This document discusses various considerations for developing effective grading criteria and marking schemes. It emphasizes that marking schemes should reward the skills and content the assessment aims to evaluate. Various types of marking schemes are described, including model answers, point-based schemes, and criteria-based schemes. Criteria-based schemes divide performance into dimensions or criteria, with defined levels of achievement for each criterion. The document also discusses principles for developing high-quality marking schemes, such as incorporating rules to differentiate performance levels and focusing on assessing response quality for more open-ended questions.

1. Grading criteria
and marking schemes
Liz Norman
Massey University

2. Validity again…
• The questions must elicit the behaviour we
want to evaluate
• Markers need to reward features we want to
evaluate and not reward features we do not
want to evaluate
• Different markers need to award
similar/scores for the same candidate
response

3. Purpose of marking schemes
• To help you during Q writing
– What content is important
– Whether the Q asks what you intended it to ask
– Whether it is do-able in the time available
• To help you during Q marking
– helps you decide how to award marks to any
particular candidate response
– facilitates reliable and fair marking

4. Types of marking scheme
1. Model answer – “ideal” answer
2. Point-based schemes
3. Criteria- & level-based schemes
4. Schemes with incorporated principle(s) for
discriminating levels

5. Model answers
• Not recommended as a sole component of a
marking scheme
– Usually more than would be expected to be given
by any candidate
– No guidance on how to assess alternative answers
to the model provided
– No guidance on how to award marks
• Can be a useful adjunct to a marking scheme

6. Point-based schemes
• Points for each objectively identifiable content
point
• Does not indicate the relative importance of
the points it awards
• Sum can be more or less than the whole
• Rewards quantity not quality

7. Prestructural
Unistructural Able to identify, list, name, enumerate but does not describe,
explain, relate or elaborate multiple aspects of a response
Multistructural
Relational
Extended
abstract
Quantitative change
Qualitative change

8. Criteria- & level-based schemes
• Criteria – different dimensions of performance
• Level – different quality/standards of
performance on a given criteria

9. Criteria- & level-based schemes
• Generic vs specific for the Q
• Explicit vs implicit weighting

10. Standards
Very poor Poor Fair Excellent
Criteria
Analysis and
interpretation
of results
Total 8 marks
0-2 marks
Interpretation not
provided or incorrect.
2-4 marks
Lacks one or more key
elements.
4-6 marks
Adequate interpretation
that addresses key
elements. Misses nuances
of interpretation or
uncommon differentials
6-8 marks
Thorough accurate
interpretation of results.
Well justified and
appropriately prioritised
list of differentials.
Quality of
planning
Total 8 marks
0-2 marks
No plans provided or
plans not appropriate
or dangerous
2-4 marks
Plans miss some key
aspects or overly
general
4-6 marks
Adequate plans that
address all key
differentials. Some
displaced in priority or not
pragmatic
6-8 marks
Thorough detailed and
well-prioritised and
pragmatic plan that
addresses all defined
differentials.
Knowledge of
current
literature
Total 5 marks
0-2 marks
Little or no literature referred to or incorrectly
referred to.
3-4 marks
Answer refers to some of
the key literature
4-5 marks
Answer refers to current
literature including
controversies and
comparative work from
other species.
Logical
presentation
Total 4 marks
1 mark
Answer is disorganised
and includes a large
amount of irrelevant
material
2 marks
Answer is somewhat
disorganized and
includes some
irrelevant material
3 marks
The answer is relatively
well organized and
contains little irrelevant
material.
4 marks
The answer shows a high
degree of logical thought
and well-constructed
argument.

12. Analytical vs holistic schemes
• Both are valid
• Analytical (criteria scored separately)
– Better agreement between examiners
– Insufficient criteria
– Overlapping criteria
– Really just lots of smaller holistic decisions
• Holistic (scored as a whole)
– Don’t straightjacket examiners
– Challenging, especially for longer answers
– Less agreement between examiners

13. Prestructural Question may be rephrased as the answer; almost completely
misses the point of the question.
Unistructural Able to identify, list, name, enumerate but does not describe,
explain, relate or elaborate multiple aspects of a response
Multistructural Able to list as well as describe distinct aspects of a response (such
as being able to describe aetiology, clinical features, management
of thrombotic stroke) but unable to explicitly explain causes for
observations; unable to present cause-effect relationships.
Relational Able to describe multiple aspects of a process and additionally
explain or elaborate observations into cause-effect relationships;
able to compare similarities and differences between apparently
distinct phenomena. This level is taken as suggesting that the
learner has understood.
Extended
abstract
Highly developed; able to explain mechanisms of phenomena and
apply this information to a novel context — able to develop novel
hypotheses, theories, and deduce principles; creative thinking.
Prakash et al. (2010). Adv Physiol Educ, 34(3), 145-149.

14. SOLO levels in marking schemes
Prestructural The task may be engaged, but the student is distracted or
misled by irrelevant aspects
Unistructural The student focuses on the relevant domain and works with a
single aspect
Multistructural The student provides correct material with discrete, separate
pieces of information that may be combined to provide a
composite picture
Relational The student offers an integrated understanding of the
information. The whole has a coherent structure and meaning
Extended
abstract
Abstract general principles or hypotheses are provided
Scholten I, Keeves JP, Lawson MJ. High Educ 44:233–255, 2002.

15. Incorporating principles/rules
• Ideal is a specific criteria- & level-based
schemes with incorporated principle(s) for
discriminating levels

16. Incorporating principles
• Calais has a warmer winter and a cooler
summer than Wroclaw. Explain why. (3 marks)
• Marking scheme:
Looking for answers related to distance from
the sea therefore latitude is not credited.
– Land heats up quicker than sea (1 mark)
– A clear distinction between land and sea heating
(2 marks)
Ahmed & Pollitt (2011) Improving marking quality through a taxonomy of mark schemes. Assessment in Education: Principles,
Policy & Practice 2011;18:259-278.

17. Incorporating principles
Marking scheme excerpt:
Discussion should focus on strategies adopted to
ensure sustainability and an evaluation of these
with regard to whether or not or to what extent the
Sahel can be sustainably managed. The discussion
will depend on the content and whether the overall
view is optimistic or pessimistic.
AQA (2013) General Certificate of Education (A-level) Geography Unit 1: Physical and Human Geography
http://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/geography/a-level/geography-2030/past-papers-and-mark-schemes

18. Quality vs quantity
• More complex and unstructured the Q the
more assessing quality not quantity
• In very constrained tasks only judging how
correct the answer is
• In very open tasks, “correctness” is less
important and its quality that's judged instead

19. Prestructural Question may be rephrased as the answer; almost completely
misses the point of the question.
Unistructural Able to identify, list, name, enumerate but does not describe,
explain, relate or elaborate multiple aspects of a response
Multistructural Able to list as well as describe distinct aspects of a response (such
as being able to describe aetiology, clinical features, management
of thrombotic stroke) but unable to explicitly explain causes for
observations; unable to present cause-effect relationships.
Relational Able to describe multiple aspects of a process and additionally
explain or elaborate observations into cause-effect relationships;
able to compare similarities and differences between apparently
distinct phenomena. This level is taken as suggesting that the
learner has understood.
Extended
abstract
Highly developed; able to explain mechanisms of phenomena and
apply this information to a novel context — able to develop novel
hypotheses, theories, and deduce principles; creative thinking.
Prakash et al. (2010) Adv Physiol Educ, 34(3):145-149

20. Writing marking schemes
• Select and organise the criteria/dimensions
• Develop clear descriptions for each
level/standard of each criteria
• Need to think about poor answers as well as
good ones

21. Reconsidering question wording
• Writing marking schemes can alert you to
question problems
• The question may not elicit a higher order
response from the candidate.
• Candidates cannot demonstrate higher order
thinking unless you ask them to
• Think about what aspects of their answer will
alert you to their higher order skills

22. Disconnected knowledge Connected knowledge
• No particular order to aspects
presented
• Inclusion of irrelevant material
• Inconsistencies or incorrect
aspects
• Superficial or oversimplified
• Replication of material from
sources – rote learned or
reproduced without significant
transformation
• Aspects explained relative to one another
• Logically organised answer
• Analysis and or synthesis
• Compares similarities and differences
• Integrates multiple levels (eg: molecular, biochemical,
systemic)
• Evaluates inconsistencies
• Expresses reasons
• Explains implications or reaches a conclusion
• Expresses relative importance, value, significance of
aspects.
• Selective answer that addresses the point of the question
and may be shorter than a multistructural answer
• Uses the language of the discipline - terminology and
phrasing
• Relates answer to examples or experience
• Relates answer to organising principles of the discipline
Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (structure of the observed learning outcome). New York: Academic Press.

23. Using table format, compare and contrast the
pre-, peri- and post-anaesthetic considerations
and management of each of the following
species; a ferret (Mustela putorius furo), a rat
(Rattus norvegicus) and a central bearded
dragon (Pogona vitticeps). List the mode of
action of each drug referred to.

24. Revising mark schemes in use
• Hopefully all types of answer are anticipated
• Sometimes though it is not – can indicate
unanticipated problems with the Q
• Marking schemes might need revising after
first few candidates marked
• HSE should moderate marking and should
encourage team members to report marking
issues early in the piece.

25. Key points

26. Marking schemes
• Give an indication of the key criteria for
discriminating passing answers from failing
ones
• Then add in what would be a better
performance and what would be a lesser
performance
• Think about both quantitative and qualitative
aspects of an answer

27. Marking schemes
• Quantitative:
– Which parts of the answer are essential
– How many errors in these parts are tolerated
• Qualitative
– Thinking processes you want to examine
– What connections are essential/important
– How the structure of an answer will help you
differentiate a structured, related, connected
thought process from a multistructural list of
unrelated facts

28. Marking schemes
• Think about how a candidate who includes
all/most of the right stuff but also includes
wrong stuff will be graded
• What it indicates about the knowledge
structure
if there are contradictions/irrelevancies
in the answer

29. Marking schemes
• Keep them brief
• Think about them as specifying principles to
apply rather than exhaustive detail
• Concentrate on specifying the differentiating
characteristics and how much of this there
needs to be
• Don’t use them to educate examiners about
the topic 