Exploration of collaboration with university students in marking and moderation





assessment, moderation, Feedback, Empowerment


Student assignment moderation and written feedback are integral to tertiary education, supporting student learning and providing a means of ensuring equity in grading. The processes of moderation and feedback provision have, however, been associated with a number of negative outcomes including confusion, disengagement, and reduced self-confidence. Improvements to moderation processes must be reviewed to facilitate continued student engagement and learning. Embedded within empowerment theory, this pilot study aimed to explore the feasibility of involving students in the moderation process and to determine whether students benefit from participating in the moderation process. A multiple method approach was undertaken to understand the perspectives of students on the moderation process. Six undergraduate occupational therapy students participated in the moderation of a written essay with tutors and participated in a focus group. Three themes relating to their experiences emerged: 1) student empowerment, 2) transparency and increased understanding of the moderation process, and 3) understanding the assessor mindset. Combined results suggest that inclusion of students in the moderation process is feasible within a tertiary education context, with this study acting as a pilot for the inclusion of students in these processes.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Benjamin Milbourna, Curtin University

Curtin School of Allied Health, Faculty of Health Sciences

Melissa H Black, Curtin University

Curtin School of Allied Health, Faculty of Health Sciences

Tomomi Mcauliffe, Curtin University

Curtin School of Allied Health, Faculty of Health Sciences

Melissa Scott, Curtin University

Curtin School of Allied Health, Faculty of Health Sciences

Angus Buchanan, Curtin University

Curtin School of Allied Health, Faculty of Health Sciences


Baik, C., Larcombe, W., & Brooker, A. (2019). How universities can enhance student mental wellbeing: the student perspective. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(4), 674-687. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1576596 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1576596

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy: Mechanisms in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122-147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122

Birch, P., Batten, J., & Batey, J. (2015). The influence of student gender on the assessment of undergraduate student work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(7), 1065-1080. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1064857 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1064857

Birmingham, S. (2015). Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011: Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015 Canberra, ACT: Australian Government, Department of Education and Training.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Buchanan, A. (2007). The antecedents of empowerment for parents and carers of people with intellectual disabilities within the direct funding model. Intellectual Disability Australasia, 6-13.

Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219-233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572132 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572132

Carless, D. (2008). Trust, distrust and their impact on assessment reform. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), 79-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930801895786 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930801895786

Carless, D. (2013). Trust and its role in facilitating dialogic feedback. In D. Boud & E. Molloy (Eds.), Feedback in Higher and Professional Education: Understanding it and doing it well. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge

Chan, Z., Tong, C., & Henderson, S. (2017). Power dynamics in teh student-teacher relationship in clinical settings. Nurse Education Today, 49, 174-179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.11.026 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.11.026

Conger, J., & Kanungo, R. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471-482. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/258093 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1988.4306983

Curan, R., & Millard, L. (2016). A partnership approach to developing students capacity to engage and staff capacity to be engaging; Opportunities for academic developers. International Journal of Academic Development, 21(1), 67-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2015.1120212 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2015.1120212

Daniels, J., & Brooker, J. (2014). Student identity development in higher education: implications for graduate attributes and work-readiness. Educational Research, 56(1), 65-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2013.874157 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2013.874157

Dowling, M. (2009). From Husserl to van Manen: A review of different phenomenological approaches. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 44, 131-142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2005.11.026 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2005.11.026

Eraut, M. (2006). Feedback. Learning in Health and Social Care, 5(3), 111-118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-6861.2006.00129.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-6861.2006.00129.x

Falchikov, N. (2005). Improving assessment through student involvement: Practical solutions for aiding learning in higher and further education Abingdon, Oxon: RoutledgeFalmer

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society and the late modern age: Stanford University Press.

Gist, M., & Mitchell, T. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183-211. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.1992.4279530 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1992.4279530

Hall, M., Hanna, L. A., & Quinn, S. (2012). Pharmacy students’ views of faculty feedback on academic performance. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 76(1), Article 5. http://dx.doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7615 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7615

Hanrahan, S., & Isaacs, G. (2001). Assessing self- and peer-assessment: The students' views. Higher Education Research and Development, 20(1), 53-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360123776 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360123776

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback Review of Educational Research, 77(81 ), 81-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

Higgins, R., Hartley, P., & Skelton, A. (2001). Getting the message across: The problem of communicating assessment feedback. Teaching in Higher Education 6(2), 269-274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562510120045230 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510120045230

Hounsell, D. (2003). Student feedback, learning and development. In M. Slowey & D. Watson (Eds.), Higher Education and the Lifecourse. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Kantek, F., & Gezer, N. (2010). Faculty members' use of power: Midwifery students' perceptions and expectations. Midwifery, 26(4), 475-479. http://dx.doi.org/0.1016/j.midw.2008.10.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2008.10.003

Kaufman, J., & Schun, C. (2011). Students perceptions about peer assessment for writing: The origin and impact on revision work. Instructional Science 39(3), 387-406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9133-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9133-6

Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45(3), 214-222. http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.45.3.214 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.45.3.214

Lea, M., & Street, B. (2000). Student writing and staff feedback in higher education: An academic literatacies approach. In M. Lea & B. Stierer (Eds.), Students writing in higher education: New contexts. Buckingham: The Society for Resarch into Higher Education and Open University Press

Lincoln, Y., . & Guba, E. . (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In N. L. Denzin, Y. (Ed.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 163-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lounsbury, J., Huffstetler, B., Leong, F., & Gibson, L. (2005). Sense of identity and collegiate academic achievement. Journal of College Student Development, 46(5), 501-514. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/csd.2005.0051 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2005.0051

McConnell-Henry, T., Chapman, Y., & Francis, K. (2011). Member checking and Heideggerian phenomenology: A redundant component. Nurse Researcher, 18(2), 28-37. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.7748/nr2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2011.

Morse, J., & Niehaus, L. (2009). Mixed method design: Principles and procedures. New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.

Mulliner, E., & Tucker, M. (2017). Feedback on feedback practice: Perceptions of students and academics. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 42(2), 266-288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1103365 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1103365

Nicol, D. (2008). Transforming assessment and feedback: Enhancing integration and empowerment in the first year. In Q. A. Agency (Ed.), Scotland, UK.

Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501-517. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602931003786559 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003786559

Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090

O'Donovan, B., Price, M., & Rust, C. (2001). The student experience of criterion-referenced asssessment (Through the introduction of a common criteria assessment grid). Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 38(1), 74-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/147032901300002873 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/147032901300002873

O'Donovan, B., Price, M., & Rust, C. (2004). Know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(3), 325-335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1356251042000216642 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1356251042000216642

Ofori, R., & Charlton, J. (2002). A path model of factors influencing the academic performance of nursing students. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 38(5), 507-515. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02212.x

Pekrun, R., Frenzel, A., Goetz, T., & Perry, R. (2007). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: An integrative approach to emotions in education. In A. Paul & P. Reinhard (Eds.), Emotion in education (pp. 13-36). Burlington: Academic Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012372545-5/50003-4

Polit, D., & Beck, C. (2010). Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: Myths and strategies International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47, 1451-1458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.06.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.06.004

Price, M. (2005). Assessment standards: The role of communities and the scholarship of assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(3), 215-230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930500063793 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500063793

Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Elam, G., Tennant, R., & Rahim, N. (2014). Designing and selecting samples. In J. Ritchie, J. Lewis, C. McNaughton Nicholls & R. Ormstron (Eds.), Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers (2 ed.). London, England: Sage.

Ross, M., & Buehler, R. (2004). Identity through time: Constructing personal pasts and futures. In M. Brewer & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Self and Social Identity. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Rowe, D. (2017). Feelings about feedback: The role of emotions in assessment and learning In D. Carless, S. Bridges, C. Chan & R. Glofcheski (Eds.), Scaling up assessment for learning in higher education: The enabling power of assessment (pp. 159-172). Singapore: Springer DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3045-1_11

Sandelowski, M. (1995). Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing and Health, 18(2), 179-183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770180211 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770180211

Spreitzer, G. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/256865 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/256865

Strijbos, J., Narciss, S., & Dünnebier, K. (2010). Peer feedback content and sender's competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? Learning and Instruction 20(4), 291-303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.008} DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.008

Taylor, C., & da Silva, K. (2013). An analysis of the effectiveness of feedback to students on assessed work. Higher Education Research and Development, 33(4), 794-806. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.863840 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.863840

Taylor, M. (2007). Evidence-based practice for occupational therapists. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Waterman, A. (2004). Finding someone to be: Studies on the role of intrinsic motivation in identity formation. Identity, 4(3), 209-228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532706xid0403 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532706xid0403_1

Weaver, M. (2006). Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors' written responses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 379-394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930500353061 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500353061




How to Cite

Milbourna, B., Black, M. H., Mcauliffe, T., Scott, M., & Buchanan, A. (2021). Exploration of collaboration with university students in marking and moderation. International Journal for Innovation Education and Research, 9(10), 228–245. https://doi.org/10.31686/ijier.vol9.iss10.3440