Moderation Checklist
The aim of moderation is to ensure that assessment is fair, valid and reliable. Moderation is
especially needed when assessment involves large units or multiple markers, occurs on
different campuses or in different countries, is subjective or different assessment tasks are
used for different students.
The following checklist can be used by unit coordinators to improve TNE moderation.
Not all items will be essential and TNE situations may make it necessary to change,
adapt or omit some step. The checklist covers three phases (illustrated in Figure 1
below):
Assessment design and development
Implementation, marking and grading
Review and evaluation
Assessment
Design and
Development
Moderation of
Assessment
Implementation
Review and
Marking and
Evaluation
Grading
Figure 1: Phases in Moderation of Assessment
This Project interprets moderation of assessment more broadly than just a quality
control measure around marking work. This is because marking alone and reviewing
allocated grades does not guarantee quality assessment. This Project sees moderation
as processes and activities that occur before assessment is implemented (i.e. quality
assurance), as well as those that occur after assessment is undertaken by
students (i.e. quality control).
ALTC Moderation for Fair Assessment in Transnational Learning and Teaching Project (2008-2010) Page 1
Phase 1: Assessment design and development
Have your assessment items been subjected to review?
Does the assessment match the unit learning objectives/outcomes of the
subject/course?
Are assessment items as objective and fair as possible, taking into account
learning styles, English language, cultural and tacit knowledge?
Is there a possible cultural bias in your assessment items?
Do you vary types of assessment? (e.g. essays, reports, presentations,
responding to case studies, short answers)
Do you negotiate assessment criteria and marking keys with the entire
teaching team prior to finalising them?
Do you discuss different cultural concepts of merit (e.g. student works hard
but assessment item is not of a high standard – should they be rewarded for
their hard work?)
Are your assessment criteria clear and detailed for students and those
marking in all contexts?
Do you emphasise merit in the context of your university’s expectations?
Are your marking keys/rubrics clear and detailed for those marking in all
contexts?
Are students familiar with the assessment criteria and marking key?
Are markers familiar with the assessment criteria and marking key?
Have you held a real or virtual round table with all who are marking in the
unit to discuss requirements, standards and possible divergent types of
answers to assessment questions?
Do your exams give enough time and contextual keys to those for whom
English is not a first language?
Phase 2: Implementation, marking and grading
Do markers cross mark assignments from a cohort in the subject other than
the one they directly teach?
If there are multiple markers, have you held a consensus marking meeting?
If the same assessment items are used on different campuses, have you
conducted a consensus marking exercise?
If markers are marking large numbers over an extended period of time, do
they review earlier marked items?
Is a sample of assessment items double marked and compared?
For subjective assessment, does double blind marking occur?
Does the same marker mark all of the same assessment items?
Are students’ assessment items anonymous?
For subjective assessment, does panel marking occur?
Do you discuss student work that attains very high or very low marks with
the markers?
Do you compare marking ranges across different cohorts and markers?
Do you give timely and sensitive feedback to markers who may be marking
too ‘high’ or ‘low’ so they can adjust their marking?
Do you provide your markers with a spreadsheet or similar showing all
marks and the range of marks for each marker?
ALTC Moderation for Fair Assessment in Transnational Learning and Teaching Project (2008-2010) Page 2
Phase 3: Review and evaluation
Have you avoided post-assessment scaling of marks?
Have potential marking biases been identified and addressed?
Have you completed a moderation report for each assessment item?
Has your teaching team contributed to the moderation report?
In these discussions and reports have you identified any communication
issues between yourself and the teaching team?
In these discussions and reports have you identified any cultural issues in
assessment and its moderation?
Have you completed a unit report that includes analysis of moderation,
actions for improvement in curriculum and assessment when next taught?
ALTC Moderation for Fair Assessment in Transnational Learning and Teaching Project (2008-2010) Page 3