English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Consensus moderation, where collaboration and discussion take place to reach an agreement on mark allocation, is a frequently used approach to quality assurance in higher education. Unit coordinators play a vital role in facilitating consensus moderation, yet limited research has focused on their role in moderation practices. This study explored unit coordinators’ perceptions and experiences of consensus moderation in Australian higher education through five focus groups. Using Foucauldian discourse analysis, data analysis identified three discursive constructions of consensus moderation situated in the wider discourse of the neoliberal university: a truly collaborative process, an illusion, and a process to manage markers. Unit coordinators in this study were positioned as either supportive, compliant but ineffective, or powerful. In contrast, markers were positioned as helpful and compliant although inexperienced and needing support; uncooperative, resistant, troublesome and demanding; or inexperienced and malleable. This paper has identified varied knowledge and understanding of consensus moderation processes and practice. These findings can inform moderation policy and practices and unit coordinator professional development.

A Foucauldian discourse analysis of unit coordinators’ experiences of consensus moderation in an Australian university