Open University ‘using algorithm to grade work’

THE Open University has been accused of using a computer algorithm to mark dissertations, The Telegraph can disclose.

A former student who obtained marking transcripts for their MBA dissertation last year has claimed that the university was not assessing students’ work individually. Instead, they allege the university was using a computer model to determine final marks, raising concerns of possibile incorrect degree classifications.

Information obtained using a subject access request under data protection laws shows evidence that a “third marker” who puts forward a final dissertation mark to a review panel repeatedly took an average of the results of a first and second marker.

In dozens of instances last year, the third marker had the power to significantly impact the final mark because there was a large disparity between the first and second markers’ conclusions, research suggests.

Of the 266 students taking the module, 76 had either “large differences” recorded between the first and second markers’ conclusions, or were on the boundary between a “pass” or a “fail”. This meant they were eligible for third-marking, according to internal records obtained by the student.

Using freedom of information laws, the student, who wishes to remain anonymous, found that in one instance, a panel meeting where academics assess student marking before recommending the marks to an assessment board was conducted remotely and lasted two hours one minute – equivalent to 30 seconds for each of the 266 students on the MBA course who completed the module, or 90 seconds for each of the 76 students where third marking had been deemed necessary.

After the student raised concerns about the reliability of marking to the Open University, the university appointed Kennedys Law Firm to investigate. Kennedys declined to comment.

An OU spokesman said: “We use a rigorous assessment framework at all stages of marking and due process was followed in the marking of this student’s work. [Their] complaint has been heard through our complaints and appeals process and their complaint has been found to be unsubstantiated.”