Standardisation approaches aim to harness peer discussion in order to reach a common understanding of standards and thresholds among markers. It is a process of calibration conducted internally within an institutionally defined marking team, and is distinctive from moderation practices that typically take place at the end of the marking process. Standardisation practices are based on the whole team marking a sample of live or historic assessment artefacts in a semi structured environment, prior to the process of marking and moderating the full cohort.

This project explores the notion that a shift from moderation towards standardisation and calibration is a means to reduce variability in making standards judgments. (Sadler, 2013) It builds on research on related practices that offer some evidence of decreased variability, and indicate improved marker confidence in making reliable judgements about standards. (O’Connell et al, 2016)

There is also evidence to suggest that student involvement in standardisation exercises has the dual effect of achieving common understanding of standards amongst markers, and heightening students’ understanding about how standards judgements were being applied to their work, improving their confidence in the marking system. (Bamber, 2014)

Our investigations suggest similar benefits across a range of contexts. In this session we provide insights into several standardisation practices that are being used by colleagues at Lancaster University, and discuss the effects of such practices on:
• The robustness and transparency of marking decision making.
• Any reduction in variability or inconsistency in making standards judgements.
• Consistency relating to feedback and marking team practices.
• Staff and student assessment literacy pertaining to academic standards.
• The impact on overall marking and moderation workload.