Anonymous Assessment This is merely a brief outline of the Guild’s position on anonymous assessment (AA) and what we see as the benefits of it. The Guild has been interested in the issue of anonymous assessment for some time, and is glad that the University is willing to open this important area of assessment for discussion. Perceived benefits of anonymous assessment The Guild believes that it is not only the students but equally the university who benefit from anonymous assessment for the following reasons: Public confidence In recent years, sone universities have been shaken with allegations of ‘soft marking’ of international fee-paying students and this has had a significant impact on the reputation of Australian higher education providers overseas. There are various ways that this issue can be addressed. One of which is by removing the possibility that students could be marked differently according to their fee status by marking students anonymously. This would remove any possibility that allegations of this nature, either founded or unfounded, could be made against UWA. Student confidence Anonymous assessment improves the confidence students have in the marking system. The Guild has received feedback on the issue via email which overwhelmingly support anonymous assessment on the basis that studnets want to know that they are being marked on their work and their work alone. Any kind of marking system needs the confidence of stakeholders in order to be effective. Bias Anonymous assessment means that students are more confident in approaching their lecturers with grievances and appeals without fear that their future marks might be jeopardised. AA also means that students are more comfortable in saying what they want to say in exams. One student emailed the Guild saying that she would prefer to be marked anonymously because she held her lecturer in high respect and found herself less likely to guess an answer she wasn’t sure of and ‘have a go’ because she didn’t want the lecturer to think she was stupid. Others have expressed concern over the so-called ‘halo effect’ –
that lecturers might go easy on some students and not on others due to knowledge they have about their prior work, personal circumstances and so on. Evidence of a bias in marking Evidence of bias in marking To my knowledge, no studies have been done at this university as to the existence of bias in marking. A report was produced by the University of New South Wales Student Association which apparently led to an AA trial on that campus. The report noted that in the early 1990s bias was a concern to some universities in Britain who found that (a) on implementation of AA at the University of Wales resulted in an increase in women achieving better marks and (b) that at the University of East London, AA was introduced as a result of research that showed that black undergrads were awarded marks on average 4.2% lower than marks achieved by white students. We are not arguing that there is evidence to suggest the practice of discriminatory marking at UWA, merely that the introduction of AA will remove both any possibility and any perception of there being a problem. In terms of cases coming through the Student Guild, however, if a student claims that their teacher was biased it is far more likely to be personal bias than biased based on discrimination against a particular group. Most appeals that come through the Student Centre involve a student’s belief that a particular lecturer doesn’t like them, which is a concern that would be removed if AA were implemented (although students would obviously still be able appeal if they believed they were given a mark they did not deserve). A full analysis of reasons students appeal can be done for, say, one appeal season if required. Evidence of fear of bias An issue just as important as actual bias is the students’ fear of bias. In a report produced by the Guild Education Office in 1999, data showed that some students chose not to appeal a mark because they didn’t want to get their lecturer ‘off-side’, making comments such as ‘I never found it worthwhile to get lecturers off side when you are at their mercy the next year around’, ‘I was told it goes on your record and can make you very unpopular with markers in the future’, and ‘I did not want to rock boats and possibly adversely affect future academic results’. Presumably if data was collected on reasons whystudents did not appeal grievances it would reveal much the same results. It could be argued in this instance that students should not worry about their future marks because if they believe they have been victimised as a result of appealing or lodging a grievance they can appeal future marks. Unfortunately the truth is that the appeals system is not one that is necessarily attractive to many students. The same report that reveals that students are sometimes wary of appealing for fear of victimisation also shows that students are reluctant to appeal for a number of reasons, primarily that the process is too long and stressful to be worth the extra marks and that they are worried their marks might go down. Effectively we would rather see a system which removes the need to appeal rather than one that relies on the appeals system to eliminate problems.
Potential problems with anonymous assessment Practicality It is recognised that there are some practical issues with anonymous assessment. However, it has been nearly 10 years since AA was first trialled at UWA, and in that time it is entirely possible that new systems have been developed which make it easier. The University of Queensland has adopted anonymous assessment, so evidently there is a way in which it can be made viable (see www.uq.edu.au/hupp/contents/view.asp?s1=3&s2=30&s3=2). Concessions can be made in particular circumstances. The report mentioned above from UNSW also gives an outline of several universities overseas who have implemented AA. “AA will be ineffective because students can be identified by their student numbers” An issue is often raised with regard to lecturers’ access to student name/ number lists. It is argued that AA would be ineffective because of the ability of a lecturer would be able to discover the name of the student by referring to the student number on a class list. The Law School has apparently in the past overcome this problem by restricting lecturer access to class lists while they are marking assessments. Even if this proved ineffective, it is not deliberate but unintentional or subconscious bias that is our biggest concern, which would be solved by using student numbers even if they could be linked back to particular students. In any case, to have to go to the trouble of finding out a student’s name from their student number would most likely be enough to deter even lecturers who would seek to deliberately mark down a student they didn’t like. “To support AA is to accuse our academics of being untrustworthy” An anonymous assessment policy should not be seen as a comdemnation or challenge to the impartiality of academics. It is more intended as a step that protects both the student and the teacher, and reduced the likelihood of an academic being accused of bias. Student support for the issue This policy is one that is overwhelmingly supported by the students. The Guild has a petition signed by more than 2000 students calling for anonymous assessment, and calls for feedback via email through G-News resulted in comments almost exclusively in favour of anonymous assessment. The Guild hopes this policy is supported by the University, at least to the extent that an investigation is done to determine its practicability. Susie Byers Guild President June 25th 2004