Marking

Leslie Croxford & Kevin Millam

Purpose

To help you to… mark consistently assess consistently develop robust assessment systems

…in line with the expectations of a British university

...and to support revalidation of the BUE

Assessment assumptions

Students can fail The good students

should have the chance to show that they are good

There aren’t any trick questions

You mark what you see, not what you hope to see

One person doesn’t decide their mark

You should mark using the full range

Students know how they are going to be assessed

The assessment criteria are clear to all

Abilities – and marks – are distributed reasonably normally

How can we make these happen?

“reasonably normally”

Distributions compared

The following slides show BUE and Loughborough mark distributions

The right-hand columns show the Programme marks.

Loughborough engineering

Comment

The BUE programme distributions are sometimes very different from those at Loughborough…

Comment 2

These are, of course, the aggregate of module marks

In a British university the module marks would show a somewhat similar distribution

In the BUE the module marks are markedly different

These very different module marks can cancel each other out to produce less extreme programme distributions.

Module marking

“Firstly, a large number of modules, particularly at Year 1 level, had very low averages (with some below credit level) and large numbers of students failing to achieve credit.”

“Secondly, a large number of modules, particularly at Year 3 level, had very high averages (above 70 or even 80%) and disproportionate numbers of students gaining grade A.”

“In some cases the same group of students was achieving averages below 40% or above 70% in different modules.”

Lessons from this

BUE marking tends to be:

Inconsistent across modules Within too narrow a range Not sufficiently challenging Not sufficiently discriminating Not sufficiently scrutinised

The University’s performance standards

The performance standards:% Grade Egyptian

Equivalent %GPA

77 and above A+ 89 and above 4.0 74-76 A 87-88 3.9 70-73 A- 85-86 3.7 67-69 B+ 82-84 3.5 64-66 B 79-81 3.1 60-63 B- 75-78 2.7 57-59 C+ 72-74 2.5 54-56 C 69-71 2.3 50-53 C- 65-68 2.0 47-49 D+ 60-64 1.8 44-46 D 55-59 1.6 40-43 D- 50-54 1.3 Less than 40 F Less than 50 0

“assessment criteria are clear”

Imagine these questions from a student… “What will get me a mark of 90%?” “What will get me a mark of 70%?” “What will get me a mark of 50%?” “What will get me a mark of 30%?”

How would you answer them?

Why generic assessment criteria?

By having Generic Assessment Criteria, the University aims to promote: transparency in the assessment process; consistency in marking; understanding of the way in which the

assessment process works between staff and students, and between markers;

discussion about standards; effective feedback to students;

demonstrate to the outside world the standards that BUE students have met.

Format of the Generic Assessment Criteria 1

The Generic Assessment Criteria are at four levels: Preparatory Year – Level P Year 1 - Certificate Level Year 2 - Intermediate Level Year 3&4 - Honours Level

Levels correspond to the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ)

Format of the Generic Assessment Criteria 2

The Generic Assessment Criteria have been structured in such a way as to indicate a student’s intellectual progression and development at each stage of the learning experience.

There are two sets of Generic Assessment Criteria: Generic Assessment Criteria for qualitative work Generic Assessment Criteria for work

quantitative work

Format of the Generic Assessment Criteria 3

The Generic Assessment Criteria assess a number of key areas:

Qualitative assessment criteria Quantitative assessment criteria

1.Content2.Application of theory3.Knowledge and understanding4.Evidence of reading 5.Referencing and bibliography 6.Presentation, grammar and spelling

1.Knowledge and understanding2.Problem solving3.Calculations4.Analysis and interpretation5.Presentation of work

Using the Generic Assessment Criteria to develop mark schemes 1

Assessment criteria can be considered as learning outcomes that have been further elaborated by the addition of a performance qualifier, i.e. they detail not only what is to be done, but how well it is to be done.

It is within the assessment criteria that is established the standard of work required at each level of a module.

Using the Generic Assessment Criteria to develop mark schemes 1

Standards need to be specified with respect to the level of the module, the subject being assessed and the style of assessment being deployed.

Differentiated assessment criteria need to specify the qualities expected of the various grades.

Using the Generic Assessment Criteria to develop mark schemes 3

Departmental assessment criteria should:

reflect the University’s Generic Assessment Criteria

reflect the year of study include the essential criteria required be simple to use allow for brief global impressions be given to the students before they do the

assessment encourage students to use the criteria

Setting up marking workshops & ensuring effective marking

Key responsibilities – who should convene & facilitate

Who should attend Length & format of sessions Documents required Resolution of marks Outcomes Monitoring

Review & moderation of final marks

Module Leaders should meet their team to:  review the overall distribution of marks review fails review borderline marks identify any students with missing marks confirm the accuracy and completeness

of marks for the module