Marking: what works?

Victoria Elliott, et al

Research Summary

Marking, though a vital part of teachers’ work, is a key driver of large workload. The purpose of the research was to find evidence that would inform teachers’ decision-making about marking. Time available for marking is limited, so what is the best way to spend it? The review found a striking disparity between the enormous amount of effort invested in marking books, and the very small number of robust studies that have been completed to date. While the evidence contains useful findings, it is not possible to provide answers to all the questions teachers are asking. The review therefore summarises what we can conclude from the evidence – and clarifies where we simply do not yet know enough.

Researchers

Victoria Elliott, et al

Research Institution

Oxford University / Educational Endowment Foundation

What is this about?

The research is about marking.
Marking is an oft-discussed aspect of teachers’ work, given that good feedback to pupils seems vital but marking demands generate large workloads.
Teachers expend much time and effort on marking but the number of rigorous studies on its effectiveness is low.
Some evidence can be offered, but several unknowns remain.

What was done?

1,382 practising teachers from 1,012 schools in the maintained sector in England completed a survey on their marking practices.
A literature search was undertaken that included randomised controlled trials from other contexts such as higher education, small studies by classroom practitioners, intervention studies and doctoral theses.

Main findings and outputs

72% of teachers reported writing targets for improvement on all or most pieces of work they mark, the most common strategy of all ten practices asked about.
The more traditional approach to marking (identifying and correcting errors) is also taken by over 50% of respondents, on all or most pieces of work.
The different approaches taken have not yet been largely evidence-based.
Evidence emerging from the review is as follows – “Careless mistakes should be marked differently to errors resulting from misunderstanding. The latter may be best addressed by providing hints or questions which lead pupils to underlying principles; the former by simply marking the mistake as incorrect, without giving the right answer.
Awarding grades for every piece of work may reduce the impact of marking, particularly if pupils become preoccupied with grades at the expense of a consideration of teachers’ formative comments.
The use of targets to make marking as specific and actionable as possible is likely to increase pupil progress.
Pupils are unlikely to benefit unless some time is set aside to enable them to consider and respond to marking.
Some forms of marking, including acknowledgement marking, are unlikely to enhance pupil progress.
Schools should mark less in terms of the number of pieces of work marked, but mark better.
More studies are needed, on issues such as – what is the best use of class time to enable pupils to consider and respond to marking? What is the impact of rare-grade, formative-comment rich marking?

Relevance to RE

Marking is as relevant an issue to RE teachers as it is to teachers in general; or perhaps even more so, given that an individual RE teacher may well have relatively large numbers of pupils. RE teachers or departments might consider the evidence given above, together with the advice given below, when developing their own effective marking policies and practices.

Generalisability and potential limitations

The researchers say that because the range of studies to date is small, their survey could not be as systematic or detailed as might be wished, and that the findings are therefore tentative. However, this makes it essential for schools to monitor the impact of their decisions about marking, and evaluate and refine their approaches.

Find out more

The report is freely downloadable from https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/evidence-summaries/evidence-reviews/written-marking/