How Moderate Tech turns an isolating burden into mutual professional development

Executive summary

Educators from primary school to post-doctoral level carry two heavy duties: grading their students’ work, and then having that grading checked (and checking colleagues’ in turn) against the standards set by governments and regulators. Research and educators’ own testimony from the UK, the US, Australia and Singapore show that both duties consume long unpaid hours, are hard to schedule, and are often carried out in isolation. Moderate Tech removes the friction. Educators in the same discipline grade and discuss anonymised work online, from anywhere and at any time, and every participant gives and receives fresh perspectives in a reciprocal exchange that doubles as professional development.

1. The grading burden

Marking is consistently named among the most draining parts of teaching. A 2025 survey of 760 UK and US teachers found an average of 8.2 marking hours a week in the UK and 9.9 in the US; 87% of UK teachers routinely take marking home and 95% of US respondents said it runs beyond school hours. Some 52% of UK and 32% of US respondents had considered leaving because of marking pressure (Learnosity, 2025). In a 2026 global Tes survey, only 4% of teachers kept their work within contracted hours, while 38% regularly worked at least nine extra hours a week (Tes, 2026). In Singapore, 93% of surveyed teachers named grading their most time-consuming task, and most found detailed feedback hard to provide (GovTech Singapore, 2025). OECD data put Singapore teachers at 47.3 working hours a week against an OECD average of 41 (Tushara, 2025).

The strain shows in wellbeing figures. England’s Teacher Wellbeing Index 2025 recorded the lowest wellbeing score since 2019, and 66% of staff considering leaving cited workload volume (Education Support, 2025). University staff report similar pressure: a large UK survey found academics averaging 50.9 hours a week and professors 56.1 (UCU, 2016; Grove, 2016), with 28% saying their marking load had risen significantly (Grove, 2016).

2. The moderation burden

Moderation, meaning the double-checking of another educator’s work to confirm it has been graded correctly, is expected almost everywhere.

English exam-board guidance asks teachers who mark the same component to exchange marked work, compare standards and, where marking proves inconsistent, reconsider and adjust the marks of every affected candidate (Eduqas, n.d.). Universities typically add an internal moderator and then an external examiner, who may send a whole cohort back for partial or full re-marking (University of Manchester, 2016; University of Sussex, n.d.).

Educators describe the cost.

One head of English argued that unpaid teacher-moderators must annotate and justify marks to a degree paid examiners are not asked to, and that departments too small to field an independent moderator have to form alliances with other schools (Williams, 2018). England’s evaluation of Key Stage 2 writing moderation found schools spent an average of 14.1 hours on the process and regarded it as a mild burden (DfE, 2012). A 2024 review of higher-education moderation describes it as complex and resource-intensive, particularly for large teams (Prichard et al., 2024).

Three further difficulties recur.

Consistency is genuinely hard. Ofqual’s research shows marker agreement is lowest in essay-style subjects, where some disagreement reflects legitimate differences of professional opinion (Ofqual, 2019; Tisi et al., 2013). Even with moderation in place, moderators visiting schools judged 10% of the Key Stage 2 teacher assessments they examined too high and 5% too low (DfE, 2012).

Isolation limits who you can moderate with. Peer moderation is especially difficult in rural schools with single-person faculties (South Australian Area Schools Leaders Association, 2020), and in remote areas the nearest teacher of the same subject may be 100 miles away (American Educator, 2017–18). Even where colleagues are available, moderators who share the same school, region and habits can share the same blind spots, which is the risk of an echo chamber.

Face-to-face moderation depends on diaries. It needs shared time and place, so schools must plan around whether cover is available for teachers to attend (Literacy Tree, n.d.).

3. What the evidence says about a better way

Moving collaboration online need not cost accuracy. In a randomised experiment, 89 experienced examiners trained either face-to-face or online showed comparable, statistically significant gains in accuracy and consistency (Chamberlain & Taylor, 2011). An Ofqual-commissioned review found several studies in which online or remote marker training did not harm accuracy, with quicker and cheaper delivery (Ofqual, 2014a), and Cambridge researchers found the added value of a face-to-face standardisation meeting to be small and variable (Raikes, Fidler & Gill, 2009).

The human side still matters. Examiners in a 2014 Ofqual-commissioned study reported dissatisfaction with online standardisation (Ofqual, 2014b). The lesson is that online collaboration must be conversational, not merely a portal for submitting marks.

Peer moderation also builds professionals.

A four-year Scottish programme with 518 participants found that cross-sector moderation increased teachers’ confidence in colleagues’ judgements and built sustainable communities of practice (Grant-McMahon, 2012). An Australian project in which academics blind-reviewed de-identified assessment samples from partner universities found broad agreement among peer reviewers on standards and grading across twelve disciplines (Krause et al., 2014). New Zealand’s Ministry of Education describes moderation as a knowledge-building process that strengthens assessment literacy (New Zealand Ministry of Education, n.d.).

4. How Moderate responds

Moderate is an online platform where educators of the same discipline, from K-12 to post-doctoral level, grade and moderate anonymised material uploaded by peers anywhere in the world. Each pain point above has a direct answer.

• Time and place. Grade or moderate from anywhere, at any time: at home, on a train, or in a spare hour between other commitments. No trip to the office, no meeting room, no diary to align.

• Cost. No travel, venue or supply cover. Moderate saves opportunity cost, monetary cost and time cost, because peer review fits into the gaps of a working week instead of displacing teaching or preparation.

• Complexity. The workflow is deliberately simple: comment in the document, discuss in comment threads, continue in Moderate’s private instant messenger, then grade the anonymised material. No convoluted processes and no scheduling.

• Conversation. Threaded comments and private messaging supply the social, discursive element that the evidence suggests online-only approaches can lack.

• Isolation and echo chambers. The sole subject specialist, the rural teacher and the small department all gain a worldwide community of same-discipline peers. Because exchange does not need to happen live, time zones stop being a barrier: a colleague on the other side of the world can pick up a thread while you sleep. Peers from different cultures and regions bring fresh perspectives that challenge shared assumptions.

• Fairness. Anonymised material keeps the focus on the work rather than the author.

• Standards. Educators can test their judgement against that of peers applying the same published criteria, which supports alignment with national guidelines. Moderate complements, and does not replace, the internal and external moderation that regulators and awarding bodies require.

5. A reciprocal endeavour

Every Moderate user is both giver and receiver. The educator who moderates a colleague’s submission today receives the same careful, friendly attention tomorrow, so insight flows in both directions: a mutual exchange of ideas in which everyone contributes and everyone benefits. Seeing how peers in other regions and cultures read the same criteria, justify a grade or phrase feedback widens each participant’s own practice, echoing the community-of-practice effect reported in cross-sector moderation research (Grant-McMahon, 2012). The feedback loop is positive and peer-to-peer: helpful comments invite helpful replies, and professional development becomes a by-product of everyday grading rather than one more meeting to attend.

Conclusion

Grading and moderation are essential to fair assessment, yet they currently cost educators unpaid hours, scarce travel time and, too often, professional isolation. The evidence shows that online collaboration can match face-to-face training for accuracy while being faster and cheaper, and that peer moderation builds confidence and professional learning. Moderate puts these findings into everyday practice: easy, flexible, global and reciprocal.

A note on the evidence

The figures above come from different countries, years and methods. Some are union or vendor surveys (the Learnosity study was run by an assessment-technology company, and the UCU workload survey dates from 2016), and results from one education system may not transfer to another. The research on online standardisation concerns examiner training, not Moderate specifically. The statistics are best read as indicative of a widely reported pattern.

References

• American Educator (Winter 2017–18). Remote but not removed. American Federation of Teachers. https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/ae_winter2017-2018_parsley.pdf

• Chamberlain, S. & Taylor, R. (2011). Online or face-to-face? An experimental study of examiner training. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), 665–675. https://research.aqa.org.uk/research-library/online-or-face-face-experimental-study-examiner-training

• Department for Education (2012). Key Stage 2 writing moderation: evaluation of the 2011/2012 interim arrangements (Research Brief DFE-RB255). https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/219642/DFE-RB255.pdf

• Education Support (2025). Teacher Wellbeing Index 2025. https://www.educationsupport.org.uk/media/2xbofsdo/twix-2025_bw.pdf

• Eduqas (n.d.). Internal assessment: a guide for centres. https://www.eduqas.co.uk/media/u1zaxezi/internal-assessment-a-guide-for-centres-eduqas.pdf

• Grant-McMahon, L. (2012). Cross sectoral moderation as a means of promoting communities of practice. International Journal of Learning. https://research-portal.uws.ac.uk/en/publications/cross-sectoral-moderation-as-a-means-of-promoting-communities-of-/

• GovTech Singapore (2025). Mark.ly project page. https://build.tech.gov.sg/projects/2025/Mark.ly

• Grove, J. (2016, 3 June). UCU report: ‘academics work two days a week unpaid’. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/ucu-report-academics-work-two-days-week-unpaid

• Krause, K.-L. et al. (2014). Assuring learning and teaching standards through inter-institutional peer review and moderation: final report of the project. Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching. https://issuu.com/uwspublications/docs/pdu4167_external_report_2014_web_3

• Learnosity (2025). Research on grading workloads, reported by E. Thompson, EdTech Innovation Hub, 28 March 2025. https://edtechinnovationhub.com/news/new-research-from-learnosity-reveals-teachers-under-pressure-as-grading-workloads-mount

• Literacy Tree (n.d.). Impactful writing moderation conversations, part 1. https://literacytree.com/blog/impactful-writing-moderation-conversations-part-1

• New Zealand Ministry of Education (n.d.). Moderation. Tāhūrangi, New Zealand Curriculum Online. https://newzealandcurriculum.tahurangi.education.govt.nz/5637158830.p

• Ofqual (2014a). Standardisation methods, mark schemes and their impact on marking reliability. https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/21913/1/2014-02-14-standardisation-methods-mark-schemes-and-their-impact-on-marking-reliability.pdf

• Ofqual (2014b). Quality of marking: qualitative research study (final report). https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/21914/1/2014-02-14-ofqual-quality-of-marking-qualitative-research-study.pdf

• Ofqual (2019, 5 March). Blog post summarising research on marker agreement. https://ofqual.blog.gov.uk/2019/03/05/14572/

• Prichard, R., Peet, J., El Haddad, M., Chen, Y. & Lin, F. (2024). Assessment moderation in higher education: guiding practice with evidence, an integrative review. Nurse Education Today. https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/items/e7b2c0bf-28c5-4aee-907a-59a812f01602

• Raikes, N., Fidler, J. & Gill, T. (2009). Must examiners meet in order to standardise their marking? An experiment with new and experienced examiners of GCE AS Psychology. Cambridge Assessment. https://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/Images/126110-must-examiners-meet-in-order-to-standardise-their-marking-an-experiment-with-new-and-experienced-examiners-of-gce-as-psychology.pdf

• South Australian Area Schools Leaders Association (2020). Submission to the Australian Government Department of Education. https://education.gov.au/system/files/documents/document-file/2020-12/south-australian-area-schools-leaders-association-saasla.docx

• Tes (2026, 14 April). Two-thirds of teachers working almost an extra day a week (global wellbeing survey). https://www.tes.com/magazine/news/general/two-thirds-teachers-working-almost-extra-day-week

• Tisi, J., Whitehouse, G., Maughan, S. & Burdett, N. (2013). A review of literature on marking reliability research. NFER for Ofqual. https://nfer.ac.uk/media/4znb5ae3/mark01.pdf

• Tushara, E. (2025, 7 October). Global survey finds Singapore teachers spend less time teaching and marking, but work longer hours. The Straits Times (reporting OECD TALIS 2024). https://asianews.network/?p=231346

• University and College Union (2016). Workload is an education issue: UCU workload survey, executive summary. https://www.ucu.org.uk/media/8196/Executive-summary-Workload-is-an-education-issue-UCU-workload-survey-report-2016/pdf/ucu_workloadsurvey_summary_jun16.pdf

• University of Manchester (2016). Moderation procedure. https://hummedia.manchester.ac.uk/faculty/staffnet/tandl/Moderation%20Procedure%20FINAL%20V1%20Oct%2016.pdf

• University of Sussex (n.d.). Marking, moderation and feedback policy and procedures. https://www.sussex.ac.uk/adqe/documents/marking-moderation-and-feedback.pdf

• Williams, Y. (2018, 25 February). ‘Ofqual now expects teachers to play the role of moderator as well as everything else – it’s not acceptable’. Tes. https://www.tes.com/magazine/archive/ofqual-now-expects-teachers-play-role-moderator-well-everything-else-its-not-acceptable