INCONSISTENCIES IN MARKING
Following the block 1 summative assessments in our vertical studio last year, my colleague and I were called in by the stage leaders to review and adjust grades after students complained that our studio marked more strictly than others. Having previously been told that my grading was too generous, I found this contradiction confusing, highlighting deeper inconsistencies in how assessment is understood across the course.
EVALUATION: LACK OF OBJECTIVITY
Despite undertaking individual marking, benchmarking and moderation with tutors from other studios, I am noticing a general uncertainty when assessing work against learning outcomes, not only in my own grading but also among colleagues. Although designed to provide objectivity, the learning outcomes are approached differently across studios. As ten studios with different agendas and approaches, we naturally emphasise some learning objectives over others. This questions the perceived neutrality of assessment, echoing Biggs’ reminder (2003) that matching individual performances to LOs is ultimately the result of holistic judgment rather than mathematical calculation. This tension also raises questions about the pedagogical weight given to grades versus feedback. Tutors invest significant effort in producing development-orientated written feedback, yet many students focus primarily on the grade, often overlooking the comments. To address these gaps, I aim to strengthen alignment across teaching, learning activities and assessment, while diversifying assessment formats.
Constructive Alignment
Learning from constructive alignment (Biggs, 2003), I will work with my teaching partner and stage leaders to ensure clear and consistent links between briefs, intended outcomes, teaching activities and tasks. This will begin with a mapping and planning exercise at the brief setting stage, at the beginning of the year, establishing explicit connections between objectives of the studio brief in relation to the Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs) (Biggs, 2003). These ILOs will then guide the design of learning activities and tasks, creating a clearer trajectory between what students do, what they learn, and how their work will be assessed. Having this mapping will allow us to review and adjust the approach as the year progresses, responding to evolving needs of the studio.
Diversifying assessment
To reduce the emphasis on “high stakes” assessment moments and help students better engage with feedback as an inherent aspect of learning, I will embed assessment more regularly across the studio timeline. Introducing structured opportunities for self-, peer- and group assessment, can help familiarise students with multiple evaluative formats and perspectives, supporting them in developing their own assessing judgement (Race, 2001). Experiencing assessment from these different positions can help demystify tutor judgment and highlight that different people will value and judge different aspects of the work.
Assessment for interdependence
Furthermore, incorporating assessment of exhibitions, pin-ups, presentations, models and drawings will allow students to apply LOs to their own and other’s work, strengthening their understanding of expectations (Race, 2001). This approach also underlines the collective dimensions of architectural practice where learning is relational. Reflecting manifold ways of being and knowing, knowledge in architecture is often created collaboratively, and cannot rely on a singular view or understanding (Jain, 2022).
By clarifying alignment, diversifying assessment formats, and foregrounding relational and collaborative feedback, both tutors and students can gain a clearer and more shared understanding of how assessment works. This can reduce the perception of uneven marking while fostering more inclusive, transparent and reflective learning cultures.
References
Biggs, J. (2003) Aligning teaching for constructing learning. Higher Education Academy. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John-Biggs-3/publication/255583992_Aligning_Teaching_for_Constructing_Learning/links/5406ffe70cf2bba34c1e8153/Aligning-Teaching-for-Constructing-Learning.pdf (Accessed: 28 February 2026).
Jain, N.R. (2022). Why Crip Assessment? Critical Disability Studies Theories to Advance Assessment for Inclusion. Assessment for Inclusion in Higher Education, pp.30–40. doi:https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003293101-5
Race, P. (2001) A Briefing on Self, Peer and Group Assessment. LTSN Generic Centre. Available at: https://bandmassessment.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/id9_briefing_on_self_peers_and_group_assessment_snas_901.pdf (Accessed: 1 March 2026).