Marking and moderation in the UK: false assumptions and wasted resources
By Sue Bloxham *. 2009
184 citations recorded by the source corpus.
This article challenges a number of assumptions underlying marking of student work in British universities. It argues that, in developing rigorous moderation procedures, we have created a huge burden for markers which adds little to accuracy and reliability but creates additional work for staff, constrains assessment choices and slows down feedback to students. In this under‐researched area of higher education, the article will explore whether there are other ways to provide confidence in marking and grading. These might divert this energy into productive activities with useful outcomes for students and learning.
Subfields: Education
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5d8967d55163bd8358118a2c73f4f17e4ba057a4
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Education
- David Boud
- N. Winstone
- Sue Bloxham *
- D. Carless
- Phillip Dawson
- Emma Medland
- David J. Nicol
- R. Warhurst
Citations in the corpus
- Mark my words: the role of assessment criteria in UK higher education grading practices (2011, background): “Nevertheless, it allows for an element of professional and local interpretation, and there is considerable evidence that inconsistency in marking exists (Bloxham 2009 ).”
- The need to disentangle assessment and feedback in higher education (2020, background): “Whilst moderation processes are likely to differ between countries, in the UK context Bloxham (2009) identifies that such processes increase the time taken to return work to students.”