Changing the Dissertation Marking Process in the Faculty of Social Sciences— The importance of anonymous marking
Unlike the majority of written assessments, dissertations are often marked with the knowledge of who has produced the work. Anonymous marking is often seen not to apply to dissertations, but this large piece of work shares many similarities with other written work. Why do we not anonymously mark dissertations when we accept that unintentional bias is a real concern in assessment marking generally?
At the start of the Academic year 2023/2024 we started trialling a new dissertation marking process into the Faculty of Social Sciences (FSS) following a period of discussion. The new process moved away from a student’s supervisor completing the first marking and a second colleague double marking the script, to anonymous first marking and a rigorous moderation process. The new process mirrors the standard practice for marking across FSS in all other elements of written assessment that has been used successfully for many years.
What are the benefits of this change for staff?
There were two main drivers for this change. The first is to reduce the possibility of bias and unconscious bias in the marking process in line with the University’s Equalities, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) initiatives. The National Union of Students has recognised the issue of unconscious bias in marking through initiatives such as “Mark my work not my name” and “Race for Equality” and this change helps combat some of those concerns. The second is to reduce colleagues’ marking workloads without reducing the quality of our marking and feedback. We wanted to create a more effective, fairer system which would reduce some of the marking burden on our colleagues -particularly teaching and scholarship and early career colleagues who often find themselves undertaking a higher volume of the marking.
Why is this change important?
The tradition of supervisors marking their students’ dissertations is an anomaly within the university and sector–wide norms of anonymous marking of written assessments. Although dissertations at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels are specialised works, it is reasonable to anticipate that academic colleagues with expertise within the same field will be able to mark a dissertation using the assessment criteria. Indeed PhDs, which are far more specialised and therefore require more specialised supervision and assessment are not assessed by supervisors.
Under the previous system, if a dissertation was highly specialised to the extent that only one academic staff member could mark it, then it would not have been possible to undertake a valid double marking process, which hasn’t been an issue in FSS. In the new process, we are confident that all dissertations can benefit from an alternative marker possessing the necessary knowledge and skills for accurate evaluation whilst introducing increased transparency and equity. The revised system ensures three points of scrutiny, consistent with other assessments: first marking, a rigorous moderation process, and final evaluation by external examiners.
What are the benefits and challenges for students?
For some students, having their supervisor as their first marker can be seen as unfairly beneficial as their supervisor is aware of issues beyond the written piece of assessment (the process of writing and the journey the student has been on to produce the work). Alternatively, it maybe that some students are at a disadvantage because of a difficult relationship with their supervisor. While we would all strive not to consider such issues in the marking process, anonymous marking was introduced to avoid such issues, and for a longer piece of work, which necessitates a closer working relationship, anonymity in the marking seems more important, not less.
Now that supervisors are no longer involved in the marking process, we did acknowledge that students might make decisions with their supervisors that could affect their marks. To prevent students from being unfairly penalised for approved decisions, we introduced a coversheet. This simple form, agreed by the student and supervisor, records a brief summary of the supervision meetings and is submitted along with the ethics form. It’s not meant to influence marking but to provide clarity if markers have questions about the final report. This formal record helps us address any potential queries from students and ensures transparency in the dissertation process.
Anonymous marking was introduced to avoid such issues, and for a longer piece of work, which necessitates a closer working relationship, anonymity in the marking seems more important, not less.
As with all changes to our marking procedures, rigorous discussions were held within the faculty and with the Quality Assurance division of the university to ensure that the policy and its process achieved the outcome we wanted — which was a more rigorous marking process for students which maintained our high standards and also helped to ease the workload burden for our academic staff and SES colleagues.
Next Steps
Watch this space to see how the new process works, once this year’s undergraduate and post graduate dissertations have been submitted, marked, and scrutinised by our external examiners. The entire process has been enlightening on how our existing practices worked, how they varied across our faculty, how we could improve the experience for students and staff, as well as improve the accuracy of our assessment practices.
Drs Victoria Honeyman and Jackie Salter (Pro-Deans for Student Education, FSS)
