{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02151847340641494, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00243605359317905, 'mean_word_length': 5.588235294117647, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Moderation: concept and operationalisation in UK universities


Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to examine the way “moderation” is defined and operationalised at UK universities. It is hoped that this investigation provides pointers for modifications in university documentation and practices, as well as indicates possible areas for future research.


Design/methodology/approach
This paper begins with a review of relevant scholarly literature, first tracing the history of the concept of moderation (essentially meaning the avoidance of extremes) in western thought and then proceeding to show how moderation is understood and operationalised in UK universities. Relevant documentation from 10 UK universities, all in the public domain, is analysed to show both commonalities and differences in definition and operationalisation of moderation.


Findings
This paper shows that universities differ in their understanding of the scope of moderation, with some seeing it as covering the evaluation of draft assessment artifacts. It is also noted that the distinction between moderation and marking is not always expressed in university documentation in ways that distinguish between the two with maximal clarity.


Research limitations/implications
Limitations include the relatively small sample of documents examined. Conversely, ancient universities (e.g. Edinburgh), long-established universities (e.g. Manchester) and 1992 and more recent universities (e.g. Manchester Metropolitan University and Suffolk) are contained in the sample, so moderation practices from across the sector are included.


Practical implications
The main findings are that some universities see moderation as including drafting, redrafting and approval of assessment artifacts, whereas others do not. In addition, although all universities stress that moderation and marking are separate activities, some documentation discusses both the activities in tandem; thus, undermining the contention that they are discrete. Both these findings have implications for UK university documentation in terms of both document structure and precise wording.


Originality/value
The approach taken, in which a sample of publicly available university documents is scrutinised and evaluated, casts a new light on understandings of “moderation”, which is a term and concept that may not always be examined critically by lecturers and quality assurance professionals involved in higher education.
