Economics student views on marking
By Student Voice
marking criteriaeconomicsExam and Coursework Guidance
The area of exam and coursework guidance in economics education reveals a large variance in the clarity and articulation of marking criteria. On the one hand, some courses excellently demarcate what is expected of students with detailed rubrics and exemplars; these courses tend to see higher levels of student satisfaction and understanding. Conversely, numerous students express frustration over the ambiguity in guidance provided, especially when preparing for exams. The importance of having clear and accessible marking criteria cannot be overstated. Without it, students often find themselves at a loss, unsure of how to tailor their revision and coursework to meet expected standards. It is important to note that unclear criteria not only complicate the preparation process but also affect the fairness of grading. When students understand precisely what markers are looking for, they can more effectively demonstrate their knowledge and skills. Therefore, staff in economics departments should ensure that all marking criteria are articulated in simple, jargon-free language. This step is important for maintaining a level playing field and enhancing overall academic outcomes. Such transparency aids in reducing students' anxiety, allowing them to focus more on learning the substantial content of their courses.
Challenges in Economics Grading
The challenges in grading within the economics discipline often stem from the adherence to highly specific marking criteria, which can seem impenetrable to students. It is well-known that achieving marks above 70 is quite rare, raising concerns about the perceived stringency and fairness of the grading system. This situation can significantly dent student morale, leading to feelings of demotivation and questioning the assessment processes. On the one hand, strict standards ensure that high grades genuinely reflect high levels of deeper understanding and analytical ability. Conversely, students often report feeling discouraged when, despite rigorous study and engagement, their grades do not seemingly reflect their effort and understanding. For staff, the key to navigating this complexity lies in transparent communication about what each grade bracket demands and providing more illustrative examples of high-quality work. These measures can bridge the gap between student expectations and the realities of economic assessment criteria. However, it is important to note the broader implications of such a stringent grading scheme. Does it encourage real intellectual inquiry, or does it drive students toward rote learning just to meet the grade criteria? This is a question that economics educators must continually ask themselves to align marking practices with educational goals more effectively.
Feedback Timeliness and Relevance
In the context of higher education, particularly within economics courses, the timeliness and relevance of feedback are seen as important components for fostering academic growth and student satisfaction. Feedback that is given promptly after assignments allows students to reflect on their work while the content remains fresh in their minds. However, it is often noted that delays in receiving feedback can hinder the learning process, leaving students uncertain about the strengths and weaknesses of their submissions. Timely responses also demonstrate respect for student efforts, sustaining their motivation beyond the submission deadlines. On the other hand, the relevance of the feedback provided plays an equally important role. Feedback should be specific to the marking criteria used, offering explicit pointers on how students can improve their performance in future work. Yet, a common concern among economics students relates to feedback that feels generic or detached from the specific nuances of their submitted work. Enhancing feedback quality involves not only addressing the correctness of content but also engaging with ideas presented by students, encouraging deeper thought and understanding. Here, the student voice becomes a key aspect of the feedback loop, where educators encourage open communication to refine and tailor feedback to student needs. This iterative dialogue can greatly improve the educational experience, making the assessment process a joint venture between students and staff.
Inconsistencies in Group Assignment Marking
The question of fairness in group assignment marking within economics courses often sparks critical discussions among staff and students. Despite the initial intent of group projects to foster collaboration and emulate real-world economic analysis scenarios, disparities in grading can significantly affect student perceptions of equity. Often, the marking criteria applied to such assignments lack uniformity, leading to a sense that some groups may be advantaged or disadvantaged based solely on subjective elements like the marker’s preferences or interpretation of the criteria. While some lecturers provide clear, detailed explanations of what is required to achieve different grade bands, others might offer scant details, making it difficult for students to understand how their work is evaluated. This ambiguity not only stymies students’ ability to effectively strategise their group efforts but also raises questions about the consistency of educational outcomes. Addressing these inconsistencies should involve a collaborative process where both staff and students discuss and agree on the criteria, aiming to ensure all are graded on a level field. Importantly, incorporating student voice in developing these criteria could foster greater transparency and buy-in from the student community. Thus, it is key for staff to actively engage with students, maintaining open lines of communication and using feedback to continuously refine the assessment approaches.
Late and Inconsistent Marking
Addressing the challenges of late and inconsistent marking in economics courses is a matter of significant concern that impacts students’ academic progression and motivation. Late results often mean anxious waits, affecting students' ability to prepare for subsequent assessments or to fully engage with their course material. Inconsistencies in marking criteria between different markers or across assignments further compound the problem. This variation can leave students confused about what is expected of them and unsure how to improve in future work. On one hand, the pressure on staff to cope with large class sizes and complex content can lead to delays and variability in marking. On the other hand, students require timely and consistent feedback to navigate their academic journey effectively. A balance must be struck to ensure fairness and maintain academic integrity. Clear communication and regular training sessions for staff on the agreed marking criteria could help mitigate these issues by standardising the marking process across all economics modules. Additionally, providing students with examples of graded work can demystify expectations, aligning student efforts with academic standards. Such strategies not only aid in smooth academic operations but also foster a sense of trust and fairness within the educational environment.
Poor Communication and the Challenge of Grade Appeals
Poor communication from examiners and a complicated appeal process are key barriers for economics students challenging their grades. When marking criteria are not communicated clearly, students face difficulties in understanding why they received certain marks and how they can improve. This lack of clarity often leads students to feel unjustly evaluated, prompting them to consider grade appeals, a process fraught with its own challenges. The appeal process itself can be perplexing, layered with administrative protocols that can discourage students from pursuing claims, even when they have valid concerns. An important part of resolving this issue lies in ensuring that both students and staff engage openly about expectations and outcomes. Transparent and consistent communication about marking criteria can reduce misunderstandings and make the grade appeal process more accessible. This requires a collaborative effort, where students are encouraged to discuss their grades and understand the rationale behind them. Staff training on effective communication and the provisions of clear, practical guidelines will aid in simplifying the appeal process and making it more transparent. Implementing these changes can help maintain trust in the assessment process, promoting a healthier educational environment.
Calls for Transparent and Cohesive Criteria
Transparency in marking processes is paramount — it not only demystifies the basis on which students are evaluated but also fosters a fair academic environment. It is key, therefore, that staff commit to implementing consistent criteria across all types of assessments, be they exams or coursework. On one hand, transparent criteria allow students to accurately align their study efforts with expected outcomes, leading to better-prepared submissions and potentially higher academic achievements. Conversely, when criteria are murky, students often find themselves lost, unable to gauge where to focus their energies, which can adversely impact their results and overall educational experience. The importance of such initiatives is underscored by findings from recent student surveys, where the majority have cited the clarity of grading criteria as a significant factor in academic satisfaction. Staff in economics departments should consider regular dialogues with students to refine and clarify marking standards, ensuring they remain relevant and understandable. Engaging students in these discussions not only enhances the transparency of the marking process but also contributes to their sense of involvement in the academic community. By actively participating, students can provide valuable insights that can help in tailoring marking criteria to better meet educational objectives while maintaining high academic standards.
More posts on marking criteria:
More posts on economics student views: