Marking Consistency Audit With Anonymised Samples

Check whether two markers would give similar marks.

Added October 15, 2026. Written with AI assistance and checked for clarity and placeholders; not reviewed by a lawyer, accountant, clinician or other professional. How these prompts are made

The Open buttons send the prompt text as currently shown below to that site only when you click. Fill in the placeholders first.

[VERIFY] is an editorial flag, not a blank to fill. Wherever the prompt shows [VERIFY], check that item against a reliable source before you use it (what [VERIFY] means).

Audit marking consistency. Five anonymised scripts with marks from two markers and the mark scheme: [MARKS_AND_SCHEME]. Comments from each marker: [MARKER_COMMENTS].

Calculate the difference between markers for each script and the average difference, and the range, with the arithmetic. Identify criteria where differences are largest. Make a table with Script, Marker A, Marker B, Difference, Criterion, and Likely reason. Suggest clarifications to the mark scheme, anchor examples, and a moderation process, including a meeting agenda.

Do not evaluate students personally. Mark assessment regulations [VERIFY].

Add a worked example: for five scripts, marker A gives 62, 58, 71, 49, 66 and marker B gives 65, 52, 70, 55, 64, so differences are 3, 6, 1, 6, 2 with a mean absolute difference of 3.6 marks. Show how to highlight the criteria driving the 6-mark gaps, propose anchor examples for a borderline script, and write a short moderation meeting agenda of 30 minutes that ends with agreed wording changes for the mark scheme.

Fill in before use

Optional: type your details and the prompt above updates. Nothing is saved or sent.

Replace each bracketed placeholder with your own details, then paste into Any AI or another assistant.

Script | Marker A | Marker B | Difference
1 | 62 | 65 | 3
2 | 58 | 52 | 6
3 | 71 | 70 | 1
4 | 49 | 55 | 6
5 | 66 | 64 | 2
Mean absolute difference 3.6 marks. Largest gaps are on 'analysis' for scripts 2 and 4. Action: anchor example for a borderline script; 30-minute moderation meeting; clarify the descriptor 'convincing'.
Next step: markers jointly mark scripts 2 and 4 and write what evidence moved each mark. Decide a shared meaning for 'convincing' and re-mark three fresh scripts independently to see if the average gap falls below 2 marks.

• worksheet