Moving from multiple to single markers
While your department might originally have intended to have a module you were undertaking marked by more than one marker, this was not necessarily possible in the context of the boycott.
Double marking is not absolutely necessary for modules to be properly assessed where other robust methods of checking marks and ensuring they are accurate can be used instead.
Where double marking may have prevented you getting your results, we advised departments to look at each of their modules where double marking was scheduled, and consider whether there were ways to ensure that such modules could be fairly assessed using just one marker if necessary.
In such cases departments may have used a single marker and then examined the distributions of marks to ensure that they were fair and used other processes, such as checking of samples and comparing to mark distribution on the module in previous years to check that markers had applied criteria and marked appropriately.
Module assessments are also checked by external examiners, who will raise concerns if they do not feel that the marks have been awarded suitably. They are also subject to scrutiny by your Exam Board.
We are therefore confident that, even where we had to move from double- to single-marking of assessments with moderation, those pieces of work have been properly examined and are accurate exercises of academic judgement.
Dissertations not being marked by supervisors
In any normal year, there is always a risk that a piece of work might not be able to be marked by a supervisor, and first marking by a supervisor is not standard in all departments and disciplines. Sudden illness, for example, might make it impossible for a supervisor to do so (this was an issue during the pandemic for example).
In such cases it is necessary to find a new marker who has sufficient expertise and understanding to be able to assess the piece of work fairly. This would usually be the person who was due to second mark the work (or someone of similar level of expertise and experience in marking).
Departments will therefore have been conscious of any issues about having work graded by someone who was not part of the supervision process and this will have been factored into the moderation processes and the Exam Board's scrutiny.