06 / Faculty & programs
Two audiences, one evidence chain.
The wedge for faculty is AI-assisted grading and feedback that saves reading time without taking the decision. The wedge for coordinators is consistency they can evidence. The same Learning Evidence Chain serves both — provided it is produced while marking happens, not reconstructed afterwards.
01For faculty
Faculty judgment remains final
CoAcademic reads with you, not for you. Every proposal is labelled proposed, carries the passage it rests on, and can be rejected in one action.
Read the evidence, not the number
A proposed band is shown next to the excerpt, the rubric language, and a written rationale. If the reasoning does not hold, the score has no standing.
Uncertainty is stated
Where a proposal is weakly supported, it says so. A low-confidence criterion is a prompt to read closely, not a verdict to rubber-stamp.
Feedback is a draft
Draft comments are a starting point you rewrite in your own voice, shorten, or discard entirely.
Disagreement is cheap
Rejecting a proposal is a single action. A tool that makes disagreement expensive is a tool that manufactures agreement.
Nothing releases itself
Results stay in draft until you release them. There is no automatic path to a student.
02For programs
Consistency you can evidence
Founding pilot scope
Coordinators, writing program administrators, and assessment leads are asked a harder question: not what the grades were, but whether they meant the same thing across markers and sections.
- 01
Calibrate before the term's marking begins
Anchor scripts fix what each band means in this course, agreed by the people who will mark. Calibration is a conversation the system records, not one it replaces.
- 02
Route a moderation sample
Boundary cases, outliers, and a random sample go to a second reader who records an independent judgment first.
- 03
See disagreement, do not average it
Where markers differ, the difference is shown to the people who can resolve it. An averaged score hides exactly the signal a coordinator needs.
- 04
Keep the record as you go
Rubric version, calibration, moderation, and faculty changes accumulate during marking, so program review is a read rather than a reconstruction.
03Disciplines
Where this fits first
CoAcademic is being built for writing-intensive higher education, where extended written and reflective work makes rubric interpretation genuinely vary between readers.
- Composition and writing programs
- Humanities and literature
- History and social sciences
- Education and teacher preparation
- Business and case analysis
- Nursing and professional reflection
- Online and writing-intensive courses
Initial champions are writing-program leaders, composition directors, department chairs, general-education leaders, centers for teaching and learning, and institutional assessment leaders — the roles already accountable for assurance of learning. Online and writing-intensive courses are a particular focus, because they combine high marking volume with the weakest control over the conditions of completion.
The Founding Assessment Assurance Pilot
One course team, one assignment, one confirmed rubric — audited, calibrated, reviewed against evidence, and decided by faculty. Enrolment is not open; the page explains the intended scope and what a pilot would require from both sides.