A Marked Improvement? A Review of the Evidence on Written Marking (EEF/Oxford)
Elliott, V., Baird, J., Hopfenbeck, T., et al. · 2016
grade Dreviewindependentunreplicated
Sample
Systematic review + survey of 1,382 teachers
Population
Primary/secondary; much underlying evidence from higher ed/EFL.
Design
The audit of the largest feedback time-sink. The follow-on FLASH marking RCT (103 schools) cut workload but lost its GCSE attainment arm to COVID.
Key findings
Teachers spend hours per week marking; the causal evidence that written marking raises attainment is close to EMPTY. What little exists supports: comments without grades, actionable targets, class time for pupils to respond, and abandoning acknowledgment/triple marking. Mark less, mark better.
Genetic confound
N/A (evidence audit).
Replication notes
The negative meta-finding (no robust marking evidence) remains unrefuted; EEF's 2021 feedback guidance retained it.
DOI / URL
Effects
| Outcome | Metric | Value | Measure | Timing | Vs | Horizon | Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Written marking on attainment | qualitative | evidence base too weak to estimate; no large K-12 RCTs of marking as practiced | unknown | n/a | unclear | not-applicable | domain-skill |
| Acknowledgment marking (ticks, 'good effort') | qualitative | unlikely to enhance progress; grading every piece may REDUCE marking's impact | mixed | short-term | unclear | end-of-treatment | domain-skill |
Cited by
- Feedback and formative assessmentmixedconf: highgc: low