Appendix 18
Common Marking Criteria – Double Marking,
Internal Verification and Word Count
Department of Education and Training
Bodies consulted:
Academic Tutor Forum;
Academic Governance and Quality Assurance Committee (UEL and
Essex representatives)
Approved by:
Name of originator / author:
Academic Governance and Quality Assurance Committee
10.11.2015
Rebecca Bouckley
Date Issued:
December 2015
Next review date:
June 2015
Location:
T:\Quality Assurance\Policies Procedures Regulations MASTER
COPIES\Marking Practices Common Criteria
http://tavistockandportman.uk/training/student-regulations-andpolicies/assessment/assessment-and-feedback
Introduction
1. Markers at the Trust should follow this common marking criteria for all Student Assessment
in the Trust’s Education and Training Academic Portfolio.
2. This document should be read in conjunction with the Trust-UEL Assessment and Feedback
Policy for Masters and Doctoral Level Courses; and the University of Essex Policies for
Undergraduate and Taught Postgraduate Awards of the University.
Double Marking
3. Dissertations and Final Projects (except for Doctoral Theses). The principal of Double
Unseen Marking will be used in the case of all dissertations and final projects:


Both markers receive an un-marked copy of the script (as it was submitted). Both
markers record their marks and comments separately.
The markers then discuss and compare marks to resolve differences and produce
one agreed mark.
Approved at Academic Governance and Quality Committee December 2014




The agreed mark and both sets of comments may only then be shared with the
student.
Only the agreed mark needs to be recorded at assessment boards.
Every piece of work for that Unit will be marked by 2 markers.
If 1st and 2nd Markers do not reach agreement, a 3rd (experienced) marker will be
brought in and their decision is final.
4. 2nd Marking or double unseen marking may also be used as an induction tool for new
markers, or where a new assessment or unit is introduced. This is one method of induction
and good practice rather than a Trust requirement.
Internal Verification
5. Internal Verification (IV) should be applied to all other Summative Assessments. The
Internal Verifier’s role is crucial to ensure parity of practice and should provide an overview
and assurance to the course team that students are being marked at a high standard and
both fairly and accurately. They should be prepared to respond to the Course Lead (even if it
is not reported formally) on these areas.






The sample to be IVd should consist of 15% or 10 scripts (whichever is the greater), plus
all fails.
The sample should be representative of markers and grades, meaning that the sample
should be made up of scripts from the full range of markers, grades and any associate
centres.
If a cross-section of all markers and centres cannot be achieved within one assignment,
a sample of each markers’ work should be Internally Verified over the course of the year
(or two years).
Internal verifiers cannot amend individual marks.
If the Internal verifier identifies that a particular marker’s marks are consistently higher
or lower than the other markers, they should:
o Bring this discrepancy to the attention of the Course Lead. Where the Course
Lead’s sample is the one with the discrepancy, another experienced marker should
be brought in but the course lead will need to be made aware of the issue.
o Propose a recommended percentage adjustment to all students’ assignments on
that unit which are marked by that marker (not just the ones in the IV sample) to
bring the marks in line with the rest of the cohort;
o Where this cannot take place, the Course Lead can make the decision to have the
assignments of those affected remarked;
o Individual student marks must not be amended by the internal verifier.
Good practice would be to receive a written or verbal report from the internal verifier
at the assessment board or pre-board.
Word Count
1. Word counts are stipulated in the Module Descriptors within the Course Handbooks. A
10% margin is applied to all PG Taught assignments. Doctoral Theses should be no more
than the stipulated word count.
2. Assessment submissions that go above the stipulated word count will:
a. Be marked from the beginning up to the word count limit (including the 10%
margin where applicable); and
b. Assessment requirements/criteria regarding structuring, presentation and style
of the written work will not have been fully met due to exceeding the word limit
and marks should appropriately reflect this.