Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 16:34-35 (1989)
Experience with a Blinded Grading System in First-Year Veterinary Courses
Thomas Caceci
Anyone who has been involved in classroom teaching knows that assigning grades for class work and most especially a final course grade is the most troublesome aspect of teaching. When doing so we are ranking students according to ability, and while this is theoretically, the practical process is fraught with pitfalls.
This is true at any level, but nowhere more so than in veterinary professional education. Veterinary students (much more than run-of-the-mill undergraduates, and like other types of professional students) are very goal-oriented and grade-conscious. This is to be expected: they have spent most of their lives striving to be at the front of the pack, and to a certain extent have been selected for their persistence. Some of them are quite willing to argue for hours over a semantic point representing one-half of one percent of the final grade in a one-credit course. Furthermore, we have all encountered the disgruntled student who believes the professor is "out to get" her or him and/or that the professor makes special allowances for some students and not others. In truth, total objectivity in grading and ranking is a desperately hard thing to achieve; however, conscientiously we try for it.
The situation has led most instructors to adopt testing strategies which result in cut-and-dried, it's-right-or-it's wrong situations, usually based on multiple-choice type exams. Essay questions, and even fill-in-the-blank short answers present the dedicated arguer with lots of openings, and many teachers have decided that it is asking for trouble to include such questions on exams. While the objective approach to testing may reduce the difficult in arbitrarily handing out points and ranking students (it is certainly debatable whether it lowers the level of argument) the multiple-choice exam has frequently been attacked as producing Pavlovian responses, and failing to test real understanding of a topic. While multiple-choice questions (whatever their defects) are objective, essay exams are the most revealing in terms of actually demonstrating the level of understanding. They are unfortunately the most difficult to grade objectively.
In my courses at the Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine, I have been experimenting with a blinded grading system, in which students submit assignments and take tests anonymously. Grades are calculated and posted before I learn the students' identities. This system has worked very well, and has turned out to have certain advantages which were not foreseen at the time it was devised.
At the beginning of the course, each student is issued a packet consisting of two index cards and an envelope. Both cards and the envelope bear a number (#1 through #78, the total number of students in the class). I initial the cards and the envelopes before distribution to prevent any questions about authenticity of the number assigned.
The packets are shuffled and distributed randomly among the students at the first class session. It is important that the normal numerical sequence by avoided, and that the packets be handed out in such a way as to preclude low numbers from being at one end of the room. This would provide clues as to the students' identities, because they usually sit in the same location each day. It is important to the students and the instructor that other class members not become aware of an individual's number.
After distribution the students are instructed to print their name and student ID number on both cards, retain one card, and seal the other in the envelope. I collect the sealed envelopes and turn them over to a member of our student affairs staff for safe-keeping.
For the rest of the course, the students use only their numbers on all assignments. Written exams, quizzes, papers, and practical exams are never signed; only the number issued. In recording and calculating grades, my records are kept by number only. The midterm and final grades are posted using the numbers, and at the time of posting, I do not know who has received which grade. After final grade have been posted for about three days, if not complaints have been received, I retrieve the envelopes from the student affairs office, match names and numbers, and turn in the grades to the College authorities.
The first and most obvious advantage to this system is that it permits me to grade exams objectively, even essay exams. I have found that not knowing the author of a test makes it a good deal easier to decide whether significant points have or haven't been incorporated into an essay. Surprisingly enough, I find that there is also a tendency to be less likely to make allowances for weak answers.
Another major advantage to this system is that students like it. I have asked for their comments on the system on course reviews, and have never received a negative response. Most often, the reasons why students like the system can be traced to their intensely competitive nature. It permits exam grades to be posted and exam books to be returned openly, and as one student remarked, "Nobody knows who you are, so they can't find out who had a better grade." Typical comments on the course evaluations include:
"I like the idea of anonymous grading. That way the nongunners have just as good a chance of making good grades because the don't know who they or we are."
"I felt assigned a number was a good idea to keep grading impartial."
"I fully support the anonymous grading system. As a teaching assistant of the University of Maryland, I know that the grading is affected in relation to the student (sic). I strongly suggest this system be used throughout the school."
Another advantage is that it meets the requirement for anonymity in posting grades. Because only the student known which number is hers or his, inadvertent violation on grade postings is avoided. This is not possible with Social Security numbers or university assigned student ID numbers (see below).
One unforeseen experience was a decrease in the number of arguments over questions. Even the most avid grade-grubber is loath to give up anonymity in exchange for a few points. However, if a valid concern needs to be raised, the student is always welcome to come and discuss it with me privately. If a chance to raise a grade significantly exists, and the question is on the final exam, occasionally arguments will occur, but in my experience so far this has been a rare occurrence. One modification to the system which can preserve anonymity while permitting discussion of specific exam questions is to have the class appoint a spokesperson for the purpose.
One interesting aspect of the exercise has been discovering just how hard it is to recognize handwriting. Most students believe that an instructor can reliably recognize an individual's handwriting, but this does not seem to be the case, at least with the testing schedule and time frame in my courses. I do not see enough samples of 78 different hands to be able to tell them apart with any degree of certainty.
Nothing is perfect, and this system has a few drawbacks although I believe they are outweighed by its advantages. Theoretically, a problem may arise with a student who is in trouble, if the individual is unwilling to reveal her or his identity. So far, this has not happened, and communication with an individual is always possible via a note or announcement addressed to the number(s) in question.
One thing which might be considered a drawback is that the students themselves are sometimes careless, and may compromise their anonymity by putting their number in a place where it may be easily seen on casual observation. With care this can be avoided. Actually students are more concerned about keeping their number secret from each other than from the instructor!
One problem for the students (commented on in the course evaluations) has been that they now have yet another number to memorize. It would be most convenient for them if one number could be used for all purposes, but that is an impossible ideal. Most institutions these days use the Social Security number for student identification, but it should be stressed that the SSN is not suitable for this system. The reason is obvious; the SSN is not really anonymous. Class lists and rosters with names and SSNs are invariably arranged in alphabetical order. It quickly becomes obvious who is whom on such a list even when the names are blanked out. Furthermore, many students are former employees of the university, and their SSNs are in records accessible to many people. While it is unlikely that a problems would arise, nevertheless it is technically a violation of privacy regulations to post such numbers as identifiers, if there is a chance that outsiders may thereby associate a specific student with a grade. This would be feasible with SSNs or university ID numbers, and so they should be avoided.
A carefully designed system for maintaining student anonymity safeguards the rights and the interests of both teaching and pupils. In enhances objectivity, reduces arguments over trivial points, and increases student confidence. It generates a feeling among students that they have been equitably treated, and fairly judged. It could work as well on the college level as that of the individual class; as a matter of practical application, there is no need for an instructor to know whom he is evaluating, so long as some other responsible party can raise a flag when a student is in trouble. Numbers could be randomly assigned at the beginning of each semester by the Associate Dean for Instruction, who would then maintain all of the records containing students names. This adoption of anonymous grading on a college-wide basis could enhance the objectivity of veterinary training and lessen some of the tensions between students and their professors.