I'm in the midst of a concentrated period of marking the work of undergraduate Education students - around a 100 mainly on-line but some face-to-face students to feed back to. It's approximately 25 minutes per script to read, reflect upon, and gather a mix of encouraging and constructively critical thoughts - so I know that I am in for the long haul in terms of the time commitment to this task.
I take my teaching seriously - designing professionally valuable and purposeful tasks, creating clear rubrics and applying assessment for learning principles to assessment design (for example being clear about learning objectives, embedding peer assessment, and providing examples to students of what success looks like).
I also try to model the feedback and commenting processes in my marking that we are looking to encourage in prospective teachers. Most feedback runs to six or seven lines and conforms to the feedback sandwich structure - or 'Two Stars and a wish' in simpler parlance. I highlight a rubric to show where students have achieved the various assessment criteria. I try to provide a comment as to how to improve next time.
Some colleagues say that we are wasting our time in this endeavour and boast of their achievement in reducing marking time so that they can get on and spend more time devoted to their research. And there is evidence that most students pocket the mark that they receive, pay little attention to the comments on their work and move on to the next unit's assessment task.
I try to maintain a line of professionalism that feedback matters; helping students progress and think matters; and that therefore a commitment to the formative components of assessment is essential. But are my more pragmatic colleagues right? Am I becoming a dinosaur in my thinking about assessment ideals in a mass-production world of higher education? Back to the marking...another 50 to go!