A Disputed Mark on a Composition Script
A Bangla lecturer has marked 60 first-year composition scripts out of 20. One student, Rumi, received 11 and has formally appealed, claiming her essay on rural life was marked unfairly. The lecturer's marking sheet shows four criteria: content (8), language (6), structure (4), presentation (2). Rumi scored 5, 3, 2, 1. The lecturer recalls being tired while marking the last 15 scripts and notices that the scripts marked after midnight averaged 12.4, while the earlier batch averaged 15.1. Rumi's script was in the late batch. A second marker, asked informally, gave the same script 14 without seeing the first mark. Department policy allows re-marking only where a marking error is shown, and the deadline for submitting final marks is in three days.
1. On the evidence available, should the appeal be upheld? Set out the reasoning criterion by criterion.
Read the worked answer
The appeal is supported, but on process grounds, not simply because a second marker disagreed.
Criterion analysis: Rumi's marks are 5/8, 3/6, 2/4, 1/2. The presentation mark of 1/2 and structure 2/4 are defensible. The weakness is language at 3/6 and content at 5/8: these are the criteria most sensitive to marker fatigue, and the second marker's 14 implies roughly +3 across them.
Process evidence: The late batch averaged 12.4 against 15.1 earlier - a 2.7-mark drop. That is a systematic pattern, not proof about Rumi, but it establishes a prima facie case that late scripts were marked under degraded conditions. Combined with an independent mark 3 points higher, a marking error is shown to the standard the policy requires.
Verdict: Uphold in the sense of ordering a formal re-mark by a second examiner against the rubric, not automatic substitution of 14.
2. What should the department do about the other 14 scripts in the late batch, given the three-day deadline?
Read the worked answer
The 2.7-mark batch gap creates a fairness problem wider than Rumi. Options:
- Re-mark only Rumi - cheapest, but indefensible if other students learn of the pattern; it treats identical disadvantage unequally.
- Re-mark all 15 late scripts - fairest. With 15 scripts and three days, one marker can do roughly 5 per day at 20–30 minutes each, which is feasible if other duties are deferred.
- Curve the late batch upward - fast but statistically crude and hard to justify to students.
Recommendation: Adopt option 2, anonymous re-marking by a marker who has not seen the original marks, with the higher of the two marks recorded unless the difference exceeds 4, in which case a third marker decides. Notify the examinations committee in writing that the batch gap was detected and how it is being handled. This protects the deadline while removing the systematic disadvantage and documents the decision if it is later challenged.