No abstract

No abstract

Despite the pervasive use of marking criteria across higher education, their clarity, precision and objectivity are arguably spurious and context bound, with a concern that many assessors may be marking for elements not represented in the marking criteria. The existence and nature of such implicit, or tacit, influences on assessment were explored in this small study, through an initial online questionnaire (N = 20) followed by a verbal protocol with eight psychology assessors. The protocol involved thinking aloud whilst marking and providing feedback on an undergraduate essay. Assessors' articulated thoughts were recorded, transcribed and subjected to detailed coding. Findings indicated that novice and experienced markers attended to similar features in the essay and that these features were identifiable in published marking criteria. However, there was considerable variation in the marks awarded (from 55 to 65). The paper discusses possible explanations for how marks are formulated and considers the implications for processes of calibration and benchmarking amongst novice markers.

No abstract