Procedure applied for remarking module

The request was successful.

Dear Queen Mary University of London,

I refer to the academic year 2020-21; Politics BA Year 3. School of Politics and International Relations Module POL317 – Global Politics of Health and Disease.
This module was remarked. What procedure was applied in this case and what specific reasons were there to justify a remark. In detail please provide the all marks before the remark and after the remark.

Yours faithfully,

P Badcock

Queen Mary, University of London FOI, Queen Mary University of London

We acknowledge receipt of your request and will respond as soon as we can.

QM FOI Enquiries, Queen Mary University of London

1 Attachment

Dear P Badcock,

Thank you for your email.

The procedure was that in moderation an issue was identified with one of the markers' marking and normal practice is remarking it to ensure that all students are marked fairly and appropriately. The remarked essays were marked by another marker on the module to ensure consistency and fairness for all on the module. These remarks were subject to checking and ratification at the SEB. The remark was completed in line with School of Politics and International Relations' marking policies.

The module had 106 students registered and 15 students were remarked based on the moderation of the module by a senior and very experienced member of academic staff. The students that were regraded and the changes are outlined in the attached.

The 2020/21 Assessment Handbook is also attached for your information.

If you are dissatisfied with this response, you may ask QMUL to conduct a review of this decision. To do this, please contact QMUL in writing (including by fax, letter or email), describe the original request, explain your grounds for dissatisfaction, and include an address for correspondence. You have 40 working days from receipt of this communication to submit a review request. When the review process has been completed, if you are still dissatisfied, you may ask the Information Commissioner to intervene. Please see www.ico.org.uk for details.

Yours sincerely

Queen Mary University London

show quoted sections

Dear QM FOI Enquiries,
Thank you for your reply.
You have not answered my request fully. Specifically ;-
> What was the issue that caused the modulator to have to remark these 15 students?
> Of the 15 students who were modulated, how many had their marks moved UP and how many had their marks moved DOWN?

Yours sincerely,

P Badcock

Dear QM FOI Enquiries,

In addition, please give the marks before any remarking and the marks after remarking for the 15 students

Yours sincerely,

P Badcock

QM FOI Enquiries, Queen Mary University of London

1 Attachment

FOI 2022/F430

Dear Paul Badcock,

Thank you for your further email.

Please see the attached, which was omitted from our initial response inadvertently.

Marks for assessment are moderated where necessary, to confirm the standard of marking, as explained in the Assessment Handbook, which has been supplied to you. For this module, students were informed on 14 June 2021, 'moderation ensures that the three markers on the module are marking consistently, and that we are marking consistently across modules as well to ensure fairness across the School.'

Yours sincerely

Queen Mary University of London

Dear QM FOI Enquiries,

Thank you for your reply.
I would still like further clarification specifically on the following points numbered below:-
1. What was the QMUL borderline regulation that was applied for the student marked with an asterisk ( *) original marking of 68 with a new mark of 69?
2. You say in your email, “ moderated where necessary“; specifically, in this assignment, what was it ( for example, was it an issue with feedback) that required the assignment to be remarked?
3. What QMUL regulation would apply to determine if the original versus the new marks for the assignment for these 15 students showed that there is a ‘fit for purpose’ quality issue and that the assignment would require resubmitting?
4. Could the Seminar Tutor for this assignment have challenged the remark under QMUL regulations and what alternative outcome/s could there have been in terms of marking?

Yours sincerely,

P Badcock

Dear Queen Mary University of London,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Queen Mary University of London's handling of my FOI request 'Procedure applied for remarking module'.

I have made several requests asking for specific details and these have not been answered! I have been very detailed giving numbered questions for the sake of clarity but I have not received answers to. these questions.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...

Yours faithfully,

P Badcock

QM FOI Enquiries, Queen Mary University of London

Dear Paul Badcock,

 

We are pleased to provide answers to your follow-up queries from your
email of 3^rd November, which ask for new information (as such, we have
not carried out an internal review).

 

1. What was the QMUL borderline regulation that was applied for the
student marked with an asterisk ( *) original marking of 68 with a new
mark of 69?

 

It was the SPIR Marking and Moderation procedures 2020/21. In particular
section Moderation – sub section 3 – Additional points para.(a). Here it
states:

 

“Additional points:

 

 a. Marginal module marks: Where a decision must be taken regarding a
borderline student (i.e. a student whose overall module mark is within
1% of the higher class), all of the assessed work should be reviewed.
The module convenor and moderator may, if they consider it
appropriate, make final mark adjustments to move the candidate into
the higher class. It is not our policy to routinely ‘round up’
marginal marks. However, the module convenor needs to be sure that if
they do leave a student with a marginal module mark, it is an accurate
reflection of the student’s achievements and, in the case of final
year students, that they can defend the impact of a marginal mark in a
case where the student’s College mark falls within the zone of
consideration at the SEB.”

 

2. You say in your email, “ moderated where necessary“; specifically, in
this assignment, what was it ( for example, was it an issue with feedback)
that required the assignment to be remarked?

 

The issue that was identified in moderation is that the feedback for this
group was sparse and did not provide sufficient information to help
students understand their areas of strengths and weaknesses and the
rationale behind the overall mark. Student feedback on provisional results
had also highlighted this issue.

 

3. What QMUL regulation would apply to determine if the original versus
the new marks for the assignment for these 15 students showed that there
is a ‘fit for purpose’ quality issue and that the assignment would require
resubmitting?

 

We are not wholly clear what is meant by this part as we believe we have
made it evident in previous correspondence that the issue was with the
marking, not the assessment. In the event that the delivery of an
assessment was so flawed that there was no reasonable way to include it in
a marking profile we would take a case-by-case approach – for a relatively
small element of assessment that might be to exclude the problematic
element from calculations if we were confident that other assessments
adequately tested the required learning outcomes, or we could set an
alternative assessment if required. It would always be case-dependent,
however.

The relevant policy is the Code of Practice on Double Marking and
Moderation (in chapter 5 of the [1]Assessment Handbook), but there will
not be a directly relevant clause as your query is conflating the quality
of the assessment design with the quality of the marking. The most
relevant section is 5.18-28.

 

4. Could the Seminar Tutor for this assignment have challenged the remark
under QMUL regulations and what alternative outcome/s could there have
been in terms of marking?

 

All marking goes via the Subject Examination Board. It is likely that
marking issues would be discussed with the seminar tutor if they were the
first marker, but as a developmental exercise. If they were unhappy with
the change, they could have made that known and it would have been part of
the discussions at the SEB, but ultimately the moderator and the SEB have
experience and a broader overview of marking and modules (which is the
purpose of moderation).

 

Yours sincerely

 

Queen Mary University of London

References

Visible links
1. https://arcs.qmul.ac.uk/media/arcs/polic...