Assessment Issues: anonymous marking
Anonymous Assessment of Coursework - Guidance Notes
download this article as a .pdf doc
Following the resolution of the Academic Board in 2005/06, the Definitive Document template (available from the ARPH website) has been modified to include the following requirement for programmes approaching approval or review from 2006/07:
2.4 Arrangements for anonymous marking of summative assessments
Insert a statement explaining how the programme addresses the Academic Board’s recommendation of the anonymous marking of all summative coursework as a matter of principle.
Programmes are required to implement a policy of anonymous marking at the next periodic review unless a valid case for exemption is made.
Where exception or exemption is approved, a programme is required to demonstrate a commitment to the principle through other appropriate measures, for example anonymous second marking and moderation
Background
A series of studies in 1990s is generally considered to have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that bias in marking can occur for several reasons. (A good overview of the topic is provided by Neil Fleming in a chapter of Assessment Matters in Higher Education (Fleming, 1999) ). The most significant reasons are pre-conceptions about gender or race and personal knowledge of the candidate. Manchester Metropolitan University has attempted to reduce such bias in formal examinations by the adoption of an anonymous marking system which has operated for several years.
The National Union of Students (NUS) has run a systematic campaign to persuade institutions to apply the same principles to coursework, which usually forms a large proportion of students’ summative assessment, particularly in the first and second years.
Anonymous assessment of examinations is more or less standard across the UK HE sector but anonymous assessment of coursework seems to be less common. Publicly available policy material on this topic was only found from the University of Gloucestershire . Many other institutions, in response to the NUS campaign, have adopted a form of words similar to those found in the MMU policy.
The measure has been adopted to protect staff from the potential suspicion of bias, not because there is evidence at MMU of systematic prejudice. Under the new regulations, the presumption is that anonymous marking should be the normal practice, and that unit teams should justify a decision not to use it. This is a sensible step in considering any assessment practice; at the very least, it reminds us that none of us is immune to bias and that in the interests of fairness we should at least consider the possibility of unfairness in relation to the given assignment. It also addresses the requirement to undertake equalities impact assessment on the University’s quality and standards procedures.
The introduction of anonymous assessment of coursework will have other positive effects apart from the obvious one of reducing the effect of individual marker bias. All assignments will be marked from the same basis, and knowledge of Personal Learning Plans (PLPs) or extenuating circumstances will not affect the marking decision or process. These circumstances can then be appropriately dealt with, as the regulations state, during the moderation process.
This said, the new policy is a considerable change in practice for most programme teams and it will require a review of assessment practice on a programme by programme basis, which is why the Academic Board determined that it should be addressed as part of the process of approval and review. The aim of this paper is to provide guidance to staff on the implementation of the resolution and to indicate what kinds of assessment activities might be considered to be exempt from anonymous marking.
The administrative aspects of this policy will also need to be considered by faculties and departments.
Exceptions and Exemptions
Programme teams will be required to carry out assessment of coursework anonymously unless they have requested an exemption.
The University of Gloucestershire has identified the following likely exemptions:
- transient assessments, such as oral presentations
- assessments in which candidates can be identified during the assessment eg observation of professional practice, performance
- assessments in which the production of the work has been closely supervised by the marker eg fine art work, dissertation
- assessments for which anonymous marking would be in contravention of a code of practice of a professionally accredited course
(University of Gloucestershire, 2005)
This is not intended to be an exhaustive list, but it does give some idea of the appropriate cases where a request for exemption should be considered.
In addition to these exceptions based on the type of assignment, programme teams should also have a clear strategy in place to accommodate the needs of disabled students who may not be able to complete a particular type of assignment, following the requirements in the Regulations for Undergraduate and Taught Postgraduate Programmes of Study (Appendix 4: Assessment arrangements for Disabled Students).
In such cases alternative assignments sometimes need to be considered and negotiated as part of a student’s Personal Learning Plan (MMU, 2007) . The PLP must be agreed with the relevant Head of Department, have regard for the student’s programme learning and assessment requirements as set out in the Programme Definitive Document, and be reported to the Board of Examiners. However, these assessment arrangements may be difficult to anonymise. In this situation the team may wish to consider systematic second marking to reduce the effects of any potential bias.
Programme teams should document the steps they will take to ensure that assessments which are not anonymised are conducted as fairly as possible within the resources available (for instance, in the case of oral presentations, it might be feasible to have a second marker present for at least some of the sessions)
Electronic submission
Many programmes use electronic submission of assignments. This system makes it difficult to anonymise assessed work. If you use the assignment tool, you can make it clear to students that they must submit attached work which only has their ID on it, as they would for a printed submission. If they do this, then if you download the assignments for printing and then marking, the name of the students should be separated from the submission which facilitates anonymous marking.
The best way to do this using our current systems is to set up a Turnitin assignment within Moodle. This gives the option for anonymous marking. See the Turnitin helpsheet (Moodle log in needed) for instructions on setting up a Turnitin assignment.
References
Fleming, N. D. (1999) In Assessment Matters in Higher Education (Eds, Brown, S. and Glasner, A.) OUP, pp. 83-92.
University of Gloucestershire, (2005). Thematic Review on Anonymous Assessment of Coursework