> Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 17:21:37 -0000
> From: "Pritchard K (Bus)" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>,
> "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-to: [log in to unmask]
>Also to be included in my
> research will be universities which have operated anonymous marking but
> have reverted to named assessment and processing
I would be interested to hear of any such universities.
> universities which have
> operated anonymous marking and found it to have been successfully
> implemented. I would like to discuss a few issues if anyone has any
> knowledge to share.
>
Warwick has operated anon marking of exam scripts for a few years
now. Anonymity is maintained until final marks are determined. It is
not mandatory that it is maintained beyond this stage (i.e. to exam
board stage) but depts may do so if they wish. It has worked
satisfactorily, apart from some gripes about increased workload
involved in translating numbers back into names.
Anon marking of assessed work was not made mandatory because there
was scepticism about how genuine it could be here, given that most
students discuss assessed essay topics with academic staff before
submission. However, the issue is being revisited following a call
from the University's Equal Opportunities Committee. No change of
policy has been implemented yet as the Faculty of Science is still
debating what forms of work should be deemed "assessed work" for this
purpose - it is argued that anonymity could not in practice apply to
things like lab reports, nor would it be appropriate here.
Joe Taylor
Academic Office
University of Warwick
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|