Procedure Moderation Operation Procedure For modules and courses delivered in the Faculty of Society & Health for the 2016-2017 academic year ONLY Contents Introduction 2 Moderation 2 Sampling of work 3 How the sample is scrutinised 3 Sending a sample to the External Examiner 4 Approved by: Quality & Standards Committee Date first published: Nov-2016 Version No. 1.0 Date updated: Nov-2016 Owner: Society & Health Review Date: Jun-2017 This document has been designed to be accessible for readers. However, should you require the document in an alternative format please contact the Academic Quality Directorate. 2016 Buckinghamshire New University
Introduction 1 The following procedure is to be used in conjunction with the following documents of Buckinghamshire New University: Assessments of Students Policy (March 2014) E-Submission, Marking, Feedback and Moderation Policy (Feb 2015) E-Submission, Marking, Feedback and Moderation Process (2014) External Examiners Handbook (2014) 2 This procedure identifies the means by which ALL summative assessments within the Faculty of Society and Health will be moderated and when moderation is required. 3 The exception to this will be referral work which meets all of the following criteria: a referral taking place within 6 months of the previous submission the assessment task remains unchanged the marker(s) remain the same 4 In instances where a normal pattern of moderation is not able to be operationalized, such as practice-based work or competency documents, it is for the Module Leader or Course Leader to ensure that issues relating to consistency and fairness are addressed and are open to scrutiny. 5 Moderation will not be required where ALL of the following apply: The work is a reassessment and the first assessment has been moderated The reassessment is taking place within 6 months of the first assessment The markers must be from the original marking team 6 This document is not intended as a guide for marking per se. This is addressed in the University s Assessment of Students Policy (2014). 7 This document will apply during the academic year 2016-2017 ONLY when it will be reviewed and incorporated within the Assessment of Students Policy (currently under revision). Moderation 8 Moderation describes the process by which the Faculty ensures a level of internal consistency in the marking of summatively assessed work. It addresses all the actions taken in the scrutiny of work following first marking. 9 This procedure does not cover second marking, which may be used where the first marker is unqualified to mark independently. Second marking does not preclude moderation and this work still should undergo a moderation process. 10 Final Projects / Dissertations / Extended Literature Reviews should have evidence of blind double marking and an agreed mark, prior to a sample being selected for the External Examiner to review. 11 It does not cover those instances where a first marker requests further scrutiny of work by a colleague outside of the moderation process. Buckinghamshire New University Page 2 of 5
12 With the exception as detailed in paragraph 5 above, all items of summative work will be subject to moderation and this process should be undertaken as soon as possible following first marking. 13 It is the responsibility of the Module Leader or Course Leader to ensure that the process of moderation is adhered to. 14 All moderation should be undertaken by an employed lecturer who has undertaking an additional teaching qualification. 15 Internal moderation should be carried out as soon as possible following the initial marking. However this should not prevent feedback being given to the students within the three working week deadline. Students should be made aware that all marks remain provisional until confirmed by an Assessment Board. Sampling of work 16 A selection is made from the total number of scripts submitted. This will be the square root of the total submitted but not less than 8 scripts. The sample must incorporate the full range of marks awarded and go across all markers. It is best practice for the internal moderator to be responsible for selecting the sample and records the Student ID numbers of the papers selected on the e-moderating form. For small cohorts (e.g. fewer than 10 scripts) all work is considered. 17 Where more than 1 marker is used (such as for large cohorts), then the sample needs to be representative of the number of markers used and, thus, the sample taken for moderation may be increased. In this case, Moderators are responsible for identifying the number of scripts to be moderated, the overall aim being to ensure parity across the markers. 18 In accordance with Buckinghamshire New University Policy, Assessment of Students 11.2, All failed Level 6 and level 7 Projects and Dissertations should be seen by the External Examiner. How the sample is scrutinised 19 The sample is scrutinised for consistency across marks and according to academic level. The appropriateness of the marker s comments and the relationship of comments to the mark should also be considered. 20 It is for the Course Leader / Head of Academic Department to identify who will be involved within the moderation process (unqualified teachers should not be expected to moderate but may be included within the team for developmental purposes). Moderators may or may not be part of the module or course team. 21 E-moderation forms for single and multiple markers are available as separate forms. Once the correct form has been completed by the module leader and the moderator it should be returned to the course administrator. If moderation has been carried out prior to releasing the marks to the students, the e-moderating form may contain Paper ID numbers allocated by Turnitin as opposed to Student ID numbers. Buckinghamshire New University Page 3 of 5
22 The original mark should not be altered provided that the difference in the marks awarded by the marker and the moderator of the sample is not greater than 5 marks and / or does not traverse a grade band. 23 Significant discrepancies in marks between the first and second marker for final Projects / Dissertations / Extended Literature Reviews should alert the Module Leader or Course Leader to potential issues of inconsistency. In this instance, it is for the Module Leader or Course Leader to identify the actions to be taken. 24 Actions taken in the light of significant discrepancies might include; remarking the whole batch, remarking within certain parameters or scaling the results. This would only be undertaken in exceptional circumstances, with appropriate rationale, following consultation with the External Examiner(s) and where it is agreed that scaling is the most appropriate action. 25 A final mark for each piece of students work MUST be agreed as a result of moderation. 26 The process of moderation, and any actions arising as a result, should be recorded on the Marks Collection Form. In addition, evidence of moderation should be recorded on the e-submission feedback given to the student, by including the date of moderation and moderators name in the general comments section on Turnitin, below the marker s name. If the assessed work requires hard copy feedback (e.g. posters or presentations) then evidence of moderation is recorded on the Marks Collection Form. 27 No mark should be altered on the basis of sample moderation. An alteration of marks should only arise as a result of actions taken under paragraph 24 above. Sending a sample to the External Examiner 28 From the moderated sample, the selection of work is identified on the e-moderation form for External Examiner scrutiny (or moderation pack in the case of examination papers or TCAs [Time Constrained Assessments]). 29 No Student ID attached to a script should be included on the e-moderation form for the External Examiner unless it has been part of the moderation process. However, the External Examiner will have electronic access to all the scripts presented for the module. 30 It is good practice that it is the responsibility of the internal moderator to identify those scripts that are to be available to the External Examiner(s) and to ensure that the documentary evidence (e-moderation form or Moderation pack) is complete and returned to the course administrator. 31 School administrators are then responsible for sending all documentation to the appropriate external examiner and checking that the external examiner can access the module via the e-learning platform. Good practice is to copy the module leader into this email ensuring the module leader is part of the communication process with the external examiner. Buckinghamshire New University Page 4 of 5
32 External examiners will email their response from their scrutiny of the work to the course administrators, who will forward to the appropriate module leader. This response will be required at the next Board of Examiners. 33 If no comments are received from the External Examiner the School Registry needs to be informed. 34 It is the responsibility of the Module Leader to report to the assessment board if internal or external moderation has not been completed by the time of the assessment board at which the work is considered. Buckinghamshire New University Page 5 of 5