Marking identifiable scripts: following up student concerns

Abstract

Introduction: Medical student concern that the submission of named examination scripts to examiners could cause bias initiated a study on the effect of identified and de-identified scripts on assessment outcome. Methods: Data were collected from a convenience examination sample of Year 1 (n = 88 students; n = 29 questions) and Year 2 scripts (n = 75 students; n = 27 questions). Scripts were randomised for presentation to examiners with or without identification for all of a given student's work. Assessment outcomes, by year and marking condition, were a non-normal distribution. Results: Non-parametric analysis determined that there were no systematic differences in assessment outcome under the two marking conditions (MW < 0.05). Conclusion: We continue for a range of pedagogical reasons to present identified papers to examiners. Importantly, this study also demonstrates a research-led approach to resolving student queries.

The influence of student gender on the assessment of undergraduate student work

“…Anonymous marking in higher education has been a topic of fractious debate for many years, as reflected by widespread variation in its practice (Brennan 2008;Owen, Stefaniak, and Corrigan 2009;Whitelegg 2002). Yet, since 1999, the National Union of Students (NUS) has campaigned for anonymous marking in the UK, arguing that it provides universities with a remedial method to combat perceived discrimination.…”

Lifelong learning and Higher Education: New (and Old) Perspectives

“…De fann inget belägg för att anonymisering och reducering av "ryktesinformation" påverkade vare sig bedömning av eller återkoppling på studenternas prestationer. Den andra studien genomfördes av Owen et al (2010) i Australien på Medical Education Unit vid the Australian National University Medical School. Studien genomfördes för att bemöta en oro hos studenterna att rättningen av deras examinationer påverkades av bias.…”