Brief guide for markers of Informatics MSc Projects

1. Informatics MSc dissertations are marked independently by two markers. The 1st marker is the supervisor of the project. The 2nd marker is independent, not involved in the project supervision, and allocated centrally.
2. Both markers follow the same assessment criteria and procedures in marking MSc dissertations, but their roles are slightly different.
3. The 1st marker is an expert on the topic of the dissertation, since he/she is the supervisor. Moreover, the 1st marker is aware of problems that arose during the project, changes to the project goals, and mitigating circumstances that affected the students (cf. the corresponding fields in the marking form that only the 1st marker fills).
4. The 2nd marker is normally not an expert on the topic of the MSc dissertation. (Thus the situation is different from PhD dissertations where both markers are carefully chosen experts on the topic.) The 2nd marker assesses the MSc dissertation based on its content, according to the assessment criteria of the School. However, it is not expected that the 2nd marker checks every last technical detail in the dissertation. Thus 2nd marking an MSc dissertation is different from refereeing a research paper (or a PhD dissertation). The existence of a 2nd marker means that there is a check on the 1st marker. MSc dissertations need to be written in a style such that its main points (if not every last technical detail) are comprehensible to a general academic in Informatics.
5. Both markers give textual feedback in the relevant fields of the marking form. This is primarily to justify the numerical mark, and to highlight the main strong and weak points of the MSc dissertation. This feedback is generally not at the same level of detail as a referee report on a research paper.
6. Both markers file their marking forms independently in the webmark system. They are explicitly prohibited from discussing the mark before both forms have been submitted. After both marking forms have been submitted, the two markers discuss the project, agree on a final mark, and one of them (normally the supervisor) files the agreed mark form.
7. If the two marks are too far apart, or if the markers cannot agree, then a 3rd person (the moderator) is called in to decide the mark. However, the markers still need to file the agreed mark form with a proposed agreed mark or an explanation why they cannot agree. Moderator allocation is done via the ITO. The markers have no influence on who is the moderator. The policy on moderation is here. In a nutshell, moderation is only required in these cases: (1) the agreed mark is a failing mark (<50). (2) the two markers cannot agree on a mark. (3) the discrepancy between the two marks is >20. (4) the discrepancy between the two marks is >15 and the merit/distinction boundary (70) has been crossed.