1. The interactive, trans-
generational-feed-forward-
enhanced, marking criteria
clarification tool
Mark Poulter, Joe McVeigh, Iseult Wilson, Lisa-Marie Cooke

2. “What do you need to do
to get a good mark
around here?”
Mark Poulter, Joe McVeigh, Iseult Wilson, Lisa-Marie Cooke

3. Stakeholders
Learners Teachers Support/A.N. Others
3rd year Physiotherapy Iseult Wilson Clinicians
students (Module Co-ordinator) (“Clinical Educators”)
PTH541 All Physio Lecturers
(Clinical Placement 4)
Case Study

4. Project Aim
 To better enlighten students as to what is
expected of them, thereby enabling them to
achieve a higher level of academic performance.

5. Project Objectives
 Clarify for students the meaning of words found
in the marking grids (e.g. synthesis, appraisal,
etc.)
 Provide exemplars (ideally using real examples
from past students’ work)
 Successfully introduce the tool to the course
team.

6. Desired Benefits
Learners Teachers Support/A.N. Others
Better understanding Greater Confidence in being
of Level 6 standardisation of able to advise
requirements marking students (if asked)
Better performance Fewer corrections (&
so less time) needed
giving feedback…
Higher self-esteem & … and more time
grades spent on advancing
learning.

7. Known Risks
 Expose possible non-standardisation of marking:
- A benefit & a risk:
- Benefit – if it leads to our aim
- Short-term risk if students lose faith in marking
 Potentially dishearten some students:
- “I’ll never be able to do that, so I’ll give up now”
 Potential straight-jacket:
- If applied as rules, not guidelines
- Restrict future development/improvement by staff

8. Issues
 There is a current perception of non-
standardisation of marking across course ‘team’
 Varying interpretations across the course ‘team’ re:
- Meaning of marking grid’s wording
- What is correct grammar, etc.