Paper Ref:
COUNCIL / SENATE / STUDENTS’ UNION (CSSU)
THURSDAY 20 FEBRUARY 2014
STUDENTS’ UNION ‘TOP TEN ISSUES’ – ANONYMOUS MARKING
1.
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1
The purpose of this report is to update and inform the Committee on the current use of
anonymous marking within the institution and to examine opportunities to implement the
use of anonymous marking where possible, across all disciplines.
2.
BACKGROUND
2.1
Anonymous marking is one of this year’s Students’ Union’s “Top Ten Issues”. This topic
has been made a priority issue due to student feedback over a number of years regarding
student perceptions of equitable marking and perceptions of bias. Nationally, this has also
been a key campaign for a variety of other Universities across the sector, many of who
have now adopted an anonymous marking policy.
2.2
Anonymous marking is a system whereby the student's identity is unknown to the marker at
the time of marking. Its purpose is to protect students and markers against the possibility of
bias, whether conscious or unconscious, and the perception of bias.
2.3
There is a significant amount of research available on the topic of anonymised marking in
Higher Education, and the benefits to its use, that has taken place over the past few
decades. (See appendix 1)
2.4
The National Union of Students (NUS) has been campaigning for anonymised marking
across higher education based on the principles of fairness and equality underpinning every
feature of the student experience, from admission to assessment. Additionally, the NUS
believe that where anonymous marking has not been introduced, institutions are leaving
themselves susceptible to prejudice and perception of prejudice. The NUS have the support
of the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) and the Equality and Human Rights Commission
on the topic of anonymous marking, who support the implementation of anonymised
marking where feasible and fair.
2.5
Currently, the University of Bath uses anonymous marking on all written examinations.
A number of departments already use anonymous marking on their coursework
assignments, including the Sport and Exercise Science programmes in the Department for
Health who introduced this practice across all coursework submissions in the 2012/13
academic year. MSc Economics also currently have many units that have coursework
marking anonymised.
2.6
A recommendation was made to the University Learning & Teaching Quality Committee
(ULTQC) in September 2013 regarding anonymous marking (Paper ULTQC 13/14 – 13),
“University to investigate where anonymous marking can be implemented and to implement
procedures to ensure this occurs.” The recommendation was delegated to the Associate
Deans of Learning & Teaching in each Faculty/School to investigate this in their respective
Faculty/School and to report back to the committee later in the academic year.
Page 1 of 6
2.7
Further student feedback on the perceptions of marking practice and bias were received by
the Students’ Union since the start of the academic year, in response to the prioritisation of
anonymous marking as a ‘Top Ten’ issue. Some of the key concerns raised by students
focussed on:
o
o
o
o
Being marked based on predetermined opinions rather than performance, including
being associated with a previously poor performance.
Students trying to gain an advantage over their peers by flattering a lecturer.
Feeling that in-class comments and participation can affect results.
Not being able to fulfil the responsibilities of their other commitments for fear it might
impact on their academic career; e.g. as an Academic Representative.
Samples of these comments received from students can be found in appendix 2.
3.
BENEFITS OF ANONYMOUS MARKING
3.1
Introducing anonymous marking removes both conscious and unconscious bias from the
marker (both positive and negative).
3.2
Anonymous marking also eliminates perceptions of bias from the student. Anonymous
marking is an important factor in boosting students’ confidence in the fairness of their
assessment and helps permit students to voice legitimate concerns about their course
without the fear of incurring penalties in marking.
3.3
One of the main benefits of anonymous marking is that it reduces suspicion towards
examiners and minimises potential conflict, safeguarding both staff and students.
Anonymous marking protects staff members from allegations of injustice or discrimination,
whether they be according to race, gender, class, or personal feelings in regard to marking.
3.4
Moreover, anonymous marking also helps to ensure that the mark given is representative of
the work under inspection and that it is not based on previous work undertaken or
submitted by the student. This helps ensure that the marking process, from the student
perspective, is not susceptible to favouritism or prejudice and that the resultant mark is
based on merit and performance of the task in consideration.
3.5
Furthermore, anonymised marking helps students to contribute more in classes. Reports
indicate that where students know that their marker will be unaware of which paper is
theirs, they engage more freely during in-class discussion and debates as they will
understand that any difference in opinion will not affect any subsequent assessment marks.
4.
IMPLEMENTATION OF ANONYMOUS MARKING
4.1
The University of Bath uses anonymous marking on all written examinations, but does not
commonly use it for other forms of summative or formative assessment. Due to previous
resource and technical limitations it was unfeasible to implement anonymous marking for
online submitted pieces of work. At the start of the 2013/14 academic year, Moodle was
upgraded and these software limitations were eradicated. The current version of Moodle
permits for all submitted online work to be allocated a reference number that does not
reveal the identity of the student. This is known as “marking by numbers” and is the most
widespread practice of anonymous marking across the sector and within the University.
4.2
Initial conversations with the Registry would indicate that introducing a system to ensure
anonymous marking for all hard-copy submissions of written coursework, similar to that
currently used for examinations, should be theoretically straight forward; i.e. adding a cover
sheet similar to that used in examinations for coursework. This would however incur an
added cost: extra cover sheets would need to be printed and distributed. However, the use
Page 2 of 6
of online submissions would reduce or remove paper usage and operating costs for both
departments and students themselves.
4.3
There are some forms of assessment where implementing anonymous marking would be
difficult, impractical or, in some cases, impossible. Such assessments include, but are not
limited to:
- Observed assessments; e.g. practicals, presentations, etc..
- Oral assessments
- Work undertaken on placement
- Dissertations
- Individual research
- Peer assessments
4.4
It is worth noting that complete anonymity becomes increasingly more difficult as the class
size decreases. It is also possible that anonymity could be lost if the student discloses any
information that could identify them within their written work.
5.
ANONYMOUS MARKING AND FEEDBACK
5.1
The opportunity always exists to mark anonymously and then to remove the anonymity for
the feedback aspect of the assessment. This way any perceived, conscious, or
unconscious bias is eliminated from the marking process and the quality of the feedback is
maintained at a high academic standard.
5.2
Concerns have been raised within the University community regarding the potential for
anonymous marking to have an adverse effect on feedback. Evidence from across the
sector regarding the changes to NSS scores on feedback where anonymous marking has
been implemented would suggest that it increases student satisfaction in this area. The
National Student Survey (NSS) results for Sport and Exercise Science from last year’s
would indicate the majority of the questions showed an increase in percentage points once
anonymous marking had been introduced.
6.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1: CSSU supports the principle of anonymous marking, where practical.
Recommendation 2: CSSU to recommend to ULTQC that it discuss the principle of
anonymous marking and whether anonymous marking should be considered as common
practice for all taught programmes, where practical.
Peter Hachfeld
Education Officer 2013/14
Page 3 of 6
Appendix 1
Sample of research and articles available regarding the use of Anonymised Marking in Higher
Education
Research commissioned by the Association of University Teachers (AUT) in the early 1990s reported
changes in mark distribution following the introduction of anonymous marking, which was shown to benefit
women and was identified as a result of gender bias in assessment. After introducing anonymous marking at
the University of Wales, the number of women achieving a First or 2:1 increased by 13% in the first year.
Dennis and Newstead (1994) highlight the potential for discrimination on grounds of race, age and other
personal characteristics.
Srull and Wyer (1989) Judgements have been shown to be influenced by previous student performance, as
once a judgement about an individual is formed, there is a tendency to not alter views in the face of differing
evidence.
Tsui and Bruce (1986) demonstrated that interpersonal liking has been shown to influence occupational
appraisal ratings.
Shay and Jones (2006) reported markers influenced by knowledge of student identity, the most commonly
cited example being ‘sympathetic marking’ – assessors marking more generously if they infer a student to be
educationally under-prepared.
Additional reports:
Belsey, C. (1988) Marking by Numbers, AUT Woman, 15, 1-2
Bradley, C. (1984) Sex bias in the evaluation of students, British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 147-153.
Bradley, C. (1993) Sex bias in student assessment overlooked?, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education, 18, 1, 3-8.
Dennis, I. and Newstead, S.E. (1994) The strange case of the disappearing sex bias, Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education, 19, 1, 49-56.
Francis, B., Robson, J. and Read, B. (2001) An analysis of undergraduate writing styles in the context of
gender and
achievement, Studies in Higher Education, 26, 313-326.
Newstead, S.E. and Dennis, I. (1990) Blind marking and sex bias in student assessment, Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher
Education, 15, 2, 132-139.
Stacey, L. (2004) Survey of Universities’ Practices on Submission of Assignments, unpublished paper.
Steinberg, J. (1982) On examining blind, New Society, 16 September, 469-470.
Page 4 of 6
Appendix 2
Sample of comments received by students regarding perceptions of marking bias.
The comments given as samples have been modified in order to conceal the identity of the student where
required.
Student A:
“For an essay I wrote, I used a study by my lecturer as part of my argument for the subject I was
discussing. I didn’t criticise the work, rather using it as an example to support what I was talking
about. However, it did make me wonder at the time, what if I’d been critical of it, or of work by
another lecturer, would this affect their view of my work?”
Student B:
“Someone in my course is very tactical in their approach to University. This includes them being
sycophantic with lecturers. They told me that they at least like to make a few intelligent comments
during the semester so that the lecturer can put a face to a name, so that they associate their work
with what has been said in class, with the aim of better grades. I personally think this is wrong, but it
highlights the problem of our names being put on our essays, especially when it is mainly
coursework based.”
Student C:
“I had a situation where I had emailed a staff member to ask for advice about a piece of work. The
staff member responded rudely to me. I am a student with mental health problems and this upset me
greatly and I responded back as such. I didn’t feel confident to show them my essay plan or speak to
them in person. Therefore, the only way they knew me was from a mildly impolite email. I got the
lowest grade ever in that assignment, and was totally gutted. Whether I’m being paranoid or not, I
really do feel some judgement has passed over me which could have definitely affected their lens
through which they mark.”
Student D:
“I know myself if I was a lecturer it would be impossible to be completely objective when marking.”
Student E:
“ I don’t think that the various Professors should not have access to the grades given by other
Professors in our Modules, as it may form an ‘image’ of us, as being a student presenting within a
bracket, say a consistent 2:1 student. By looking at what other professors have awarded the student
it may impact their objectivity and base their own grading according to ‘a standard’ the student
appears to be, even if the paper in question may be of a higher (or lower) quality. I strongly feel that
my grade in a specific subject should be between the Professor and myself, it is my right to
confidentiality, also.”
Student F:
“Two classmates wrote a <technical piece of work, non subjective>. One received a 56% and the
other received a 71%. That is a pretty substantial difference. They believe that the lecturer has been
influenced by assessing previous performances.”
Student G:
“Any mark loss or gain, due to name and story association, is unfair.”
Student H:
Page 5 of 6
“Sometimes, when I think that a comment I might make may be seen as unpopular amongst staff, I
hold back my opinions, because I don’t want it to affect my grades.”
Student I:
“When representing my year group at meetings I am afraid that what I say may be seen as my
opinion and that I will be marked more harshly as a consequence. Anonymous marking would make
me feel safer and help me be more honest in meetings.”
Student J:
“Anonymous marking would undoubtedly ease the minds of those who ask these questions: “What if
the professor doesn’t like me?”, “What if the professor remembers a bad problem sheet I
submitted?”, “What if the professor sees my name, have no idea who I am, and decides I deserve
less than my peers?””
Student K:
“I previously studied at an institution abroad. Being placed into an environment where
communication with professors is heavily encouraged was perplexing, and at first I did not take
advantage – I feared that this would affect my assessment. I did poorly in my first assignments (due
to unfamiliar academic settings), and decided to approach my professors. They were extremely
accommodating. Throughout the year however, I still worried about how them knowing that I wrote
this assignment or that exam would affect me.”
Page 6 of 6