Appendix 22

DOUBLE MARKING AND INTERNAL MODERATION GUIDELINES

Internal Moderation and Double Marking

1. Introduction

The aims of internal moderation & double marking are principally to:

- Provide a check that an assessment has been marked in line with the expressed
aims and learning outcomes of the assignment/examination, and in terms of
marking criteria;
- Provide assurance for students of fairness of marking and hence the equality of
treatment of each student;
- Assure internal consistency of assessment within a module;
- Provide an approach to the comparability of standards across modules within a
subject area.

Students are not permitted to appeal against academic judgement and so it is important
to ensure fairness and consistency through the double marking process. In addition the
External Examiners will review the marking process and marks awarded. Both the overall
results of assessment as well as each individual student’s result will be further
scrutinised at the meeting of the internal examiners and at the final, decision-making
Board of Examiners Meeting.

These notes outline the minimum standard for double marking required by the Taught
and Validated Degrees Board of partner Institutions, as well as guidance to practical
considerations in operating the policy.

2. An Agreed Policy

All Institutions should have a written policy on double marking which should be agreed
with the University of Wales appointed course Moderator(s).

In placing the responsibility on Institutions, the Taught and Validated Degrees Board
recognises the need for Institutions and Examining Boards to conduct the assessment of
students in a manner that is appropriate to individual disciplines and to the methods of
assessment employed (although Institutions would be expected to implement a
consistent policy across all similar modules). In pursuit of assessment practices that are
demonstrably fair, valid and reliable the University requires that all Institutions adopt at
least the following minimum standards. The Taught and Validated Degrees Board
stresses, however, that these are only the minimum standard and urges all Institutions to
exceed them in the light of their own particular circumstances.

3. The Minimum Standard

Will apply to: All Assessed Work that Contributes towards the Final Degree
Classification

All marking and assessment strategies should be agreed with External Examiners in
advance, e.g. through the provision of outline or ‘skeleton’ suggested answers/marking
schemes (these should be submitted at the same time as draft assessments are
submitted for approval).
The following should normally be subject to second marking:

Examination Papers, Class Tests and Continuous Assessment (where the latter
constitutes 50% or more of the total marks awarded for the module) which require
the exercise of a substantial element of academic judgement by the marker and
where the mark awarded by the first marker(s) falls into one of the following
categories:
- All first class/distinction marks;
- All failing marks;
- Any marking undertaken by persons other than members of the
Institution’s Academic Staff;
- All rubric violations in examinations.

Institutions should ensure additional double marking to that noted above is

undertaken such that the following total minimum percentages of all examination
papers or class tests that contribute towards the final award are second marked:

Number of Students taking the Assessment/Percentage of Assessment to be Double

Marked

Up to 5 100%
Up to 20 minimum of 40%
21-50 minimum of 30%
51-100 minimum of 20%
101-200 minimum of 10%
Above 200 a minimum of 20 assessments (or students)

Such sampling should ensure a full range of marks/degree classes is included and all
borderline fails.

After the first year of validation, it is recommended that double marking at the
equivalent to undergraduate year one (Level 1/Level 4/Level C) and for assessments that
do not contribute towards the final award, is restricted to failed assessments.

Postgraduate Dissertations for Taught Masters Programmes

It is a requirement that ALL masters dissertations are double marked by two experienced
members of the Institution’s staff, both having the relevant subject expertise. The
dissertation supervisor is not normally permitted to be one of the internal markers. The
dissertation will then be forwarded to the Validation Unit for onward transmission to an
external examiner for final scrutiny. (Institutions should set a reasonable maximum
period for the double marking of each dissertation, e.g. 15 working days, and not
accumulate clusters of such studies before submission to Wales.)

It should also be noted that the Boards of Examiners for taught masters degrees will
decide only whether, following the taught part of the degree (Part One), a candidate will
be permitted to proceed to writing the dissertation (Part Two).

No other assessments need to be double marked unless an Institution deems it valuable

to do so.

4. Mark Variances between First and Second Markers

These should be expected and arise naturally from independent judgement.

Nevertheless, the External Examiners and the Board of Examiners Meeting will expect to
be given a single set of agreed marks.
Where differences arise in cases where the assessments have been fully double marked
they should be resolved by:
- A discussion between the markers;
- an average mark (but only where the two marks are already close and both rest
within the same degree classification);
- a defined Institutional procedure to resolve differences.

Should the above measures fail to resolve differences a third, senior academic member
of staff (nominated by the chair of the board of examiners) should review the assessed
work and guide colleagues to an agreed set of marks. Only in very exceptional
circumstances should unresolved differences between marks be presented to the
External Examiners for finalisation.

Where differences arise in cases where assessments have been moderated, individual
marks should not be changed (except in a case of arithmetical error) to ensure that no
student may be advantaged or disadvantaged as a result of their assessment being
included in the sample.

Instead, depending on the level of difference between the internal examiners the chair of
the board of examiners should discuss with both markers whether;
- based on the sample moderated (or an increased percentage), a judgement be
applied to the assessment as a whole;
- the entire set of assessments be fully double marked (see possible outcomes
above).

The result of any such action should be discussed in full with the External Examiner and
Moderator.

5. Organisation of Internal Moderation & Double Marking

The first marker will normally be the person who set the assessment or the module
leader. It is important that assessors with sufficient expertise are utilised. This can, in
practice, place some constraints on the choice of co-assessors.

It is recommended that the chair of the board of examiners (or his/her nominee) agree a
list of pairings of double markers for the academic year; avoiding ‘cosy pairs’ and
‘perpetual reciprocal pairs’ is important. A careful re-allocation of pairings of markers
across years may enable consistency across modules (and across time).

Where feasible, ‘blind’ marking of assessments is preferable by both the first and second
marker, i.e. the second marker should grade an assessment without knowledge of the
first mark. Such a process will increase independent judgement.

Where blind double marking is not considered feasible (as agreed by the chair of the
board of examiners, or his/her nominee) ‘verification’ would occur. It is important that
the second marker be given clear evidence by the first marker of the basis for marks
awarded on the assessment itself and/or by means of a ‘skeleton’ answer(s)/marking
scheme.

A clear record of which individual pieces of assessment have been double marked must
be kept. Where blind double marking has occurred this may be recorded on the
assessment itself after both markers have agreed a final mark. In other instances the
work of both examiners in marking the assessment should be clearly seen on the
assessment.