Business studies students' views on marking criteria

By Student Voice
marking criteriabusiness studies

Introduction

Understanding students' views on marking criteria is particularly important in business studies, where the development of clear and rigorous assessment standards can significantly enhance both teaching and learning experiences. This blog post seeks to provide higher education staff with insights into how marking criteria are perceived by students, and why this understanding is key to improving their academic success. By looking into student surveys, text analysis, and directly engaging the 'student voice,' we aim to offer actionable enhancements for assessment processes. Starting this dialogue is not just a formative step for improving academic policies but also crucial for the academic achievement and satisfaction of students. The focus here is not only on identifying common grievances but also on initiating a process where fair and transparent marking is not just an aspiration but a reality. Thus, this blog serves as a primer for those committed to refining educational assessments in a manner that is deeply informed by those who experience it most directly—the students.

Concerns About Clarity and Consistency in Marking

A key issue resonating among business studies students is the lack of consistent and clear marking criteria, which leads to a feeling of unpredictability in their academic evaluations. Students often report that markers seem to interpret assignment guidelines differently, which can result in markedly diverse marks for work of similar quality. This situation not only undermines the confidence students have in their academic institutions but also deeply impacts their learning outcomes and overall morale.

Importantly, while some educators strive to maintain a high degree of transparency in their marking practices, variations are still prominent. The implementation of text analysis tools and standardised rubrics could aid in creating a more uniform assessment framework. On one hand, these tools can provide a structured approach to evaluating student work, ensuring every piece is assessed on the same criteria. Conversely, the subjective nature of some assignments necessitates a careful consideration of how these technologies are employed, ensuring they support rather than substitute for nuanced human judgement. Thus, while technology has the capacity to enhance consistency, its utilisation must be thoughtfully calibrated to maintain fairness and academic integrity.

Feedback Timeliness

The timeliness of feedback is undeniably important for the learning and emotional health of business studies students. When feedback is delayed, it can hinder the learning process by preventing students from understanding their mistakes promptly and incorporating this learning into subsequent assignments. This can lead to a cycle where misconceptions are not corrected and opportunities for learning growth are lost. Timely feedback is expected by students to be an integral part of their educational experience, aiding them not only academically but also motivating them to engage more deeply with course material.

Students express a clear desire for more immediate responses from their educators. Delays in feedback can be particularly disheartening when students are keen to improve but find themselves waiting for the insights necessary to advance. It is important to note that, while technology could offer solutions to streamline marking, the human aspect of providing detailed, constructive, and timely feedback remains key. Equally vital is the necessity to maintain a balance where speed does not compromise the quality of the feedback. Engaging directly with student voice, institutions can investigate the precise expectations students have regarding feedback timeliness and explore strategies to meet these expectations without sacrificing the depth and value of the feedback provided.

Group Work and Grade Dependency

When examining the role of group work in business studies, educators must confront the multifaceted challenges it presents, particularly in how grades are apportioned amongst team members. A frequent issue highlighted by students is the imbalance of contribution, where not all group members partake equally, yet share the same grade. This can lead to frustration among those who contribute more substantially, feeling their efforts are not adequately recognised. Conversely, students who contribute less may pass through the evaluation process benefiting from the more diligent efforts of their peers. This dynamic introduces a significant layer of complexity into the marking criteria.

The debate around fair grading in group assignments is often concerned with providing individual marks that reflect personal contributions while maintaining a collective assessment of the group's output. Here, traditional marking strategies might seem inadequate as they could either diminish the value of collaborative skills or fail to acknowledge individual input accurately. Informing this process with a combination of peer assessment tools and reflective self-evaluations could provide a clearer picture of each student's engagement and contribution, thereby fostering a sense of fairness and accountability within group evaluations. Such practices, however, should be handled with sensitivity to ensure they support educational objectives and encourage constructive collaboration rather than conflict.

Guidance on Dissertation Structure and Expectations

In the area of higher education, providing students with clear guidance on dissertation structure and expected content is important, particularly in business studies. A key part of achieving high academic standards in dissertations lies in fully understanding and meeting the marking criteria set forth by educational institutions.

For many students starting their dissertation process, comprehending the breadth and depth required can be daunting. It's vital for staff to offer structured, clear guidelines that outline not only the format but also the quality of research and analysis expected. Explicit criteria can significantly mitigate the anxiety associated with this academic challenge and refine the quality of work submitted.

The use of text analysis in assessing dissertations can be beneficial. By applying specific software, educators can ensure that the evaluation of dissertations is based on predefined criteria, which embraces a balance between qualitative insights and quantifiable data. While this technology can streamline the marking process, maintaining an element of human judgement is important to provide meaningful feedback and address the subjective nuances of business studies projects. The aim should then be to mesh technology with traditional methods to enhance fairness and transparency in evaluation.

Vague Assignment Criteria

When assignments come with vague criteria, it poses a large challenge for both students and staff. The lack of clear directives can lead students into a process of guessing what is expected in their coursework, impacting their performance negatively. On the one hand, assignments with poorly defined objectives or expectations can make it challenging for students to know exactly what is required of them, perhaps leading to misdirected efforts or incomplete submissions. Conversely, this ambiguity also presents an opportunity for students to demonstrate their creativity and adaptability, but such benefits are often overshadowed by the uncertainty it brings.

From a staff perspective, vague criteria complicate the marking process, making it difficult to fairly and consistently assess student work. Without a standardised set of expectations, markers may rely heavily on subjective judgments, which can lead to grading inconsistencies. This not only affects the students' trust in the fairness of the academic evaluation system but also poses important questions about the integrity of educational assessments. Institutions need to engage in a continual process of refining and clarifying assignment guidelines to ensure alignment with learning outcomes, thereby supporting both evaluative consistency and academic development.

Communication Gaps in Feedback and Marking Criteria

Addressing the gap in clear communication about marking criteria and feedback is key to enhancing student understanding and performance. In business studies, the details of what constitutes good coursework performance can often be unclear, leaving students confused about how to approach their assignments. A significant aspect of this issue is the lack of straightforward explanations accompanying feedback which, in some cases, consists only of simple grade markers without substantive commentary on the strengths and weaknesses of the student’s work.

This absence of clear guidance is particularly problematic when students seek to improve their future submissions. Implementing more detailed marking rubrics and providing feedback that explicitly links to these rubrics could bridge this gap. Encouraging staff to use text analysis tools for consistent comment generation might also prove useful. These tools can help ensure that feedback is not only consistent but also systematically aligned with the stated marking criteria. However, the adaptation of such technologies needs careful integration to complement, rather than replace, the nuanced evaluations that experienced academics bring to student assessments.

Balancing technological support with personalised feedback can foster a clearer understanding amongst students about how their academic work meets specific marking standards. This approach not only aids students in their academic growth but also bolsters their confidence in the fairness and transparency of the assessment process.

Perceived Unfairness and Bias in Grading

In the context of business studies, feelings of unfairness and bias in the grading process can significantly detract from the educational experience. Students often voice concerns about the consistency of the grading they receive, which they perceive as subject to rushed assessments or harsh critiques that do not accurately reflect the quality of their work. This perception can lead to a troubling sense of injustice and disengagement from the academic community.

On the one hand, the demands of academic rigour and objectivity in grading are understood by students. However, when the application of marking criteria seems inconsistent, this can create an environment where students feel that their efforts are not being justly rewarded. Addressing these concerns involves a close examination of how grading rubrics are applied by different members of the staff. Equipping educators with more uniform standards and training may help alleviate some of these issues.

Conversely, it's also important to recognise that some degree of subjectivity in grading, especially in areas like business studies that can involve qualitative analysis, is inevitable. Balancing this reality with the need for fairness requires open communication about the criteria used and the reasons behind specific grading decisions. Institutions that foster an ongoing dialogue about these criteria, and allow students to express their concerns, typically see a greater alignment between student expectations and the academic standards applied.

This approach not only cultivates a more honest atmosphere but also empowers students by involving them in the evaluative process, thereby enhancing the overall transparency of the grading system.

Conclusion and Recommendations

To enhance the marking process in business studies, it is essential to address the concerns raised by students and staff alike. The development of clear, standardised marking criteria is not only important for fairness but also for student understanding and engagement. Instituting robust mechanisms for timely feedback will further support students' academic growth and emotional well-being. Additionally, integrating technology, such or shutdowns and data privacy issues, must be managed sensitively to maintain trust.

Implementing a clear communication strategy that effectively articulates marking expectations would better prepare students for their assignments and reduce uncertainties. Finally, regularly engaging with student surveys and feedback sessions can prove invaluable. These measures can help bridge gaps in understanding and refine assessment standards, ensuring they are both effective and equitable. By taking proactive steps based on these recommendations, higher education institutions can help confirm that marking in business Going forward, these adjustments will undoubtedly lead to a more positive and productive educational environment for all involved.

More posts on marking criteria:

More posts on business studies student views: