Moderation FAQ

As a rule of thumb, a revision is substantial when the learning outcomes assessed, the task requirements and/or the assessment criteria and standards have changed. Deciding what constitutes a substantial revision is often an academic judgement best made by the subject leader. For example, if the assessment is about discussing the impact of any emerging technology on professional practice, then the change the topic from cloud computing to AI is not substantial. But if the assessment is about technical knowledge, then changing the topic is significant.

While final examination should be considered as new every time and therefore requires moderation of assessment design every time, it is up to the subject leader to decide whether a midterm examination (as a continuous assessment) should be treated the same way.

Moderation of assessment design is required for all assessments that count towards the subject grade. 

Moderation of assessment design is required for all new and substantially revised assessments regardless of their weighting. Moderation of grading, on the other hand, is required for the heaviest assessment component(s) only and it is required once every four years. However, departments can set more stringent requirements to cover the lower weighting assessment as deemed appropriate.

Moderation of grading is not required for assessment components that are marked/graded by a panel. But it doesn't hurt to do it for the subject (maybe including other assessment components) once in a while.

The 'at least once every four years' requirement applies to moderation of grading only. The AMP assumes all subjects to have gone through this before the system launch and starts counting from Semester One of 2025/26. Moderation of assessment design, on the other hand, should be conducted whenever there is a new or substantially revised assessment.

Yes. According to the RPg Student Handbook, the University’s General Assessment Regulations (of which the moderation policy is part) should also apply to RPg subjects unless specified otherwise. 

Subjects that are non-credit bearing, non-assessed, externally managed, or internally exempted may be excluded from the moderation exercise. Departments may exercise discretion in selecting subjects for exclusion. To ensure consistency, departments are encouraged to establish internal practices and maintain appropriate supporting documentation.

Moderation of grading is required for the heaviest weighting assessment components only. Moderation of assessment design, on the other hand, is required for all new and substantially revised assessments regardless of their weighting.

There is a transition period of one year, i.e. using the system will become compulsory from 2026/27. Departments are strongly encouraged to start using it as soon as possible.

Technically, yes. It would be best if the reporting could be done at the 'right' time, i.e. set up the system for moderation before the semester, report the results of moderation of assessment design before students take the assessments, report pre-grading preparation before grading, and report the results of moderation of grading before SARP/the end of the semester.

The platform had performed web application vulnerability scanning. Web Application Firewall is also in place. (Note: Uploading materials is not a requirement. Departments can choose to handle the materials outside the system if they have concerns.)

At this moment, the system supports uploading file in txt / doc / xls / ppt format (with file size less than 5MB) but not video recordings. But it is possible to put the videos in a secured platform and provide the links in a text file. Departments can also choose to share the videos outside the system (uploading materials is not a requirement).

Yes, the person who uploaded the files (and someone in the same role) can delete the files or edit the document names. The uploaded documents will be attached to the subject, unless the subject leader removes them before the completion of the entire moderation process. Once the moderation of the subject has been completed, the subject leader cannot remove the documents.

Yes. A new feature was released in September 2025 to support uploading of documents by moderators/arbitrators.

Uploading materials to the AMP is not a requirement. The department can set their own guidelines on how the exchange of assessment materials should be coordinated. Note that even when the moderation is done offline, the moderator should still record their opinions in the AMP.

Uploading materials to the AMP is not a requirement. If there are concerns, departments can choose to handle the materials outside the system. 

Uploading materials to the AMP is not a requirement. Departments can set their own timeline for completing moderation. The bottom line is that the moderation of assessment design should be completed before the assessment is given to students (i.e. the examination paper should be moderated before students take the examination), and the moderation of grading should be completed before the overall subject grades are finalised and released to students.

Uploading materials to the AMP is not a requirement. Departments can decide what works best for them.

The system will keep the moderation records and the associated files for five years.

Pre-grading preparation is only required when there are multiple assessors involved in grading the assignments. The university policy does not stipulate how pre-grading preparation should be conducted. Providing samples of graded student work for reference is a good way to prepare the assessors, but it is not a requirement. 

Adding documents to the system is completely optional. It is for supporting the moderation process. To proceed to pre-grading preparation, subject leader first needs to submit the assessment component for moderation of assessment design. If that has been done, then subject leader should see the action to confirm the pre-grading preparation.

Pre-grading preparation is required when a new assessor join the team of assessors. A pre-grading meeting that involves the assessors in discussing the assessment criteria and standards is definitely one way to do the preparation, but it is not a must that they meet; other forms of preparation are acceptable too.

Yes. Conceivably, the preparation for grading can be done within ELC/CLC and the subject leaders just need to record this on the AMP.

If moderation of grading is required, a sample of student works (i.e. the videos) should be reviewed by the moderator to confirm that the grades given by the subject teachers are appropriate.

The moderation of assessment design can be based on the instructions to students, the rubric and some sample quizzes from the past.

If you are a subject leader, moderator or arbitrator, you would need your department admin to add you to the system. If you are a department admin, please send an email to ITS for the department admin access right.

AMP automatically determines whether moderation is required for each component of each subject based on the conditions entered by the subject leader and the last time moderation of grading was conducted for the subject. The system will indicate if moderation is required but will not send a reminder specifically for this. 

(Note: By default, the last moderation date was pre-set to 2024-25 Semester 3. The departmental admin can modify this date.)

In the current design, the system can only remind subject leaders to complete the moderation based on two dates defined by departmental admin, respectively for moderation of assessment design and moderation of grading. Both dates are defined for the whole departments, i.e. they are the same for all subjects within the same department. We assume departmental admin may not be able to configure these two dates differently for different subjects.

This is technically viable. It should be noted that they will have the same access right and can perform the same tasks. Careful coordination may be needed to avoid them from overwriting each other’s entries or moving the process forward unintentionally.

When more than one subject leader is assigned to a subject, each of them can upload documents using the same button, and all uploaded documents are equally shared among the subject leaders, as well as the moderators and arbitrators, just as the documents are uploaded by a single subject leader.

Confirmation from any assigned moderators will complete the process. If more than one moderator is assigned (e.g. one to do the moderation of design, another the moderation of grading), they will need to know their respective roles so that they can take actions accordingly.

The system does not have facilities tailor-made for specific moderation methods. Departments can decide how to best use (or not use) the platform to facilitate the process. Ultimately, only the moderation outcome needs to be recorded in the system.

The workflow to be triggered upon submission requires that all the three moderation roles: subject leader, moderator and arbitrator, be assigned to at least one user. Please contact department admin if any of these roles has not been assigned.

It is by design that those details must be kept unchanged after the moderation workflow has been started, it is because email notification would be sent to the moderator once the component is submitted for moderation, and the moderator may start reviewing the details. Hence subject leader should review and confirm the details by submitting the components for moderation. In case that subject leader needs to further revise the details after submission, please notify department admin who can then contact ITS support to revert the submission status by data patching.

A system interface has been implemented to enable SRS subject data to be automatically transferred from SRS to AMP at around 3AM everyday. Please ensure that the planned subject codes are defined in SRS for the appropriate year / semester and the subject codes would be updated to AMP on the next day.

It does not affect the appeal process. But a properly done moderation will give confidence to the appropriateness and consistency of the assessment and may reduce the chance of appeal.