A student’s final assessment score, initially determined by automated grading systems or standardized rubrics, has been manually adjusted by the teaching faculty. This alteration typically occurs when the automatically calculated grade does not accurately reflect a student’s understanding or performance. For example, if a student provides a particularly insightful answer that the rubric did not anticipate, an instructor might choose to award additional points, thus increasing the overall grade beyond the calculated value.
This intervention ensures fairness and acknowledges the limitations of purely algorithmic evaluation. It allows instructors to consider factors such as improvement over time, demonstration of critical thinking skills not fully captured by the grading scheme, and extenuating circumstances that might have affected a student’s performance on the assessment. Historically, such subjective assessment has always been a part of education, providing a necessary counterbalance to purely objective measures. The practice acknowledges the nuance often present in academic performance.
