What is second marking – and how does it differ from double marking?

A check on the first judgement

Most marking starts with one person. Second marking adds another, so that the first marker’s judgement is tested before a grade is confirmed. It is one of the most widely used quality checks in higher education – and because it can be applied to a sample of work rather than all of it, it fits even large cohorts and tight deadlines.

The terminology is not always consistent. Some institutions use second marking for any assessment by a second marker; others reserve double marking for when two markers assess every piece of work independently, and moderation for checking a sample after marking is complete. What they share is the aim: grades that do not depend on one person alone.

How does it work?

Practices vary, but second marking usually involves the following:

• A first mark. The first marker – often the module teacher – marks the work and gives feedback.
• A selection for second marking. This can be all submissions, a sample across the range of grades, or targeted work such as fails, borderline cases and the highest grades.
• Blind or sighted. The second marker may assess the work without seeing the first marker’s grade and comments (blind), or with them (sighted).
• A final mark. Where the markers differ, they discuss the work against the criteria and agree a final mark. Depending on local rules, the second marker may have the authority to decide – or, if the markers cannot agree, a third marker or moderator does.
• A record of the decision. The outcome, and how it was reached, is documented for exam boards, external examiners and possible appeals.

Why does second marking matter?

The main reason is fairness at a reasonable cost. A second marker catches errors, misreadings and unusually harsh or generous judgements – and by targeting the work where mistakes matter most, such as fails and borderline grades, institutions get much of the benefit of double marking for a fraction of the effort.

It is also especially valuable where the first marker knows the student well, for example a supervisor marking a dissertation. A second marker who has not followed the work brings a more independent view.

What second marking cannot do

Second marking only checks what it sees. If it covers a sample, problems in the rest may go unnoticed – which is why systematic issues found in a sample usually lead to a review of the whole set. And sighted second marking risks simply confirming the first mark: research suggests that markers agree more when they can see each other’s grades, partly because the second marker is influenced by the first.

It also cannot settle what the criteria leave open. If the standards are unclear, two markers will struggle to agree – and the agreed mark may reflect negotiation more than shared judgement.

How does WISEflow approach it?

In WISEflow, second marking is part of how marking is set up, not something coordinated by email. Our understanding goes a little further than adding a name to a spreadsheet:

• Second markers where they are needed. Assessors can be allocated to all submissions or to selected ones, so second marking can cover a whole cohort or a targeted sample.
• Blind or sighted, as the institution chooses. Assessor types determine whether second markers can see the first marker’s grades and feedback.
• Agreeing the final grade. Where markers differ, WISEflow can suggest a final grade, and the final decision can rest with a reviewer, the markers or the second marker, depending on how the flow is set up.
• Anonymous where it matters. Second marking can be combined with anonymous marking, so neither marker knows whose work they are reading.
• A full audit trail. Each marker’s grade, any disagreements and the final decision are recorded.

What should institutions consider?

• Definitions: agree what second marking, double marking and moderation mean locally – and use the terms consistently.
• Selection: decide which work is second marked, and always include fails and borderline cases.
• Blind or sighted: choose deliberately, especially where the first marker knows the student.
• Resolution rules: agree in advance how disagreements are settled, and when a third marker is needed.

Second marking is not a sign of mistrust in the first marker. Used well, as part of a considered approach to marking and moderation, it adds a second judgement where it counts most – and grades students can trust.