Re-marking a Borderline Speaking Result
At a JCE assessment centre, a learner scores 59.5 on a 100-point scale where 60 is the pass mark. The score comprises a written paper (40 points), a listening test (20), and a paired speaking test (40) marked by two assessors. Assessor A gave the speaking performance 22/40; Assessor B gave 27/40. The recorded scores were averaged to 24.5, giving the learner 59.5 overall. The learner's employer has emailed asking for a re-mark, noting that the learner 'needs the certificate for a promotion'. The centre's procedure says re-marks are available on written request within 20 working days and are conducted by an assessor who did not mark the original. The learner's request arrived on day 18.
1. Should the re-mark proceed? Describe the process and the specific issue the discrepancy raises.
Read the worked answer
Yes - the request is within the 20-working-day window (day 18), it is in writing, and the procedure does not exclude re-marks because the outcome matters to an employer. The employer's reason is irrelevant to eligibility; the learner has a right to the process regardless of motive.
The specific issue is the five-point gap between assessors (22 vs 27), which is large on a 40-point scale and sits directly on the pass boundary. Averaging masked the disagreement rather than resolving it. A proper re-mark should therefore not simply re-add the numbers - it should address the marking reliability question.
Recommended process:
- Assign a third assessor who did not mark the original, as the procedure requires.
- Have that assessor mark the recorded speaking performance independently against the published criteria, without seeing the earlier scores first.
- Compare all three sets of marks criterion by criterion, not just totals.
- Where two of three assessors converge on a criterion, adopt that judgement; where all three diverge, refer to a senior assessor for adjudication.
- Record the outcome and the reasoning, and communicate it in writing with the deadline met.
Averaging two divergent marks is arithmetic, not assessment. The re-mark exists precisely to catch cases where the average concealed a problem.
2. The third assessor awards 26/40, moving the learner to 61 and a pass. The original Assessor A objects that 'the learner failed on the day'. How should the centre resolve this?
Read the worked answer
The centre should resolve it on evidence and criteria, not on seniority or on who feels strongly. Assessor A's claim - that the learner failed on the day - is a conclusion, not a reason. The question is which marks the recorded performance actually supports against the published descriptors.
The third mark of 26 is close to Assessor B's 27 and far from Assessor A's 22. That pattern suggests Assessor A is an outlier on this performance, though it does not prove it. The centre should therefore:
- Ask each assessor to justify the marks criterion by criterion with reference to specific moments in the recording.
- Check whether Assessor A applied a stricter interpretation of one criterion (for example fluency or interactive communication) than the others.
- If two assessors' criterion-level judgements align and are supported by the descriptors, adopt the majority position and record it.
- If the disagreement is about interpretation of a criterion rather than the performance, refer to the senior assessor for a ruling and, if needed, clarify the descriptor for future sessions.
Assessor A's objection should be acknowledged, not dismissed: marker divergence is a training signal. The centre should feed the case into standardisation, and if the pattern repeats, review that assessor's marks. What the centre must not do is let the original marker's conviction override two independent judgements, or let the employer's interest tip the balance the other way. The outcome must rest on the recording and the criteria, and the reasoning must be written down so it can be defended to all three assessors.