Developing a Guiding Protocol for the Moderation of Summative Assessments
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14297/jpaap.v4i1.197Keywords:
Student Assessment, Assessment Moderation, Social Moderation, Community of Practice, Higher EducationAbstract
According to literature, assessment moderation is a process for assuring ‘valid, fair and reliable’ assessment outcomes but also consistency of applied marking criteria. While being an important area in assessment, moderation is often referred as an ‘under researched area of higher education’. The School of Education in the University of Glasgow, like many other academic units in the UK and internationally, adopts a range of approaches to moderating assessment within any one programme and across programmes. By drawing on a small-scale study carried out in academic year 2014/2015, this article introduces the ways course leaders and markers from the School of Education experience moderation practices and their own roles within this process. The paper argues that both groups experience assessment moderation as being a diverse and often problematic part of assessment that requires time and collegial support. Furthermore, their detailed suggestions for institutional and practice level improvements will be highlighted. When exploring and analysing the research findings, the paper draws on recent scholarly work on social moderation and the development of communities of practice in assessment.
References
Adie, L., Lloyd, M., & Beutel, D. (2013). Identifying discourses of moderation in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(8), 968-977. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2013.769200
Bloxham, S. (2009). Marking and moderation in the UK: False assumptions and wasted resources. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), 209-220. doi: 10.1080/02602930801955978
Bryman, A. (2004). Social Research Methods. 2nd Edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Colbert, P., Wyatt-Smith, C., & Klenowski, V. (2012). A systems-level approach to building sustainable assessment cultures: Moderation, quality task design and dependability of judgment. Policy Futures in Education, 10(4), 386-401. doi: 10.2304/pfie.2012.10.4.386
Elwood, J. & Klenowski, V. (2002). Creating communities of shared practice: The challenges of assessment use in learning and teaching. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(3), 243-256. doi: 10.1080/02602930220138606
James, R. (2003). Academic standards and the assessment of student learning: Some current issues in Australian education. Tertiary Education and Management, 9, 187-198.
Lawson, K. & Yorke, J. (2009). The development of moderation across the institution: A comparison of two approaches. ATN Assessment Conference, RMIT University. Retrieved 25 September, 2015, from http://espace.library.curtin.edu.au/R?func=dbin-jump-full&local_base=gen01-era02&object_id=219193
Mason, J. (2006). Mixing methods in qualitatively driven way. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 9-25. doi: 10.1177/1468794106058866
Orr, S. (2007). Assessment moderation: Constructing the marks and constructing the students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 12(6), 645-656. doi: 10.1080/02602930601117068
Price, M. (2005). Assessment standards: The role of communities of practice and the scholarship of assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(3), 215-230. doi: 10.1080/02602930500063793
Price, M. & Rust, C. (1999). The experience of introducing a common criteria assessment grid across an academic department. Quality in Higher Education, 5(2), 133-144. doi: 10.1080/1353832990050204
Sechrest, L. & Sidani, S. (1995). Quantitative and qualitative methods. Is there an alternative? Evaluation and Program Planning, 18(1), 77-87.
Smith, C. (2011). Why should we bother with assessment moderation? Nurse Education Today, 32, 45-48. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2011.10.010
Stowell, M. (2004). Equity, justice and standards: Assessment decision making in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(4), 495-510. doi: 10.1080/02602930310001689055
Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (2009). Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to Research. In L. Bickmann, and D.J. Rog (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods (pp. 283-317). Thousand Oakes: SAGE Publications.
Wyatt-Smith, C., Klenowski, V., & Gunn, S. (2010). The centrality of teachers’ judgment practice in assessment: A study of standards in moderation. Assessment in Education, 17(1), 59-75. doi: 10.1080/09695940903565610
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice has made best effort to ensure accuracy of the contents of this journal, however makes no claims to the authenticity and completeness of the articles published. Authors are responsible for ensuring copyright clearance for any images, tables etc which are supplied from an outside source.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
