POST-MODERATION

4 Internal Moderation

All assessed work on taught undergraduate and postgraduate programmes (excluding

dissertation/projects) will be internally moderated as detailed below:

6 |

4.1 A sample of all assessed work will be Second / Double Marked, where the internal

moderator is informed of the first assessor’s marks and determines whether the marks

awarded appropriately reflect the standard of work and that the marking criteria have been

consistently applied. The Module Leader must arrange for a sample of assessments to be

selected for internal moderation. Normally 10% of work will be moderated (a minimum

sample size of 6 and a maximum sample size of 25)). Sampling should be conducted for

cohorts of 11 or more students. In the cases of smaller cohorts it may be appropriate to

moderate all pieces of work, rather than a sample.

4.2 The basis of selection of the sample will be transparent to the moderators. A full study

cohort list will be provided with the sample. Normally the sample will be agreed between

the marker and the moderator.

4.3 The sample will normally include marked scripts from each of the classification bands,

including borderlines (5% above pass mark) and fails.

4.4 Where a team of markers undertakes assessment, marked assessments from all first

markers must be included in the standard sample. Consideration will need to be given to

large cohorts with multiple markers, as to the number of scripts from each marker that will

contribute to the sample.

4.5 For large cohorts, where there is more than one marker, it is recommended that a sample of

work will be internally moderated before all marking is completed. This will assure the

standard and consistency of marking and pre-empt time delays in the assessment process

which might occur if extensive remarking was to be required.

4.6 Where a module is delivered by more than one teaching team, in more than one location, or

in more than one mode of delivery, a separate sample should be moderated for each

delivery and these cross-moderated.

4.7 In cases where the marker and the moderator are unable to produce an agreed mark, it shall

be the responsibility of the Module Leader to organise further assessment of the script by a

third appropriately experienced marker in order that a mark can be determined. In such

cases the third marker will determine the final mark to be awarded.

4.8 All individuals involved with marking or moderating scripts and determining a mark will

initial the assessment script.

4.9 The internal moderation process will NOT result in a change to the mark of an individual

student unless it occurs in the context of the outcomes detailed above. Any changes must

be considered in the context of the whole cohort.

5 External moderation

All assessed work on taught undergraduate and postgraduate programmes at SCQF

levels 9, 10 and 11 (excluding dissertations/projects) will be externally moderated as

detailed below:

7 |

5.1 The Module Leader must arrange for the same internally moderated sample of work to be

externally moderated by an External Examiner. An External Examiner may ask to see

additional work, or even the full module set, if he/she deems it necessary for effective

moderation.

5.2 The outcomes of the external moderation process will be:

a. The External Examiner confirms the module marks

b. The External Examiner recommends that a set of marks be scaled, either upward or

downwards or;

the External Examiner recommends the correction of marks that have been

calculated incorrectly, where both internal and external markers are in agreement.

c. The External Examiner confirms consistent and acceptable standards in written

feedback provided to students.

d. The External Examiner confirms the process of internal moderation was clearly

evidenced.

5.3 It will not be appropriate for an External Examiner to recommend adjustments to individual

marks awarded in a sample of work.

6 Moderation of dissertations/projects

For dissertation/project modules the principles outlined below will be followed:

6.1 All written elements associated with dissertations/projects will be Double Blind marked on a

mark/comment concealed basis.

6.2 In cases where the two markers are unable to produce an agreed mark, it shall be the

responsibility of the Dissertation/Project Coordinator to organise further assessment of the

written work by a third appropriately experienced marker in order that a mark can be

determined. In such cases, the third marker will determine the final mark to be awarded.

6.3 Markers will be carefully chosen by the Module Leader to limit the number of dissertations

which any one pair of staff can co-mark.

6.4 To ensure the transparency of the process the first and second markers will formally record

their independent assessments in advance of their meeting to negotiate an agreement. The

basis of the agreement reached will be formally noted and made available to the External

Examiner.

6.5 External Examiners are not asked to examine more than a standard sample of

dissertations/projects, but they will be asked to confirm in the External Examiner’s report

that the process of internal moderation was clearly evidenced.

2020/21 GCU Assessment Regulations currently state that all final level Projects and Dissertations will be

Double Blind marked, not written elements.

8 |

7 Further General Moderation Principles

7.1 It should be noted that as with internal moderation, the purpose of external moderation is

not to recommend adjustments to individual marks awarded in a sample of work, but to

assure standards and consistency overall.

7.2 There will be a transparent evidence/audit trail of the processes of internal and external

moderation which will be recorded using the standardised University Moderation

Templates. This will include a clear articulation justifying mark adjustments.

7.3 In addition to confirming the standard and consistency of marking, it is expected that

internal and external moderators will comment on the quality of feedback provided by the

first marker.

7.4 Students should be provided with a single mark and a set of feedback comments on their

assessed work, as agreed by the markers. The feedback given on their performance in the

assignment must be consistent with the final assigned mark.

7.5 Particular arrangements should be considered for moderation of work that is first marked by

those who may be less familiar with the assessment process. These arrangements might

include Double Blind rather than Second/ Double Marking or moderation of a larger sample.

7.6 It is expected that a schedule, mapping the moderation milestones, will be agreed. This will

include the process by which students’ work will be made available to the External Examiner,

taking into account whether scripts will be delivered by post/electronically, made available

through the University’s VLE or during attendance at the University prior to the Assessment

Board.

7.7 Moderated work should normally be available for External Examiner scrutiny a minimum of

10 working days before the Assessment Board.

7.8 Oversight of the moderation process will be achieved through:

 The annual monitoring of completed External Examiners’ reports.

 Departmental/ School monitoring of completed University Moderation Templates as

part of Annual Programme Monitoring.

7.9 Whilst multiple choice papers and online examinations cannot be moderated in the same

way as other forms of assessment, certain quality assurance processes will be employed

including:

 All multiple choice questions/ online examinations will have been tested before students

sit the assessment.

Through embedding this principle within the policy, peer support for student feedback is being encouraged.

9 |

 All multiple choice papers/ online examinations will have been checked for accuracy and

instructions before students sit the assessment.

 The process for awarding marks/calculating the final mark will have been will been

checked before students sit the assessment.

7.10 Consideration should be given to internal and external moderation of practical, oral or

practice placement assessments. Moderation processes may need to be adapted to

accommodate these alternative approaches to assessment e.g. through video recording,

provision of students’ slides/ handouts, presence of External Examiner.

7.11 Where variations from standard University practice are required these should be subject to

formal approval by the School’s Associate Dean (Learning, Teaching and Quality), following

consultation with the External Examiner.

Attention is drawn to:

 UK Quality Code for Higher Education (publication date: 3

May 2018)

 UK Quality Code for Higher Education, Advice and Guidance: Assessment (publication date: 29

November 2018)