Aims/Objectives of the presentation: Share the results of a trial collaborative moderation approach in IKC101 and the implications for future assessment moderation practices.
Introduction/Background: Assessment moderation is recognised as an important process which aims to ensure reliability, validity, consistency, and fairness in assessment practices. Moderation of marking is especially important for high enrolment, multi-cohort subjects with large marking teams. In practice, however, moderation processes struggle to secure consistency due to challenges in managing large marking teams, often leading to rigid processes and poor transparency within team and individual approaches (Beutel, et al., 2015). We argue that marking moderation needs to go beyond processes which creates the perception of accountability. Instead, it should aim to support ongoing academic development of both staff and students, to improve teaching and learning. In light of this, we have trialled innovative marking moderation approaches. This presentation reports the findings from a trial collaborative marking moderation approach in a previous session of IKC101. A collaborative approach was chosen in response to previous SES data which reported students perceived a lack of consistency and fairness with marking feedback and grades. Trial findings indicate that collaborative approaches may present a practical solution to improving consistency and transparency in marking and moderation.
Methods: Collaborative moderation was trialled in IKC101 202430. This was a large (800+ students) multi-cohort subject with blended delivery, three assessment tasks and 21 markers. Two experienced academics performed collaborative moderation for assessments 2 and 3, reviewing student papers, grades, and marker feedback. These assessments where chosen based on previous SES data and self-reported maker feedback from prior sessions. Student reported negative experiences of the marking for assessments 2 and 3, notably that: feedback was confusing or unclear, marks were inconsistent, and the process lacked transparency.
Results:
*Approximately double the number of assessments were moderated in the same timeframe than in 202390. This contributed to an increase in the average assessment grade from PS to CR in both A2 and A3.
*Anecdotally, teaching staff reported that students grade/feedback queries were notably decreased from prior sessions.
*Overall student grade for 202430 was CR, increasing from PS in the previous 4 sessions. Decreased AA’s: 13 compared to 37 in 202390.
Discussion: Anecdotal and self-reported data indicated increased confidence in decision making, more certainty in adjusting marks, and less stress from the moderation process. Moderators reported the process was more comprehensive; able to moderate more papers, and greater confidence that papers were moderated to a high standard, as “two sets of eyes were checking”. Reported a sense of “sharing the load” and working collaboratively to achieve a better outcome for the marking team and students alike.
Conclusion: Adopting a collaborative moderation approach offers benefits in terms of reducing the stress and potential for error that can be present for individual moderation. Collaborative moderation offers further opportunity to gather valuable feedback to support ongoing marker development, emphasising a team approach to marking.
