Marking and Moderation

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Business Overview

In schools or universities, after examinations, there always have assessment process as a part of quality
assurance. Marking and moderation are to ensure that assessment processes are rigorous, reliable and fair,
all credit bearing student work (i.e. marks which count towards students’ final award) is subject to a moderation
process. Essentially moderation is the process in which student work is moderated by an independent marker
to check that marking standards are appropriate and have been applied consistently and fairly.
The purpose of moderation is to bring the marking of an internally assessed component/unit to an agreed
standard in all participating centres.
It needs to identify the regulatory framework for the marking and moderation during the assessment of
students’ examinations for various schools, colleges, universities regulated by SEAB (Singapore).
Moderation helps examiners / centre to either confirm or adjust their initial judgments. The process involves
examiners sharing evidence of learning / testing and collaborating to establish a shared understanding of what
quality of evidence looks like. Schools use moderation to increase dependability of teacher judgments.

1.2 About JNS

JNS, is a wholly Australian owned company, is a pioneer in the development and delivery of award-winning
learning and assessment technologies, with more than one million users across the health, education, finance
and government sectors.
It operates through two businesses, from classroom education and online learning for RTOs, to personalised
workplace mandatory training and tracking; from massive open online courses (MOOC) to cutting-edge
collaborative assessment and high-stakes examinations:
− JNS Learning, which provides an online enterprise learning platform, integrated with content and
advisory services; and
− JNS Assessment, which provides a digital assessment platform for both transitioning paper based
testing and for new digital exams.
JNS platforms are used by a variety of enterprise clients that include corporates, government departments,
tertiary institutions, vocational institutions and resellers. JNS generates revenue from its platforms (licencing
the platform to clients on a SaaS model), services (time charging for implementing and amending the systems)
and from curating and selling third party learning content. JNS employs a team of approximately 80 employees
located in Australia, New Zealand and Singapore and leverages a networked virtual model of contractors to
provide lower cost extended support coverage.

1.3 Basic Concepts

1.3.1. Coursework
Coursework is work performed by students for the purpose of learning. Coursework can encompass a wide
range of activities, including practice, experimentation, research, and writing (e.g., dissertations, book reports,
and essays). In the case of students at universities, high schools and middle schools, coursework is often
graded and the scores are combined with those of separately assessed exams to determine overall course
scores. In contrast to exams, students may be allotted several days or weeks to complete coursework, and
are often allowed to use text books, notes, and the Internet for research.
In universities, students are usually required to perform coursework to broaden knowledge, enhance research
skills, and demonstrate that they can discuss, reason and construct practical outcomes from learned
theoretical knowledge. Sometimes coursework is performed by a group so that students can learn both how
to work in groups and from each other.

1.3.2. Moderation
Moderation of examiner’s work (coursework, practicals and examination scripts) ensures the use of agreed
marking criteria, comparability and equity of standards, consistency and fairness of marking and meeting the
expectations of the SEAB.

1
Moderation is concerned with the consistency, comparability and fairness of professional judgements about
the levels demonstrated by students.
In the detail, moderation aims to ensure that:
− Markers are operating to the same academic standards, particularly in respect
− to important grade boundaries (classifications, pass/fail)
− The academic standards are appropriate to the subject and the level and
− comply with the either the School’s Undergraduate or Postgraduate marking
− Scheme, whichever is appropriate.
− Assessments set reflect the content of the course as described in the Unit
− Template and Course Outline.
− Assessment is cogent, coherent and appropriate
− Administrative errors are kept to a minimum

1.3.3. Marking
TBD

1.3.4. Types of Moderation

Moderation can be undertaken by:
− Repository: Candidate material is uploaded to the Repository or the likes by the centre. It is moderated
by moderator and the moderation is sampled by supervisor via the Repository.
− Post: Candidate material is posted by the centre to the assessor. It is moderated by moderator and the
moderation is sampled by the supervisor via post.
− Visit: Candidate material is moderated by the assessor at the centre. The supervisor may be required to
accompany the moderator to ensure the centre’s standard is being applied.

1.3.5. Sampling for Moderation

When moderating, it must consider the sample in the context of the centre as a whole, looking for trends and
patterns in the internal marking. It must not review the work with a view to changing the marks of individual
candidates in isolation, but with a view to ensuring that the agreed standard is applied to all candidates. This
is a fundamental principle that applies to all moderation.
A regression algorithm will recommend any adjustments to the centre’s marks based on the decisions making
based on the sample reviewed.
The sample algorithm will select the sub, full, and additional samples of work for moderation. The selection
can be based on marks (e.g., fails, firsts, borderlines)
The sample will be selected using the following common criteria:
− Where there are 15 or fewer candidates: the centre is instructed to send the complete work of all
candidates.
− Where there are more than 15 candidates: the sample algorithm will select the total sample as follows

1.3.6. Auditing
An audit of assessment material is distinct from second marking. Auditing is an additional check to ensure that
all pages/questions have been marked (by both markers) and that marks have been totalled correctly and

2
there are no arithmetical or other errors in the marking process. As no academic decisions are taking place,
auditing can be carried out by an administrative member of staff. By definition, auditing can only take place
once second marking has occurred.

1.3.7. Scaling
Scaling: The process of applying an arithmetic adjustment to the marks obtained during the marking process,
so that the marks which result after scaling is applied more accurately reflect student learning and achievement
against the assessment component or module learning outcomes.

1.4 Glossary

Term Description
Coursework Assessment Task.

Assessment tasks must be verified internally before being published to students. This is
CAT
to ensure assessment tasks are consistent, that tasks are appropriate to testing the
module learning outcomes and that marking criteria and feedback strategies are clear
and appropriate.
CDN is a globally distributed network of web servers whose purpose is to provide faster
CDN, delivery, and highly available content. The content is replicated throughout the CDN so
it exists in many places all at once. A client accesses a copy of the data near to the
Content client, as opposed to all clients accessing the same central server, in order to avoid
Delivery bottlenecks near that server.
Network
For further study: GlobalDots.
Credit The process by which credits for modules taken may be accumulated and
Accumluation retrospectively brought together to qualify the student for an award.
The system which allows students to move between programmes and institutions,
Credit Transfer
taking with them the credit earned on modules taken.
Written or practical work done by a student during a course of study, usually assessed
Coursework
in order to count toward a final mark or grade.
GPA Grade Point Average
iExams Exam Administration System
Marking The assignment of marks to the assessments of individual students.
Moderation is the process of assuring that assessments have been marked in an
Moderation academically rigorous manner with reference to agreed marking criteria
It aims at bringing assessment judgements and standards into alignment.
Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board.
SEAB is a statutory board under the Ministry of Education (MOE) of Singapore.

SEAB assesses educational performance so as to certify individuals, uphold national

standards and advance quality in assessment worldwide. It seeks to ensure quality in
educational assessment, research and related services to serve the needs of its
customers by supplying excellent assessment instruments and services, delivering
SEAB reliable information to facilitate decision-making, extending premier consultancy
services, contributing to the field of assessment and discussions on educational
matters, and embracing a culture of innovation.

The following national examinations are regulated by the SEAB:

− Primary school examinations
− Secondary school examinations
− Examinations for tertiary education
SEAB e- It is an extension of SEAB e-Exam system developed by JNS Solutions Pty Ltd to
Moderation manage end to end process for marking and moderating coursework submissions. It is
Syste a modern multi-tenanted, plugin-based, scalable and extensible web application.

3
 For example, a group of markers all independently mark a sample of pieces of student
work and compare and discuss the outcomes in order to establish that all markers are
Standardisation applying the agreed criteria consistently. Following the activity, the markers continue to
of Marking mark student work in the normal way. Marking standardisation exercises such as this can
be used in addition to moderation/second marking – it is particularly useful as a means of
assisting new staff to become familiar with marking standards and conventions.

2. MODERATION BUSINESS

2.1 Marking Process

TBD

2.2 Moderation Process

Moderation is the process used to assure that assessment outcomes are fair and reliable, and that assessment
criteria have been applied consistently. Any moderation method must be proportionate to ensure fairness,
reliability and consistent application of the criteria.
It is not always necessary for all work to be moderated. In many circumstances, it is sufficient for a sample of
assessments to be moderated. Where multiple markers are used to mark a batch of assessments, sampling
should be undertaken with regard to each marker rather than with regard to the whole batch of assessments.
A number of approaches to moderation can be applied, all of which may be undertaken on a sample only:
a) Double blind marking: where a piece of work is marked by two markers independently, who agree a final
mark for the assessment. Neither marker is aware of the other’s mark when formulating his/her own mark.
b) Double open marking: where a piece of work is marked by two markers, who agree a final mark for the
assessment.
c) Check marking: where an assessment is read by a second marker to determine whether the mark
awarded by the first marker is appropriate.

Where double marking or check marking is applied as the method of moderation the marking team should
agree a final set of marks for the whole cohort and if they cannot agree a final mark, a third marker should be
used to adjudicate an agreed mark.
These processes should also identify the marking patterns of individual markers to facilitate comparisons and
identify inconsistencies.
Where model answers are agreed by staff marking assessments, it is allowable for these assessments not to
be moderated. However, the model answer must be reviewed and agreed by at least two markers in advance.
Sampling: it is appropriate for sampling to be applied to all the methods of moderation set out above. Where
sampling is employed, the following must be adhered to:
− At least 10% or a minimum of 10 (whichever is greater) of the submitted assessments must be moderated;
− The sample must cover the full range of marks.

A sample of work should be selected for review. This will include the work of all students who have failed the
module (or component) and a 5% sample from each degree class or across the range of marks where the
degree is not classified. For those modules with small numbers, a sample greater than 5% should be used to
cover all classifications awarded. This must include at least one script or piece of work from each degree class
where this exists.
Moderation at module level should be completed prior to the responsible Pre-Board. Where double marking
or moderation is applied at component level this should, where feasible, be completed prior to the release of
component marks to students, or otherwise prior to the responsible Pre-Board.
The moderator is asked to confirm that the final module class is consistent with the University Descriptors for
that level or any more local guidance such as an approved set of assessment descriptors by level. Alternatively,
for a failing student, they are asked to confirm that the student has not met the module learning outcomes, and

4
the more general descriptors provided at University and national level. If the work has not already been double
marked, they will also want to assure themselves that the marking is in line with the marking scheme.
Except where arithmetic aggregation has been automated, this must be double checked as part of the
moderation process. Moderation should also confirm that all pages in the sample have been marked, for
example that they have been annotated using red ink, and that all marks in the sample have been correctly
transcribed.
If the moderation process identifies concerns about the marking standards of the sample or has identified a
systematic error in marking or marks processing, this should be communicated to the Module Lead. The
Module Lead will then review the work, consider the concerns raised, discuss the issue with the marker(s),
and respond to the moderator(s) to indicate what action they intend to take, if any. Appropriate actions include
re-marking with the original scheme, re-marking with a new marking scheme, adjusting the weighting of (sub)
components, or scaling. Where the proposed action may adjust marks this must occur in a systematic and
considered way so that all affected work is treated equally and not just the moderated sample.

The moderation report and Module Lead’s response should be documented and communicated to the external
examiner and Pre-Board so that they may decide whether to accept the response or require further action. If
concerns are raised by the external examiner or at the Pre-Board, then these must be considered again at the
Board of Examiners before the final marks are ratified.
When marks are returned to students prior to the Board of Examiners, this must be with the caveat that they
are provisional until they have been ratified by the responsible Board of Examiners. Students should be notified
of any subsequent changes to their unratified marks in a timely fashion.
Moderation should be applied as described above to each new batch of student work even in cases such as
referrals or repeats where the same assessment may be repeated in a later year or within the same year.
A module may include some smaller elements of assessed work which cannot be moderated efficiently. These
items might be, for example, worksheets which are marked quickly and returned to students, smaller
presentations, or assessed laboratories. Such elements may be omitted from the moderation process provided
the following principles are satisfied:
a) the omitted elements contribute at most 20% to the overall module,
b) the moderator(s) review the same assessment elements for each student in the sample,
c) these elements enable the moderator to confirm that the final module class is consistent with the
relevant descriptors and outcomes.
In the case of major presentation/performance assignments, either a sample should be moderated at the time
of the event or the presentation/performance arrangements, marking sheet and criteria should be approved in
advance. Alternatively (or additionally) the presentation/performance could be recorded to allow for
subsequent moderation*. Where a sample is to be moderated, this should include a selection from all markers
to ensure alignment with the agreed marking criteria.

Further reference of moderation process:

[Link]

2.3 Scaling of Marks

The purpose of scaling is to rectify anomalies in mark distributions that arise from unanticipated circumstances
and should be used in exceptional circumstances only. Hence, the assessment criteria and practices for any
module that has its marks scaled should be reviewed in order to reduce the chance that scaling will be
necessary in subsequent years.
Where scaling is employed for adjusting agreed assessment marks within a module to correct abnormal group
performance, the following rules must be adhered to:
• The raw marks, together with the rationale under which they were awarded, must always be made
available to the Assessment, Progression and Awarding Committee.

5
• Scaling must not unfairly benefit or disadvantage a subset of students (e.g. failures). This means that any
scaling function applied to a set of marks must be monotonically increasing, i.e. it must not reverse the
rank-order of any pair of students. The definition of any scaling function used (its domain) must
encompass the full range of raw marks from 0 to 100%. For example, 'Add 3 marks to all students' or
'Multiply all marks by a factor of 0.96' are both valid scaling functions. 'Add 4 marks to all failures and
leave the rest unchanged.' is not acceptable because it would cause a student whose raw mark was 39
(a fail) to leapfrog a student who got 41 (a pass).
• External Examiners must always be consulted about the process.
• The rationale for scaling and the impact on marks must be clearly recorded in the minutes by the
Assessment, Progression and Awarding Committee.
• The system used to identify modules as potential candidates for scaling must be transparent.

2.4 Good Practices for Marking and Moderation

It wishes to highlight the following examples of good practice with regard second marking and moderation:
− A marking criteria for each assessment and model answers should be provided to the markers (and
External Examiners)
− Departments should let their External Examiners and students know the method of marking used per
assignment e.g. open or blind double marking or check marking. For students, this information should be
included in the student handbook.
− Double marking (blind or open) is considered good practice
− All scripts/essays/reports/dissertations and coursework (which counts towards a candidates final degree
classification) should be annotated to show 1st and 2nd marking has taken place
− For double marking, a marking cover note should indicate 1st and 2nd markers’ assessment per question
− For check marking, a marking cover note should indicate whether the 2nd marker agrees with the first
marker
− Different coloured pens should been used by each marker
− Each marker should initial each page to confirm it has been read
− All comments from each marker with regards to marks awarded should be included
− Each marker should indicate whether they are acting as College Examiner, Assistant Examiner or
Assessor and whether they are acting as first or second marker
− Markers should know in advance how differences in marks will be resolved
− Where a 3rd party intervenes when marks cannot be agreed by the first and second marker this should
be clearly noted on the cover note. (The third party should normally be another College Examiner, but
may be the External Examiner)
− An explanation should be provided on how final marks were agreed where marks awarded by each marker
differ
− Each marker should sign to confirm agreed marks
− It is good practice to carry out an audit of scripts prior to sending to the External Examiner(s).
− An adequate sample of scripts/essays/reports/dissertations and coursework (which counts towards a
candidates final degree classification) should be made available for External Examiner(s) to view – this
will normally be material from the top, the middle and the bottom of the range, all borderline (e.g., +/-
2.5%) material and all material assessed internally as failures. For Master’s programmes they should also
see all material assessed internally as a distinctions.
− It is recommended that, where students are taught and assessed by a partner institution/organisation, the
students work should be checked by an Imperial College Examiner (a sample of work is acceptable). This
work may also be moderated by the External Examiner/Board of Examiners.
− Where possible, it is recommended that departments use a cover note for all individual scripts (examples
are given below)

6
3. POLICIES AND STANDARDS

3.1 Policies on Moderation

The moderation practices adopted within the schools are based on the following general principles.
Moderation practices should:
− seek to ensure accuracy and fairness;
− be appropriate and acceptable to the discipline being taught;
− be suitable to the material being assessed;
− be suitable to the means of assessment being used;
− be clearly evidenced in the feedback provided to students. This should take the form of electronically
recorded comments from both markers either on the piece of assessed work, or on a separate cover
sheet. The External Examiner will need to refer to this in undertaking his/her role.

The moderation approach chosen should be published, formal, recorded and reaffirmed or changed as part
of regular programme or module reviews. Proposals for new programmes and new modules should indicate,
as part of their statements on assessment, arrangements for the moderation of examinations and assessed
work. The moderation approach should be published clearly for staff and students.

The moderation policy applies to all aspects of student assessment that contribute to the award or final
classification of an award, including:
− conventional examinations
− formally assessed coursework such as projects or dissertations,
− laboratory or other practical work.

7
Where modules include more than one method of assessment (e.g. include continuous assessment
and/or practical work and/or formal written examinations) the predominant method of assessment
shall be subject to moderation.

At all other levels that do not contribute to the final award, moderation need only, as a minimum, apply to
failed work and work close to the borderline for tolerated failures (e.g., the borderline is 30% for
undergraduate modules and 40% for taught postgraduate/level 7 modules).

TBD

3.2 Models of Moderation

Colleges / schools will be expected to employ one of the forms of moderation indicated below and will also be
expected to employ an arithmetical check that the calculation and transcription of marks is correct.
(Note the method of moderation may vary according to the nature of the assessment).

3.2.1. Second Marking

Assessment of examiners' work by two (or more) independent markers as a means of safeguarding or assuring
academic standards by controlling for individual bias.
Types of second marking acceptable may include:
− Double marking: Where each examiner makes a separate judgement and in the event of disagreement
a resolution is sought. (Double marking can be open or blind).
− Check marking: Where the second marker determines whether the mark awarded by the first marker is
appropriate and confirms it if appropriate (by definition, this can only be open marking).

Second marking can be open or blind:

− Open marking: Where the second marker is informed of the first marker's mark before commencing
− Blind marking: Where the second marker is not informed of the first marker's mark before commencing

3.3 Exemptions from the Policy

Where assessment methods are automated (i.e. the answers are machine or optically read), or in quantitative
assessments in which model answers are provided to the marker, these assessments are exempt from this
policy.

8
4. APPENDIX

4.1 Examination Grading System

9
10
4.2 National Examinations operated by SEAB

4.2.1. PSLE
The Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) is conducted in Singapore annually. It is a national
examination which pupils sit at the end of their final year of primary school education. A pupil can sit the PSLE
if he/she is studying in an approved institution in Singapore.

4.2.2. GCE N(A)-Level

TBD

4.2.3. GCE O-Level

The Singapore-Cambridge General Certificate of Education (Ordinary Level) Examination is conducted in
Singapore annually.
The University of Cambridge International Examinations (CIE), the Ministry of Education, Singapore and the
Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) are the joint examining authorities for the Singapore-
Cambridge GCE O-Level examination.
Candidates' applications to sit the examination are accepted on the condition that they adhere to all the
regulations governing the examination as spelt out in the Instructions Booklet. School candidates will receive
a copy of the Instructions Booklet 'Instructions for School Candidates taking Singapore-Cambridge GCE N(T),
N(A), and/or O-Level Examinations' from their respective schools. Private Candidates should refer to the
Registration Information for Private Candidates and Examination Rules and Regulations for Private
Candidates for the instructions and regulations governing the examinations.

4.2.4. GCE A-Level

TBD

4.3 University Policy and Guidance on Scaling by Boards of Examiners at the Assessment Level

4.3.1. What is scaling?

Scaling is the adjustment of marks for an entire cohort carried out at on an assessment item so that the
marks better reflect the achievement of the students as defined by the University Mark Descriptors. The

11
need to scale typically arises from a problem with an assessment resulting in student outcomes that do
not map onto the University Mark Descriptors. In addition, the requirement for scaling may arise from an
optional part to an assessment where one group of students appear to have been disadvantaged
simply by their choice of option. In both cases, the outcomes of an assessment are deemed to not
accurately reflect what other sources of evidence would show to be an expected level of student
achievement.

4.3.2. Deciding when to apply scaling

Scaling of marks should only be done in exceptional circumstances. There is no specific expectation
that scaling should be done, and University policy does not mandate an approach to formulate new
marks. However, the policy mandates that whenever scaling is applied to an assessment it must always
maintain the ranked position of each student within a specific assignment. Where scaling is applied to
an optional part of an assessment, the ranked position of each student within a treatment set should be
maintained (a treatment set referring to all those students who selected a specific option in an
assignment that is being scaled).
Assessment tasks should be designed so they map onto the University Mark Descriptors. Assuming
this is achieved the students outcome on an assessment task will accurately reflect their performance
according to the anticipated outcomes of that module.
Thus, scaling should only be required when there are acknowledged problems in the assessment
process. For instance, scaling may be needed where an error or ambiguity in an examination question
is discovered or an item of course work turns out to be harder or easier than intended.
In such cases these issues affect an entire cohort (everyone who sat that particular assignment) and
therefore action should be applied to anyone who submitted that assignment. When action is taken it is
important to apply the same treatment process to all students.
Therefore, scaling is fundamentally different from a routine adjustments of marks. Thus, the process of
moderation which may find addition errors on scripts, and double marking which requires negotiation
between staff to agree differences between individual’s marks, are not examples of scaling.
Since the need to scale is an acknowledgement of an assessment’s failure to map marks to the
University Mark Descriptors the approaches used to re-map the marks should be discussed and clearly
documented in examination board minutes.

4.3.3. Examples of when it may be appropriate to scale

Typical mark ranges vary across disciplines, so it is not practicable to define precise institutional
guidelines. However, generally a module’s mean will fall within certain limits. These should be roughly
comparable across modules on which the same students are registered. There are however
explainable differences between modules that might result in significantly different module means.
Examples include, where students have engaged with a module and therefore have performed
exceptionally well in an assessment or where the students registered on the module are
unrepresentative of the cohort of a particular programme, or where poor results are potential explained
by other factors such as poor attendance.
On rare occasions, it might be necessary to consider scaling marks down. For instance, a new member
of staff working with qualitative evaluation may have misjudged an academic level of study. Such
changes are unlikely to be necessary with quantitative / template marking since such issues should
have been resolved through standard shadowing / mentoring approaches.
Scaling may be considered when:
a) there is a significant, known and clearly identifiable issue with an assessment such as an error or
ambiguity, or;
b) The range of marks significantly fails to match student performance, for instance failing to fit onto the
University Mark Descriptors which might be evidenced by one or more of the following:

• An atypical: mean, distribution (i.e. unusual patterns of high or low marks) or overall mark spread
• The range of marks is not in line with that which would be expected from past performance on this
module

12
• The range of marks is not in line with that which has been achieved by the same students
registered on other modules at that level
• The number of fails is not in line with that which has been achieved by the same students
registered on other modules at that level
• The mark profile is not that which would be expected from students’ past performance on this
module

It should be noted that the above criteria are not defined as a means to require a boards of examiners
to scale. Rather, they are guidelines as to when it might be appropriate to consider scaling. Any final
decision as to whether or not to scale should always focus on a whether there is a significant
misalignment to the student outcomes to the University Mark Descriptors.

4.3.4. Outcomes of scaling

13. Typically scaling is used to increase a spread of students across each University Mark Descriptor
(see Figure 1) or to re-align a high or low average attainment (see figure 2). The exact approach
adopted to achieve this very much depends on the nature of the issue with the assessment, however in
all cases exam board should be assured that the resulting range of marks provides an accurate
mapping to the University Mark Descriptors.

Figure 1: Scaling to use the full range of attainment Figure 2: scaling to realign Mark
descriptors
To understand how scaling may be used, consider the following scenario. An examination paper is set
requiring a calculation that took students longer to complete than expected. This resulted in all but a
few students failing to complete the paper. In this scenario, the outcome of the assessment’s mark
profile is likely to be that represented in Figure 2 (left curve). The module team may wish, given the
problems with the paper, to scale attainment upwards (i.e. increase the module average). Since module
teams are required to map marks to the University Mark Descriptors they should use a range of scripts
(i.e. those from the top, middle and bottom ranges of the assessment rank) and come to a conclusion
as to an appropriate re-mapping of the marks so the outcomes accurately represent student
performance. In the above example, the team may reason that a proportion of the paper was not
accessible to the students due to time constrains and therefore re-assess outcomes on the basis on the
percentage of the paper it was reasonable for students to have completed within the allotted time.
However please note, in this example any student who achieved full marks prior to the remapping
would be disadvantages by scaling as their excellent performance cannot be recognised from those
that have been scaled to achieve the maximum. Consequently, it is important that scaling opportunities
are used by exception and that module teams endeavoured to resolve any issues in future years.

4.3.5. Examples of when not to scale

15. Scaling is difficult to do accurately when a cohort is small, i.e. of less than 15 students. This is
because statistical comparisons are unlikely to be valid. In such cases all scripts should ideally be re-

13
moderated/remarked, but it is recognised for certain assessment types (such as multiple-choice
questions) scaling may be the only alternative to change the distribution of marks. In this case scaling
may be used but only in if the issue is deemed to be significant and re-moderated/remarked would not
resolve the issue.
Scaling at various assessment levels
16. If scaling is to take place it should be applied to a run of marks for a specific assessment (e.g. an
item of coursework or single examination). Normally it should not be applied to marks resulting from a
collection of assignments (i.e. a module mark). It is also acceptable to scale parts of an assessment
where students are required to select to respond to optional questions.

4.3.6. Timing of scaling

Scaling should take place prior to final board of examiners’ meeting as regulations do not permit marks
to be changed once marks are confirmed by the Board.
When considering scaling it is important to remember that, in accordance with the University Principles
of Assessment, marks are an important form of feedback to students on their progress.
Ideally scaling should be applied before assessment marks are returned to students, but only once the
appropriate quality procedures have been completed. Creating a long delay on returning feedback to
students on their course is undesirable so sometimes it will be necessary to release provisional marks
to students before scaling has taken place. Furthermore, it is recognised that sometimes assessment
outcomes balance over a module (e.g. a module may have one assessment where the mean mark is
high and another on which the mean mark is lower). Any marks returned to students should always
include the statement that marks are provisional until approved by the BoE. However, any changes
made to marks through the application of scaling must at some point be communicated to students.
As noted above the need for scaling is a clear indication of an issue with an assessment, so where
such cases occur it is anticipated that some form of investigation will be carried out to mitigate for the
issue in future years.

4.3.7. Scaling and the relationship to discretion

Scaling is not the only approach available to Boards to consider the impact of varying module averages
on student classification. It is recognised that members of the Board may express concerns regarding
the advantage of students registered on modules with high module averages compared to those
registered on modules with low averages when these modules are defined as optional. An alternative to
scaling may be to consider these cases as a criterion for applying discretion. For instance, any student
at a borderline and whose performance may have been impacted by a low module average may be
considered as a case for considering promotion.

4.3.8. Procedure for the Application of Scaling

Staff who intend to scale should:
a) check that one or more of the conditions in paragraph 11 above applies;
b) ensure that the chair of the board of examiners in consultation with the module coordinator agrees
that the initial assessment marks do not fairly reflect student performance and that left unchanged they
inappropriately represent student performance;
c) ensure that, where the assessment forms a significant part of the module (25% or greater), the
external examiner has been consulted and agrees the proposed re-mapping of marks;
d) ensure that any new mapping of marks appropriately relates to the University Mark Descriptors;
e) document any decisions made and ensure these are reported to the board of examiners and noted in
the board’s minutes;
f) notify students the reasons and approach used to scale their marks;
g) identify how the issue with the assessment is going to be mitigated in future years to ensure that
scaling is not routinely required.

14
4.4 What is Moderation and How to Carry out Moderation?

4.4.1. What is Moderation

The Moderation of Unit Outcomes Policy also stipulates that for ECU Managed
Courses the Unit Coordinator will:
− provide assessment items and marking keys;
− mark the major assessment or final examination;
− re-mark at least eight marked samples (or 10%) of work from the managed course (including examples
of all grades) and use the results of this remarking to decide if all marks for minor assessments are to
be adjusted;
− combine the examination or major assignment marks with marks for other assessments (adjusted
based on the moderation process if required), and decide the final grades; and
− complete an Assessment Moderation Report for each minor assessment, and a Unit Moderation
Report at the end of the unit (refer to the policy for detailed guidelines and templates).
What are the key principles?
Results from assessment tasks are used to infer achievement. Moderation processes enhance confidence in
assessment practices and ultimately in certification of achievement.
Good moderation processes should result in improved assessment tasks, marking guides and professional
marking judgement.

4.4.2. How to Carry out Moderation

Pre-assessment moderation
Assessment tasks should be subjected to routine pre-assessment review to ensure: alignment with the unit
learning outcomes that are being sampled; focus on higher-order learning; and clarity of marking criteria.
Ideally a third person should be asked to read the task and to outline what a good response might look like,
and how marks might be allocated. This should then be checked against the marking guide. It is surprisingly
easy to inadvertently allocate marks to something that we haven’t explicitly asked for, thereby testing our
students’ability to read our minds before they can answer the question!

Review before marking

Once student work has been collected a few sample pieces of work can be randomly chosen and marked by
all markers. Markers then meet and discuss any discrepancies in marks, adjusting and clarifying the marking
guide (and often the task) for future use.

Review during marking (before work is returned to students or marks published)

It is often too late or too awkward to change marks after all the marking is done. It is better to monitor and
refine marker performance during the marking. While marking a few samples at the start can eliminate many
discrepancies, markers will invariably come across a response that doesn’t quite fit the norm. These student
responses should be marked by another marker, preferably without the second marker seeing the first marker’s
work. Again, discrepancies are discussed and resolved, and notes taken for future use of the task and marking
guide.

Review after marking (before grades are finalised)

If the previous processes have not achieved consistency and fairness, moderation may require scaling of
student marks.
Suppose, as a unit coordinator, you receive marks for the same assessment(s) from two different tutors. One
has a mean score of 76 (of 100) and the other 82 (also of 100). It might seem that one class had more able
students than the other or that one tutor may have marked harder than another. It is also possible that the
standard of teaching may have been better in one class leading to the higher mean mark. In such situations,
it is difficult to compare the scores.
As a coordinator you may feel tempted to just add or subtract marks from one class or the other to bring
them into some comparability. This simple solution distorts the distribution of marks. Similarly just reducing
top scores or inflating bottom scores to conform to some pre determined distribution is also not valid. So

15
how do we compare the scores and if necessary adjust them?

If we knew the mean and standard deviations of the two distributions, we could compare these scores by
comparing their Z-scores. A Z-score quantifies the original score in terms of the number of standard
deviations that that score is from the mean of the distribution. This calculation is easily accomplished with
statistics programs like PASW (SPSS). However, it is important to note that a Z-score transformation changes
the central location of the distribution and the average variability of the distribution. It does not change the
skewness or kurtosis. Once the Z-score is found for each mark the marks can be scaled by nominating a new
mean (and keeping the same standard deviation if desired) and multiplying this mean by each Z score to
create the new mark.

This method maintains the ranks of scores, enables valid comparisons and does not change the “shape” of
the distribution of scores. There are other more complicated statistical procedures that will accomplish the
same end but this Z-score transformation is straightforward.

16