• myGriffith
    • Staff portal
    • Contact Us⌄
      • Future student enquiries 1800 677 728
      • Current student enquiries 1800 154 055
      • International enquiries +61 7 3735 6425
      • General enquiries 07 3735 7111
      • Online enquiries
      • Staff phonebook
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Conference outputs
    • View Item
    • Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Conference outputs
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

  • All of Griffith Research Online
    • Communities & Collections
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • This Collection
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • Statistics

  • Most Popular Items
  • Statistics by Country
  • Most Popular Authors
  • Support

  • Contact us
  • FAQs
  • Admin login

  • Login
  • Consensus moderation for quality assurance of assessment: Overcoming the illusion of consensus.

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    74042_1.pdf (47.01Kb)
    Author(s)
    Nulty, Duncan
    Griffith University Author(s)
    Nulty, Duncan D.
    Year published
    2011
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    Research at Griffith University is exploring the use of 'consensus moderation' (Sadler, 2009, 2010, 2011) as a process that can help to ensure consistent and appropriate academic standards when assessing the quality of students' learning outcomes. In principle, consensus moderation achieves agreement among markers about what comprises quality, and about the symbols (marks or grades) that are used to represent judgments about the quality level of students' work. The most directly observable result is marking consistency. Unfortunately, the mere existence of marking consistency does not necessarily signify consensus about ...
    View more >
    Research at Griffith University is exploring the use of 'consensus moderation' (Sadler, 2009, 2010, 2011) as a process that can help to ensure consistent and appropriate academic standards when assessing the quality of students' learning outcomes. In principle, consensus moderation achieves agreement among markers about what comprises quality, and about the symbols (marks or grades) that are used to represent judgments about the quality level of students' work. The most directly observable result is marking consistency. Unfortunately, the mere existence of marking consistency does not necessarily signify consensus about the judgments of quality of the students' work. Marking consistency can, and often is, achieved in other ways. Consequently, the illusion of consensus may be created. This paper describes different ways in which consensus moderation processes may fail to achieve consensus. Understanding this is necessary for genuine quality assurance to be possible through appropriate policy and practice.
    View less >
    Conference Title
    Positive Futures for higher education; connections, communities and criticality
    Publisher URI
    http://www.srhe.ac.uk/conference2011/
    Copyright Statement
    © The Author(s) 2011. The attached file is reproduced here in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. For information about this conference please refer to the conference’s website or contact the author.
    Subject
    Education Assessment and Evaluation
    Publication URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10072/45476
    Collection
    • Conference outputs

    Footer

    Disclaimer

    • Privacy policy
    • Copyright matters
    • CRICOS Provider - 00233E

    Tagline

    • Gold Coast
    • Logan
    • Brisbane - Queensland, Australia
    First Peoples of Australia
    • Aboriginal
    • Torres Strait Islander