Guild Note: Please be aware that any ideas published on this platform are expected to be reviewed and amended by an Action Group to ensure that they meet the Guild’s legal, financial and charitable requirements. The version of this idea displayed may not necessarily be the final version.
I propose that the University establishes a formal process through which a student can request an independent review of the marking and feedback given for a specific assignment when they can identify material discrepancies.
The current framework provides internal moderation, an opportunity to seek clarification and a later academic appeal process. It does not provide a defined student initiated route for examining whether the marking and feedback for a particular assignment are accurate, coherent and properly connected to the submitted work, assignment brief and marking criteria.
This is a distinct issue from dissatisfaction with a mark. A review request should have to identify specific evidence, such as:
- Comments placed within the submission conflicting with the feedback summary or marking rubric.
- Feedback criticising the absence of material that is present within the submission.
- Criticism being based on requirements that do not appear in the assignment brief or published marking criteria.
- The stated reasons for the mark being inconsistent with the rubric descriptors.
- A clarification response failing to address the discrepancies identified by the student.
My reason for proposing this process is a recent assignment experience involving several of these issues. Comments within the submission, the overall feedback and the marking rubric did not correspond. Part of the criticism concerned applied examples that the marker later acknowledged were not required. When I identified the discrepancies and requested clarification, the response did not explain several of them. Referral to my tutor and course lead then misclassified the matter as dissatisfaction with the grade. Consequently, no independent examination of the discrepancies took place.
A review request should be considered by an academic with suitable subject expertise who was not involved in the original marking or subsequent response. The reviewer should examine the submission, assignment brief, marking criteria, rubric, feedback and relevant correspondence.
The written outcome should address each identified discrepancy. Possible outcomes should include confirmation of the original assessment with a coherent explanation, correction or replacement of inaccurate feedback, or independent reconsideration of the marking where the discrepancies may have affected the assessment.
The process should operate soon enough for accurate feedback to inform subsequent assignments. This would strengthen marking integrity and make feedback more reliable as a means of improving student understanding and future academic performance.
The Guild should commit to the principle that students must have access to a transparent and evidence based process when identifiable discrepancies call the integrity of assignment marking or feedback into question.
The Guild should advocate for a University wide Student Initiated Assignment Marking and Feedback Review Process, with:
- Clear published grounds for requesting a review.
- An initial evidence threshold that distinguishes reviewable discrepancies from general disagreement with academic judgement.
- Consideration by an academically qualified reviewer who has not previously been involved.
- A written response addressing every accepted ground.
- Defined outcomes where problems with feedback or marking are established.
- Completion early enough for the outcome to inform later academic work.
The Guild should raise the proposal formally with the University, gather evidence from students concerning similar experiences, consult student representatives and seek the necessary amendment or addition to the University assessment and feedback framework. Progress and University responses should be reported openly to students.
Scrutiny should establish whether the relevant Guild Officers recognise the absence of a student initiated assignment review process and whether they will pursue the proposed change with the University.
The central issue is accountability for the quality and coherence of marking and feedback. Students currently have responsibility for applying feedback to future work, while having no independent route through which demonstrable problems with that feedback can be examined during their programme.
1) Does the Guild accept that the current combination of clarification, moderation and end stage academic appeal procedures leaves no defined route for independent review of evidenced discrepancies in the marking and feedback of an individual assignment?
2) Will the relevant Guild Officer formally propose a Student Initiated Assignment Marking and Feedback Review Process to the University?
3) Will the Guild gather evidence from students about marking and feedback discrepancies before developing the proposal?
4) What route and timescale will the Guild use to pursue the proposal, and how will progress be reported to students?