 |
 |
thanks for this Kathy > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Taylor [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Friday, November 27, 1998 9:40 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: > > > 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 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%