"Anonymous marking destroys a key element of the university experience: engagement with the lecturers." David Walker's point is repeated in some form as the main pedagogical argument by each of your antagonistic correspondents (THES, Letters, March 26).
Nonsense. Anonymous marking does not remove the student's identity, it merely hides it temporarily as one measure to prevent the lecturer inadvertently marking the student rather than her work.
I suspect that the writers were fumbling for the important distinction between formative and summative assessment (between work aimed primarily at corrective feedback and that aimed at measuring a student's performance), but anonymous marking is effective in either case.
There is a problem, however, if these different tools are applied indifferently or if no distinction is made. Anonymous double-blind marking will give a measure of assurance against inappropriate discrimination in assessment, but it cannot protect the student from inadequate or inappropriate assessment. For that, we need something like the Institute for Learning and Teaching and effective training for the teaching staff.
We should remember that teaching skill or competence currently forms no part of the qualifications required for teaching in higher education.
Andrew Morgan Swansea