Importantly, consensus moderation is different from moderation, and for this reason consensus moderation is the term used consistently throughout this guide. You may find that this distinction is often not made in general conversation, so you should be sure to check that the processes being discussed involve consensus seeking activities.
Consensus moderation involves markers reaching a consensus by reference to high-quality benchmarks, and then acting in ways that are both consistent with those benchmarks, and comparable with each other.
Moderation generally involves just one individual (for example a NLIC) reviewing and sometimes adjusting marks so that all the marks from different markers are comparable. The latter practice does not involve multiple markers making adjustments, but it might draw on detailed and sophisticated knowledge and understanding of disciplinary benchmarks and their application in practice, based on many years of practice. In principle, this practice uses deep expert knowledge of required standards that matches the standard commonly applied through the sector. In this case, the moderator’s actions might ensure all marks are in fact consistent with those standards before being awarded. However, this argument is generally not regarded as sufficient for adequate quality assurance. Consensus moderation is now regarded as a standard requirement throughout the sector, in particular by TEQSA.
