Understanding the processes, practices and influences of calibration on feedback literacy in higher education marking : A qualitative study

Background
In the University setting, striving for consistency and reliability of assessment evaluation is essential to reducing the impact of marking variations. Marking processes such as consensus calibration have the potential to reduce issues which arise from the influence of markers professional knowledge and experience, as well as fixed and acquired marking habits. Furthermore, the influence of marker feedback which supports learning development is associated with the feedback literacy of both the teacher and the student. A gap is currently present in the literature as these practices are not discussed together.

Objectives
To explore how nursing academics perceive and understand calibration practices and associated feedback literacy.

Design
Theoretical underpinnings in participatory and person-centred research methodology supported the critical ontological perspective of this study where the intent of the research was to explore the reality that exists within the context where the research was conducted.

Setting
A single School of Nursing in an Australian University with six campuses spanning metropolitan, regional and rural sites.

Participants
Nursing academics and casual tutors with various levels of experience in assessment marking and feedback.

Methods
Semi-structured group interviews that were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

Results
Four overarching themes were identified; rubrics, calibration, feedback and justice.

Conclusion
Calibration improves staff cohesion, fosters better practices and consistency, and permits nuanced interpretation of assessments while maintaining uniformity.

Enhanced feedback literacy that integrates principles of equity, justice, and learner-centeredness is required. Fundamentally calibration guides educators toward holistic approaches that foster consistency, equity, and thorough feedback practices.

© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).