Electronic mediated marking of student assessments: strategies and techniques to improve the efficiency and consistency in the marking process

Assessment is a vital part of the learning process. But is it being done efficiently and consistently? The focus of assessment tasks is often on the task itself and its perceived effectiveness in relation to overall learning outcomes, rather than on the logistics of examining, marking and providing adequate and timely feedback. Good assessment strategies require a rubric and marking guide that are consistent with the requirements of the assessment item, are indicative measures of the students’ learning and are highly transparent. These need to be applied consistently across all students, yet a level of tolerance also needs to be factored in. Last, but by no means least, the process has to be done within the confines of strictly limited resources and within tight time frames. For units (subjects) involving large cohorts (200 students and upwards), the logistics can be daunting. Consistency in the application of marking criteria has to be questioned when the marking process is devolved to a number of tutors or examiners. The authors discuss some simple strategies that can be deployed to streamline the logistics by using simple and readily available personal computer applications (Microsoft Word an Excel) to semi-automate the repetitive and mundane aspects of the marking process, thereby producing a high level of control, higher levels of consistency, reduced time taken to complete the process and significantly shorten the time lag to aggregate and release marks. The strategies can be adopted to a variety of situations – numbers oriented assessments (such accounting exercises) or essay style assessments, whether submitted electronically or be paper based. The authors discuss experiences – the “pros and cons” - where the strategies have been deployed to significant advantage – in a cohort of a nominal 500 second year students and another involving 200 masters students. Users (examiners) reported reduced marker fatigue and frustration, whilst other users experienced “technical problems”. The strategies provided good audit trail and back backup ‘disaster’ recovery.