Are we consistently inconsistent when assessing undergraduate dissertations?

D'Northwood, Gavin

Abstract

High stakes assessment is a central function of higher education and a crucial factor in determining future study and career opportunities. Accountability and transparency are especially important in this context, with higher education assessment practices necessarily located within an agenda of institutional accountability underpinned by quality assurance frameworks covering the design and execution of assessment tasks and associated processes for evaluating and moderating student performance. Key concerns within the agenda of accountability are to reduce the apparent arbitrariness of assessors’ judgements and to ensure that grades are consistent across assessors and fairly represent student achievement. Mandated application of official assessment criteria, and internal moderation of assessment via double marking processes, are said to facilitate the sharing of understandings and hence the calibration of grades to alleviate the risk of variation, but do they? This study seeks to examine this in the context of a UK university business school.

Citation

D'Northwood, G. (2024, May). Are we consistently inconsistent when assessing undergraduate dissertations?. Paper presented at British Accounting & Finance Association (BAFA) Accounting Education SIG Annual Conference 2024, Leeds, UK

• Presentation Conference Type: Conference Paper (unpublished)
• Conference Name: British Accounting & Finance Association (BAFA) Accounting Education SIG Annual Conference 2024
• Start Date: May 29, 2024
• End Date: May 31, 2024
• Deposit Date: Jun 4, 2024
• Public URL: https://durham-repository.worktribe.com/output/2472851