Against anonymity: relational marking and awarding gaps

Abstract

Anonymous marking is often proposed as a means of tackling awarding gaps, on the basis that if markers do not know whose work they are marking, they will not be able to display bias. Nevertheless, despite the widespread use of anonymous marking in the UK higher education sector, awarding gaps and bias persist. In this article, I draw on my experience of using negotiated marking in assessment in an undergraduate class to argue that anonymity is not only an inadequate means of eradicating awarding gaps but that it is actively counterproductive to the types of strategies that might actually work. I argue that the sort of assessment literacy that promotes both high-quality student work and fair marking, is better promoted through relational marking. I define this as an approach to negotiated marking that requires and foregrounds deep, trusting relationships between students and their teachers and encourages continuous joint reflection. Anonymous marking is, I argue, not only ineffective on its own terms but also inimical to our ability to engage in the work of reducing awarding gaps. This is for two reasons. First, relational marking produces the circumstances that have been shown to reduce awarding gaps more generally, whereas anonymous marking works against them. Second, relational marking allows students to exercise power, including the ability to challenge the structures that produce awarding gaps. Whilst anonymity may (imperfectly) mask bias, only deep relationships can really allow institutions and tutors to work in partnership with students to reckon with bias and to change.