ASSESSMENT HANDBOOK. Improving Health Worldwide

Transcription

1 ASSESSMENT HANDBOOK This handbook is aimed at all staff involved in assessment processes prior to Exam Board consideration i.e. assessment setting and marking. It contains formal guidance for markers, Module Organisers, Course Directors, Taught Course Directors, and administrative staff involved in supporting assessments and exams. It is also intended to inform Exam Board members, including External Examiners and Exam Board Chairs, about how the School s assessment processes work. Separate guidance on Exam Boards provides formal guidance on the operation and role of Exam Boards and their members. Additional detailed guidance is also available for assessment irregularities (e.g. plagiarism), re-sits, extenuating circumstances affecting assessment and moderation. This handbook is based on regulations, policies and procedures agreed by relevant London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) committees including the Senate Executive Group, Quality & Standards Committee and Learning & Teaching Committee. The final compiled version has been approved by the Associate Dean of Studies (Quality Management & Enhancement). London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. Last updated July Improving Health Worldwide

2 INTRODUCTION Purpose of this handbook 1. This handbook compiles the School s formal guidance about assessment processes that happen prior to Board of Examiners consideration. This includes setting assessment tasks, exam questions and marking schemes; grading work; and dealing with issues such as extensions or special exam arrangements. The first part of this document is a summary overview of all assessment processes, followed by a set of individual annexes with detailed policies and guidance. Audience for this handbook 2. This handbook is particularly aimed at markers, Module Organisers, Course Directors and Taught Course Directors; as well as administrative staff who support assessment processes, including in the Teaching Support Office, the Distance Learning Office and the Registry. It is also intended to inform Exam Board members, including External Examiners and Exam Board Chairs, about how the School s assessment processes work. Important related documents 3. Policies regarding three important areas of assessment are published separately to this handbook both because they are long and comprehensive, and because they are about quite specific matters that only affect a small proportion of students. These are: The Re-sits policy The Extenuating Circumstances policy The Plagiarism and Assessment Irregularities policy 4. Separate Exam Board guidance provides information about how the School s Boards of Examiners should operate, including the specific roles of External Examiners, Exam Board Chairs and other Board members. This is supplemented by a separate Module Moderation policy, which sets out formal procedures for moderating module grades after they have been double-marked and before they are considered by Exam Boards. Applicability 5. The guidance in this handbook is expected to apply to assessment of all of the School s taught courses, at module and course level, and whether award-bearing or non-awardbearing. The guidance has been written with a focus on face-to-face (F2F) Master s degrees and modules, however it also applies more widely to other provision within the School including short courses. For distance learning (DL) modules and courses, School procedures have been designed to meet the requirements of the University of London International Programmes Guidelines for Examinations ( ). Areas where DL procedures differ have been indicated throughout. Should any discrepancy arise, the regulations and policies of the International Programmes are expected to take precedence. For collaborative courses, including intercollegiate MSc courses taught jointly with other University of London colleges, the partner institution s procedures will normally apply in respect of modules they lead, and/or where the Memorandum of Agreement for the course specifies that their assessment model should apply at the level of the course overall. This handbook does not cover research degrees, except where research degree students may take a taught course as part of their studies. 6. In the event of any inconsistency between the information in this handbook and any other School document, advice should be sought in the first instance from the Head of Registry. 2

3 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... 2 CONTENTS... 3 OVERVIEW OF ASSESSMENT PROCESSES... 4 ANNEX 1: ASSESSMENT CODE OF PRACTICE ANNEX 2: MODULE ASSESSMENTS ANNEX 2A: ASSESSMENT FEEDBACK FORM ANNEX 3: UNSEEN WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS ANNEX 3A: EXAM PREPARATION SUPPORT FOR STUDENTS ANNEX 4: PROJECT REPORTS ANNEX 5: SPECIAL EXAMINATION ARRANGEMENTS POLICY ANNEX 6: GUIDELINES ON INFORMATION RETENTION AND DISCLOSURE

4 OVERVIEW OF ASSESSMENT PROCESSES Introduction 1. The notes below describe key elements of the assessment lifecycle at the School as described both later in this handbook, and in the separate Exam Board guidance. General principles Assessment code of practice 2. The Assessment Code of Practice, given at Annex 1 of this handbook, is the key document setting out assessment principles to be followed at the School. The overall aim of assessment is to facilitate students learning regarding key elements of each course and module, and to test that the student has reached the minimum standard acceptable for the award. The School uses a standard assessment scale of six integer grade points (GPs), defined in both the Assessment handbook and the Award Scheme. These are 5 = Excellent (distinction standard), 4 = Very good, 3 = Good, 2 = Satisfactory, 1 = Poor (unsatisfactory), and 0 = Very poor. Grades 2 and above are pass grades, whilst grades below 2 are fail grades. Where an assessment is made up of more than one individually-graded task (e.g. a module with both groupwork and essay tasks), grades may be combined according to the relevant weightings to generate a grade point average (GPA), with figures to two decimal places. 3. Key details about assessment methods and requirements are set out in published programme specifications for each award-bearing course, and in module specifications for modules. 4. The School operates a credit system covering the bulk of award-bearing and modular provision. Under this, credits are gained for passing individual modules or degree elements, and degree awards are determined on the basis of accumulating the required number of credits from prescribed or permitted modules and degree elements. 5. Each course has a formal Award Scheme used to determine the award of degrees, diplomas or certificates there is a generic Award Scheme for face-to-face MSc courses, another for DL courses, and specific individual Schemes for all others e.g. award-bearing short courses. Award Schemes have the status of regulations. The School s Taught Course Regulations specify some further generally-applicable assessment requirements, all of which are fully explicated within the Assessment and Exam Board guidance. Exam Boards 6. Assessment for each award or set of awards (relating to a course) comes under the authority of a specific Exam Board, operating in parallel to the Course Committee. Oversight of module assessment also comes under the authority of specific nominated Exam Boards. Students grades are confirmed and awards ratified at final Exam Board meetings annually. Full terms of reference for Exam Boards and standing orders for the conduct of meetings are set out in the Exam Board guidance pages. 7. Each Board includes: An Exam Board Chair and Deputy Chair who co-ordinate activities; One or more External Examiners who help to provide specific external confirmation about academic standards and the rigour of assessment processes; 4

5 Further Internal Examiners (staff members) who are involved in setting exam questions, marking all types of assessed work, and take part in final Board meetings. 8. Assessors may be appointed to assist Exam Boards in the setting, conducting and marking of assessments. They are not Exam Board members and cannot confirm grades or ratify awards. Setting and conducting assessments Setting assessment tasks 9. Clear marking criteria and guidance must be prepared for all assessments. Further guidance on this is given in the Assessment code of practice (Annex 1), including guidance on setting more detailed criteria for qualitative or quantitative assessments, use of numeric marking schemes where appropriate, principles for combining grades, etc. Students should also be made aware of the broad criteria against which each assessment task will be marked. 10. Module Organisers have substantial delegated authority (under the oversight of the responsible Board) for setting module assessment tasks and criteria. Further guidance about this is given in Annex Exam Boards are responsible for setting course-level exam papers and associated marking criteria/guidance. This is co-ordinated by Exam Board Chairs, with internal Examiners being involved in writing exam questions and External Examiners in reviewing final drafts. Some further pointers about this are given in Annex 3; with more comprehensive guidance, including a standard timetable and security procedure for setting and signing off MSc exam questions in the Exam Board guidance pages. 12. Exam Boards are also responsible for setting criteria, requirements and marking schemes for MSc projects. Further guidance on this is given in Annex 4. Conduct of module assessments 13. Module Organisers have substantial delegated authority (under the oversight of the responsible Board) for co-ordinating module assessment arrangements, including arranging coursework submissions, module exams, tests and practicals. Further guidance about aspects of this is given in Annex 2. Conduct of unseen written examinations 14. Strict rules apply to the conduct of unseen written examinations, as described at Annex 3. Administrative support for exams is provided by the Registry and Teaching Support Office, or for distance learning courses by the DL Office and the International Programmes Exams Office. Special student circumstances and requests Adjustments for timed and written assessments Special arrangements may be made for candidates who are ill, disabled, pregnant or have other just cause to require them. Students should contact the Student Adviser and arrange a meeting to discuss options for assessment adjustments. Requests for adjustments need to be supported by appropriate documentation (e.g. medical evidence or an Educational Psychologist's report) and must be approved by the Head of Registry (or their nominee) in line with the Exam Regulations. Arrangements that may be made at the discretion of the Head of Registry include special seating (e.g. a separate room), 5

6 use of a computer, use of an amanuensis, permission to take food and drink into an exam, rest breaks and additional time in exams for registered-blind candidates (who may also be given Braille/enlarged papers) or up to 25% additional time for those who can supply medical evidence or an educational psychologist s report (e.g. regarding dyslexia), etc; Extensions to coursework hand-in deadlines may also be given based on valid reasons, by the Head of Registry (or their nominee) for disabled or pregnant candidates; or by the relevant Taught Course Director for all other candidates; Any other requests will be considered by a special examinations committee. Extensions and deferrals 15. Clear deadlines are set for the submission of all assessed coursework, and likewise dates for examinations are scheduled and notified well in advance. Students who are aware that they may anticipate problems meeting a coursework deadline or taking part in an examination can request an extension or deferral from their Faculty Taught Course Director, in line with guidance set out at in the School s Extensions & Deferrals Policy. These will only be given where there are valid supporting reasons: An extension will typically be for a matter of days or at most weeks, with the expectation that the work can be marked in time to go forward to the same Exam Board meeting due to confirm grades for other work submitted at the original deadline. This is possible for coursework only; A deferral means the student should submit at the next scheduled assessment deadline or opportunity (e.g. the year-end re-sits deadline for F2F modules, or in the following year for F2F exams and projects or DL work), and may need to undertake a slightly different assessment task for this purpose. 16. Alternatively, students may request an Interruption of Studies if a personal emergency or other circumstance arises which necessitates a break in their course of study Extenuating circumstances 17. A separate Extenuating Circumstances policy describes how to deal with cases where students ability to take or perform in assessments are affected by unforeseen circumstances. Key elements to be aware of are: Students must raise such issues at the time of their occurrence, to be considered by the Extenuating Circumstances Committee (ECC), rather than waiting until the final Board of Examiners; Where the ECC finds a student has valid extenuating circumstances, this will be recorded and reported to the final Board of Examiners. If the student has failed, and subsequently fails to gain credits, the Board of Examiners may permit them a new attempt at the assessment at the next scheduled opportunity. New attempts will not count as a re-sit, unless the student has already had a re-sit attempt for the affected assessment; Boards of Examiners may consider such circumstances, alongside a portfolio of work, when determining awards for borderline candidates. However, Boards of Examiners may not re-grade work in light of extenuating circumstances. Marking and grading Marking student work 18. Marking by examiners and assessors is carried out primarily under the direction of Module Organisers and Faculty Taught Course Directors for modules, and under the direction of Exam Board Chairs and Faculty Taught Course Directors for exams and projects. 6

7 19. Wherever possible, assessed work should be marked with students identity remaining anonymous. Candidate numbers provided by the Registry are used to achieve this. 20. Formative assessments which do not count towards credits or an award do not need to be double-marked, but defined marking criteria and sampling of scripts should be used to assure consistency 21. As set out in Annex 1, all summative assessed work is double-marked by two markers. Each should grade it without knowledge of the other s mark. Markers are encouraged to use the full range of available marks (the 0-5 grading scale), to reflect the full range of student achievement. Markers must jointly discuss and reconcile any substantive differences in grades, to be able to give an agreed grade to the student. 22. Along with provisional grades, students are given individual feedback for module coursework (see template at Annex 2a) and projects. 23. Further pointers about marking module work are given in Annex 2, about marking exams in Annex 3, and about MSc projects in Annex Following initial module grading, Module Organisers should look at the distribution of grades for their module. If this deviates significantly from past performance or other key comparators, this should be considered in more depth. In some cases, Module Organisers may wish to recommend re-marking, procedures for which are detailed in the Module Moderation policy. 25. Boards of Examiners will review provisional grades for exams and projects prior to confirmation, with External Examiners specifically moderating samples of work. Grades may be adjusted where appropriate using the guidance given in the Exam Board guidance pages. Plagiarism and assessment irregularities 26. The Assessment Irregularities Procedure for taught courses sets out comprehensive procedures for identifying and acting on plagiarism, cheating or any other form of suspected assessment irregularity. Key elements to be aware of include that: Course handbooks give definitions of plagiarism and other assessment irregularities, provide outline guidance on good referencing practice, and refer students to the School s comprehensive Academic Writing handbook for further information. Before the first time they submit any in-course work for assessment, all students are required to sign and submit a form to declare they have read, understood and will follow the School s definitions and guidance. These forms are held on file by the Teaching Support Office or Distance Learning Office; If a case of plagiarism or cheating is suspected, the Assessment Irregularities procedure which forms part of the overall policy should be followed. Any such cases should be dealt with before any student grades are brought forward for consideration by an Exam Board if a case is still in progress, provisional confirmation of grades for affected work will be suspended, and thus Exam Boards should not be asked to confirm them; The Assessment Irregularities procedure allows for a number of grade penalties to be applied, including marking down of work. Exam Boards will only be asked to consider student performance after such penalties have been applied (e.g. to confirm if a re-sit is required where a student has been given a fail grade due to plagiarism). 7

8 Moderation of grades 27. Both F2F and DL modules may be taken by students from across different courses. Module grades therefore need to be confirmed before any relevant Exam Boards meet to ratify awards or make re-sit recommendations. As set out in the separate Module Moderation policy: The relevant Exam Board Chair, or another nominated member of the Board (who may be an External Examiner), should act as Moderator to review and confirm grades on behalf of all Boards whose students have taken the module. Moderators should not normally have been involved in any of the assessments, e.g. question-setting or marking, for the module they are moderating; The Administrator for each module sends their Moderator details of the assessment task, marking guidelines and grading criteria, a sample of assessed work (at least six scripts, two from each of the top, middle and bottom of the grade range) plus relevant information on grades and grade distributions etc. The Moderator must carefully review all this material to be able to confirm the validity of marking; The procedure allows for re-marking if the Moderator identifies a problem in which case they must first review a wider sample of all potentially-affected work, so all students who may have been affected are considered for re-marking. Any or all of the reviewed work may then be re-graded, by either the Moderator or their nominee. The Moderator should consult with the Module Organiser before ratifying any re-marking; Finally, a Moderator s Report must be completed and returned to confirm moderation has happened. As standard, all modules should be moderated within 4 weeks of the assessment being marked. All moderation must be completed by a set deadline, ahead of Exam Boards meeting in July (F2F Boards hold interim meetings then to determine which students should re-sit in September, while DL Boards hold the first of two final meetings). 28. After module grades have been confirmed through moderation, then for F2F modules this changes the status of grades from provisional to confirmed, and they may not be altered by subsequent meetings of any Exam Board. For DL modules, grades technically remain provisional after moderation, pending confirmation by a final Exam Board. 29. External Examiners are also required to review samples of exam and project scripts, to confirm the validity of marking ahead of the final Exam Board meeting. This is known as moderation of exams and projects, and operates similarly to module moderation. External Examiners will likewise be sent samples of assessed module work to review; but this should already have been moderated, and (for F2F modules) the grades will not be amenable to change. Information retention and disclosure 30. Annex 6 gives provides guidance on information retention and disclosure, including regarding marking criteria, assessment scripts and any markers comments. Assessment outcomes Exam Board meetings and use of the Award Scheme 31. Final Exam Board meetings review and confirm candidates grades and ratify final degree awards based on the agreed Award Scheme for each course (see the Exam Board guidance for F2F MScs, or published separately for other courses), which forms part of the regulations. 8

9 32. To make classification decisions for any candidates in a borderline range, the Exam Board Chair and External Examiner(s) should review relevant portfolios of work ahead of final Exam Board meetings. 33. Exam Boards also make recommendations about students progression status, including re-sits for those who have failed. 34. It should be noted that in addition to passing required assessments, active participation in relevant modules or courses is a requirement for the award of credits or degrees, and Exam Boards may decide not to confirm results for students deemed not to have participated fully. The School s attendance expectations are defined in the Student Attendance Policy. Re-sits 35. A separate Re-sits policy describes the School s procedures for dealing with assessment re-sits. Exam Boards will need to make re-sit recommendations for each candidate who has failed a degree element, including about requirements or options and related timing; Students can only re-sit where they have failed to gain credits for a particular degree element. Only failed components of credit-bearing elements may be re-sat. Failed modules or exam papers cannot be re-sat if they are compensated by other results, in line with the Award Scheme. Students cannot re-sit degree elements or components they have passed in order to improve their GPA. Re-sit grades should be capped to a maximum GPA of 3 at the level of the creditbearing element. Only one re-sit of any component is permissible. The guidance makes clear when re-sits should be taken. Key aspects include that F2F module re-sits may not be arranged in-year, and must be scheduled for a specific re-sit period at the end of the year (after project hand-in); while project re-sits may be specified as either revise and re-submit with a two-month deadline, or to undertake further data collection and revisions or an entirely new project for the following year s deadline. DL re-sits and F2F exam re-sits should be taken the following year. Academic Appeals 36. Full details of the School s Academic Appeals Policy & Procedure are available on the School s website. Other documents of interest 37. Staff involved in assessment should also be aware of other relevant School codes of practice, including about Course and Module Design, Annual Monitoring, Student Feedback, Student Support, and Orientation & Induction. 9

10 ANNEX 1: ASSESSMENT CODE OF PRACTICE Policy Aims of assessment at the School 1. For all School courses, the overall aim of assessment is to facilitate students learning regarding key elements of each course and module, and to test that the student has reached the minimum standard acceptable for the award. Objectives of assessment at the School 2. The specific objectives of assessment are to: (i) Measure the achievement of specified learning outcomes in a valid, robust, reliable and fair way. (ii) Identify whether each student has attained a minimum level of achievement necessary to pass the course or module, and identify those who fail to achieve that level. (iii) Support desirable learning strategies, including to focus learning on the important aspects of each course or module and provide a means of encouragement. (iv) Provide feedback on performance so that learning may improve. (v) Interfere as little as possible with other important, but ungraded, aspects of students educational experience. (vi) Identify those students achieving the highest standards so that they can be considered for a Distinction. Key areas of policy 3. The School recognises that assessment is an essential component of teaching and learning. Specifically, School policy is that: (i) Assessment should be related to the intended learning outcomes and content of each course or module, and cover both essential outcomes and the range of potential learning that students may be expected to demonstrate. (ii) Grading must be criterion-referenced, testing achievement against a specified set of abilities, skills and behaviours (although the award of Distinction may take into account the proportion of students achieving the highest grades). (iii) Grading criteria should ensure that all students achieving a minimum standard will pass the relevant course or module, subject to full participation. (iv) Sufficient information about grading criteria should be made available with each assessment task so as to give both students and markers a broad understanding of what is required to pass or do well. (v) Assessment must be integrated with learning and not used merely as a grading process. (vi) Assessment should reward critical appreciation and the ability to apply what has been learnt, and minimise reward of the passive reproduction of memorised facts. (vii) Feedback to students about in-course assessment performance is an important part of assessment, and must be given in sufficient detail to help students learn and improve for the future. (viii) Elements of formal assessment towards an award should be set to assess student achievement at the appropriate level (e.g. Master s degree, Postgraduate Diploma, Postgraduate Certificate), in line with the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications in England (FHEQ) published by the Quality Assurance Agency. (ix) To be eligible for an award (e.g. MSc, Diploma, Certificate) students must have participated fully in the whole of the period of study specified for that award. 10

11 4. In addition: (i) The grading process will be subject to rigorous quality assurance procedures, including moderation by nominated Moderators and sampling by External Examiners. (ii) Any suspected assessment irregularities (including, plagiarism, cheating or fraud, as defined by the School) will be subject to procedures and penalties as detailed in the Plagiarism and Assessment Irregularities policy. (iii) Where assessment of individual students has been affected by unforeseen extenuating circumstances, this should be taken into account according to the procedures set out in the Extenuating Circumstances policy. (iv) Students who fail assessments such that they fail to gain credits for a relevant module or degree element should be granted a re-sit opportunity by the relevant Exam Board in line with the Re-sits policy. Credit, award schemes and assessment structures 5. The School operates a credit system covering the bulk of award-bearing and modular provision. Under this, credits are gained for passing individual modules or degree elements, and degree awards are determined on the basis of accumulating the required number of credits from prescribed or permitted modules and degree elements. Certain courses including certain joint courses or short courses may operate under different systems. 6. Each award-bearing course will have a formal Award Scheme, approved as part of formal Regulations, which is used to determine the award of degrees. All modules and degree elements taken should be expected to be assessed and used to determine the award of the degree. Credit values and any weightings (to be used when calculating overall performance for classification purposes) should be clearly specified. There may be allowance for compensation between or within different elements. In the event that a student has been assessed on more modules or degree elements than are required, the responsible Exam Board should determine whether an award may be given, and which modules are counted towards it. The School uses standard award criteria of Pass and Pass with Distinction and Fail. Students who do not gain sufficient credits to be awarded their degree will either have the opportunity to take or re-sit last elements in which credit is required, or else exit the programme without a degree but with a transcript showing the modules or degree elements they have taken. 7. Each award-bearing course will also have a programme specification, specifying the mix of compulsory or elective elements which may be taken to obtain the relevant award(s), and indicating the major assessment methods in relation to the course s intended learning outcomes. In line with the Course & Module Design code of practice, this should ensure that overall assessment of each degree is based on an appropriate mix of assessment methods, e.g. examinations and coursework. 8. Individual modules will each have a module specification, setting out details of the content covered and the method of assessment. 9. For Master s degrees taught face-to-face at the School in London, all programmes will be composed of modules, final qualifying exams, and a project report; and some programmes may also include a practical exam or exams. Modules from Term 1 will be assessed through final qualifying exams (unseen written papers, totalling six hours in length, taken under formal exam conditions) in the summer. Modules from Terms 2 and 3 will be 11

12 assessed using in-course assessment, which may include coursework, unseen written exams or other forms of exams, groupwork, or other appropriate methods. 10. For degrees delivered by Distance Learning, all programmes will be composed of modules, which may be assessed by either examinations taken under formal conditions, coursework or a combination of both. Some programmes may also include a project report and/or final qualifying exam(s). Anonymity 11. Wherever possible, assessed work should be marked blind, i.e. without knowledge of which students have produced which piece of work (exceptions to this will include oral presentations, some forms of groupwork, projects which are second-marked by the supervisor as a matter of course-specific policy, etc.). All students are given an anonymous candidate number, which will change each year and be different to their student number, for the purpose of identifying submitted coursework and exam scripts. Grading principles The School s grading system and grade descriptors 12. The School uses a standard assessment system, marking against six gradepoints: integers from 0 to 5. Grades 2 and above are pass grades (grade 5 can be seen as equivalent to distinction standard); whilst grades below 2 are fail grades. Table 1 below sets out the standard descriptors for matching standards of assessment to gradepoints: Table 1 Grade point Descriptor Typical work should include evidence of 5 Excellent Excellent engagement with the topic, excellent depth of understanding & insight, excellent argument & analysis. Generally, this work will be distinction standard. NB that excellent work does not have to be outstanding or exceptional by comparison with other students; these grades should not be capped to a limited number of students per class. Nor should such work be expected to be 100% perfect some minor inaccuracies or omissions may be permissible. 4 Very good Very good engagement with the topic, very good depth of understanding & insight, very good argument & analysis. This work may be borderline distinction standard. Note that very good work may have some inaccuracies or omissions but not enough to question the understanding of the subject matter. 3 Good Good (but not necessarily comprehensive) engagement with the topic, clear understanding & insight, reasonable argument & analysis, but may have some inaccuracies or omissions. 2 Satisfactory Adequate evidence of engagement with the topic but some gaps in understanding or insight, routine argument & analysis, and may have some inaccuracies or omissions. 1 Unsatisfactory / poor (fail) Inadequate engagement with the topic, gaps in understanding, poor argument & analysis. 0 Very poor (fail) Poor engagement with the topic, limited understanding, very poor argument & analysis. 12

13 0 Not submitted (null) Null mark may be given where work has not been submitted, or is in serious breach of assessment criteria/regulations. 13. Summative assessment combines these marks into non-integer gradepoint averages (GPAs) in the range 0 to 5, by averaging against relevant weightings see section further below on principles for combining grades. 14. The standard pass threshold for any degree component or module result is GPA However, in describing results for elements of work below module level, or for individual exam questions, the grade should simply be quoted without describing it as a pass or fail, as those are not necessarily meaningful terms at those levels. 15. The criteria used to place students in each grade category must be written down by staff setting assessments, and adhered to by marking staff. They should be broadly consistent with Table 1 above, although specific requirements will differ from assessment to assessment. The generic School descriptors are intended only as a general guide and starting point to develop detailed marking criteria for particular assessment tasks. 16. Table 2 below gives some further very general suggestions for criteria that might apply for either quantitative or qualitative assessments, to appropriately distinguish different standards of work for the task concerned. Table 2 Grade point Simple general criteria for qualitative work (e.g. essays or other written assignments) 5 A comprehensive discussion of the topic giving all relevant information, showing indepth critical understanding of the topic, going beyond conventional answers, and bringing in additional relevant ideas or material. 4 A full discussion of the topic that includes all relevant information and critical evaluation. 3 The major points are discussed, but relevant, though less important considerations, are omitted. 2 Sufficient relevant information is included but not all major points are discussed, and there may be some errors of interpretation. 1 A few points are included, but lack of understanding is shown together with use of irrelevant points. 0 None of the major points present; many irrelevant points included and a serious lack of understanding. or Not submitted. Simple general criteria for quantitative work (e.g. multiple choice questions, mathematical questions, laboratory spot tests) All correct. Almost all correct, none incorrect. Most correct, a few incorrect allowed. Essential parts correct (to be defined for each task), some incorrect. Some correct but essential part (to be defined for each task) incorrect or unknown. Very few (or none) correct, essential part incorrect. or Not attempted. 13

14 17. Students should be made aware of the broad criteria against which each assessment task will be marked, to improve their understanding of the standards expected of them. Percentage or numeric marking: 18. Percentage or numeric marking schemes may be used for some elements of work, e.g. where the assessment is based on mathematical questions or yes/no questions or multiplechoice questions. In any such cases, percentages or numeric mark totals (e.g. out of twenty ) should be converted to an integer gradepoint (GP) on the standard scale, which is reported to the student and can be taken forward for combination with other grades. Students may also be given visibility of their percentage or numeric mark. 19. The School does not set any fixed percentage to gradepoint conversion scheme. Rather, the conversion should be done using a scheme agreed in advance by the relevant Board of Examiners, which best fits the particular assignment or question. The approved conversion should appear in the marking pack for each assessment/question for which it is to be used. Table 3 below gives examples of three different percentage-to-gradepoint conversion charts. Table 3 Example Example Example Mark (%) Grade point Mark (%) Grade point Mark (%) Grade point <40 0 <50 0 <20 0 (typical scheme) (higher numeric pass threshold) (lower numeric pass threshold) 20. While individual assessments may use specific marking schemes in this way, as most appropriate for them, all schemes must remain compatible with the School s standard assessment framework as set out above (i.e. six-point grading scale covering 0=very poor, 1=unsatisfactory, 2=satisfactory, 3=good, 4=very good, 5=excellent). Any deviations from this should be addressed by the relevant Board of Examiners. Describing standards of work in student feedback 21. Whilst all marks should be reported to students as numeric gradepoints or GPAs (NB that grade letters should never be given), the descriptors in Table 1 such as very good or satisfactory can helpfully be used in feedback to students about their assessed module work. However, if using such terms, markers must remain consistent with this standard scheme; e.g. it would not be appropriate to use the word good throughout feedback for a piece of work then graded at 2.0, unless clearly indicating that a specific aspect had dragged the mark down. Further guidance is given in the Teachers handbook. Grade distributions and using the full range of marks 22. Markers are encouraged to use the full range of available marks, to reflect the full range of student achievement. In particular, markers should not feel reluctant to award 5.0 grades provided work meets the appropriate standards. The following specific points should be noted: 14

15 (i) Excellent work does not have to be outstanding or exceptional by comparison with other students. (ii) Since the School uses criterion-referenced marking rather than banded marking, 5.0 grades should not be capped to a limited proportion of students per class. (iii) There is no standard cut-off for what constitutes excellent work. Different conversion schemes may be used to convert numeric scores or percentage marks into a gradepoint result on the 0-5 integer scale. In many cases where quantitatively-scored assessments are used, a 5.0 grade may be awarded for work scoring above a particular threshold (for example 80%) of the possible marks, i.e. by no means perfect but of a sufficiently high standard. (iv) Good assessment design should ensure that tasks have clear criteria to allow excellent students to achieve 5.0 grades. 23. The School supports Module Organisers and Exam Boards in assuring consistency of marking standards by preparing annual School-wide analysis of module grade distributions. However, grades should not be forced into a standard distribution. Rather, marking criteria should reflect School standards, so student results can be seen as based on individual achievement rather than in any way biased by different module choices. Nonetheless, marking parameters may be set in light of past or typical student performance, in a way that makes it more likely for the final distribution of grades to follow a standard pattern (e.g. with most grades in the 2.0 to 4.0 range, and fewer at the 5.0 range or in the fail range). 24. Group assessment tasks should be anticipated to produce higher standards than individuals would achieve alone. 25. Following the initial grading process, Module Organisers should look at the distribution of grades for the particular module. If this deviates significantly from past performance or appears to differ significantly from other grade distributions at Course, Faculty or School level, this should be considered in more depth to confirm that the marks given are indeed in line with School criteria. In some cases, Module Organisers may wish to recommend remarking, procedures for which are detailed in the Module Moderation policy and Exam Board guidance. Double-marking and reconciliation of grades 26. All assessed work which is summative towards credits or an award must be doublemarked, with any discrepancies between markers being resolved. Neither marker should see the other s comments or grade before assigning their grade. An agreed grade must be given to the student. 27. Marking pairs must agree any marks which are formally reported to students; however below this level (i.e. if an assessment task has informal component elements), markers views may differ provided they can agree the overall grade. 28. Markers may not record two grades for work which they feel is borderline between two grade bands they must always discuss and agree one clear grade for a piece of work. 29. Where two markers disagree about the overall grade to be given to a particular piece of work then the difference must be reconciled by discussion between them, not in some way averaged away. This is intended to ensure that every grade awarded truly represents the quality of the work submitted. Where initial grades differ (in terms of where they place the work on the School s integer grading scale 0-5), a brief note recording the reasoning for the final agreed grade should be included on the marksheet returned to the relevant administration office. If marks (e.g. out of 20, or as a percentage) differ slightly but this does not affect 15

16 the final grade (0-5) to be assigned to the work, this does not need to be recorded and the markers may report both an averaged mark and the agreed grade to the student. Markers should also be aware that all comments made in connection with marking, such as those to support grade reconciliation, may be disclosed to the student. 30. If discussion between two markers fails to reach mutual agreement on the overall grade to assign to a particular piece of work, it may be referred to a third marker. For modules, the Module Organiser or another appropriate senior marker should be consulted. If there is still any doubt over the grade to assign, the Chair of the Exam Board to which the module has been allocated (as per Module Moderation policy) should be consulted and will take the final decision. For MSc summer exams or projects, if two examiners have been unable to reconcile a grade at major question or formal project component level or for a paper or project overall, a third appropriate examiner (nominated by the Exam Board Chair) should be consulted. Particularly in the case of projects, the External Examiner may often serve as third marker. If there is still any doubt, the Chair should take the final decision. 31. Assessments which are not summative towards credits or an award (usually termed formative assessments) do not need to be double-marked. However, clearly-defined marking criteria and sampling of scripts should be used to help assure consistency in marking formative work. 32. Any grade divulged before the final meeting of the Exam Board is provisional, subject to external review and may be amended at the discretion of the examiners. Principles for combining grades 33. Grades which are directly agreed by markers for individual pieces of work (i.e. module assignments, exam questions, projects or practical exams) should usually be on the sixpoint integer grading scale from 5 (excellent) to 0 (very poor fail). Where it is appropriate to give a more finely-detailed grade, the relevant marking scheme should be set up to define sub-components, marked with gradepoints, which are then combined to determine a Grade Point Average (GPA) on the scale 0-5, but with grades to two decimal places. When combining such individual agreed, e.g. to calculate an overall module GPA or exam GPA, straightforward weighted averages should be used. Calculations and record-keeping systems should mathematically combine and bring forward data without rounding. However, rounding is permissible in: (i) assigning an overall GP to individual module assignments or exam questions which use a numeric marking scheme (as it would be inappropriate to take forward small differences between students which arise at that level); and (ii) reporting of final marks, e.g. on transcripts, which may be rounded to two decimal places. 34. Combined marks should always be reported as a numeric GPA, and not rounded back to an integer gradepoint. However, when feeding back to students it may be desirable to associate a qualitative descriptor with a GPA result. Table 4 below gives a recommended scheme for matching GPAs and descriptors though note that this is not intended to set rigid boundaries between different grades, or affect how integer grades are assigned. Table 4 GPA range Descriptor Associated integer GP Excellent ~ Very good ~ 4 16

17 Good ~ Satisfactory ~ Unsatisfactory / poor (fail) ~ Very poor (fail) ~ 0 n/a Not submitted (null) 0 Grading of module assessments, exams and projects 35. Module assessments, examinations (both unseen written exams and practicals) and project reports should all be marked using the standard grading system and procedures detailed above. More detailed guidance about each type of assessment are given in Annexes 2, 3 and 4. Plagiarism and assessment irregularities 36. The Plagiarism and Assessment Irregularities policy sets out comprehensive procedures for identifying and acting on plagiarism, cheating or any other form of suspected assessment irregularity. Student-specific matters relevant to assessment Participation 37. The learning experience for all students, in activities such as seminars, group work, practical exercises and field trips are dependent on student participation and students are therefore expected to attend, be properly prepared, and actively participate in such activities. 38. Further guidance about attendance expectations and procedures for dealing with poor attendance can be found in the School s Student Attendance Policy. 39. If a student persistently fails either to attend or willingly participate in such required activities a Course Director or Module Organiser may judge that the student has not fulfilled the requirements for the award of credits or the degree. This will be reported to the relevant Exam Board. Regardless of the grades or credits obtained in any assessed work undertaken by the student, the Board may decide to refuse to ratify credits or award the degree on the grounds that the student has failed to participate fully, in the manner appropriate to the course or modules (appropriate participation requirements will vary, e.g. between face-to-face and distance learning modes). No such decision shall be taken by the Board without considering any extenuating circumstances reported to it by the Head of Registry or his/her representative, who will attend Exam Board meetings. Special examination arrangements 40. Special examination arrangements may be made for candidates who are ill, disabled, pregnant or have other just cause to require them. Procedures are set out in the Extensions & Deferrals Policy. Extensions and deferrals 41. Students who are aware in advance that they anticipate problems meeting a coursework deadline or taking part in an exam can request an extension or deferral from their Faculty Taught Course Director, in line with policy set out in the Extensions & Deferrals Policy. 17

18 Interruption of Studies 42. Students should request an Interruption of Studies if a personal emergency or other circumstance arises which necessitates a break in their course of study. This should be done immediately or as soon as possible after the issue arises. Retrospective interruption of studies is not permitted. No fees are payable for a period of interruption of studies, during which the student's registration is suspended. Students are not eligible to attempt exams or assessments, during this time. As an alternative to interruption of studies, in some cases (and where assessment requirement are involved) it may be more appropriate for students encountering specific problems to seek an extension or deferral beforehand, or request extenuation thereafter, as per separate policies. Any extenuation must be claimed within three weeks of the relevant assessment date/deadline. Extenuating circumstances 43. A separate Extenuating Circumstances policy describes how to deal with cases where students ability to take or perform in assessments is affected by unforeseen and/or exceptional circumstances. Re-sits 44. A separate Re-sits policy describes the School s procedures for dealing with assessment re-sits. MSc Award Schemes set out top-level criteria for what constitutes a fail for distinct elements or components of each degree, whether this may be compensatable, and thus whether students may be eligible to re-sit a failed element (e.g. exam papers, the project, or a module assessment). In such cases, the Exam Board will make recommendations on resit requirements or options and related timing for each candidate. Academic Appeals 38. Full details of the School s Academic Appeals Policy & Procedure are available on the School s website. 18

19 ANNEX 2: MODULE ASSESSMENTS 1. The notes below describe standard policy and practice for the assessment of individual modules, also known as in-course assessment, which may include coursework, unseen written exams or other forms of exams, groupwork, or other appropriate methods. Further guidance relevant to unseen written exams is given in Annex 3. Objectives and nature of module assessment tasks 2. The tasks set for all module assessments should both aid the learning process and assess the achievement of the intended learning of that module. Assessment tasks must be integrated with the learning process and should not be mere add-ons. Where the understanding of new knowledge needs to be tested, this can be done during the course (for example, through untimed written answers to suitable questions) or through an unseen test at the end of the period. Where the ability to do a complex task is an essential outcome, the achievement of this task should be assessed. Where the ability to tackle a problem within a group, and not only as an individual, is an appropriate outcome, then a group task that is integrated into the learning process may be assessed. However, all groupwork assessments must be integrated with an element of individual assessment it is not appropriate for overall module assessment to be based solely on groupwork which does not distinguish the varying contributions of students or their individual level of learning achievement. Amount of in-course assessment 3. Assessment must not dominate the learning process. The number of assessed assignments should not exceed two in any module; normally one assessment will be sufficient. The amount of time needed to complete assessment tasks must be calculated realistically; extra non-contact time may be needed for some tasks to prevent the total learning time from exceeding permitted limits. Further guidance is given in the Course and Module Design code of practice. Setting and administering in-course assessments 4. All aspects of module assessment are subject to the agreement and authority of the Exam Board responsible for moderating that module. Boards should normally delegate authority to the relevant Module Organiser(s) to co-ordinate in-course assessment arrangements as set out in the relevant module outline. Separate clear procedures are in place for agreeing any changes to the module specification or the description of the assessment task which it contains. 5. Under authority of the Exam Board, Module Organisers are required to set clear assessment criteria and marking guidance for modules. These should cover any penalties which may be imposed for breach of the module-specific criteria, e.g. exceeding a set word length. Note that penalties for late submissions are standard across the School (as described in the Extensions & Deferrals Policy) and must be adhered to. 6. Marking guidance should facilitate equitable and transparent treatment of students. Penalties should not be unduly harsh or lenient a typical scale would be to downgrade by one grade for the first level of breach (e.g. going over the word limit), with further penalties as appropriate according to the severity of the offence (e.g. downgrading by two or more grades, or grading as a zero mark, or not marking the work at all). Taught Course Directors will be expected to maintain awareness of procedures across modules, and advise on marking criteria which appear to be exceptions. 19

20 7. Students should have visibility of the module assessment criteria prior to assessment taking place, either via broad principles set out in the module outline, or more detailed guidance disseminated by the Module Organiser(s). The criteria should give clear information about penalties, especially for anything which would constitute an automatic fail. Module specifications or other appropriate module information should indicate when work that has been downgraded to a fail may be eligible to be re-sat. 8. Pairs of markers should agree and apply any module-specific penalties in line with criteria set by the Module Organiser(s). These criteria should make clear where and to what level a penalty should be invoked, e.g. a high-quality piece of work which goes just over the word limit may quite rightly be treated differently to a disorganised and extremely over-long piece of work. Markers will always be required to exercise a degree of subjective judgment, but this should be within the parameters defined by the Module Organiser(s), to ensure that students are treated equitably. 9. Students must be registered for the correct module, and will automatically receive a null fail grade (0) for any assignments associated with any module(s) for which they are not correctly registered. The School only allows changes to module choices after set deadlines in exceptional circumstances. For face-to-face courses, in no circumstances will changes be allowed after the first week of the module commencing. Combining grades for module (in-course) marking: 10. Most modules are expected to have a single assessment which is marked on the integer grading scale. For modules where more than one assessment component is specified in the module outline (e.g. both individual and groupwork elements), these components should be marked individually on the integer scale, and the grades combined into a GPA according to an agreed weighting. Such components must be clearly defined: being spelt out in the module outline (e.g. individual versus groupwork elements), with each component being individually double-marked and marks agreed by markers, and with componentspecific grades and feedback being reported to the student so that the student could check their module GPA based on the component GPs they have been given. Where a module has distinct assessment components like this, the combined GPA should be brought forward as the module result rather than being rounded to an integer. 11. For module assessments which are qualitative, it is permissible for the Module Organiser to give students guidance regarding rough components or scoring for how an overall mark will be arrived at (e.g. one-third for background, one-third for analysis, one-third for conclusions). 12. Module assessments with a numeric (quantitative or percentage-based) marking scheme should be treated as consisting of a single component, unless there is a good reason to break into multiple components which are spelt out in the module outline and fed back on individually to students. Such assessments should first be scored against their own specific grading scheme, with the summed result then converted to an integer gradepoint (not a GPA) which is reported to the student and taken forward. An appropriate specific conversion scheme should be used, which will normally require rounding of the numeric mark. 13. It is also permissible for modules to use numeric marking schemes which convert marks directly to an overall GPA rather than a gradepoint but only for quantitative work with an objectively-grounded marking scheme, such that if necessary the task could be split in many discrete sub-components and markers required to agree marks/grades for each such sub-component (e.g. for every question in an MCQ test). Tasks where such an approach is used must always have a sufficient weight and depth of questions/sections to match the granularity of the marking scheme, allowing differences in student performance to be 20