Describe your assessments and review policy. Makeform creates a remark request form for student details, grounds, evidence, acknowledgment, and routing.
Route requests to email, Slack, Google Sheets, and Zapier.
Sample prompts for the builder
Choose a complete prompt, adapt its policy details, or send it to the builder. The structure is an example, not a review decision.
Audience
Secondary students requesting an internal exam review
Format
Question-level review request
Prompt size
316 chars
Example form structure
Question-level review request
Student name, ID, and year group
Subject, exam, and teacher
Which question numbers should be reviewed?
Explain the possible marking issue
Upload an annotated copy if available
Suggested routing tags
Exam review
Coursework review
Needs information
Ask for the exact question, criterion, or page; a broad request gives the reviewer little context.
Step 1
Identify
student, assessment, paper, and current mark
Step 2
Explain
specific question, rubric criterion, or calculation issue
Step 3
Review
academic team checks the request under its policy
Step 4
Respond
outcome and next steps return through a clear channel
A better review intake
Gather paper codes, question numbers, grounds, and evidence before review.
Require module, exam series, paper code, assessment date, and returned mark so staff can find the correct work.
Let students select calculation, missing marking, rubric application, or another reason, then show a targeted explanation field.
Tag exam, coursework, and clerical-check requests, then notify the relevant reviewer or inbox.
Designed around assessment workflows
Choose a scenario, then add your deadlines and routing rules.
Collect paper and question numbers plus the specific marking issue.
Connect selected criteria to the submitted work, rubric, and feedback.
Capture centre, candidate, paper, service, consent, and approval details.
Separate shared-score questions from individual-contribution concerns.
Build the workflow
Describe the process, refine the fields, and provide one consistent request route.
State eligible assessments, submitters, grounds, deadlines, and destinations.
Add real choices and show fee, consent, contribution, or evidence fields when relevant.
Share the form, confirm receipt, and notify the responsible academic or exams inbox.
Track received, awaiting information, under review, and responded statuses in submissions or a sheet.
Form vs email vs document
Academic staff conduct the review; the form makes identity, assessment, grounds, and evidence consistent.
Field guide
Start with these six sections, then apply your institution's grounds, evidence rules, and review stages.
Student identity
Use structured identifiers, and distinguish candidates from staff submitting on their behalf.
Assessment identity
Capture internal identifiers so staff can locate the correct work and marker.
Review scope
Let requesters choose a recognized ground and identify the affected question, criterion, or calculation.
Student explanation
Ask where submitted work may not match the score or feedback, with guidance beside the field.
Policy acknowledgment
Show deadlines, eligible grounds, outcomes, fees, and next steps beside a required acknowledgment.
Evidence and routing
Accept relevant files, route by assessment or department, and confirm next steps without predicting an outcome.
Related tools
Connect remark intake with other student and assessment workflows.
Request transcripts, enrolment records, or other academic documents.
Open toolGather coursework, student identifiers, and declarations.
Open toolCollect feedback about teaching, materials, and assessments.
Open toolReport attainment, participation, strengths, and support needs.
Open toolHandle later-stage appeals separately from initial remark requests.
Open toolFAQ
Answers for schools, exam offices, academic teams, and students.
It lets a student, candidate, or authorized staff member request a check of graded work under an institution's procedure. It records identity, assessment, scope, reason, files, and acknowledgment; the institution decides eligibility and outcome.
Include identity, contact, course, assessment, current result, exact questions or criteria, a factual explanation, and uploads. Add your deadline, outcome notice, consent or fee fields, acknowledgment, and any centre approval details.
Yes. Use conditional paths: exams can request series, paper, and question numbers; assignments can request module, rubric criteria, feedback, and files. Both paths can share identity, result, reason, acknowledgment, and confirmation fields.
Yes. Accept marked scripts, assignments, rubrics, feedback, annotated pages, or relevant correspondence. State permitted documents and formats, avoid unrelated personal material, and follow your institution's evidence rules.
Ask for a precise question, page, calculation, feedback comment, or rubric criterion and its connection to the submitted work. Separate reasons by criterion and use a word limit. Do not imply that any ground ensures a changed mark.
That depends on the institution and procedure. If a result may stay the same, rise, or fall, state this and require acknowledgment. The form records the request; it does not determine or guarantee the outcome.
Yes. Makeform is unlimited free for generating, editing, publishing, and collecting submissions. The paid tier removes Makeform branding. Replace sample choices and policy wording before publishing.
Use dropdowns and tags for department, assessment, series, and service. Notify the relevant exams office, teacher, module lead, or review inbox; connect records to a sheet; and use confirmations to explain the next stage.
Give every marking review a complete starting point.
