Double-marking
Consider the following two points of view. Where do you stand on the issue of double-marking?
Tutor voice 1
| If you were going to be serious about it, everything ought to be double-marked. That would be the fairest approach….It would also be better for students in that they would get two lots of comments on their work. Of course, time constraints mean it can only be done for exams and substantial pieces of coursework. From the lecturer's viewpoint, I think there's no better way to learn how to mark than to do blind double marking with an experienced colleague. That is what I would recommend to all new colleagues: do it with someone who has been at it for years and get them to talk you through why they've given the mark they have. |
Tutor voice 2
| We waste so much time on double marking of language work when the outcome is a difference of a paltry two or three marks. There's no need to double-mark most language work: usually it's just right or wrong and I find there's very little disagreement at all on these exercises, even with more demanding final-year work. |
You probably will not have a lot of choice in whether you double-mark or not: it will be laid down in departmental policy. On balance, it is probably a necessary check on standards and consistency, especially for borderline cases in oral and written exams. Just as importantly, it sends a message to students that tutors care about getting it right and being fair. Certain accuracy-based language tasks (eg grammar exercises) probably do not need to be double-marked, and sampling of marking as opposed to blanket double marking is probably adequate for such tasks. But with essays, summaries and free-speaking oral activities there is sufficient room for subjectivity to make double marking strongly advisable.
Although the second tutor quoted above may feel it is a futile exercise most of the time, there are cases, especially in blind double-marking, where marks fall into different degree categories. This raises the question of what happens after the marking; how does one reach a final mark? Schmidt and O'Dochartaigh (2001: 26) have strong views on this:
Perhaps the worst (though easiest) practice is that of 'splitting the difference'. Where a small number of marks are involved, and the grade is not affected, then this may be defensible, since both markers have already essentially agreed (eg 55 and 57). But splitting the difference between, say, 54 and 62, thus giving 58, is an abdication of responsibility on the part of the markers. In essence, such a major difference suggests that clear assessment criteria have not been agreed.
Splitting the difference within a degree category is, in practice, the norm, since to do anything else might be taken to mean the opinion of one marker weighs more than the other. While there may be reasons for accepting this in modules where one colleague is more expert (eg a paper on C18th drama), it might be thought contrary to the spirit of double-marking in language work. The problem of differences across degree categories is, however, a far more serious one since in a profiling system, as opposed to a straight averaging of marks, the degree category awarded could affect the student's final degree classification. In such circumstances, divergent marks deserve to be closely considered and it is the tutors' duty to examine the piece of work again together, to work through the criteria once more and to discuss any problematic issues. If they still fail to agree, they ought to seek a third opinion.
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
