Hi all,
This is a really interesting thread and a timely one for me as I'm halfway through producing a guide for staff on double marking and moderation that addresses many of the issue raised here. I'll post a link to the finished item which I'll release under a CC licence when complete. I'd really love to interview colleagues who've been doing interesting things - e.g. Alison's experience of benchmarking - for inclusion on the guide if they'd be happy to contribute.
I think the Sunderland academic Paul mentions is Maddelena Taras - she's produced a few articles on variability of marks.
Another really good article is by Sue Bloxam (2009). She argues that the marking and moderation of student work raises the core epistemological question of how academics’ knowledge of what constitutes a `good’ or `bad’ piece of assessed work is constructed. She answers her question by claiming that:
[i]t is created through a social process involving dialogue and experience and using artefacts such as assignment guidance and assessment criteria but, in essence, it remains essentially an individual construct, heavily influenced by traditions in the subject discipline. Staff who work closely together may develop shared understandings and, therefore, in the local setting, there is greater potential for reliable marking.(218)
Bloxam’s argument is informed by the work of Elton and Johnston (2002) and the distinction they make between so-called ‘positivist’ and ‘interpretivist’ approaches to assessment. The positivist approach stresses the importance of validity and reliability and assumes that objective standards can be set. The interpretivist approach, on the other hand, rejects claims to objectivity and views assessment as a social practice whose standards emerge from a community of practice sharing a common understanding of what constitutes accepted knowledge, rules and procedures.
Other researchers (Swann and Ecclestone 1999; Klenowski and Elwood 2002) have argued that common standards become established amongst more cohesive staff teams through a repertoire of practices that include the activities of double marking and moderation.They don't mention the practice of benchmarking although the example provided by Alison supports this too.
Best, Tony
Bloxham, S. (2009). Marking and moderation in the UK: false assumptions and wasted resources. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2): 209-220.
Hand, L. and Clewes, D. (2000). Marking the difference: An investigation of the criteria used for assessing undergraduate dissertations in a business school. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(1): 5-21.
Klenowski, V. and Elwood, J. (2002). Creating communities of shared practice: The challenges of assessment use in learning and teaching. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(3): 243-56.
Orr, S. (2007). Assessment moderation: Constructing the marks and constructing the students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(6): 645-56.
Partington, J. (1994). Double-marking students work. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 19(1): 57-60.
Price, M. (2005). Assessment standards: The role of communities of practice and the scholarship of assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 30(3): 215-30.
Swann, J. and Ecclestone, K. (1999). Litigation and learning: Tensions in improving university lecturers assessment practice. Assessment in Education, 6(3): 357-75.
|