The University of Hertfordshire is harnessing the capability of its e-submission system to enhance the consistency, fairness and transparency of marking and feedback in response to students’ comments. Enhancements to the system include features that address communication of key messages, the use of programme level grading criteria, and anonymous marking. The presentation will share the lessons learned during the course of the development and highlight the potential for impact on the student experience.

1. The use of technology to enhance the
consistency, fairness and transparency of marking
and feedback
Julie Vuolo, Learning and Teaching Institute
Email: j.c.vuolo@herts.ac.uk

2. • The University is harnessing the capability of its
e-submission system to enhance the consistency,
fairness and transparency of marking and
feedback in response to students’ comments
• Enhancements include features that address use
of programme level grading criteria,
communication of key messages and anonymous
marking
• The presentation will share the lessons learned
during the course of the development and
highlight the potential for online submission
technology to impact on the student experience.

3. ITEAM Project
Integrating
Technology
Enhanced
Assessment
Methods
for
Student
Support
and
Self-regulation
Questionmark
Perception
Electronic
Submission &
Online feedback
Electronic Voting
Systems
Student
Progress
Dashboard
.
Assessment
for Learning
Assessment
data
Performance
&
Engagement
Self-
regulation
and Support
Personal
Tutor
Module
Leader
Academic
Skills
Tutor
Programme
Tutor

4. What the students said
“Not all the lecturers mark the same way, some are
fairer than others”
“There was one module that I felt was unfairly marked”
“Marking varies from tutor to tutor - for similar essay
one student gets over 70% while the other one can get
40-50”
“Marking of the assignments need to be consistent,
even though they are moderated I still feel as if it is 'pot
luck'”

5. Institutional response:
•Every programme must publish grading criteria
in the programme handbook
•Grading criteria must relate to the University’s
Grading Bands
•Relevant grading criteria should be available
for all assessments that students will encounter
on the programme.
• Grading Criteria communicate the level of
attainment expected of students and map
them to particular grade bands.
• They can be specific to an assessment type or
level or more general e.g. set at programme
level.

6. Intention:
• They are a resource for students looking to
understand what is expected of them when
being assessed.
• They also provide a framework for feedback
that ensures it is consistent, meaningful and
fair.

7. What role does technology play?
System in place for one semester

8. What the students said
“Having it each time makes a difference to how you do the next
assignment”  3rd yr Business Management
“It helped me see what was wrong – I’d never read the
feedback before”  3rd yr Business Management
“The grading criteria helped me see what kind of degree
classification I might get - good grades spur me on”  2nd yr
Nursing
“I didn’t read the words in the boxes on the grading criteria
sheet” 2nd yr Nursing
“To be honest I’ve been a bit lazy about going back to the sheet
to see where I went wrong”  3rd yr Business Administration
“I only looked at the top line of the sheet to see the
requirements for a 1st  3rd yr Tourism
Which tells us…:
• We need to explain the criteria and their
purpose to the students
• We need to involve the students in the
development of criteria to ensure the words
used are meaningful to them
• We need to tell them how to use them to
develop their work

9. What else can we do to address
fairness – anonymous marking?
‘Equality and fairness must lie at the heart of every aspect
of the student experience, from admissions right through
to assessment. NUS believes that where anonymous
marking has not been introduced, institutions are leaving
themselves susceptible to prejudice and perception of
prejudice’.
‘Although anonymous marking is not a panacea for
tackling discrimination it goes a long way to safeguarding
students and improving confidence in assessment, marking
and feedback’
National Union of Students
Institutional response:
• All summative assessments* must submitted
and marked anonymously from September
2014.
*unless subject to exemption

10. What role does technology play?
• Online assignments submission allows
anonymous marking to be set up in advance
• Markers can be allocated (selected or
randomised)
• Assignments are download in a zip file and
marked
• Then automatically uploaded to the right
place remaining anonymous
• Marks are then released and names revealed

11. Challenges
• Who does the student contact if there is a problem
(without revealing their name)
• Accidental ‘reveal’ of the author if the cursor
hovers over the file name
• Students submitting when not eligible
• Students putting their name on the footer of the
submission
• Ensuring equity of process in hard copy submission
• Loss of individualised and personalised support

12. Communicating key messages
• This is what your work will be marked against
• This is when you can expect to get your
feedback
• This is how we will ensure marking is fair
• This is your feedback

13. What role does the technology play?
What happens next?
A member of the teaching staff will mark your coursework using the
Grading Criteria, which are published in your programme
documentation.
How can I be sure the marking is fair?
Your coursework work will be moderated - a sample of assignments is
scrutinised by at least one other tutor to ensure the grades are fair,
consistent and in line with the Grading Criteria. In some cases, your
coursework work will be double marked - all assignments are marked
by two tutors independently and a final mark is agreed.
When will I receive feedback on my coursework?
You should receive feedback on your coursework within four weeks of
the submission deadline

14. What the student said
Message?
What message?

15. What has the technology done?
• Provide a means of communicating
standardised messages
• Provides a level of consistency of approach
• Provide an audit trail for assessment and
feedback disputes
• Moves responsibility for engagement with
feedback toward students

16. What can’t the technology do?
• Determine the quality of content of uploaded
documents (e.g. grading criteria)
• Take the place of verbal explanation or
re-iteration
• Anticipate every possible problem
• Be human!
• Respond to concerns, explain, re-assure,
encourage and clarify...
• Engage with our students on a personal level