Assignment Writing Service http://HelpWriting.net/Assessment-And-Moderation-In-Higher-Edu 👈

1. ASSESSMENT COVER SHEET
Surname Moodley Initials S
Student
number 2011164478
Phone 083 745 6856
Module name ASSESSMENT AND MODERATION
Module
code
HOS721/HES
721
Title of
assignment
Can we trust the Qualifications we award?
Lecturer/tutor Dr S P van Tonder
Is this an authorised group assignment?1
Yes No
Has any part of this assignment been previously submitted? Yes No
Due date2
; 19th
August 2013 Date submitted: 29th
August 2013
Extension granted until (date) Signature of lecturer/tutor
Definitions
Plagiarism implies:
 direct duplication of the formulation and insights of a source text with the
intention of presenting it as one’s own work.
Academic writing misconduct implies:
 cribbing in tests and examinations;
 collusion and fabrication or falsification of data;
 deliberate dishonesty;
 purchasing assignments, dissertations and/or theses on the Internet and
presenting such documents as one’s own work;
 presenting the same work for more than one course or in consecutive years; and
 the submission of another person’s work as one’s own original work.
1
Note: If this is a group assignment, please include the names of all other group members.
2
All work must be submitted by the due date. If an extension of work is granted, this must be specified and confirmed by the signature of the lecturer/tutor.

2. 2 | P a g e
Student statement:
I have read the University’s Policy on the Prevention of Plagiarism and Dealing with
Academic Writing Misconduct:
http://www.ufs.ac.za/dl/userfiles/Documents/00000/364_afr.pdf
I understand that I must:
 abide by all the directives of this Policy, the Assessment Policy, course guides,
specific and general regulations and assessment requirements;
 seek assistance if I am unsure about appropriate citation and referencing
techniques;
 accept responsibility for having full knowledge of the Policy;
 submit only my own work for any form of assessment, except where:
– the work of others is appropriately acknowledged; and
– the assessor/moderator has required, or given prior permission for, group or
collaborative work to be submitted;
 refrain from intentionally or negligently deceiving the reader by preventing my own
work from being copied by another student, who may or may not have an
intentional or negligent aim to deceive the reader;
 be aware that according to the Policy, measures for all Level Four violations and
repeated Levels One, Two and Three violations are reported and investigated in
accordance with the Rules on Student Discipline; and
 include with my assignment a Blackboard-SafeAssign report if required/where
applicable.
Signature: ...... ...............................................
Date: …29th
August 2013 ………………………………

3. 3 | P a g e
Contents
8. MODERATION OF ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................................4
8.1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................4
8.2.1. The NQF ...............................................................................................................................................6
8.2.2. Traditonal moderation and the new system.....................................................................................7
8.2.3. Contemporary purposes of moderation in HE/FET ........................................................................8
8.2.4. Pre and Post assessment moderation .............................................................................................8
8.2.5. Different systems for HE and FET ....................................................................................................9
8.3.4. Reviewing the moderation system and process. ..........................................................................13
8.3.5. Internal versus external moderation ...............................................................................................14
8.4. VERIFICATION /AUDITING OF ASSESSMENT AND MODERATION SYSTEMS AND
PRACTICES....................................................................................................................................... 15
.................................................................................................................................................................................15
8.4.2. Internal vs external verification /Auditing .......................................................................................16
.........................................................................................................................................................................16
.................................................................................................................................................................................17
8.5. CRITICAL EVALUATION OF CONVENTIONAL ASSUMPTIONS RELATED TO
ASSESSMENT AND MODERATION ........................................................................................... 17
.............................................................................................................................................................. 17
8.6. Conclusion of Part 2.................................................................................................................. 19
9. Final Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................20
.............................................................................................................................................................. 21
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................22

4. 4 | P a g e
8. MODERATION OF ASSESSMENT
8.1. INTRODUCTION
The SAQA Act 1995 and the subsequent NQF Act of 2008, specifically came into effect to
ensure the implementation of the National Qualifications Framework (NQF).The objectives of
the NQF are:
a. Create an integrated national framework for learning achievements;
b. Facilitate access to, and mobility and progression within education, training and career
paths;
c. Enhance the quality of education and training;
d. Accelerate the redress of past unfair discrimination in education, training and
employment opportunities; and thereby
e. Contribute to the full personal development of each learner and the social and
economic development of the nation at large.
The Act institutionalised quality as an essential element in education and training provision in
South Africa and went on to identify, and in some instances create bodies that have become
the custodians of quality in the delivery of education and training in South Africa.
A suggested definition of quality is offered by SAQA in the following: that quality is the extent
to which the degree of excellence specified has been achieved. This definition suggests that
those elements that specify excellence must be identified at the outset of education and
training process. The discussion around quality cannot be had without references to
supporting concepts like quality assurance, and quality management systems.
Therefore if we are to achieve excellence, what systems must be in place within our education
and training institutions to ensure that the specified excellence is achieved. Quality
management is defined as the processes that need to be put into place in order to ensure that
the stated degree of excellence is achieved. What then is the relationship between
moderation and quality? From a SAQA definition, moderation is the process that quality
assures assessment by confirming the assessment judgements made through an interrogation
of the formative and summative assessments and the final results. R. Blom (2008:302)

5. 5 | P a g e
suggests the following definition: “moderation ensures that people assessed are assessed in a
consistent, accurate and well designed manner”. Blom(2008:302) points out that moderation
of assessment is the process of ensuring quality standards while Nuttal (2007:118) sees
moderation as a process for ensuring that grades awarded are fair and reliable and marking
criteria applied consistently.
8.2. RATIONALE FOR MODERATION
In considering the rationale for moderation we are asking the questions – Why moderate?
What are the benefits of moderation and in a SAQA context, how does moderation enable us
to achieve our goal of quality?
Blom (2008) and Murdoch and Grobbelaar (2004), are all consistent in offering the following
as the rationale for moderation:
 The standardisation of assessment practices within and across institutions
 Monitoring and evaluating assessment practices
 Monitoring and evaluating the design of assessment tools for appropriateness and
alignment to intended learning outcomes
 Monitoring and evaluating assessment processes and practices
 Providing support to practitioners and learners
In addition Blom (2008), Murdoch and Grobbelaar (2004) and Bloxham (2009) all highlight the
fact that moderation should be integrated into all aspects of teaching and learning in an
institution. This includes:
 Moderation of the curriculum – is it current and relevant?
 Moderation of assessment tools and methods for appropriateness and alignment with
the intended learning outcomes
 Moderation of teaching practices – are our teaching practices enabling learners to
achieve the intended learning outcomes?
 The learners experience of learning
 Moderation of Assessment results – are the assessment outcomes valid, fair and
reliable?

6. 6 | P a g e
Implicit in moderation practices is the need to ensure quality assurance in student assessment
so that we can be confident that the qualifications awarded are worthy of being awarded, that
they are well deserved and that they have meaning and value in the broader society in which
we participate.
8.2.1. The NQF
The SAQA Act of 1995 created the National Qualifications Framework, “the principal
instrument through which national education and training qualifications are recognised and
quality assured” (RSA DoE, 1995) –and institutionalised quality in education and training by a
commitment to it as reflected in the objectives of the National Qualifications Framework
(NQF). The NQF Act of 2008 took this a step further in providing for the establishment of
quality councils that will become the custodians of quality in education and training. It creates
three quality councils aimed at the three levels of education and training in South Africa,
specifically, a General and Further education and training quality council, a quality council to
oversee occupationally directed education and training (QCTO) and a quality council to
oversee higher education. What is clear is that the functions of the quality councils are
consistent establishing a common foundation intended to (RSA DoE, 1998):
(i) develop and implement policy for quality assurance;
(ii) ensure the integrity and credibility of quality assurance;
(iii) ensure that such quality assurance as is necessary for the sub-framework is undertaken;
whilst acknowledging the uniqueness of each of the frameworks that make up the South
African education and training landscape and therefore the need to customize the particular
quality framework to meet the needs of education and training in that realm.
Specifically, the objectives of the NQF, as articulated in the SAQA Act of 1995, remain
unchanged in the NQF Act of 2008 and are reflected as follows:
a. Create an integrated national framework for learning achievements;
b. Facilitate access to, and mobility and progression within education, training and career
paths;
c. Enhance the quality of education and training;
d. Accelerate the redress of past unfair discrimination in education, training and
employment opportunities; and thereby

7. 7 | P a g e
e. Contribute to the full personal development of each learner and the social and
economic development of the nation at large.
The NQF Act and the quality councils created, entrench quality assurance into all aspects of
education and training across the levels as they exist in South Africa. This includes the
curriculum design and development, learning and teaching (delivery), assessment, recognition
of prior learning, the competence of facilitators, assessors and moderators and ultimately the
accreditation of education and training providers which serves as the testimony that such
institutions have integrated quality systems into the institution. However, Blom (2008:291)
raises an interesting perspective in the following:”In terms of a quality specification for the
education and training system in South Africa, the extent to which credits are portable
between learning institutions and workplaces for example, will tell us whether the system is
meeting the requirements of the quality specification.” Whilst the NQF is widely accepted, as
reflected in the preamble to the NQF Act, the extent to which portability between and among
institutions and workplaces has taken place is yet to be investigated.
8.2.2. Traditional moderation and the new system
Traditional moderation is viewed as the oldest form of peer review, taking the form of double
marking and blind marking. However current challenges in higher education institutions are
forcing the question, is it fit for purpose?
Traditional moderation of assessment takes place at the summative stage of assessment. In
addition this is usually a single assessment conducted at the end of the year (Geyser, 2004;
Rust, 2002). Its purpose is largely to confirm the grade already awarded rather than using it as
an opportunity to determine the extent to which the process can inform future learning,
teaching and assessment.
However, as highlighted above, there is a strong school of thought suggesting that moderation
needs to take a more holistic view of all learning, teaching and assessment practices within
and across institutions. This new system of moderation being suggested is based on the
observed limitations of the existing system that is used in virtually the same format in South
Africa and the UK. These include (Nuttal, 2004; Murdoch and Grobbelaar, 2009) the limited
role that moderation has played to date being focused only at the final summative assessment
that will be used to award the grade, the lack of orientation of the moderator into the

8. 8 | P a g e
institutions practices, philosophies and goals, the use of the same examiner repeatedly year
after year together with the same methodology of moderation (double marking; blind marking).
The new system of moderation being suggested (Nuttal, 2004; Murdoch and Grobbelaar,
2009) should be fit for purpose, that is, moderation practices must consider the specifics of the
faculty and the nature of the subject being taught. In addition moderation should be integrated
into the entire learning, teaching and assessment cycle. There needs to be the recognition
that moderation of assessment is not only to ensure adherence to existing academic
standards, but to raise the standards as part of a commitment to continuous improvement and
delivering quality education and training.
8.2.3. Contemporary purposes of moderation in HE/FET
Within a contemporary education and training environment, moderation in HE/FET must take
an integrated approach to looking at the cycle of learning, teaching and assessment. Of
particular interest is the need to ensure the relevance and currency of existing qualifications
and curriculums. As a nation, South Africa is plagued with high unemployment levels, an
apparent dearth of skills needed to grow the economy and a contradictory reality of
unemployed graduates (RSA DoE 2012). This is as applicable to the higher education
environment as it is to the further education and training environment. Moderation of
curriculum and qualifications to determine their relevance, currency and demand would be a
valuable exercise in ensuring the availability of qualifications that there is an economic
demand for, thus addressing issues of unemployment and ensuring an education system that
is responsive to the needs of the labour market. In addition an integrated approach to
moderation will ensure the alignment between intended learning outcomes and assessment
tasks and assessment methods that learners are exposed to during assessment. As Geyser
(2004) contends, assessment in higher education remains traditional in methodology, largely
summative in nature with little or no focus on alignment with outcomes.
8.2.4. Pre and Post assessment moderation
Pre and Post assessment of moderation is often referred to as internal and external
moderation.

9. 9 | P a g e
Pre-Assessment moderation (internal) is focussed on the appropriateness of the assessment
tool, the selected assessment method and the alignment of the assessment tasks with the
learning outcomes. This is ideally moderated prior to its application in the classroom and is
largely an internal review of the assessment to be used, “A quality assurance process to
ensure the appropriateness, fairness, clarity, standard of assessment tasks and the resources
used for the assessment (Australian Catholic University, 2008)”. In addition ACU
(Australian Catholic University, 2008) suggests that internal moderation should ensure that
the assessment task focusses on higher order learning i.e. focussed on the upper three levels
of Bloom’s Taxonomy, namely, analyse, evaluate and create. As Blom says, quality happens
at the institutional level, at the learning site, thus making internal moderation essential to
entrenching quality processes and systems within the institution rather than taking a
compliance approach, where external moderation practices are imposed.
Post-assessment moderation (external moderation) is a quality assurance process that
ensures the consistency, accuracy of the assessment decision, alignment to the assessment
criteria and the institutions academic standards. Post assessment moderation is concerned
with maintaining standards across all institutions offering the same qualification.
Needless to say both these processes, one internally focussed and the other externally
focussed, have a valuable contribution to make to ensuring fair, valid and reliable assessment
practices. In suggesting an internal and external approach, SAQA attempts to make
institutions take responsibility for quality within the institutions by making the existence of a
quality management system the basis of awarding accreditation rather than an over reliance
on external quality compliance.
8.2.5. Different systems for HE and FET
The distinction must be made between the moderation systems that apply to public HE and
FET and private FET. There is no doubt that public and private HEI’s are required to ensure
the establishment of internal and external moderation. This is evident in the SAQA Act and the
NQF Act as well as the Higher Education Act. The variety of moderation bodies i.e. HEQC,
ETQA’s of the SETA’s now replaced with the QCTO and Umalusi who is intended to monitor
public FET’s suggests that we have a variety of structures measuring different metrics and
therefore the potential exists for an incoherent and unintegrated approach. Whilst the NQF Act

10. 10 | P a g e
of 2008, sets a common framework that exists as a foundation across all these structures with
an additional level that takes into consideration the nature of qualifications offered and the
context of that delivery (Higher education, occupationally focussed education and training or
further education and training) it is in the implementation that the effectiveness of the system
lies. Anecdotal evidence currently supports a very varied set of quality criteria required by the
different bands of education and training in South Africa.
Of interest to me is the moderation practices of public (State funded) FET colleges and the
private FET colleges. Public FET colleges do not appear to adhere to internal and external
moderation practices and are given blanket accreditation via Umalusi. This is further evident in
the number of public FET’s that have been placed under administration for financial
mismanagement and the inability to conduct basic administrative functions like providing
results and certification timeously to students (RSA DoE 2012). It appears that because these
bodies are state funded they are not required to adhere to a set of criteria that confirms their
accreditation. On the opposite end of the scale is the onerous accreditation requirements
placed on private FET’s including annual audits, internal and external moderation of all
assessment tools and the consequence of having learner results overturned if proof of internal
and external moderation cannot be provided (Umalusi Self-evaluation Report for private FET
colleges, 2009).
8.3. THE PROCESS OF MODERATION
In implementing a moderation system, an institution must realise that the adoption of a
moderation system is a commitment to quality, both internally and externally. In all of the
documentation produced by SAQA (2001) around quality, it is clear that quality must be
inherently integrated into every aspect of the educational institutions functioning. As Blom
(2008) point out, a quality management system must cover the following key aspects:
 Policies
 Procedures
 Monitoring and evaluation of learning, teaching and assessing
 Description of delivery of learning
 Staff development
 Learner Support
 Developing fair and equitable assessment

11. 11 | P a g e
 Accountable financial and administrative processes and procedures
8.3.1. Planning for moderation
Specifically when planning for moderation we ask the following questions:
 What will be moderated?
 Who will moderate?
 How will moderation take place (what methods will be used)?
 When will moderation take place (will it be purely at summative stage or will we be
taking a more continuous improvement approach)?
 What will be the cost of moderation?
 What information will be reported as a result of the moderation?
 What will we do with the recommendations that the moderator makes?
In answering these questions the framework for the moderation system that the institution will
adopt is established and can now be fleshed out in more detail supported by a management
commitment to the philosophy of delivering quality learning, teaching and assessment and the
necessary underpinning policies, procedures and resources required for implementation.
8.3.2. Designing a moderation System
When designing the moderation system one of the key questions to ask is whether there will
be a one size fits all or whether a baseline system will be adopted for the entire institution with
a customised version being adapted and adopted by each faculty based on its unique needs
(Murdoch and Grobbelaar, 2004).
Of critical importance is management support and commitment to the moderation system and
hence the quality assurance system adopted. This means that management must not only be
committed to the moderation system, it must ensure that the resources required ensuring the
implementation of the moderation system is available.
The components of the moderation system (Murdoch and Grobbelaar, 2004) must include the
scope and involvement of the moderator, the documentary management system that manages
the documents that give life to the moderation system including policies and procedures,
moderator reports and recommendations, the logistical arrangements around moderation
including how assessments will be delivered for moderation, the management of risk in this

12. 12 | P a g e
instance (lost assessments etc.) and the financial arrangements’ around moderation including
service level agreements with the moderator.
The moderation process institutionally must take cognisance of the internal and external
process. Internally moderation as suggested by SAQA (2001) has the following elements i.e.
Design of assessment tasks including alignment between intended learning outcomes and the
selection of assessment tasks and assessment methods, Implementation of assessment and
the monitoring and evaluation of assessment (what have we learnt and what can be
improved?).
Externally, the moderation process as suggested by SAQA (2001), must confirm that the
assessment conducted has been fair, valid, reliable and practicable. The external moderation
system should ensure that learners have access to an appeals process should they disagree
with the judgement arrived at, an opportunity to evaluate the performance of assessors and
deregister those whose performance is lacking and finally, provide feedback into the system in
respect of the continued appropriateness and relevance of qualifications and unit standards.
8.3.3. Implementing the Moderation System
In implementing the moderation system a critical decision to be made is the form that
moderation will take as well as how frequently it will be conducted. Traditionally, double
marking and/or blind marking or more progressive practices as suggested by SAQA including
site meetings, panel meetings and site consultative committees (SAQA, 2001). Underpinning
moderation is a decision on sampling, i.e. what percentage of the assessments will be
moderated and what is the rationale for selecting such a sampling approach. In conducting the
moderation, the organisational policies and procedures should be adhered to and effort put
into orientating moderators into the philosophy and goals of the institution in order to ensure
that external examiners don’t “discourage innovative assessment tasks,
(Biggs and Tang, 2011:310). The University of Ballarat (2011) includes an orientation session
with the moderator which covers the roles and responsibilities of the moderator, the extent of
the moderator’s involvement, the required reporting channels and reporting templates and
finally how issues of ethics and conflict will be addressed.
Reporting should be of such a nature that quality assurance and quality improvements sit at
the heart of the report. Murdoch and Grobbelaar (2004) suggest that the moderators report
should include the following elements:

13. 13 | P a g e
 Comments on the appropriateness of the assessment methods and tasks
 Comments on the number of assessment opportunities offered to the learner and the
sufficiency of these opportunities
 Comments on the effectiveness of assessment procedures
 Comments on the consistency of the results
 Comments on the extent of the adherence to the principles of validity, fairness and
reliability
 Recommendations
 General impressions on the level of achievement and learner quality
Naturally corrective action should be implemented based on the moderators report. The
institution would need to review the recommendations made, consider the extent to which it is
fit for purpose and the extent to which institutions have the resources required to implement
the corrective action/recommendations made before embarking on the corrective actions.
There is no reason not to consider a phased approach to the corrective action required,
prioritising the most important to be implemented immediately and then progressively
completing the rest of the recommendations. The definition of moderation should be the acid
test in terms of the corrective actions to be taken– any practice that compromises the following
– moderation ensures that people who are assessed are assessed in a consistent,
accurate (as well as fair) and well-designed manner- should be addressed immediately.
8.3.4. Reviewing the moderation system and process.
Quality management systems are only as valuable and as valid as the last time they were
reviewed. At the heart of quality management systems is the commitment to constantly review
and enhance the system in order to continuously improve and ensure the quality, currency
and relevance of education and training practices in the institution. The moderators report
provides an ideal opportunity to review and enhance the moderation system. The
recommendations offered by the moderator should be reviewed and considered by the team
within the institution and those recommendations deemed appropriate, implemented, thus
ensuring the principle of continuous improvement. Whilst the moderators report provides an
opportunity to review and enhance the assessment and internal moderation systems, the
institution should keep abreast of best practices in moderation through on-going research and
select those practices that will ensure an enhanced moderation system.

14. 14 | P a g e
8.3.5. Internal versus external moderation
Internal and external moderation share a common purpose – the quality assurance of
assessment. The difference lies in the perspectives from which they view the assessment
process. It is my view that if the institution is committed to internal moderation of assessment
as a best practice approach, then external moderation will proceed in a harmonious and
collaborative manner. As Biggs asserts, (Biggs and Tang, 2011) the external moderator
should be seen as an advisor or a consultant to the institution whose role is to improve
practices rather than find fault and take a punitive action against the institution.
In implementing a moderation system within an institution, the starting point is the appointment
of an accountable person tasked with implementation. Murdoch and Grobbelaar (2004)
suggest that moderators should have both content (subject) and assessment expertise. They
go on to suggest that an internal moderator should fulfil the following outcomes within the
institution, i.e. to oversee, plan, formalise and implement moderation systems and procedures
(Murdoch and Grobbelaar, 2004). This implies that the internal moderator should be
accountable for the entire moderation function within the institution. Specifically Murdoch and
Grobbelaar identify the following functions of an internal moderator:
 Ensure systems in place to ensure standards
 Consider the specific requirements of individual faculties and customise the system to
accommodate these
 Monitor consistency of assessment records and ensure effective record keeping
processes
 Co-ordinate assessor meetings
 Liaise with external moderators
 Provide appropriate and necessary support to assessors
Of interest was the suggestion by Bloxham (2009) of communities of practices as one of the
benefits of moderation specifically when inducting new staff into the assessment practice
within the institution. These communities of practice she suggests, also enables the process of
continuous professional development of staff.
Whilst internal moderation is inwardly focussed and aimed at inculcating and integrating a
culture of quality within the organisation, external moderation is aimed at ensuring consistency

15. 15 | P a g e
and fairness across all institutions specifically instances where different providers are
delivering education and training against the same qualification (Blom, 2008). SAQA (2001)
makes clear the need for adequately qualified and experienced assessors whilst Murdoch and
Grobbelaar (2004) suggest that assessors must be credible among their peers having
assessment and subject matter expertise. Specifically SAQA articulates the role of the
external moderator as follows:
 Are the assessment tools used appropriate and fit for purpose?
 What is the scope and extent of the external moderator’s involvement?
 Judge whether the assessment process and the learners evidence delivers a
consistent, fair, valid and reliable assessment outcomes
Murdoch and Grobbelaar (2004) share the best practice suggested by SAQA but add the
element of judging whether there is sufficient support and guidance for assessors and learners
thus coming back to Bloxhams suggestion of a community of practice among assessors and
moderators.
8.4. VERIFICATION /AUDITING OF ASSESSMENT AND MODERATION SYSTEMS AND
PRACTICES
Verification is defined by Murdoch and Grobbelaar as an external audit by an ETQA body.
Typically if one examines the verification policies of the various SETA ETQA’s, the function of
verification is intended to be quality assurance of the moderation process in order to award the
final qualification. It answers the question – Are we certain that this learner and this institution
have met all the requirements for the award of the qualification?
8.4.1. Specifically INSETA lists the following as the reasons for verification (INSETA
Verification Policy, 2009):
 Accuracy and validity of learner assessment records submitted.
 Results reflect actual competency against unit standards /qualification.
 Assessments are in line with the NQF Principles, guides, policies, plans, etc.
 Methods and instruments are credible.
 Reassessment procedures are accessible to all learners.
 Appeals procedures are accessible and fair.

16. 16 | P a g e
 Recording & Storage is accurate, fair and secure.
 Checking samples of the learner portfolios.
 Checking assessors’ and moderators’ decision through sampling and
 Monitoring.
It is interesting to note that the verifier plays a very similar function to that of the moderator
including the use of the same methods of verification i.e. sampling of learner portfolios. From
this it is clear that the relationship between moderation and verification is a further quality
assurance step before the awarding of the qualification. Of interest in the verification process
is the focus on both the assessment and moderation of the learner’s assessment together with
the auditing and verification of the provider’s assessment and moderations practices. Here
there is the added focus on the administrative aspects that underpin these outcomes including
recording and storage of assessment results, reassessment procedures and the extent to
which learners can access reassessment and assessment appeal.
8.4.2. Internal vs. external verification /Auditing
Whilst South African practices of verification is largely external and takes the format of quality
assurance of the assessment and moderation processes together with an audit of
underpinning administrative practices , Murdoch and Grobbelaar (2004) and SAQA (2001)
suggest that verification can also have an inward focus specifically aimed at addressing
improvements at a systemic level within an institution. In this instance the purpose and scope
of verification (why are we conducting an internal verification exercise, what situation has
emerged that has required this internal verification) must be confirmed. Murdoch and
Grobbelaar (2004) suggest that internal verification could be catalysed by any of the following
situations that may face the institution:
 Obtaining management buy-in into fair, valid and reliable assessment practices needs
review
 Review of internal or external moderation practices
 Review of assessment practices, policies and procedures
 Corrective action that emerges from an external verification process
 The need for additional resources within the institution

17. 17 | P a g e
Thus the similarities between internal and external verification both have a focus on confirming
the award of the qualification by verifying the assessment and moderation of assessment.
External moderation has the added dimension of taking a holistic view to the processes and
procedures that underpins assessment and moderation within the institution. This is very
specifically an auditing function in which the institution is expected to provide documentary
evidence of its assessment and moderation practices.
8.5. CRITICAL EVALUATION OF CONVENTIONAL ASSUMPTIONS RELATED TO
ASSESSMENT AND MODERATION
Bloxham (2009) identifies 4 key assumptions made about assessment and moderation in
higher education in the UK specifically. The first assumption is that marking of student
assessment is accurate and reliable. As Bloxham points out, fundamental to moderation in the
UK higher education system is the belief that somewhere in the process any inaccuracy or
unreliability in the marking or moderation process will be caught i.e. inaccurate marking will be
identified through the internal moderation system, and if it is not found here, then the external
process will identify it and if the inaccuracies are not found at this stage it will be found at the
final award stage (verification). The second assumption highlighted by Bloxham is that internal
moderation processes are delivering fair and appropriate standards of marking. To ensure
appropriate standards of marking, onerous moderation procedures have been implemented.
Bloxham contends that all that these processes have done is to burden markers with an
additional workload without adding any value to the accuracy or reliability of grades (2009).
The third assumption highlighted by Bloxham in her paper, the central task of external
examiners (moderators) is the interrogation of examination scripts and assignments in order to
determine the standards applied and the comparability of these standards across students
and across institutions. The final assumption discussed by Bloxham is that the final award of
qualification is reflecting achievement in a consistent way across all institutions.
These four assumptions about assessment and moderation go a step further in the
assumptions made about how moderation can improve assessment and student learning.
The first assumption is that external moderation is aimed at ensuring that assessment is valid,
fair , reliable and that the marking criteria is consistently applied. If the marking criteria are
consistently applied we can assume that the assessment is valid, fair and reliable. The

18. 18 | P a g e
methods of moderation used (double-marking and blind marking) are appropriate. Again if the
result of this process reveals a consistent grade then moderation is improving assessment
and student learning by confirming that the assessment is fair and valid and that the result
achieved can be trusted.
However these assumptions are severely criticised by Bloxham. She offers the following as
counter arguments to these assumptions.
Most significantly is the fact that assessment and moderation remain severely under
researched fields in higher education and the lack of discourse makes these assumptions all
the more dangerous. Onerous moderation procedures have been implemented to ensure that
the standards of marking are appropriate. Bloxham contends that all this has done is created
additional burdens for the markers without adding any value to the accuracy or reliability of
grades (2009).
The moderation systems currently in place are criticised by students too, because of the lack
of feedback. It seems that the lengthy moderation processes is delaying learner feedback
whilst these additional moderation processes has resulted in higher costs for assessment and
moderation. These processes are costing more than the teaching and learning activities yet
adding no value to improving teaching and learning practices (Bloxham, 2009)- Assessment
for learning.
The methods of assessment remains contentious with a reliance on once off and unseen
examinations (Bloxham, 2009) having the effect of encouraging surface learning. In addition
moderation takes place at a summative level rather than at a programme level i.e. judging a
series of marks awarded over a period of time. The assessment and moderation practices
engaged in are aimed at assessment for certification rather than assessment for learning.
There are questions about the reliability of the skills of the assessors raised by Bloxham.
Whilst authors like Partington (in Bloxham, 2009) suggest that as long as assessment criteria
have been articulated for the assessment task there is no need for external moderation if the
marking schemes have been externally moderated. Bloxham (2009) argues that whilst
marking schemes may be available any variation in interpretation may have an impact on the
final result. Instead she suggests that there is value in engaging with assessors and
moderators in a discussion of these marking criteria as a means of ensuring a consistency in
marking – these discussions should answer the question – do we have a common

19. 19 | P a g e
understanding of how to interpret the marking criteria. This can have the effect at the same
time of achieving staff development and creating a community of practice among assessors
and moderators. There has been much written (Killen, 2007: Rust, 2002; Race, 1995; Geyser,
2004; Biggs and Tang, 2011) about the inclusion of the student in the assessment design and
process and Bloxham (2009) reinforces this view in suggesting that assessment as learning is
achieved when students understand what is required of them in the assessment task and the
criteria that will be used to measure their effort. As Price and O’ Donovan (in Kilfoil, 2008:120)
indicate, “Prior to submitting an assessment, students are to be involved in discussions of the
criteria so that they understand what is required of them.”
In considering the assumptions explored by Bloxham I am struck most significantly by the
repeated use across the UK and South Africa of the same two methods of moderation –
double marking and blind marking. SAQA offers some significant alternatives and yet there is
little evidence that any of these methods are used in the moderation process. I believe that we
must be unequivocal about the quality of our education and training specifically in so far as
this leads to qualifications. We must be able to say beyond a doubt that the qualification has
value and that the student has earned it. Given what is presented it is difficult to come to this
conclusion. We need more research into assessment and moderation, but we also need to try
alternative methods of assessment and moderation in order to test the quality of what is rather
than accepting the assumption that what is, is good enough.
8.6. Conclusion of Part 2
The key activities in any educational institution are learning, teaching and assessing using a
variety of methods at various times in the learning process. “There are pressures of
accountability, transparency and consistency from government and from potentially litigious
students as consumers that make reliable marking more important than ever before” (Nuttal,
2007:117).
Reliable marking suggests that the marking can be trusted and if the marking can be trusted
HEI’s should be able to present a paper trail that confirms the marking allocated. Quality as a
value should be integrated into every aspect of learning, teaching and assessing and these
quality practices should be documented and evidence produced when required. This paper
trail is entrenched within the SAQA Act and the National Qualifications Framework Act in its

20. 20 | P a g e
objectives of quality education and training and the establishment of the various quality
councils.
It is accepted that moderation is the quality assurance process intended to ensure that grades
awarded are fair, reliable and the marking criteria applied consistently. How then does
moderation facilitate assessment for learning, assessment of learning and assessment as
learning?
Moderation facilitates assessment for learning in its ability to allow us to draw inferences about
learning and teaching practices and providing recommendations on how learning and teaching
practices can be improved. This suggests the integration of moderation into the entire cycle of
learning programme design and development.
Moderation facilitates assessment of learning in its traditional sense, i.e. ensuring the grades
awarded are fairly, reliably and that the marking criteria has been consistently applied (Nuttal,
2007:118). Moderation can facilitate assessment as learning by taking a continuous approach
to assessment (Baartman L.J.K., Bastiaens,T.J., Kirschner,P.A., van der Vleuten, C.P.M.
2006:153) (a programme of assessments using a variety of methods over the entire learning
programme duration) as opposed to a single summative assessment being the defining
moment of a student’s performance in a learning programme. In this instance both the
assessor and the moderator can track the progress of the learner and see how assessment
has in itself been a learning moment.
9. FINAL CONCLUSION
The literature reviewed has taken a view on assessment and moderation in higher and further
education and training.
The literature reviewed on assessment considered the shift in emphasis in assessment from
the conventional approaches used in the past and which continue to be used today, to the
alternative perspectives suggested. In this shift the literature reviewed has considered the
following key aspects:
 A definition of assessment
 The rationale for why student learning should be assessed
 The frequency with which student learning should be assessed
 The alignment of Intended learning outcomes, teaching and learning and
assessment as essential to ensuring valid assessment

21. 21 | P a g e
 The role players in student assessment including self and the peer group
 The principles of good assessment and the value of feedback in contemporary
assessment discussions and finally
 The Steps in assessing students
In the context of the quality assurance of assessment, the literature reviewed on moderation
has suggested the need for the existing system of moderation to be rethought, as Murdoch
and Grobbelaar (2004) point out, the existing system needs streamlining and strengthening
while Bloxham (2009) declares that the current UK degree classification system is no longer fit
for purpose and goes on to assert that there is insufficient research into marking and
moderation as practices in UK higher education. Of interest too is the continued use of the
age old methods of moderation – blind marking and double marking and in the absence of a
depth of research into the field, alternative methods of moderation must be integrated into the
process.
It is important to note that assessment and moderation are two sides of the same coin, both
aimed at assessment of learning, assessment as learning and assessment for learning.
Therefore you cannot reform the one without a reform of the other. As Geyser (2004)
contends, you cannot have educational reform without assessment reform and therefore you
cannot have assessment reform without reform of moderation practices and methods. Just as
assessment needs to be integrated into the design, development and delivery of learning
programmes, moderation requires the same integration if we are to ensure that assessment is
valid, fair, reliable and practicable and that the qualifications awarded can be trusted.

22. 22 | P a g e
10. REFERENCES
1. Baartman L.J.K., Bastiaens,T.J., Kirschner,P.A., van der Vleuten, C.P.M. 2006.
The Wheel of Competency Assessment: Presenting Quality Criteria for Competency
Assessment Programmes. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 32:153-170
2. Blom,R. 2008. Quality Assurance. In Maree,J.G. and Fraser,W.J. Outcomes-based
Assessment. Facilitating best practice in classrooms.2nd
Edition. Sandton. Heineman
3. Bloxham, S. 2009. Marking and moderation in the UK: false assumptions and wasted
resources. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education.34(2).209-220
4. Biggs, J. and Tang, C. 2007. Teaching for Quality Learning at University. New York: Open
University Press
5. Geyser, H. (Ed). 2004. Learning from Assessment. In Gravette, S. and Geyser, H. (Ed).
Teaching and learning in higher education. 1st
Edition. Pretoria: Van Schaik
6. Kilfoil, W.R. 2008. ASSESSMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION. In Dreyer, J.M. (Ed.). The
Educator as Assessor. Pretoria. Van Schaik Publishers
7. Killen, R. 2007. Outcomes based assessment In Teaching Strategies for outcomes based
education. Cape Town: Juta.
8. Murdoch,N. and Grobbelaar, I. 2004. Quality assurance of assessment in higher
education. In Gravett, S. and Geyser, H. (Ed.). Teaching and learning in higher education.
Pretoria. Van Schaik Publishers
9. Race, P. 1995. The Art of Assessing. New Academic. 5(3):1-13.
10.RSA (Republic of South Africa. Department of Education). 2008. NQF Act (Act no. 67 OF
2008). Pretoria: Department of Higher Education and Training.
11.RSA (Republic of South Africa. Department of Education). 2012. Green Paper on Post
School Education and Training. Pretoria: Department of Higher Education and Training.
12.Rust, C. 2002. The impact of assessment on student learning. Active Learning in Higher
Education. 3(2):145-156.
13.SAQA. 2001. Criteria and Guidelines for Assessment of NQF Registered Unit standards
and Qualifications.