UEL’s Assessment and Feedback
Policy
David Rowley
Associate Dean, School of Health, Sport and Bioscience
Academic Practice and Student Experience
Context
Assessment lies at the heart of a student’s HE
experience
To support this and align with our Transformation for
Excellence objective of an “outstanding student
experience: distinctive, challenging, lifelong”, our aim
is to offer a transparent, robust, consistent, accurate,
accessible and fair assessment and feedback policy
Context
Policy revised in 2012 as part of our
Transformation for Excellence strategy
Recently further revised to align with the
new academic framework.
Assessment + Engagement Policy
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Introduction
Assessment Design
Assessment, Moderation and Marking
Management of Assessment
Feedback
Disability
Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body
Exemptions
1. Introduction
The Policy applies to ALL UEL programmes within the
UEL Academic Framework
Principles of assessment:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
based on learning outcomes
integral to programme design
fair and free from bias
valid, transparent and reliable
timely and incremental
demanding yet manageable + efficient
consistent
2. Assessment Design effective design ensures:
Students can
demonstrate
achievement of LOs
Assessment is both
formative + summative
All LOs are assessed
through summative tasks
Assessment tasks are
efficient in terms of
student + staff time.
Over-assessment is
avoided
Assessment tasks are
accompanied by, &
mapped to, a set of
assessment criteria
Student effort & amount
of work involved is
consistent across modules
at each level & aligns with
the UEL Assessment Tariff
and Equivalences
Assessment Design effective design ensures:
Students experience a range
of assessment types
Likelihood of academic
misconduct reduced
All students have an equal
chance of understanding the
assessment task and of
demonstrating their
achievement of the learning
outcomes
Assessment criteria
• Assessment criteria are helpful to students in that they
enable the students to better understand what is
expected of them
• Assessment criteria are helpful to staff/ external
examiners in that they are also clear on what is expected
and they help to ensure consistency in marking
• Try to avoid subjective terms such as ‘good’ or ‘poor’
when writing your criteria
• Carefully constructed criteria can also encourage staff to
use the full range of marks available.
3. Assessment, Moderation & Marking
Assessment Preparation
Assessment &
reassessment tasks
drafted
simultaneously
Every summative
component of
assessment subject
to EE moderation
All 1st & 2nd
opportunity
assessment &
reassessment tasks
to be submitted to EE
by end of term prior
to required first use
Assessment, Moderation + Marking
EEs asked to comment on:
Suitability of
assessment task
with regard to
module
specification
Level of work
expected
Standards of the
tasks in
comparison with
similar
programmes at
other HEIs
Assessment, Moderation + Marking
– key issues
Marking plans
Full spread of
marks used
If e-Submission
used, marking &
2nd marking within
e-Submission
Anonymous
marking wherever
possible & 2nd
marked
Support for
new/less
experienced
colleague
Assessment, Moderation + Marking
Second marking
Second marking as
sampling or
moderation
10% or 10
(whichever
greatest) will be
second marked
If first marking
undertaken by > 1
marker, sample =
min of10% of work
marked by each
individual marker
Assessment, Moderation + Marking
Resolving differences between
markers
Significant differences are defined as:
where the difference is 10 marks or more; and/or where
marks spread across critical boundaries (even if fewer than
10 marks) i.e. pass/fail or grade boundaries
Assessment, Moderation + Marking
Resolving differences between markers
Significant differences
identified?
No
Yes
The first mark
stands
Second Marker will mark ALL
remaining work marked by the
first marker
Is agreement on marks
reached through discussion
and negotiation?
Yes
Marks Agreed
No
A third internal
marker is required
Changing marks
• If, as a result of moderation, marks for pieces
of work in the sample moderated are
changed, then it becomes necessary to remark
the whole group.
• It is also necessary to second mark every
submission for work where the assessment
cannot be done anonymously e.g
presentations, project work etc.
Assessment, Moderation + Marking
External Moderation: External Examiners are sent
Module specification
Assessment details
Assessment criteria
Assessment Guidance
Sample of assessed
word
record of marks +
comments from 1st and
2nd (+ 3rd) markers
Schedule of all marks
agreed for all
candidates assessed in
the module following
internal moderation
4. Management of assessment
Timings
Coursework details
will be released at the
start of each semester
or at least 8 weeks
before the submission
date
Management of assessment
Exam
Invigilation
Led by ML (nominee)
+ supported by
external invigilators
as necessary
Question papers
cannot be removed
but questions can be
released via VLE
when marks released
Management of assessment
Coursework
submission
All single pieces of
text-based coursework
will normally be
submitted via eSubmission
If not possible, all
feedback to be wordprocessed unless the
nature of the work
prevents this
Management of assessment
Breaches of
academic
misconduct
Assessment
should be
designed to
reduce possibility
of plagiarism
Where suspected,
Academic
Misconduct
Regulations will
be invoked
Submission and deadlines
• Deadlines should not be set outside of normal
university working hours to ensure support is available
in the event of submission problems
• Students who submit after the deadline but within 24
hours can have their work marked. In such cases you
should deduct 5 marks as a penalty for late
submission from the achieved mark (assuming
marking is /100).
• Work submitted more than 24 hours late should not
be marked, however if it is within 7 days it should be
retained in case the student is granted extenuation.
5. Feedback
Central to learning. Provided to develop students’
knowledge, understanding, skills and to help
promote learning and facilitate improvement
Timely: given within 20 working days
Can be offered in
range of formats e.g.
Audio file, video file
Should be: clear,
relevant, motivating,
constructive,
developmental
Given in relation to
LOs + assessment
criteria, Given for both
coursework + exams
Word-processed
where e-Submission
not used
5. Feedback
Feedback may be:
Individual
Generic
Given for
formative
assessment
6. Disability
We practice an inclusive approach in supporting our
students with disabilities/ specific learning
difficulties.
We focus on our capacity to understand + respond
to the requirements of individual learners + not to
locate the difficulty or deficit within the student.
In this way we move away from ‘labelling’ students
and towards creating an appropriate learning
environment for all students.
Disability
In consultation between the student + DDAC,
a Learning Support agreement will be drawn
up + shared with Schools.
Any student who discloses a disability to a
member of staff must be referred to the
DDAC.
Students must be informed that they must be
registered with the DDAC for any
adjustments.
7. Professional, Statutory and Regulatory
Body Exemptions
Exemptions require written approval of the
Chair of University Learning and Teaching
Committee
8. Appendices
•
•
•
•
•
•
Glossary and Supporting Information
Second Marking
Assessment Criteria
Roles and Responsibilities
Assessment Tariff and Equivalences
Guidelines: Electronic submission, marking
and feedback of coursework
• Using assessment to enhance learning
SUMMATIVE TARIFF: Maximum Assessment loads per module
Assessment Mode *
Level 0-M
Level 0-M
(15 credits)
(30 credits)
or
Coursework
3000 words
6000 words
or
Written Examination
135 minutes
270 minutes
(with no one component
exceeding 180 minutes)
or
Practical (face-to-face)
examination, viva, presentation
or practical skills demonstration
45 minutes
Dissertation
4500 words
90 minutes
or
9000 words
UEL’s Assessment and Feedback Policy
http://www.uel.ac.uk/qa/AssessmentPolicy.htm
Academic Integrity at UEL
• The AI Policy ensures consistency of treatment and equality of
experience for all students at UEL
• Our responsibility to protect the credibility of the qualifications
• The AI Policy is supported by policies on standard referencing and
use of Turnitin + Academic Misconduct Regulations
• Turnitin utilised as a text matching tool not a plagiarism detector
• Identifying plagiarism is an issue of academic judgement, not a
Turnitin percentage – no percentage is acceptable
Cite Them Right
UEL’s Standard Referencing System
is Cite Them Right (Harvard)
or APA for students
studying programmes in the
School of Psychology.
Defining Academic Misconduct
UEL defines academic misconduct as any
behaviour:
“likely to confer an unfair advantage in
assessment, whether by advantaging the
alleged offender or disadvantaging
(deliberately or unconsciously) another or
others”
(UEL Manual of General Regulations, 2010, Part 8 Academic Misconduct, 8.2.1)
Most common types of Academic Misconduct
Plagiarism:
The submission of material (written, visual or oral),
originally produced by another person or persons or
oneself, without due acknowledgement, so that the
work could be assumed to be the student's own …
includes incorporation of significant extracts or
elements taken from the work of (an)other(s) or
oneself, without acknowledgement or reference
Most common types of Academic Misconduct
Collusion:
The submission of work produced in
collaboration for an assignment based on the
assessment of individual work.
Process for dealing with cases of suspected
misconduct
• New Regulations being considered by Academic
Board in September 2014
Overview:
• First and non-serious suspected offences dealt with
at School level
• Subsequent or serious (grossly dishonest) suspected
offences dealt with centrally
• Academic Misconduct Panels consider cases where
necessary
Policies and Regulations
• Academic Integrity
• Use of Turnitin
• Standard Referencing
http://www.uel.ac.uk/qa/policies/policies/
Key Contacts:
School Responsible Officers:
• ADI
Dr Abel Ugba
• ACE
TBC
• Cass
Debbie Brearley
• HSB
Deidre O’Kelly
• Law + Business
Ian Porton/Delia Langstone +Carol Luckett
• Psychology
Ian Wells & Susy Ajith
• Social Sciences
TBC
Key Contacts:
Academic Misconduct Officer:
Dee Bozacigurbuz
academicmisconduct@uel.ac.uk