University Marking Systems for Social Work Students ... · University Marking Systems for Social...

University Marking Systems for Social Work Students: A Study on Student Concerns around Fair Marking Systems.

of 18


Author: Helen Gormley.

Affiliation: Chairperson for the Student and Newly Qualified Social Workers

Policy, Practice and Education Group, BASW, England.

Abstract

With the financial burden of tuition fees passing from the state to the student a consumer/

service provider relationship has developed. As in all market sectors consumers have certain

expectations when paying for a service, social work education is no different (Gates, Heffernan and

Sudore, 2015, p. 884). This expectation may have led to the increase in complaints and grievances

felt by students around marking systems (Cooper- Hind and Taylor, 2012, p. 54). In April 2016 the

British Association for Social Workers (BASW) ratified a Student and Newly Qualified Social Workers

(NQSW’s) Practice, Policy and Education Group (PPEG) to represent the student and NQSW’s voice in

matters pertaining to social work. For the rest of this paper this group will be referred to as PPEG.

One of these matters being grievances with Higher Education Institutes (HEI’s) marking systems.

A research study was undertaken to collate national student opinion on the present marking

system. The purpose being to look for positive solution based ideas from the student body to

present to HEI’s, regulatory bodies and external examiners. 221 students responded to the survey, of

which 30 were male, 190 were female and one participant did not answer. The survey was circulated

through social media and an email was sent to all 791BASW student members. Anonymity and

confidentiality were respected as each response was anonymous. Quantitative questioning was used

to gather data that could highlight the extent of any problems felt and if problems raised on a one to

one level were just that or a nationally experienced issue. Qualitative questioning was used to gain

some depth and insight into student’s experiences and look for common trends in marking

complaints.

Findings around fairness, satisfaction and how students rate their HEI’s was contradictory;

however findings did highlight that students are satisfied with their HEI’s marking systems, a small

majority found the marking systems to be fair while an overwhelming majority thought marking

systems could be strengthened. Findings from the survey suggest: consideration should be given to

appeals processes as a matter of urgency; improved feedback would help develop a better culture of

communication between lecturer and student, and that those students responding would like to see

a more nationally agreed curriculum followed by all HEI’s.


of 18

Key words: Anonymity; Annotated notes; Appeals process; British Association for Social Workers;

Feedback; Higher Education Institutes; Marking; Students; National standards of education; Newly

Qualified Social Workers; Qualitative; Quantitive.

Introduction

The coalition government in 2010 changed how university course tuition fees would be paid

from the academic year 2012/13 (gov.uk, 2010). This passed the financial burden from the state to

the student, changing the relationship between student and tutor. With the neoliberal agenda

modern government seems intent to follow mass marketisation of universities has changed

students’ views and perspective on the service they are receiving. It would be a fair assumption to

make that not one university in England providing a social work degree course has not heard from

their student body the argument that ‘we are paying for this!’ This sadly is becoming a social norm

creating an expectation on service provision rather than an expectation on self and performance.

However this does not deter from the fact that amongst student cohorts throughout the country

grievance and complaints around marking of assignments has risen dramatically (Cooper- Hind and

Taylor, 2012, p. 54).

From a university perspective this marketisation approach means trying to satisfy the consumer

(student) expectations around achieving their degree and the organisational need to generate

capital for its survival in a competitive market. Students are envisioning themselves as consumers

with consumer rights rather than learners with goals to be achieved (community care, 2015a). An

environment needs to be created where the student does not see the fees they pay as buying a

degree and universities can maintain high educational standards, enabling highly qualified and

capable NQSW’s to enter the market.

Issues created by university marketisation include the pressure felt by some universities to pass

students in an effort to attract the next cohort of fee paying students and the increase in student

complaints around marking (community care, 2015b). With a number of concerns and grievances

around marking being brought to the attention of the PPEG a survey was compiled to gather data

around student experiences, with the intention of looking for common themes and ideas that may

help improve future marking systems.

Methodology.

A working group was set up to look at marking systems and gather students’ opinions. It was

agreed that to understand the extent of the problem, or if in deed there was a problem, a

questionnaire based survey should be undertaken and rolled out across the student body in England.

With lack of time, funding and access to a wider student body the PPEG were restricted to BASW

student members and using social media to circulate the survey amongst their own networks. It

should be noted that the BASW student body comprised of 791 members at the time of the survey

and that 9 private social network platforms were accessed.

Questionnaire based survey.

Quantitative questioning was used to provide measurable data that would indicate the extent to

which specific concerns and grievances were experienced nationally. This would help evaluate what


of 18

issues were of most concern to students. Some of the quantitative questions used helped to give a

picture of the type of students responding to the survey, enabling the experiential data to be read in

some context to age, sex and pathway.

Qualitative questioning was used to gain some depth and insight into student’s experiences.

This would enable participants to share experiences that may not have been categorised by some of

the questions posed in the survey and help understand how some of the issues experienced were

happening in practice. 8 quantitative questions were used in the survey to look at response data

around: gender and age; pathway of study; how individuals would rate marking systems; the fairness

of the present marking system in their respective courses and if students considered that marking

systems could be strengthened nationally to create consistency and a fairer more robust system.

Two qualitative questions were added to the survey to seek out examples of students’ grievances,

the outcome from any complaints made and look for positive solutions and ideas from students to

assist in improving marking systems nationally, see appendix 1.

Carrying out the survey.

The survey link was first posted on 9 private social media pages followed by an email bulletin

to 791 BASW student members. Therefore the responses are not restricted to BASW membership

and may have been received from any geographical location. It was felt that to ask location as a

question on the survey could prevent some individuals from responding through fear of being

recognised by their qualitative response by their respective HEI’s, therefore anonymity and

confidentiality were also important to protect participants identity. It should be noted that with lack

of time, funding and other resources contacting a wider national student body for responses was

beyond the remit of the PPEG. Therefore the results and conclusions from this survey are only

representative of a small proportion of the national student body, mainly representing the section of

students who have become members of BASW.

The survey was carried out over a 12 week period in the summer of 2016. 221 students

participated in the survey. The survey was sent out through an electronic platform so that the data

could be automatically processed and clear table and graphs used to analyse the results. Analysis of

the data was completed by a student member of the PPEG. Conclusions reported in this paper have

been drawn from the data gathered from responders in this survey only with no reference to any

conversations held off record between students or personal experiences.

Analysis of findings.

Participation.

Table one shows the volume of responses throughout the period of the survey. When matched

with methods of communication used to reach the target audience, the peak period of time that

participants responded coincides with the BASW email shot to their student membership. This

indicates that out of 221 responses 178 may have been collected from the BASW student

membership. 12 responses submitted before the email bulletin to BASW students and a further 31

responses before the survey closed may have been as a result of social media advertising. However

without being able to clearly define the volume of BASW membership responses to the survey this

data cannot define the relationship between respondents and BASW membership.


of 18

Table 1

University Marking System for social work students Monkey Survey

Table two shows of the 221 participants 30 (13.64%) were male, 190 (86.36%) were female and

1 participant did not answer. This corresponds with numerous reports on the gender imbalance in

social work (Galley and Parrish, 2014; Skills for Care, 2015, pp. 7,8,10, 40 and 45; Turner, 2016, pp.

18 – 19) and societies’ patriarchal outlook towards entering the profession (Turner, 2016, pp. 18-

19). Table three shows that 108 (49.32%) participants were over 36 years old, 75 (34.25%)

participants were between 26 and 35 years old, 36 (16.44%) participants were under 25 years old

and two participants did not answer.

Table 2


of 18

Table 3 University Marking System for social work students Monkey Survey

Pathway into social work.

With various entry pathways into social work expanding, following the coalition governments

social work reform initiatives, it has led to an increased number of Frontline, step up and similar fast

track pathway students (Department for Education (DfE), 2016a, p. 19). To be able to contextualise

the comments on experience and suggestions for improving the marking system it was felt

important to learn of the participants’ pathway into social work, as this may have a bearing on the

type of comments and marking experienced under different syllabus and assessment criteria. Only 7

(3.17%) participants were studying social work through the Fast Track pathway compared to 59

(26.7%) participants studying at postgraduate level. The highest volume of response to the survey

came from undergraduate students 155 (70.14%) participants (table 4).

Table 4


of 18

How Students rated marking systems and the need for systems to be strengthened.

When asked to rate their respective marking systems as good, satisfactory or poor the majority

of respondents rated their respective systems as satisfactory, 118 participants (53.39%). A further 54

participants (24.43%) rated their respective marking systems as good. Combined these responses are

positive as it indicates 172 participants (77.83%) were positive about the present marking systems

used as opposed to 49 participants (22.17%) who considered present marking systems to be poor

(table 6). When asked if students felt that the marking system they had experienced was fair there

was divided opinion (table 5). Out of 221 participants 113 (51.36%) felt the system they had

experienced to be fair whilst 107 (48.64%) felt the system they experienced was not a fair marking

system. One participant did not answer. When asked if students felt marking systems could be

strengthened out of 221 participants 31 (14.22%) did not think the marking system could be

strengthened whilst 187 participants (85.78%) felt that it could. Three participants did not answer

(table 7).

Collective analysis of this data seems contradictory and raises questions as to participants

understanding of the questions posed. With the majority of participants rating their systems as good

and satisfactory, 172 participants (77.83%) compared to only 49 (22.17%) this contradicts the

volume of participants considering their system to be unfair. With 107(48.64%) participants

considering their respective systems to be unfair compared to 49 (22.17%) rating their systems as

poor consideration needs to be given as to the reasoning behind such contradictory results. Diverse

understanding, varying levels of tolerance and acceptance, and cultural, environmental and societal

influences may explain this variation, with individuals having different perspectives on the meaning

of unfair and satisfactory. It seems illogical that so many participants were dissatisfied, feeling that

there was potential to strengthen the marking system, yet the data also suggests the majority of

participants felt the systems were fair and rated them good or satisfactory. A possible explanation

for this could be, even though participants felt the system used to mark their cohorts work was

unfair, they remained satisfied with their individual mark rather than the marking system itself.

This leads one to question, if the majority of complaints and grievances raised and discussed

amongst cohorts are of a personal nature rather than a system related issue. This hypothesis fits in

with the effects of marketisation; where consumers expect a satisfactory outcome for their

payment, whilst universities, under pressure to satisfy consumer expectations, feel the need to

develop a good reputation and attempt to meet government standards and industry expectations to

produce quality social workers.


of 18

Table 5

Table 6


of 18

Table 7

To break down students understanding of what may constitute fair/ unfair marking three

marking related questions were asked: marks believed to be unfair; discrepancies with marking

within their cohort, and if some markers may have been more generous with marks than others

(table 8). 18 participants did not complete the question. It is not clear whether this is due to wishing

to answer or because they did not have any experiences that they felt relevant.

Marks believed to be unfair: From the 203 participants choosing to answer 130 (64.04%) felt

that marking can be unfair at times while 73 (35.96%) did not agree.

Discrepancies with marking within the cohort: Out of the 203 participants choosing to

answer 137 (67.49%) considered there to be marking discrepancies within their cohort. A

student following the Step up programme shared “Discrepancies in marking was a

consistent issue within that was raised throughout our cohort”. This comment demonstrates

that perceived marking discrepancies is a problem being experienced by all social work

students irrespective of pathway.

Some markers being more generous with marks than others: Of the 203 responding

participants 165 (81.28%) felt that some markers were more generous than others.

Considering the highest result from these three questions was marking discrepancies it is

interesting that only one experience of this kind was shared in the qualitative data around

experiences.

On reflection the choice of questions used to break down students understanding of what

constitutes unfair marking are subjective. Therefore the results from these questions is also

subjective and of little meaning without context behind each answer. Fairness is relative to an

individuals’ interpretation and perception of what is fair and is influenced by their social,

environmental and cultural experiences.


of 18

Analysis of qualitative data and emergent Themes

The qualitative data collected helped give insight into student experience and highlighted 4

emerging themes. It should be noted that when asked if participants wished to share their

experiences less than a third did so, only 71 out of 221 participants. 140 participants responded that

they did not have any experiences they wished to share and 10 participants did not answer the

question. When trying to group the experiences shared the 4 main themes that emerged were:

perceived inconsistencies between markers use of marking grids, referencing and taught content;

quality of the feedback given; the difficulty in challenging marks and available appeals processes,

and differences in student and markers perspectives.

From the experiences shared students felt that within cohorts there had been inconsistency between markers standards and expectations of students written work. One comment being, “On one essay it asked for our experiences; we queried and were told we could use the first person. Those of us that did that were marked down.” Another comment shared explained an inconsistency between verbal guidance and marking from one tutor,

“I have experienced discrepancies between the advice of a marker, also module leader and course director, and his actual assessment of my work. This meant that he guided and directed my towards a certain path in relation to my work then criticised me for taking that approach when it came to the assessment.”

It was also felt to be the case that a marker could have different expectations of different students, in respondents’ opinion based on the markers likes and connectedness to individual students. Inconsistency around placement support and quality of placements were felt to provide an unequal arena on which students could be measured fairly, an example of this being one student comment stating that “… placement analysis of practice [was] marked by 10 different practice educators therefore marking quality varied greatly and my marking feedback was aimed more at the placement quality than my work.” However it should be noted that placements will always be in a variety of settings and with so many students to accommodate varying experiences will be offered rather than varied quality. Some examples shared raised concerns around inconsistency between lecturers’ taught content, an example of this being, “… our lecturer gave detailed feedback on some drafts but then went off sick so someone else did the marking and we got penalized for following some of the lecturer's advice.” Other concerns raised were around the use of marking grids and referencing. One student stated “I have queried lecturers before where they have marked […] referencing as incorrect and I've known it to be correct. They have apologised and agreed my work was correct but then stated their mistake didn't affect my mark”. Whilst another student wrote “…I was also marked down by a marker for what was claimed to be an incorrect use of referencing. However, when I checked with the library they stated that I had used their chosen referencing correctly and that the marker was incorrect.”

Students felt that feedback could vary greatly in quality, quantity and usefulness between markers within their respective HEI’s. This was felt to be frustrating for students. One participant stated they had received conflicting feedback from the same tutor verbally and written. Written feedback expressed that they had followed the marking grid, yet when the student queried their mark they were told they had not followed the marking criteria. When criticising quality of feedback


of 18

one student stated “The feedback was too general and not detailed enough. There was no indication of how I could improve for future essays.” The following comment highlights how feedback can be lacking in quality, quantity and usefulness, indicating an urgent need in some HEI’s for feedback to be looked into by subject leads. “[I] received a few lines of feedback on a yearlong, 25,000 word project. Very very poor!! My feedback leaves more questions than answers.” A number of students had experienced issues when raising challenges around marks received and appealing the mark given based on feedback provided. A number of students’ comments explained their perception of what they considered an unfair mark and stated that they had discussed these reasons with their tutors. In all of these cases the student had been denied a second marker or any form of appeals process. One comment provided a good example of this on a multiple scale, stating that:

“Together with a few peers we emailed the course lead to express our concerns and inquire about remarking, this was met with a clear no re-marking stance. I can understand if it was just myself questioning this however, it was myself and a handful of my peers who had experienced the same issue and shared similar thoughts of unfairness. I also feel the quality of feedback varies substantially. Some markers just comment and do not give specific examples in areas that could be explored further. 'That's great' or 'more development needed' are fine, but not particularly useful.”

Some students shared their experiences of marking where they had felt marking may have

been unfair, based on differences in marker and students perspective and understanding. One

participant felt this to be racially motivated due to their Black heritage. This is a difficult issue to

discuss as the survey only provides the students perspective and does not allow the markers to

provide their perspectives on the situations shared; as previously discussed each experience is

subjective. Some examples of other comments shared include:

“Favouritism amongst markers with certain students from a different background.”

“I was marked down by a marker who clearly had an objection to my point of view.”

“Overall the marking has been consistent. However one professor has been extremely unfair in his

marking and it appears to be based on whether you quote only his work and in his opinion. Any

deviation from that results in a low mark or a fail. The university appears aware of this yet doesn't

challenge him or allow marks to be examined.”

Some students felt that tutors had different expectations on individual students based on their

opinion of the students’ capabilities and past work. This was perceived to affect the marking of some

tutors, who had higher expectations of a particular student over others, leading that student to feel

that their marking may have been stricter than that of their peers.

“I have been achieving ‘A’ grades for all university work apart from one resubmission grade. I felt this was unfair as the marker explained to me that they were disappointed by my mark because they had high expectations for me. Overall, I believe the work should have at least past and was not actually a below average piece of work.”


of 18

Table 8

To improve marking.

When asked a series of statements (see question 8 in appendix 1) as to what could assist improving

the marking system all 221 participants responded; indicating everyone felt there are changes that

can be made to improve marking systems. The three suggested areas most popular amongst

participants for improvement were:

Feedback: Out of 221 participants 200 (90.5%) felt feedback should be more detailed and

explanatory to support students’ future endeavours. Thus making feedback an area most in

need of improvement, according to participants of this survey. From the 74 shared

experiences 1 good experience was shared, “I found some lecturers were very supportive in

feedback after assignments. Some lecturers would even arrange one-to-one meetings to

discuss feedback in more detail.” Out of the 74 shared experiences 15 were in regard to

feedback.

Opportunity for re-marking: Out of 221 participants 171 (77.38%) felt there should be an

opportunity for students to request to have their work re-marked should they be able to

prove justification for this. A number of shared experiences stated that this had been asked

for and declined as a solution to the students’ grievance.

Anonymisation: Out of 221 participants 167 (75.57%) felt that assignments should be

anonymised before marking. This may be useful for certain assignments; however as

universities often set reflective pieces, which reveal aspects of the students lived


of 18

experience, anonymisation in some circumstances may be pointless. It also raises the

question of trust and the importance of building good working relationships based around

trust.

Solution based approach to the perceived problem.

As stated in the introduction the aim of this research was to look for positive solution based

approaches that could be put forward to help strengthen and improve the marking system. Out of

221 participants 14 did not answer this question, 156 had no further suggestions and 55 shared their

ideas around ways to improve the marking systems. Practical suggestions included:

Ability to challenge grades and, with reasonable challenge, on request have ones work

second marked.

Ability for students to submit a draft of their work and receive feedback before the hand in

date.

External marking panels to be tied to professional bodies.

Better communication between markers to improve consistency of marking standards and

expectations.

Feedback could be improved by annotated notes on a returned assignment rather than a

feedback form.

A standardised curriculum throughout all HEI’s to ensure a national standard of learning.

Group work not to be part of overall marks, as individuals’ work will impact on each other,

either bringing a grade down or giving a grade off the back of someone else’s work.

According to the experiences shared in this survey HEI’s are lacking in satisfactory appeals

processes, improvement in this area would go a long way to improving marking and students’

expectations of a fair system.

Summary.

Recent reports and statistics have drawn attention to the gender imbalance within the

profession (Galley and Parrish, 2014; Skills for Care, 2015, 7, 8, 10, 40 and 45); Turner, 2016, pp. 18-

19). This has raised concerns around the lack of male social workers and the impact this is having on

male clients’ (Turner, 2016, pp. 18 – 19). Looking at the volume of male participants as opposed to

female is further evidence of this gender divide, giving an indication that the problem may take

some time before a gender balance is anywhere near a possibility. However, with the focus of this

research being on marking, not gender imbalance and its impact on social work practice, conclusions

relevant to this research indicates that women possibly: felt more inclined to respond; experienced

situations of unfair marking more than their male counterparts; challenge and desire validation

more than their male counterparts, or simply outnumber men studying and recently qualifying who

were given access to the survey. It is more likely the latter is the reason behind the low male

response volume, though taking a holistic approach other considerations should be noted.

Data around gender, age and pathway show that most participants were mature female

students following a fee paying undergraduate pathway into social work. With most responses

coming as a consequence of a BASW ebulletin to its student members this could be an indicator of

the gender and age makeup of BASW student membership being in line with reports around the

gender imbalance in social work and social work education (Skills for Care, 2015, 7, 8, 10, 40 and 45).


of 18

Reflecting on the present government agenda, to focus funding on Fast track programmes (DfE,

2016b) rather than traditional degree pathways (referring to the possible scrapping of the social

work bursary and the present increased investment in Fast track programmes), the response being

mainly from undergraduate students helps evidence the essential need for the bursary to be

continued. This helps demonstrate, even with new incentives and programmes to Fast track

students and fill the vast quantity of social work job vacancies, most NQSW’s are coming through the

undergraduate pathway; thus warranting government funded focus on supporting those students

coming through the system via undergraduate and postgraduate courses.

Responses indicate that students consider there to be an inconsistent standard of teaching

methods and marking that could be improved through a more robust and standardised curriculum

and syllabus implemented nationally. As HEI’s introduce the new Knowledge and Skills Statements

(KSS), from the Chief Social Workers for Adults (Lynn Romeo) and Children and Families (Isabelle

Trowler) (DfE, 2014; Department of Health (DoH), 2015) into their teaching programmes it may help

prepare students in readiness for practice. A standardised syllabus throughout all HEI’s does have its

merits; flexibility for students to transfer between institutes; clearer understanding for employers of

students’ knowledge and capabilities, helping to create a fairer recruitment system; improved equal

opportunities for employment for students’ irrespective of HEI attended, and generally improved

standard of NQSW’s coming onto the employment market.

A conclusion on fairness of the marking system is impossible to make, without all the facts

relevant to each situation, and then only a conclusion to the fairness of each situation on its own

merits could possibly be considered. The only conclusion that can be made from this research being

there are a number of students who feel that they have experienced unfair marking, to address this

the marking system itself could be strengthened to minimise such incidents.

Feedback will always be a topic for debate as it is naturally hard to accept criticism, especially

when one has worked so hard on a piece of work. However it is an important lesson to learn in social

work, as feedback is a big part of supervision and assisting one to analyse cases fairly. It helps to

broaden ones perspective and look at situations through Johari’s window from the hidden view one

cannot see (Bassot, 2013, pp. 48- 49). Feedback can help students develop their reflective and

analytical social work skills, learning to develop their understanding of self and self within the social

work role.

With social work being about assessment, analysis and ones perspective on a set of events or

circumstance there will naturally be differences in lecturers advice, teaching and shared views on

module content and how it is presented. This to a degree must be accepted, however as stated

above the introduction of KSS to teaching may help to reduce this conflicting styles and advice. As

with feedback this variation in teaching and perspectives on social events and phenomena can help

develop a more grounded social worker, offering a more holistic understanding and knowledge base

to work from. In regard to discrepancies within marking systems the nature of social work and

training must be considered. With the diverse needs of students and a variety of placement settings

offering different experiences and learning opportunities there will always be a degree of

inconsistency/ unequal provision within the cohorts training. All that can be expected is for each

student to be judged on their work and merits.

The results highlighting participating students’ opinion on satisfaction and trust of marking

systems is inconclusive. On a positive note however responses to solutions indicate, even though the

minority of participants rated their HEI’s marking system as poor (22.17%), students can offer


of 18

solutions for improving quality and strength of marking systems, with 55 participants suggesting

ways for improving the system.

Conclusion.

There is a genuine need for HEI’s to look at their marking systems and consider ways to

improve the quality of marking and students understanding of how their work is graded. The data

from this survey helps evidence student unrest and the extent of this problem. It provides useful

data and statistics for HEI’s, regulatory bodies and external markers to understand the problems felt

by students and the solutions they feel may go a long way to improving marking systems.

Dissatisfaction with marking is not restricted to undergraduate and postgraduate pathways, it

also affects Fast Track programmes too. The small proportion of participants being from Fast Track

programmes is not an indicator of satisfaction and that these pathways have got it right but that

there are fewer Fast Track students compared to undergraduate and postgraduate students. The

results show that students are generally satisfied with the educational service they are provided

with, however strongly feel that there is a need for improvements to the marking system to increase

fairness and reduce complaints. No appeals process and refusal to re-mark work seems to be an

underpinning theme related to most of the shared experiences collected throughout the survey. This

is concerning and may help explain the rise in student dissatisfaction as much a marketisation of

universities. The most prominent results suggest improved feedback is of most importance to

students with 200 out of 221 participants wanting more detailed and explanatory feedback. There

are a number of ways this could be addressed according to participants of this survey including

annotating work, feedback on draft work prior to hand in dates and verbal support.

Therefore these two actions, improved feedback and fair appeals processes, are perhaps the

most important changes HEI’s may need to consider to strengthen their marking systems and

increase student/ consumer satisfaction. There are practical solutions students have suggested,

some that could be quickly implemented to help in the short term and some that may need further

research to be able to assess practicalities and predict any improvements as a consequence of.

Limitations.

Without any geographical context to the individual results it is difficult to ascertain if those

respondents stating satisfied with the marking systems are geographically related or not. Without

this data it is difficult to know if the marking system is stronger and more robust in certain HEI’s than

others. If measured against the marking system structure within the HEI itself a geographical

indicator would enable satisfaction to be measured in relation to specific marking system

components. For example if HEI’s used an anonymising system or provided annotated feedback

compared to other HEI’s and rate of complaints where less robust and fair systems are used.

The number of participants also limits the results to a small number of students from the national

student population. A larger scale survey reaching more students may produce more useful and

accurate data to help improve the marking systems. A study looking at marking concerns and

systems of each pathway separately may highlight good and poor practice that can be shared, to

offer further solutions and a more integrated system irrespective of pathway into social work.


of 18

Due to financial and time constraints no face to face data collection was possible, preventing

further questioning and exploration into shared events. A final limitation being that the only

collection of data was from the student body creating a ‘one sided’ perspective. Perhaps data and

input from lecturers and HEI’s may have been able to counterbalance some of these issues and offer

explanation as to some of the events and HEI procedures used to mark students work.

Recommendations.

With students collectively voicing their concerns through the results in this survey HEI’s should

look at the main issues impacting their student body and consider some of the suggestions put

forward. The results indicate there are 4 themes to marking concerns: feedback issues; fairer

appeals and re-marking procedures; variation in student and markers perspectives, and inconsistent

marking standards between tutors and HEI’s.

Students should be able to feel that their concerns are listened to and taken seriously,

therefore consideration should be given to appeals processes as a matter of urgency. This way

future complaints and grievances may have a fairer hearing and more acceptable outcome for the

student. Improved feedback will help develop a better culture of communication between lecturer

and student; thus building trust and working relationships that may help students understand the

meaning behind the feedback and feel more confident and comfortable questioning.

Further research.

Anonymisation has not been discussed under the heading ‘recommendations’ as shared

experiences and views indicate that this may be a more complex issue and warrant further research

to evidence any gains. With social work and social work assignments being of a reflective nature

anonymisation may not be achievable even with student names omitted from the submitted

assignment. As lecturer/ student relationships grow lecturers will learn more about the student,

their socialisation, ethical values and perspective on issues and choice of language. This knowledge

would mean that as a piece of work is marked the lecturer would be able to successfully guess the

identity of the student whose work they are marking. Therefore anonymisation may not be

appropriate or effective. For those re-submitting work and discussing feedback with the lecturer to

ensure improved work anonymisation becomes impossible and defeats the point.

With the for-mentioned limitations to this survey further research on a larger scale, ensuring

thorough investigation into all pathways may provide more accurate and constructive data to assist

HEI’s and external markers in improving national marking systems. With so many changes in this

political and environmental climate, for example: KSS and accreditation; a proposed new regulator

(Children and Social Work Bill, 2016); investment in Fast Track programmes and a focus on increased

male recruitment into social work and social work education, further studies around marking in the

future may provide a different set of outcomes, as the ‘landscape’ changes impacting on how

students are measured and assessed.

Declaration of interests:

When writing this article the author was in her third year of a Social Work BSc degree course. The

author has attempted to remain impartial as she was writing on behalf of BASW under her role as


of 18

Chairperson to the Student and NQSW PPEG. Following feedback the author feels that any personal

value-led influences have been successfully removed from the final paper, thus presenting an

impartial view of the survey data.

References:

Bassot, B. (2013) The Reflective Journal: Capturing your Learning for Personal and Professional

Development. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Children and Social Work Bill, 2016. Available at:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2016-2017/0001/17001.pdf (Accessed: 5th

September 2016).

Community care. (2015a) I resigned as a lecturer after the university did not fail social work students.

Available at: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2015/08/18/resigned-lecturer-university-fail-social-

work-students. (Accessed: 11th August 2016).

Community care. (2015b) This pressure to pass social work students is wrong. Some won’t be up to

the job. Available at: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2015/11/18/pressure-pass-social-work-

students-wrong-wont-job. (Accessed: 11th August 2016).

Cooper Hind, H. and Taylor, J. (2012) 'Student complaints: an accurate measure of student

dissatisfaction?', Higher Education Review, 44 (3), pp. 54-80.

DfE. (2014) Knowledge and skills for child and family social work. Available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/338718/140730_K

nowledge_and_skills_statement_final_version_AS_RH_Checked.pdf (Accessed: 5th September 2016).

DfE. (2016a) Putting children first: Delivering our vision for excellent children’s social care. Available

at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/535732/Putting_C

hildren_First_-_delivering_our_vision_for_excellent_children_s_social_care.pdf (Accessed: 1st

September 2016).

DfE. (2016b) Nicky Morgan unveils plans to transform children's social work. Available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/nicky-morgan-unveils-plans-to-transform-childrens-social-

work (Accessed: 15th August 2016).

DoH. (2015) Knowledge and Skills Statement for Social Workers in Adult Services. Available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/411957/KSS.pdf

(Accessed: 5th September 2016).

Galley, D. and Parrish, M. (2014) ‘Why are there so few male social workers?’, The Guardian, 25th

July. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/social-care-network/2014/jul/25/why-so-few-

male-social-workers (Accessed: 5th September 2016).

Gates, T., Heffernan, K. and Sudore, R. (2015) ‘Social Work Students as Market Consumers: Faculty

Perceptions of Customer Service Expectations’, Social Work Education, 34 (7), pp. 884 – 894.


of 18

Gov.uk. (2010) changes to tuition fees and higher education. Available at:

http://www.gov.uk/government/news/changes-to-tuition-fees-and-higher-education. (Accessed:

19th August 2016).

Skills for Care. (2015) Social work education in England 2009 – 2014: A report for the Department of

Health. Available at: http://cdn.basw.co.uk/upload/basw_11320-1.pdf (Accessed: 5th September

2016).

Turner, A. (2016) ‘The great divide’, Professional Social Work, July/ August, pp.18 – 19.

Acronyms:

BASW- British Association for Social Workers

HEI’s- Higher Education Institutes

KSS- Knowledge and Skills Statement

NQSW’s- Newly Qualified Social Worker’s

PPEG- Practice, Policy and Education Group

Appendix 1:

Q 1: are you male or female?

Q2: how old are you? Under 25; 26-35; 36+

Q3: which pathway is relevant to you?

Q4: Overall how would you rate your university marking system?

Q5: overall do you believe your university marking system is fair?

Q6: do you believe the marking system can be strengthened?

Q7: Have you/ your peers experienced any of the following:

Marks you believe were unfair.

Discrepancies with marking within the cohort.

Some markers being more generous with marks than others.

Q8: Please tick the statements you believe are important to ensuring a fair marking system:

I believe university marking criteria and systems should be the same nationally.

I believe subjectivity in marking should be minimised as much as possible.

I believe assignments should be anonymised for marking.

I believe students should be afforded the opportunity to have their work remarked.

I believe students should not be made aware of who is marking their assignments until after

the results are published, to avoid students writing to their markers preferences.

I believe marking criteria should be made explicit.


of 18

I believe markers should alternate so students have opportunities for different markers to

assess their work.

I believe feedback on assignments should be detailed and explicitly explain how marks could

be improved.

Q9: Do you have any experiences you would like to share with us? YES/NO. If YES please comment.

Q10: Do you have any further suggestions regarding improving university marking systems? YES/NO.

If YES please comment.

AUTHORS CONTACT DETAILS:

Mrs Helen Gormley, telephone: 01684560797 or 07557519694

57 Oak Crescent,

Malvern,

Worcestershire,

WR142NY.

University Marking Systems for Social Work Students ... · University Marking Systems for Social...

Documents

Transcript of University Marking Systems for Social Work Students ... · University Marking Systems for Social...