evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Crowdmark — Canadian AI-Assisted Grading Platform Scaled Campus-Wide at the University of Waterloo

Canada · Waterloo · See the Canada profile · See the Waterloo profile

Evidence: Descriptive / self-reported Top 59% 47/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Crowdmark, a Toronto-founded grading platform, digitises exam marking with bulk-comment tools and analytics. Waterloo adopted it campus-wide after a pilot; vendor case studies cite faster grading, though headline time-savings are self-published, not independently audited.

~50 %
Grading time reduction (Waterloo, self-reported)
~16,660 hours
Grading hours saved (Northwestern case study)
~40 %
Grading time reduction (Northwestern case study)
21,000
Students covered in Northwestern deployment
Crowdmark — Canadian AI-Assisted Grading Platform Scaled Campus-Wide at the University of Waterloo

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Crowdmark Inc. / University of Waterloo
Period
2012 founded (Toronto); 2014–15 Waterloo pilot; campus-wide from July 2015; case studies published 2018–2024
Keywords
higher education, grading and assessment technology, exam digitisation, feedback analytics

Context

Crowdmark is an online assessment and grading platform founded in 2012 in Toronto by University of Toronto mathematics professor James Colliander and Martin Muñoz. It lets instructors scan or collect digital student work, then grade question-by-question across an entire class at once, reuse comments from a shared library, and export analytics on item-level performance.

Objectives

Speed up and standardise exam grading in large classes, giving students faster and more consistent feedback while reducing the workload on grading teams.

Activities

The University of Waterloo piloted Crowdmark for roughly 12 months before running a public request-for-proposals process; it selected Crowdmark in July 2015 and now offers it free to instructors campus-wide, integrated with the university's learning management system and with Odyssey exam-logistics software. Separately, Crowdmark deployed the platform across grading teams at Northwestern University (21,000 students, departments including Economics, Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Psychology).

Results

Waterloo's Centre for Teaching Excellence publishes its own guidance page citing an approximate 50% reduction in grading time, alongside faster feedback and more consistent marking across teams of multiple teaching assistants. Crowdmark's own published case study reports that Northwestern grading teams saved approximately 16,660 hours of grading time, a roughly 40% reduction, alongside fewer regrade requests attributed to richer, faster feedback.

Conclusions

These headline figures originate from vendor-published case studies and named faculty testimonials rather than an independently audited or peer-reviewed trial, so they should be read as illustrative rather than causally proven. Waterloo's own guidance is candid that adoption has real costs: paper exams still require scanning, teaching assistants need training to grade consistently, and digital submission tends to raise students' expectations for feedback detail.

Implementation
Indicative cost
Low (< €50k) — Offered free to instructors at Waterloo after a ~12-month pilot and public RFP; specific licensing cost to the institution not published.
Time to results
Medium (1–3 years) — ~12-month pilot (2014-15) followed by campus-wide rollout from July 2015; vendor case studies published 2018-2024 documenting continued multi-institution use.
Staffing & skills
course instructors, teaching assistants (grading, requiring training for consistency), Waterloo Centre for Teaching Excellence (support/guidance), Crowdmark technical support

Conditions for success

  • integration with institutional LMS and exam-logistics software
  • teaching-assistant training for consistent marking
  • shared comment libraries across grading teams
  • public RFP/procurement validation before campus-wide rollout

Common failure modes

  • paper exams still require scanning overhead
  • digital submission tends to raise students' expectations for feedback detail
  • headline time-savings are self-published vendor/institution claims, not independently audited

Where it fits

Governance type
higher-education institutional adoption, vendor-supplied SaaS
Scale
campus-wide (Waterloo); multi-department (Northwestern, 21,000 students)
Income level
high-income

Commonly funded by

Own resources / municipal budget

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful