02377oam 2200457zu 450 991014089510332120241212220028.09781424462629142446262297814244626051424462606(CKB)2670000000062098(SSID)ssj0000527306(PQKBManifestationID)12204737(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000527306(PQKBWorkID)10525660(PQKB)10804173(NjHacI)992670000000062098(EXLCZ)99267000000006209820160829d2010 uy engur|||||||||||txtccr2010 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference[Place of publication not identified]IEEE20101 online resourceBibliographic Level Mode of Issuance: Monograph9781424462612 1424462614 For many years the authors have coordinated a large engineering design subject, having a cohort of approximately 300+ students. Lectures are supported by tutorials of approximately 32 students which incorporate collaborative team learning activities and project-based learning. Each tutor is responsible for grading the assessment tasks for students in their tutorial. A common issue is how to achieve a consistent standard of marking between different tutors. To address this issue the authors have used a number of methods including double-blind marking and remarking to support consistent grading. Despite mainly finding only small variations between the grading of different tutors a number of students still complained about a perceived lack of consistency. We theorised that differences in the feedback provided by tutors was a contributing factor to this perception. In this paper we report investigating this theory and finding that while students' perception of difference in grading were not unfounded, the problem was exacerbated by inconsistencies in the language tutors use when providing feedback.Technical educationCongressesTechnical education607.1IEEE StaffPQKBPROCEEDING99101408951033212010 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference2372311UNINA