Skip to content
Qentak — The Education Operating System

Assessment & Records

Grading & Moderation

Make consistent judgment a visible process.

Support consistent grading decisions with marking criteria, review stages and moderation responsibilities.

Try the workflow
Ceramics educator in a green apron reviewing a clay sculpture with an adult learner
THE PEOPLEShared marking criteria

Keep the rubric and assessment expectations alongside the work being reviewed.

01 / 03

START WITH THE ACTUAL WORK

Why connect grading & moderation?

A marking rubric needs a review process behind it. Academic teams need to see disagreements, evidence, and the decision that resolved them.

WHAT THIS CAPABILITY BRINGS TOGETHER

Grading & Moderation: records, decisions, and handovers.

01

Shared marking criteria

Keep the rubric and assessment expectations alongside the work being reviewed.

02

Moderation selection

Identify the sample or cases requiring a second academic judgment.

03

Recorded resolution

Capture the agreed outcome and any change to the original grade.

FOLLOW THE WORK FROM START TO FINISH

Explore the grading & moderation workflow.

This interactive illustration explains the operating model. It contains no live institutional records.

Assessment review workspaceIllustrative preview
REVIEW BEFORE RELEASEEvidence → judgment → outcome
Shared marking criteriaRubrics and marking bandsEvidence and approval remain distinct
Moderation selectionSampling rules and moderator assignmentsEvidence and approval remain distinct
Recorded resolutionVariance thresholds and resolution authorityEvidence and approval remain distinct
STEP 1 OF 4

Apply a rubric

Apply the approved rubric to the learner’s work.

A WORKED EXAMPLE · ILLUSTRATIVE SCENARIO

Resolving disagreement before results are released

Two assessors interpret a criterion differently across parallel classes. Averaging their marks would hide the inconsistency rather than resolve it.

The decision and its context

Review representative evidence against the approved rubric, record the moderation decision and identify which results need correction. Separate the original assessment from the authorized adjustment.

What a complete outcome looks like

The release owner should see unresolved moderation actions and the evidence supporting changed outcomes before final approval.

FOLLOW THE HANDOVERResults & Report CardsOnly the authorized result version should enter the publication and family reporting process.

A CAPABILITY, NOT AN ISLAND

Connect grading & moderation with the next workflow.

The same institutional context should support the next responsible team’s action. Explore the connected capabilities.

YOUR INSTITUTION’S RULES

Set the rules for grading & moderation.

  • Rubrics and marking bands
  • Sampling rules and moderator assignments
  • Variance thresholds and resolution authority
Explore configuration and flexibility

WHEN THE DAY DOESN’T FOLLOW THE DEFAULT

Two reviewers disagree beyond the agreed threshold

Route the work to the designated academic decision-maker with both judgments retained.

A clear exception keeps the reason, owner, and next decision visible.
Experienced teacher in coral introducing classroom materials to a new colleagueGrading & ModerationShared marking criteria → Recorded resolution

SEE HOW THE WORK CONNECTS

Grading & Moderation

Teachers · Moderators · Academic leads. Keep the rubric and assessment expectations alongside the work being reviewed.

  1. 01

    Shared marking criteria

    Keep the rubric and assessment expectations alongside the work being reviewed.

  2. 02

    Moderation selection

    Identify the sample or cases requiring a second academic judgment.

  3. 03

    Recorded resolution

    Capture the agreed outcome and any change to the original grade.

Illustrative workflow · Shape the details around your institution.

AUTOMATION WITH A PURPOSE

When a moderation rule is triggered.

Use an agreed trigger and response while keeping the responsible person in the decision.

WHEN

A moderation rule is triggered

THEN

Add the work to the moderator’s queue before the result can be released.

How connected workflows work

APPROPRIATE CONTROL

Who can act on grading & moderation?

Preserve the original judgment, reviewer comments, and final approval. Restrict grade changes after the release boundary.

Explore security and institutional control

KNOW WHETHER THE CHANGE IS HELPING

Consistency and completion

Review unresolved moderation differences and the proportion of required reviews completed before results release.

Agree the baseline, reporting period, and owner before comparing results.Connect evidence to decisions

SEE IT IN YOUR CONTEXT

Different institutions. Specific responsibilities.

A practical introduction

Bring a representative workflow, one recurring exception, and the people who own the handoffs.

Plan your implementation

BEFORE THE CONVERSATION

Useful questions about grading & moderation.

Does moderation always change a grade?

No. It can confirm the original judgment, identify a correction, or lead to a wider review of the marking approach.

What should be agreed before a reporting cycle?

Confirm the grading conventions, academic roles, review stages, correction process, and release dates. Exercise an incomplete result and an authorized correction before using the live cycle.

PUT YOUR PROCESS IN THE PICTURE

Explore grading & moderation in your institution.

Start with your current workflow, the decisions that take time, and the handoffs you want to improve.

This public page presents Qentak’s capability model and an illustrative workflow. Available modules, integrations, operating rules, and rollout scope are established in your implementation plan.

Explore all 69 capabilities