Site Navigation

7. Marking

Marking is the process of assigning an assessment score or grade and/or comments to a piece of work produced, performed or submitted by a student according to criteria for that assessment task.

7.1 Responsibilities for Marking

Lecturers-in-Charge must ensure that:

- marking is fair and consistent across the student cohort, particularly in units where more than one marker is used (including a moderation process);
- marking is not to be delegated to any other member of staff, except to academic staff contracted to mark assessment, without the approval of the Head of School;
- where other markers are employed, specific information is provided by the Lecturer-in-Charge as to what is to be marked, the marking scheme, how many pieces of work are involved, and the date by which assessed work must be returned to the Lecturer-in-Charge;
- comments on the assessment tasks submitted by the student are made on the exercise/assignment or on a marking sheet that is returned to the student with the assignment.

7.2 Feedback

Before they begin their final examinations, students are entitled to timely and constructive feedback related to achievement of learning outcomes on all assessment tasks completed during the semester, with the exception of items submitted within the last two weeks of semester. Timely feedback is within three weeks of submission or at least 48 hours before a related assessment is due for submission.

Feedback on a student’s progress in a unit should be both in a quantified form, such as scores or grades, and a qualitative form such as comments, model answers or suggested readings.
Marks for assessment tasks in large classes may be posted on a noticeboard to indicate the group mean and distribution of marks or grades. Student numbers only must be used in any such posting to preserve confidentiality.

Students should be given the opportunity to discuss their performance and the feedback received with an appropriate academic staff member.

Students may apply to the Lecturer-in-Charge to view their final examination script after the official release of results.

Lecturers-in-Charge may discuss final result grades, including final examination results, with students after the official release of results.

7.3 Conflict of Interest

Lecturers-in-Charge, or other staff appointed to mark assessment items, have a responsibility to assess students’ work fairly, objectively and consistently across the student cohort in a unit. Academic staff who consider that they may be or be perceived to be affected by a conflict of interest must bring this to the attention of their Head of School (refer to Staff Code of Conduct).

7.4 Allocating Final Result Grades

Lecturers-in-Charge are responsible for collating and recording the results for all assessment tasks and recommending a final result grade for each student in a unit. Each student’s aggregate marks for a unit are allocated a grade according to the descriptors for each grade as listed in Table 4.

Lecturers-in-Charge are required to review the distribution of final grades in a unit (as per Academic Regulations). Based on their confidence in the efficacy of assessment procedures in equitably determining the standard to which students have achieved expected learning outcomes and characteristics of the student cohort, Lecturers-in-Charge are required to provide relevant evidence to the Head of School or nominee to substantiate a decision to deviate significantly from these standards. Where such evidence is not provided, the results will be reviewed in line with the required standards reflected in the recommended distribution of grades. The Head of School or nominee ratifies the final grade results.

Using peer-reviewed, tested examination questions, marking criteria that clearly differentiate standards of performance, and transparent moderation processes are examples of strategies that contribute to confidence in assessment procedures.

Final result grades are not provided to students until results have been officially released by the University.

Table 4 – Grading Descriptors

Final Result Grade	Notation	Range Guide (%)³³	Descriptor¹⁰
High Distinction	HD	85-100	Clear attainment of all learning outcomes, with complete and comprehensive understanding of the unit content, development of relevant skills and intellectual initiative to an extremely high level.
Distinction	DI	75-84	Substantial attainment of most learning outcomes, with a high level of understanding of the unit content and development of relevant analytical and interpretative skills to a high level.
Credit	CR	65-74	Sound attainment of some major learning outcomes, with good understanding of unit content and development of relevant skills.
Pass	PA	50-64	Satisfactory attainment of a range of learning outcomes, with basic understanding of unit content and development of relevant skills.
Pass Conceded*	PC	*Close to 50	Some attainment of learning outcomes with basic understanding of some unit content and some skill development.
Pass (ungraded)	PS		Attainment of the learning outcomes as per the unit outline.
Fail	NN	0-49	Little or no attainment of learning outcomes, with limited understanding of course content or skill development.

Note: This grade is awarded by Heads of School only in exceptional circumstances. See Academic Regulations.

³³ The percentage range for final results is a guide and should be interpreted in conjunction with the descriptors.
¹⁰ Adapted from Sadler, D. R. (2005). Interpretations of criteria based assessment and grading in higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30:2, 175-194.

Useful Links

Information For...