The Student Who Challenges a Marked Script
A university teacher marks 120 scripts for a political science course. A student, known for articulate but confrontational debate, receives 58 out of 100 and formally appeals, alleging bias because she challenged the teacher's interpretation of a constitutional case during a seminar. The teacher recalls the exchange but insists marking was neutral. The script shows strong argument but two factual errors and an unanswered part of the question. The department's appeal rule requires the teacher to re-mark the script, but the teacher feels this is a conflict of interest. Other students have begun asking whether appeals 'work'. The deadline for submitting final results is in five days, and the external examiner is unavailable for two weeks.
1. Assess whether the teacher should re-mark the script personally, and identify the procedural principles at stake.
Read the worked answer
The teacher should not be the sole re-marker. The relevant principles are natural justice: no one should be judge in their own cause (nemo iudex in causa sua), and the student has a right to a fair hearing. Even if the teacher acted neutrally, the appearance of bias is engaged because the alleged bias arises from a prior dispute with the same teacher. The test is not whether bias actually occurred but whether a reasonable observer would perceive a real possibility of it.
However, the rule as written requires the teacher to re-mark, and unilateral refusal could itself be a procedural irregularity. The solution is to comply with the rule's purpose while adding a safeguard: the teacher re-marks transparently against a rubric, and a second marker independently reviews. The factual errors and unanswered question are objective grounds that can be documented, which reduces reliance on the teacher's judgment.
Other principles at stake: consistency (all students must face the same standard), transparency (the rubric should be disclosed), and timeliness (the five-day deadline must not be used to deny the appeal).
2. Design a resolution process that fits the five-day deadline and preserves fairness to all 120 students.
Read the worked answer
Day 1: Publish the marking rubric and the model answer structure to the whole cohort. This addresses the fairness question for all students and removes the impression that the appellant is receiving special treatment.
Day 2: The teacher re-marks the script strictly against the rubric, producing a written breakdown showing marks awarded per component, explicitly noting the two factual errors and the unanswered section. This makes the outcome auditable.
Day 3: A second marker, a colleague not involved in the seminar dispute, independently marks the same script without seeing the first mark. If the two marks fall within an agreed tolerance (say five marks), the higher or averaged mark is recorded; if not, the department head adjudicates.
Day 4: Communicate the outcome to the student in writing with the rubric and both markers' notes, and invite a further appeal to the department head if she disagrees.
Day 5: Submit results, noting the pending external moderation for later confirmation if the mark changes.
This satisfies the rule, removes the conflict, protects consistency for the cohort, and fits the deadline because the external examiner's two-week unavailability is handled by treating moderation as a later confirmation rather than a precondition.