No official figure exists for IGCSE teachers specifically. OECD’s TALIS 2024 found that lower-secondary teachers spend 4.6 hours a week on marking and correcting on average, about 9% of working time. The figure is 5.4 hours in the UAE, 6.4 in Singapore and 4.8 in Saudi Arabia, and 40% of teachers say too much marking causes them stress.
How many hours do teachers spend marking?
Around four to six hours a week in the systems closest to international schools. The OECD’s TALIS 2024 surveyed full-time lower-secondary teachers:
| System | Total working hours per week | Marking and correcting per week |
|---|---|---|
| OECD average | 41 | 4.6 |
| United Arab Emirates | 40.4 | 5.4 |
| Singapore | 47.3 | 6.4 (down 1.1 since 2018) |
| Saudi Arabia | 30.3 | 4.8 |
Sources: TALIS 2024 country notes for the UAE, Singapore and Saudi Arabia.
Across OECD systems, marking takes about 9% of working time, after teaching and lesson planning. “40% of teachers across OECD education systems report that too much marking is a source of stress”, rising to 43% in the UAE and 62% in Saudi Arabia. In 16 systems, marking time rose between 2018 and 2024. These are national teacher samples, not IGCSE teachers specifically. One department’s load can differ widely from these averages, which is why a school should measure its own.
How do you calculate your department’s marking load?
Multiply what is set by how long it takes to mark. A simple calculator for one teacher:
Weekly marking hours = (number of classes × students per class × pieces marked per student per week × minutes per piece) ÷ 60
An illustrative example: a teacher with 5 IGCSE classes of 24 students, marking one piece per student per week at 6 minutes each, spends (5 × 24 × 1 × 6) ÷ 60 = 12 hours a week on marking. If one of those weekly pieces became self-marked retrieval practice, that time would fall sharply.
Run the calculation for each department with its own figures. The value is in the comparison: which subjects, year groups or task types take the most time, and whether that time produces feedback students use.
What does the evidence say about marking?
That more marking is not better marking. The UK’s Independent Teacher Workload Review Group recommended “that all marking should be meaningful, manageable and motivating”. It warned that “the quantity of feedback should not be confused with the quality” (DfE, 2016). Its advice for leaders is blunt: “if your current approach is unmanageable or disproportionate, stop it.”
The Education Endowment Foundation’s review, A Marked Improvement?, found that the evidence on written marking is weak, but it drew some clear lessons:
- “Careless mistakes should be marked differently to errors resulting from misunderstanding.”
- “Awarding grades for every piece of work may reduce the impact of marking.”
- “Pupils are unlikely to benefit from marking unless some time is set aside to enable pupils to consider and respond to marking.”
- Schools “should mark less in terms of the number of pieces of work marked, but mark better”.
How can schools reduce marking workload?
Cut marking that does not change learning, and automate marking that does not need a teacher. Five steps:
- Audit with the calculator. Find the tasks that take the most time.
- Stop acknowledgement marking. The EEF says it is “unlikely to enhance pupil progress”.
- Mark fewer pieces in depth. Reserve detailed teacher marking for work where judgement matters, such as extended answers and mocks.
- Build in response time. Feedback only works if students act on it in lessons.
- Automate practice marking. Self-marking quizzes and AI-marked practice take routine marking off teachers, within the boards’ rules: AI must never be the sole marker of assessed work.
Can AI reduce marking time?
For practice work, yes, within limits. In England, the DfE has funded AI tools designed “to help reduce the burden of feedback and marking on teachers”. An EEF trial found teachers using ChatGPT with a guide cut lesson-planning time by 31%. That trial measured planning, not marking, and the EEF noted that “marking and administration probably represent a greater burden”. Cambridge, Pearson and JCQ all bar AI from being the sole marker of assessed work. See the best AI marking tools for IGCSE and A Level.
How schools do this with AI Buddy
AI Buddy marks students’ practice answers to past-paper-style questions instantly, with AI feedback, so routine practice no longer needs teacher marking. Teachers see results by class and topic on their dashboards and spend their marking time on mocks and extended work. Tutopiya reports from its own school data up to 70% less marking time for teachers using AI Buddy. That is our figure, not an independent one, so test it against your own calculator baseline in a pilot.
Frequently asked questions
How many hours a week do IGCSE teachers spend marking?
There is no IGCSE-specific figure. OECD TALIS 2024 reports 4.6 hours a week on average for lower-secondary teachers, 5.4 in the UAE and 6.4 in Singapore.
What is marking time per teacher in a typical department?
Calculate it: classes × students × pieces per week × minutes per piece, divided by 60. For example, 5 classes of 24 with one 6-minute piece each is 12 hours a week.
What should a teacher workload reduction toolkit include?
A marking audit, a policy that marks less but better, stopping acknowledgement marking, time for students to respond, and automated marking of routine practice.
Is there a teacher workload calculator?
The formula above works as one. Tutopiya’s Marking Workload Calculator applies it by department.
Discover how AI Buddy helps schools strengthen teaching, learning and evidence-informed school improvement. Or start a short consultation with our schools team using the form below — we will get back to you directly.
Sources
- OECD, Results from TALIS 2024: The demands of teaching and country notes (October 2025)
- Department for Education, Eliminating unnecessary workload around marking (March 2016)
- Education Endowment Foundation, A Marked Improvement? A review of the evidence on written marking (April 2016)
- Education Endowment Foundation, ChatGPT lesson planning trial (December 2024)
- Department for Education, Generative AI in education (updated 12 August 2025)