Searching for Best Practice in the Application of Mark Schemes
Top Ten Tips for Successful Post-hoc Marking
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56433/jpaap.v11i2.555Keywords:
Post-hoc marking, mark scheme adaptation, assessment guidelinesAbstract
Uncertainties within most teaching and learning contexts make it difficult for assessment designers to predict the challenge experienced by students during an assignment. For this reason, “post-hoc” adaptation of mark schemes sometimes take place after an assessment has been completed. This is often to compensate for inaccurate assumptions embedded within the assessment itself. Such adjustments occur within many spheres of education and a goal here is to open conversations around the use of these strategies. The overall aim of this paper is to explore and investigate some of these practices and propose a set of guidelines for educators in designing flexible mark schemes and achieving adaptable, yet consistent, marking processes.
References
Ahmed, Ayesha, and Alastair Pollitt. 2011. "Improving marking quality through a taxonomy of mark schemes." Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 18 (3): 259-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.546775.
Baird, Jo‐Anne, Jackie Greatorex, and John F. Bell. 2004. "What makes marking reliable? Experiments with UK examinations." Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 11 (3): 331-348. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594042000304627.
Biggs, John. 1996. "Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment." Higher Education 32 (3): 347-364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871.
Black, Beth. 2019. "11 things we know about marking and 2 things we don’t …yet." The Ofqual blog (blog). 12/8/2021. https://ofqual.blog.gov.uk/2019/03/05/14572/.
Bloxham, Sue, Birgit den-Outer, Jane Hudson, and Margaret Price. 2016. "Let’s stop the pretence of consistent marking: exploring the multiple limitations of assessment criteria." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 41 (3): 466-481. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1024607.
Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2020. "Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern‐based qualitative analytic approaches." Counselling and Psychotherapy Research 21 (1): 37-47. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12360.
Bristol, University of. 2021. Regulations and Code of Practice for Taught Programmes. Bristol: University of Bristol.
Brooks, Val. 2012. "Marking as judgment." Research Papers in Education 27 (1): 63-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520903331008.
Brown, Sally. 2005. "Assessment for Learning." Learning and Teaching in Higher Education 1: 81-89. http://eprints.glos.ac.uk/3607/1/.
Crisp, Victoria. 2013. "Criteria, comparison and past experiences: how do teachers make judgements when marking coursework?" Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 20 (1): 127-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2012.741059.
Dictionary, Cambridge. 2021. "Mark scheme." Cambridge University Press. Accessed 8th September 2021. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/mark-scheme.
Educators, Pearson UK. 2017. "How are grade boundaries set?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGIbFFt5bv8&t=157s.
Howell, Rebecca J. 2013. "Grading rubrics: hoopla or help?" Innovations in Education and Teaching International 51 (4): 400-410. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.785252.
Lock, Simon, Lucy Berthoud, and Becky Selwyn. 2021. "Searching for Best Practice in the Successful use of Mark Schemes: Top Ten Tips for Successful Post-hoc Marking." Horizons in STEM Higher Education Conference, Online, 29th - 20th June 2021.
Lok, Beatrice, Carmel McNaught, and Kenneth Young. 2016. "Criterion-referenced and norm-referenced assessments: compatibility and complementarity." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 41 (3): 450-465. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1022136. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1022136.
Millar, Robin. 2013. "Improving Science Education: Why Assessment Matters." In Valuing Assessment in Science Education: Pedagogy, Curriculum, Policy, edited by Deborah Corrigan, Richard Gunstone and Alister Jones, 55-68. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Norton, Lin, Sarah Floyd, and Bill Norton. 2019. "Lecturers’ views of assessment design, marking and feedback in higher education: a case for professionalisation?" Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 44 (8): 1209-1221. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1592110.
Pollitt, Alastair, Ayesha Ahmed, Jo-Anne Baird, Jim Tognolini, and Michelle Davidson. 2008. Improving the quality of GCSE assessment. (London: QCA). http://www.camexam.co.uk/.
Pownall, Ian, and Victoria Kennedy. 2019. "Cognitive influences shaping grade decision-making." Quality Assurance in Education 27 (2): 166-178. https://doi.org/10.1108/qae-04-2018-0040.
Smith, Calvin Douglas, Kate Worsfold, Lynda Davies, Ron Fisher, and Ruth McPhail. 2013. "Assessment literacy and student learning: the case for explicitly developing students ‘assessment literacy’." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 38 (1): 44-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.598636.
Stobart, Gordon. 2009. "Determining validity in national curriculum assessments." Educational Research 51 (2): 161-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131880902891305.
Tisi, Jo, Gillian Whitehouse, Sarah Maughan, and Newman Burdett. 2013. A review of literature on marking reliability research (report for Ofqual). (Slough). https://www.nfer.ac.uk/media/2002/mark01.pdf.
Turnbull, Jeffrey M. 1989. "What Is… Normative versus Criterion-referenced Assessment." Medical Teacher 11 (2): 145-150. https://doi.org/10.3109/01421598909146317. https://doi.org/10.3109/01421598909146317.
Wiliam, Dylan. 2001. "Reliability, validity, and all that jazz." Education 3-13 29 (3): 17-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004270185200311.
Yorke M, Bridges P, Woolf H. 2000. "Mark Distributions and Marking Practices in UK Higher Education: Some Challenging Issues." Active Learning in Higher Education. 1 (1): 7-27.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Simon Lock, Lucy Berthoud, Becky Selwyn
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International 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.
