University Code of Practice
Application of the moderation process on programmes delivered
by partners leading to awards of the University
Document Reference:
Identifier:
Version:
Moderation of Collaborative Provision
QH: F19
2 01
Date: Aug 15
Approved By:
Originator:
ULTAC
Learning Enhancement
Practice (LEAP)
Responsibilities:
University departments and faculties
Partners
and
Academic
Application to collaborative
provision:
Mandatory
Contacts:
quality@hull.ac.uk
Applications for exemptions to:
Report Exemptions to:
ULTAC
ULTAC
Cross Reference:
UK Quality Code for Higher Education –
Chapter B6: Assessment of students and the
recognition of prior learning (Oct 2013)
Summary/ Description:
This code sets out the procedures for the use of moderation process by University departments/
faculties on all programmes delivered by partners leading to awards of the University. It devolves
the responsibility to University faculties in determining what must be moderated and gives criteria
for guiding the decision subject to the minimum standards defined
Version 2 01 (Aug 15) makes the following changes:

Replaces CDTE with LEAP
Version 2 00 (Sep 11) makes the following changes:

Changes Partner Institution to Partner

Clarifies the two part process, scrutiny of assessment task and review of student output;
review of student output previously called scrutiny of the marking process

Adds in definitions and role descriptor for Academic Contact

Includes proformas for tracking purposes

Changes the structure of the code to follow chronological order of the tasks
Version 1 02 (Oct 10) recognises the following changes:
 The revised committee structure
Version 1 01 (Oct 06) incorporates formatting changes but makes no changes of substance.
Moderation of Collaborative Provision
LEAP
Version 2 01 – Aug 15
QH:F19:1
This university Code has been written in accordance with the approach approved by ULTAC to enhance
clarity (Quality Handbook section A2) involving the following terminology:
must = mandatory
should = advisable
may = desirable.
Where these terms are used they are emphasised in bold.
This document is available in alternative formats from
Learning Enhancement and Academic Practice
Moderation of Collaborative Provision
LEAP
Version 2 01 – Aug 15
QH:F19:2
University Code of Practice
Application of the moderation process on programmes delivered
by partners leading to awards of the University
INTRODUCTION TO THE CODE OF PRACTICE
1.
Moderation is a standard feature of collaborative provision, a process that allows
the University to assure itself that the standards of its awards are being maintained
in those programmes delivered by partners which may have varying degree of
experience in Higher Education (HE) and might be characterised by an ethos and
mission quite different from that of the University itself. The process risks appearing
intrusive and based on an assumption that partner colleagues require additional
oversight. The focus for moderation is, however, not on the competence or
otherwise of colleagues but on the assurance that students seeking an award from
the University are being assessed in a way that is directly comparable to their
counterparts on on-campus programmes. What this Code of Practice seeks to
achieve as a product of the process of moderation is a clear developmental
pathway both for individuals and for the collaborative link in general.
2.
Moderation is defined as a specific process that seeks to ensure consistency,
fairness and rigour in the assessment of students. Moderation is the process by
which the University assures itself that any work undertaken by students on
programmes validated by the University is set and assessed by all concerned in a
consistent and fair manner, to ensure parity of standards and that the level of
achievement of student reflects the required academic standards comparable to
programmes at the University and nationally.
3.
The moderation process carried out by the University is additional to the partners’
own internal moderation processes and to the role carried out by the University
appointed external examiner. Partners must ensure that their internal processes
for the approval of assessment tasks and the review of student output are rigorous
and not reliant on the University moderation process.
SCOPE
4.
The Code of Practice applies to summative assessment tasks and student output
on programmes delivered by partners (undergraduate and postgraduate) leading to
awards of the University of Hull including those directly and indirectly funded by the
University.
5.
Formative assessment tasks and student output arising out of those tasks do not
require moderation by the University.
PURPOSE OF THE CODE
6.
To ensure that consistent moderation practices are adopted across the University in
its quality assurance of programmes delivered by partners
7.
To define the roles and responsibilities of those involved in implementing and
overseeing the moderation process.
8.
To provided guidelines to University faculties in determining what must be
moderated.
9.
To provide University faculties and partners with a framework which will allow
detailed forward planning and scheduling of processes.
Moderation of Collaborative Provision
LEAP
Version 2 01 – Aug 15
QH:F19:3
GENERAL INFORMATION
10.
Experience within the University suggests that the key to successful moderation lies
partly in the scheduling and management of the processes by the University
department. The two central roles are the Academic contact (a designated role
that can apply to several academic colleagues who serve for the whole or parts of a
collaborative programme) and the agreed University contact (a Faculty or
Departmental role normally fulfilled by an administrative colleague). The relevant
Faculty must identify the names of these role-holders in advance of the new
academic year/session and convey them to the partner. In order to obtain the
benefits of experience and continuity, the expectation is that these role-holders will
serve for more than one academic year. Role descriptors are at the end of this
Code of Practice.
11.
Moderation is, however, not the sole responsibility of the University department.
The University will require that partners have their own policy on internal scrutiny of
assessment tasks and review of student output. The University department can
assume that such a policy exists, will be informed of what that policy is and, as part
of its own quality assurance processes, will be expected to check that the partner
department has operated its institutional policy correctly. That itself should give a
level of confidence and should be one starting point for dialogue on the University’s
moderation.
12.
Dialogue is a perfectly sound form of quality assurance. Where feasible, instead of
the University department appearing to re-run the partners internal process, it is
good practice for the appropriate person/s from the University department to
participate in the partner’s own process. In that way, the University department
can:




Assure itself of the effectiveness of the partner’s internal moderation process
Assure itself of the fairness, consistency and rigour of the assessment
Assure itself of the comparability of standards
Develop a collegial approach to securing the University’s standards which will
diminish any sense of intrusiveness.
13.
The collegial, simultaneous approach to moderation can apply both to the scrutiny
of assessment tasks and review of student output.
14.
Where the level of Higher Education experience in the partner, and a familiarity with
the University’s approach to quality and standards and a shared understanding of
collaborative practices between the two departments are undeveloped, the code
identifies a need for a more intensive form of moderation.
15.
In the moderation of non-comparable programmes, the External Academic
Consultant fulfils the role of the Academic Contact.
THE TWO PROCESSES OF MODERATION
16.
The Code of Practice applies to two specific processes that serve as the minimal
definition of moderation:


17.
Scrutiny of assessment tasks
Review of student output
In this code, the two processes are explained in full, in chronological order.
Moderation of Collaborative Provision
LEAP
Version 2 01 – Aug 15
QH:F19:4
SCRUTINY OF THE ASSESSMENT TASK
18.
Assessment tasks are defined as: examination papers, coursework questions, and
assignment briefs i.e. any task which generates an output that will contribute to the
overall module mark. It is important to note that this applies to all assessment
tasks, not just examination papers. The aim of the scrutiny of assessment task is to
ensure that no student risks being at a disadvantage through inappropriate
assessment or inaccurate wording, typography or presentation.
19.
Typical outcomes of the scrutiny of assessment tasks might be a rewording of an
assignment task or question, a clarification of format of an examination paper,
replacement of a question in order to better to allow students to demonstrate
learning outcome.
20.
Assessment tasks, including reassessment tasks, must be approved by the
Academic Contact and sent to the external examiner for comment, prior to being
released to students (See University Code of Practice External Examining QH :D1
para 29 - 33). The partner may wish to include specific coursework assignment
tasks in the relevant module/programme handbooks. The partner and the
University department/faculty need to take fully into account the timescale and
sequencing of this process in order to meet the deadlines.
21.
All assessment tasks for a given module must be submitted for scrutiny at the
same time, so that the University can consider and approve, and the External
Examiner can consider, the full range of assessment tasks. It is acknowledged that
reassessment tasks may have to be submitted at a later date. This must be
agreed with the relevant University department.
22.
Specific coursework assignments that are negotiated with students are subject to
the same approval but the approval may relate to the nature and broad focus of the
task. In these cases, the partner must clearly identify which tasks are to be
negotiated with students and provide the information required under paragraph 21.
Procedure for the scrutiny of assessment tasks
23. The partner must initiate the process by approaching the agreed University contact
in the relevant department/faculty prior to the assessment tasks being released to
the students (advisably in the module handbook). It is good practice to do this at
least 4 weeks in advance. The information given to the University contact must
include:












Latest version of the Module Specification
Name of partner
Title of programme
Name of module leader
Contact details for the module leader eg email address/direct telephone number
Period of assessment task eg Semester one or two
Type of assessment task eg examination paper, essay titles, practical tasks
Module learning outcomes addressed by the assessment task
Assessment task weighting
Marking criteria
Model answers where appropriate
Evidence of approval process at the partner
24.
A tracking sheet is available as QH:F19 Annexe 1 and is designed to assist the
process.
Moderation of Collaborative Provision
LEAP
Version 2 01 – Aug 15
QH:F19:5
25.
The agreed University contact must inform the Academic Contact that the material
is available to carry out the scrutiny process and provide the Academic Contact with
a standard report form for completion.
26.
Following scrutiny, the Academic Contact must send the report back to the partner
for the appropriate action to be taken (directly or via the agreed University contact).
The report will fall into one of three categories:
a)
b)
c)
Approved: The assessment task is approved and can be sent to the external
examiner
Approved subject to minor changes: The assessment task is approved
subject to minor changes being made prior to sending to the external
examiner
Not approved: The assessment task is not approved and substantial
changes may necessitate a re-write of the assessment task.
27.
The report from the Academic Contact should be returned to the partner within 5
working days of the receipt of the assessment tasks.
28.
Where serious issues are raised in the report as in 26c above, in addition to
completing the report, the Academic Contact should make direct contact with the
module leader and programme leader at the partner to facilitate a discussion to
resolve the issues.
29.
Once approved by the University Academic Contact, the partner must send the
assessment task to the external examiner for his/her comments (see University
Code of Practice QH: D1 External Examining paras 29 – 33).
30.
The partner must send the final versions of the approved assessment tasks to the
agreed University contact for record-keeping purposes.
Security of assessment tasks
31. Both the partner and the University must carry out the process in a secure manner
to ensure the confidentiality of assessment tasks. Partners and University should
monitor and record the despatch and receipt of all documentation relating to
assessment tasks to and from each institution and keep copies of the reports
generated by the scrutiny process. Where appropriate and with the agreement of
both parties, secure electronic methods may be used for sending and monitoring
the receipt and despatch of assessment tasks. Please be aware of the security
risks of sending examination papers electronically.
Password-protected
documentation is recommended.
Explanatory note:


Password-protection for documents
The easiest way with a Microsoft document (Word/Excel) is to create a password-protected folder.
Instructions to create a password-protected folder are shown at the end of this Code.
Moderation of Collaborative Provision
LEAP
Version 2 01 – Aug 15
QH:F19:6
REVIEW OF STUDENT OUTPUT
32.
Student output is defined as: completed examination scripts, coursework,
assignments, reports, practical work, dissertations i.e. work by students that will
contribute to the overall module mark.
33.
A typical outcome of the review of student output might be a rescaling of a whole
batch of student outputs in relation to a module. Moderation in assessment works
at the macro-level and does not relate to the output of an individual student (as
second marking does).
Although moderation involves judgement on the
appropriateness and effectiveness of the marking system, it is to be expected that
moderation should focus particularly on apparently unusual distribution of marks in
a module or assessment task, whether that be a high number of first-class marks or
fails or an excessive clustering of marks around a norm. The purpose is to ensure
that any apparently unusual distribution is explicable in ways that are consistent
with maintaining standards.
34.
Review of student output, does not involve detailed second marking, even of a
sample of student output; it involves rather a judgement on how the marking
process has taken into account mechanisms intended to establish fairness, rigour
and consistency (including, for example, the use of grade descriptors).
35.
The aim of the University’s review of student output is to verify that the internal
marking process at the partner, including second marking, is fair and consistent
across the programme and within sector norms. Review of student output allows
the University to ensure the integrity of the partner’s own procedures and standards
and confirms that students have achieved standards comparable to programmes at
the University. This process of academic contacts reviewing student output
confirms that the standards and internal marking processes are comparable with
others across the university. The role complements that of the external examiner
checking that the standards are comparable to others in the sector.
36.
As a matter of course in all collaborative provision, review of student output will be
applied to those modules where there is an apparently unusual distribution of marks
in the whole module or assessment task, whether that be a high number of firstclass marks or fails or an excessive clustering of marks around a norm. The partner
must identify such modules and the action taken as a result of its own internal
moderation processes. The Academic Contact must, through dialogue and
sufficient sampling, confirm the effectiveness of the partner’s internal process, and
where it is not deemed to be effective, arrive at an agreed set of moderated marks.
37.
The modules identified for review under para 36 may not constitute a sufficient
sample of the total programme to assure the University of the overall effectiveness
of the marking process. What constitutes sufficiency in these terms would depend
on aspects of the collaboration. In determining the student output to be reviewed
per programme, University faculties, in conjunction with the relevant University
departments must consider the following criteria:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
The length of time the partnership has been established
The length of time the programme has been in operation
The higher education experience of the lecturer marking the student output
The level of the module and contribution to the overall degree classification
The type of student output and the practicalities of implementing the review
process eg art exhibitions and performances.
Moderation of Collaborative Provision
LEAP
Version 2 01 – Aug 15
QH:F19:7
38.
The following guidelines must be taken into account. Where the level of Higher
Education in the partner, a familiarity with the University’s approach to quality and
standards and a shared understanding of collaborative practices between the two
departments are undeveloped, University departments must, as a minimum, review
the student output from:
a)
b)
c)
At least 50% of the modules at the certificate and intermediate stages of a
Foundation Degree or equivalent
At least 50% of the modules at the intermediate and honours stages of an
undergraduate programme
100% of modules of a masters programmes.
39.
In such circumstances, University faculties must, before the programme starts,
agree in writing with partners which student output will be reviewed for the
forthcoming academic year.
40.
Where the level of HE experience in the partner, a familiarity with the University’s
approach to quality and standards, and a shared understanding of collaborative
practices between the two departments are all high, the figures under a & b above
may be reduced to no less than 20%. In such circumstances, University
faculties/departments must, before the programme starts, agree in writing with
partners which student output will be reviewed for the forthcoming academic year.
41.
Where it is not practical to carry out the review process as detailed in the code
because of the nature of the task, University departments/faculties must consider
alternative means to facilitate this process such as attending, where possible, art
exhibitions, presentations and dance and music performances.
Procedure for the review of student output
42. Following first and second marking processes (as set out in the University Code of
Practice QH: F1), the partner must make available the whole batch of student
output for the modules for review to the agreed University contact prior to the
Module Board. This should be provided at least 3 weeks in advance. The student
output must be identified separately by each assessment task and module and
include:







43.
The final version of the assessment task
Model answers (where appropriate)
Assessment criteria
Markers’ report
Evidence of second marking and the judgements of second markers
Mark grid showing: Title of programme, semester, module title, level, type of
assessment, student registration number (and name if anonymity lifted by that
stage in the process), plus agreed mark at the partner
It is desirable that the total number of scripts in the batch be indicated
Normally, the agreed student output is made available at the partner and the
agreed University contact arranges for the Academic Contact to visit the institution.
If this arrangement is not possible, the partner must send the whole batch of
student output for review to the agreed University contact. Upon receipt of the
student output, the agreed University contact must send the batch to the Academic
Contact to carry out the review process with a standard report form for completion
(Annexe 2). The agreed University contact must return the reviewer’s report
together with the student output to the partner.
Moderation of Collaborative Provision
LEAP
Version 2 01 – Aug 15
QH:F19:8
44.
The report from the Academic Contact should be returned to the partner as soon
as possible. Good practice would be to make this no less than 10 working days
before the meeting of the Module Board.
45.
Any recommendations for alterations to marks by the Academic Contact must be
considered by the Module Board and changes made to the mark grids accordingly.
Any recommendation for alteration to marks should either be whole cohort
adjustment, or part cohort adjustment, for example with a particular part of the
mark-range, but would not normally involve adjustment of individual student marks.
46.
The partner must ensure that the Academic Contact’s report is included in the
student output sent to the external examiner for transparency.
Security of student output
47. Both the partner and the University must carry out the process in a secure manner
to ensure the confidentiality of student output. Partners and University should
monitor and record the receipt and despatch of all student output to and from each
institution and keep copies of reports generated by the review process. Any
documents sent electronically should be password protected as detailed above
TERMS USED IN THE CODE OF PRACTICE
Academic Contact – this is the academic contact within the university department
responsible for overseeing the programme.
Agreed University Contact – this will usually be the Faculty Collaborative Administrator
or may be an alternative person nominated by the Dean. This person acting in this role
may differ between faculties.
External Academic Consultant – this is the person who acts as academic contact for
the department for provision that is ‘non-comparable’. This person will be in close contact
with the department responsible for the provision and will work with the Agreed University
Contact / Faculty Collaborative Administrator to ensure duties are carried out
appropriately.
HE Higher Education
JBoS – Joint Board of Study (See Collaborative Handbook for further information QH:A7)
Non-comparable provision – provision that is outside the expertise of the University. In
this case the University employs an expert in the subject to act as Academic Consultant
for the programme/subject area.
Quality Handbook - QH available at:
http://www2.hull.ac.uk/administration/policyregister/qualityhandbook.aspx
University faculty/department – this is used throughout the code as some University
faculties operate their collaborative provision at a faculty level and others at the
departmental level.
To create a password-protected folder
Before you protect a file it’s a good idea to make a copy of it first! In the drive where the
document is located open the folder (or the same action can be done on your desktop).
Put cursor over the document to be protected. Right click on the document, a drop down
list will appear, go to 7-zip, click on add to archive, a box will appear - leave all sections
as they are except the password on the right hand side, enter a password and then enter
Moderation of Collaborative Provision
LEAP
Version 2 01 – Aug 15
QH:F19:9
exactly the same again in the re-enter password boxes, then press ok. This will create a
password-protected zip file in the same folder as the original document. The zip file can
then be sent via email in the usual way. The recipient will need the password to open the
document inside the zip file; Remember to send the password to the recipient in a
separate email.
Academic Contact role descriptor from Collaborative Handbook QH:A7
For each programme or set of programmes within an academic discipline, the University
will provide a named contact who will be an academic member of the University faculty
nominated as Academic Contact or equivalent. On behalf of the faculty, the Academic
Contact will be responsible for those areas identified in the Collaborative Handbook and
specifically for:














providing guidance to ensure that the programme of study and syllabus is appropriate
for the named award of the University prior to PAC approval
advising on the appropriate quality processes and on the submission of appropriate
documentation
overseeing the moderation process including scrutiny of the assessment tasks and
review of student output in accordance with the Code of Practice on Moderation
(QH:F19)
representing the University on the Board of Examiners and advising accordingly
where appropriate, attending any final exhibition, performance or other summative
outcome
advising on the appointment of external examiners and liaising with external
examiners accordingly
advising on programme development and quality enhancement of the subject, in line
with University of Hull expectations of the student experience
liaising with Faculty Collaborative Provision administrative staff as necessary over
routine administration, and any problems that arise
liaising, where appropriate, with Faculty Validation Co-coordinators/the Collaborative
Provision Administrator, seeking their advice and guidance on generic quality issues,
and keeping them informed on subject specific issues
acting as the main contact within the faculty for the purposes of admissions,
examinations, annual reporting etc. and liaising, where appropriate through Faculty
Collaborative Provision administrative staff, with central University administration on
such matters
being member of relevant Faculty collaborative committees, and the appropriate JBoS
(where they will help to co-ordinate items for discussion)
reviewing annually programme specific marketing and recruitment information and
reporting this to the JBoS
identifying areas for development for University and partner staff
providing guidance and support in the preparations for relevant external audits, and
representing the area of work in internal and external review processes.
For academic disciplines where the University does not offer comparable provision, the
University should provide an academic contact to provide the appropriate leadership and
management responsibilities and an academic consultant from outside the University to
give subject-specific guidance
Moderation of Collaborative Provision
LEAP
Version 2 01 – Aug 15
QH:F19:10