Page 60 - E-book 2012-13 final draft
P. 60
Enlightening Teaching & Research
consistently and fairly by all markers in a course. Comparison of content of the student work that is being assessed. Such notions
grade distributions across markers is also an effective mechanism can and must not affect student grades. Wanting to give particular
as it can reveal inconsistencies among assessors and those students a better mark to encourage them is a similar matter. It is
marking more or less generously. Many universities insist that simply not fair or appropriate to increase marks because markers
cross moderation is undertaken in all courses where there is more want to encourage specific students in their efforts.
than one staff member in an attempt to ensure that a consistent
standard has been upheld in the course, and in so doing, each Another way in which markers can be tempted to give
course contributes to assuring the overall standard of the award (e.g., students better grades than what might be deserved occurs when
Bachelor of Education). Universities that require cross moderation the power of student evaluations of teaching are considered.
usually have other conditions that must be satisfied. These might Some markers can be more generous because they are ultimately
include that a percentage of all assignments in a course are cross- concerned about course evaluations and the ratings students assign
moderated (e.g., minimum 10%), that a range of work is included to their classes. While all teachers would like complimentary ratings
(e.g., strong, average, weak), and that all assignments assessed as from students, assessing students more generously because of a
failing or ‘borderline’ are cross-moderated. Assessment tasks such perceived link to how well students will evaluate their teaching at
as participation in class and multiple choice tests or examinations the end of a course should be avoided at all costs. Marking more
should be exempt from moderation. generously provides students with a deceptive assessment of
their performance that cannot be substantiated when measured
Individual markers can uphold consistent and fair against the outcomes and the standard at which the outcomes have
approaches in several ways. It is tempting for some markers to want been met. Not only is this unfair, but it also provides inaccurate
to give students better marks for trying hard or for doing their best. information which can in turn lead students to think that they are
This is more likely if students have had discussions with markers performing better than they are. A flow on effect occurs when
about the assignment task, if markers have some knowledge of students are disappointed if they do not receive similar marks from
individual students and their attempts at the particular assignment, other assessors. That is, they might think that they are performing
or if markers have read previous drafts of assignments and at the same standard but receive lower marks. However, the lower
provided written feedback where the assessment is formative. To marks may be an accurate assessment of how the outcomes have
this end, some departments have policies that prevent markers been addressed on a particular assessment item. These more
from providing written feedback on drafts because of issues of subjective temptations are examples of where fairness, consistency
fairness, especially where the assessment is summative. That is, and the integrity of markers is at stake; and they can also be where
as markers do not have time to provide written feedback to drafts invisible elements creep into assessment procedures. Nevertheless,
from all students, it is unfair to provide written feedback to any these more subjective aspects of assessing student work are not
students. To return to the matter of markers being tempted to give always invisible. Some university teachers think that it is perfectly
students better marks for trying hard or for doing their best, such reasonable to give some students higher marks to encourage them,
subjective approaches are better avoided as they have no relation or because they have tried hard, or done their best, and make such
to the outcomes or criteria against which items are assessed; or the arguments to the teaching team. In terms of the outcomes against
46 47
consistently and fairly by all markers in a course. Comparison of content of the student work that is being assessed. Such notions
grade distributions across markers is also an effective mechanism can and must not affect student grades. Wanting to give particular
as it can reveal inconsistencies among assessors and those students a better mark to encourage them is a similar matter. It is
marking more or less generously. Many universities insist that simply not fair or appropriate to increase marks because markers
cross moderation is undertaken in all courses where there is more want to encourage specific students in their efforts.
than one staff member in an attempt to ensure that a consistent
standard has been upheld in the course, and in so doing, each Another way in which markers can be tempted to give
course contributes to assuring the overall standard of the award (e.g., students better grades than what might be deserved occurs when
Bachelor of Education). Universities that require cross moderation the power of student evaluations of teaching are considered.
usually have other conditions that must be satisfied. These might Some markers can be more generous because they are ultimately
include that a percentage of all assignments in a course are cross- concerned about course evaluations and the ratings students assign
moderated (e.g., minimum 10%), that a range of work is included to their classes. While all teachers would like complimentary ratings
(e.g., strong, average, weak), and that all assignments assessed as from students, assessing students more generously because of a
failing or ‘borderline’ are cross-moderated. Assessment tasks such perceived link to how well students will evaluate their teaching at
as participation in class and multiple choice tests or examinations the end of a course should be avoided at all costs. Marking more
should be exempt from moderation. generously provides students with a deceptive assessment of
their performance that cannot be substantiated when measured
Individual markers can uphold consistent and fair against the outcomes and the standard at which the outcomes have
approaches in several ways. It is tempting for some markers to want been met. Not only is this unfair, but it also provides inaccurate
to give students better marks for trying hard or for doing their best. information which can in turn lead students to think that they are
This is more likely if students have had discussions with markers performing better than they are. A flow on effect occurs when
about the assignment task, if markers have some knowledge of students are disappointed if they do not receive similar marks from
individual students and their attempts at the particular assignment, other assessors. That is, they might think that they are performing
or if markers have read previous drafts of assignments and at the same standard but receive lower marks. However, the lower
provided written feedback where the assessment is formative. To marks may be an accurate assessment of how the outcomes have
this end, some departments have policies that prevent markers been addressed on a particular assessment item. These more
from providing written feedback on drafts because of issues of subjective temptations are examples of where fairness, consistency
fairness, especially where the assessment is summative. That is, and the integrity of markers is at stake; and they can also be where
as markers do not have time to provide written feedback to drafts invisible elements creep into assessment procedures. Nevertheless,
from all students, it is unfair to provide written feedback to any these more subjective aspects of assessing student work are not
students. To return to the matter of markers being tempted to give always invisible. Some university teachers think that it is perfectly
students better marks for trying hard or for doing their best, such reasonable to give some students higher marks to encourage them,
subjective approaches are better avoided as they have no relation or because they have tried hard, or done their best, and make such
to the outcomes or criteria against which items are assessed; or the arguments to the teaching team. In terms of the outcomes against
46 47
