ALSS Short Guide to Quality and Enhancement Processes
Faculty of Arts, Law &
Social Sciences
A Short Guide to Quality
Assurance and Enhancement
2005-6
Vers 6.0 (November 2005)
D:\612935467.doc
-1-
ALSS Short Guide to Quality and Enhancement Processes
-2-
Introduction
The purpose of this Guide is to provide an aide-mémoire for existing colleagues and
to introduce new colleagues to the Quality and Assurance (QAE) Practices
developed by the University and by the Faculty since its formation in January 2005.
The Guide is intended for all colleagues delivering University-approved modules and
pathways located in the Faculty, and colleagues based in regional partner colleges
should adopt these practices in the course of 2005-6 if they have not already done
so. The Faculty is sensitive to the fact that many partner colleges have their own
traditions in respect of QAE, and this Guide applies solely to academic programmes
for which the University is the awarding institution1. For the benefit of partner
colleges, a Faculty QAE ‘Who’s Who’ is found in Appendix 1. A tabular overview of
the Faculty’s annual QAE calendar is located in Appendix 9.
The QAE instruments defined in this Guide are based on the Senate Codes of
Practice2 and Procedural Documents, and on the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)
Codes of Practice3, all of which are updated periodically. Consequently, this Guide
will be subject to periodic revision. It is acknowledged that in some of these Codes
the terminology used to describe assessment instruments adopts paper-based
outputs as its norm.This terminology does not always transfer easily to studio- and
performance-based subjects and must be interpreted as necessary, but within the
spirit of the Codes, to accommodate the moderation and archiving of artistic works.
Questions arising from the information contained within this Guide, or suggestions
about additional material that could usefully be included, should be addressed to
Richard Monk (Faculty Quality Assurance Officer)4 or to Derrik Ferney (Associate
Dean Academic Development)5.
Approach
Because the Guide is aimed at practitioners it starts with QAE practices at the level
of the module and progresses subsequently to other QAE processes. Each section of
the Guide has been kept as short as possible, with additional information made
available through footnotes or appendices. The Guide and the forms it contains can
also be accessed electronically6.
Updates
When updates are released the major changes or additions will be colour-coded in
purple for ease of use. Once read, the font colour can be changed back to black.
Derrik Ferney
November 2005
1
The awarding institution is responsible for the academic standards of all awards granted in its name (Precept A1, QAA COP Sec 2
Collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning – September 2004: 31)
2
Senate Codes of Practice (CoP) can be found on the website of the University’s Academic Quality and Standards Office (AQSO) at
http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/index.phtml
3
QAA CoP can be found at www.qaa.ac.uk
4
r.monk@anglia.ac.uk
5
d.ferney@anglia.ac.uk
6
at either: j:\schools\alss\faculty documents; or via the web at: http:/web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/alss/
D:\612935467.doc
ALSS Short Guide to Quality and Enhancement Processes
-3-
1 Modules
1.1 Module Leaders and Module Tutors
While the duties of module tutors and module leaders overlap there are a number of
important differences. All modules will have a designated module leader. Module
leaders will be appointed by the Head of Department with resource responsibilities
for the Department in which the module is located. The module leader will usually,
but not always, be part of the module teaching team and will therefore also be a
module tutor. Module leaders have specific responsibilities for ensuring the
comparability of the student experience when the same module is offered by several
providers (in respect, for example, of Module Guides and Assessment) and have
specific responsibilities in relation to the annual review of modules.
The respective duties of Module Leaders and Module Tutors are specified in
Appendix 2.
1.2. Module Definition Form (MDF)
This form is in effect a contract between the University and the student and is
therefore an extremely important document. Modules Leaders must ensure that the
delivery of a module for which they are responsible conforms in all respects with the
specifications given in the MDF. Students and staff can access MDFs at:
http://web.anglia.ac.uk/dso/catalogue/
1.3. Module Guide
Module Guides elaborate on the MDF to provide students with the basic information
needed about each module they are taking. It is a QAA and therefore a Faculty
expectation that all modules will have a Module Guide and that this will be distributed
to students during or before the first week of teaching. Module Guides are compiled
by the Module Leader (in cases of multiple delivery) and are normally no more than
6-8 pages in length. The Faculty template (ALSS 3) is located in Appendix 37.
At the commencement of teaching, it is important that tutors discuss the contents of
the Module Guide in some detail with students, explicitly drawing their attention
particularly to the intended Learning Outcomes, to the teaching programme and to
the assessment and assessment criteria (see 1.6.1. below). Some of the language
used in, say, MDFs can be jargon-laden and it may be necessary to explain them in
plain English. You should also tell students about the University’s policies in respect
of poor academic practice and plagiarism, and inform them that they will be given a
Module Evaluation Questionnaire towards the end of the teaching period.
1.4. Module Study Pack
Many Modules make use of Study Packs. Study Packs collate a range of learning
materials, including copyright material covered by the agreement between HEIs and
the Copyright Licensing Agency, into a single volume which is often provided as an
alternative to purchasing one or more textbooks. Study Packs can vary in length from
20 to 200 pages and are known by a number of terms, including ‘Module Dossiers’ in
the former LLSS. ‘Study Pack’ is, however, the preferred term in law. Study Packs
usually incorporate the Module Guide as their introductory pages.
Students will generally be charged at cost for Module Study Packs, which (at Core
Anglia) will be distributed via the ALSS Module Bookshop in Teaching Weeks 1 and
7
The electronic version of this form contains hyperlinks so that it can be ultimately placed on the web.
D:\612935467.doc
ALSS Short Guide to Quality and Enhancement Processes
-4-
2 (plus the Friday before teaching starts). For a full account of Module Study Packs,
see Appendix 4.
1.5. Module Assessment – Design Stage
Guidance on assessment is given in the Senate COP on the Assessment of Students
(September 05). Appendix 5 of this Guide contains a Faculty overview of
Assessment as it will operate from 2006-7, but much of what it says applies equally
to 2005-6.
1.5.1. Assessment Types: There are 3 main types of assessment: diagnostic,
formative and summative (see Appendix 5, Secs 2.1 and 3 for definitions). Modules
should normally include formative as well as summative assessments to help
students learn more effectively.
1.5.2. Assessment Design: When designing summative assessments, use the
methods specified in the MDF to test all the learning outcomes identified in the MDF,
not just some of them. Check with the Pathway/Programme Leader that the
assessments you are proposing fit in with the Assessment Strategy identified in the
Pathway Specification Form (PSF) so that students experience a variety of
assessment methods across the course as a whole.
1.5.3. Approval by External Examiner: Ensure that all major assessments and
examinations you want to use have been approved by the relevant external
examiner8 The Pathway or Programme Leader will be responsible for sending draft
assessments to the External.
1.6. Module Assessment – Marking Stage
1.6.1. Submission Dates
The Module Guide will normally specify the hand-in dates (or Weeks) for
assessments.
1.6.2. Assessments submitted on tape or digital media
Care needs to be taken with assessments which use the above media. While
students are responsible for ensuring that their work can be read, the Faculty’s
recent experience is that there can, on occasion, be genuine problems with these
media. For example, there have been occurrences, particularly in respect of digital
files - where staff have been unable to see on their own computer files that could be
seen on other machines, including the student's. So if a student assessment handed
in on audio- or video-tape, or on a floppy disk, zip disk, CD, DVD or similar memory
device, turns out to be blank, it is helpful - where possible - to contact the student
immediately and give them the opportunity to provide a copy of the recording or data.
Alerting students to this and giving them the opportunity to hand in a copy does not,
of course, mean the copy will necessarily count as part of the student's first attempt.
It is for staff to decide if the error was genuine, or not, and to use their discretion
accordingly.
8
See Senate COP on External Assessors (September 2005) Sec 4.1.13 at:
http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/qad/sen_codes_practice/ext_ex/extexam05_cop.doc
D:\612935467.doc
ALSS Short Guide to Quality and Enhancement Processes
-5-
1.6.3. Marking Guidelines
The Senate Code of Practice on Assessment (Sec. 6.2) specifies the various
mechanisms used for marking and moderation. It is important to remember the
following points:
 Assessment Criteria: The Module Guide will contain Assessment Criteria which
should be explained to students at the outset of the module. Assessment Criteria
clarify the general basis on which marks will be awarded. They cannot be written
in a vacuum, and the Assessment Criteria for a specific module should be
informed by the University’s generic assessment criteria9 and grading standards10
 Marking Scheme: A Mark(ing) Scheme is required before you start to mark
student work. The Mark(ing) Scheme relates the (general) Assessment Criteria to
the (specific) assessment tasks you have set, and states the precise basis on
which marks will be awarded. In some types of assessment there may be little or
no difference between the Assessment Criteria and the Marking Scheme. To
facilitate consistency, first markers constantly refer to the Marking Scheme when
marking student work, and pass the Marking Scheme on to the internal
moderator/second marker (and hence the External Examiner) with the sample of
student scripts.
 Anonymous Marking: Assessments at HE Levels 1-4 will normally be marked
anonymously11 by both the first marker and the second marker (internal
moderator). This means that student work will be identified by SID numbers, not
by name. Where this is not possible assessments will be subject to double
marking12. In both cases, the internal moderator/second marker knows the marks
awarded by the first marker. In contrast, Dissertations and Major Projects are
subject to unseen (‘blind’) double marking where the second marker does not
know the mark awarded by the first examiner.
 Written feedback to students (annotation of scripts and/or completion of
coversheets): It is extremely important for the first marker to provide students
with adequate levels of feedback on the marks you give their work. Feedback
should correlate with your Assessment Criteria/ Marking Scheme so that you can
explain why you gave a mark if asked to do so. Appendix 7 provides guidelines on
written feedback to students.
9
Assessment criteria are explicit statements by the teaching team of what a student is required to do in order to demonstrate
achievement of the learning outcomes for a module or for an item of assessment for a module. They broadly define a level of student
knowledge, understanding, skills and competencies in relation to student achievement of learning outcomes. The Senate has
approved (15 June 2005) a set of generic assessment criteria for modules at each award level (HE Levels 0-4). These generic
assessment criteria are published annually in Anglia Ruskin’s Undergraduate and Postgraduate Student Handbooks. See:
(www.anglia.ac.uk/anet/info_sources/ug_handbook.pdf and www.anglia.ac.uk/anet/info_sources/pg_handbook.pdf).
10
Grading standards comprise bands of marks normally on a percentage scale (e.g. 60-69%) or occasionally on a pass/fail basis.
They are accompanied by descriptors and are used by markers to distinguish between grades of student achievement in completing
an item of assessment for a module.
The Senate has approved a set of generic grading standards which apply to assessed work at all award levels (HE Levels 0-4).
These generic grading standards are published annually in the University’s Undergraduate and Postgraduate Student Handbooks.
See: (www.anglia.ac.uk/anet/info_sources/ug_handbook.pdf and www.anglia.ac.uk/anet/info_sources/pg_handbook.pdf).
11
Anonymous marking is the process whereby the identity of individual students is, wherever possible, not revealed to markers at the
marking stage (Senate COP 2.2.1). It is recognised that this is frequently not possible in performance- and studio-based subjects.
Double marking (sometimes known as “second marking”) is the use of two markers to mark an item of assessment … It is the
process whereby the work submitted by all students for a particular item of assessment is assessed by a second marker with access
to the approved assessment criteria and marking scheme for that item of assessment. The second marker knows the mark awarded
by the first marker and the purpose of the process is to agree a mark for each student.
12
Double marking as defined above is adopted at Anglia Ruskin only in cases where the principle of anonymous marking cannot be
applied to a particular assessment instrument. (Senate COP 2.2.1)
D:\612935467.doc
ALSS Short Guide to Quality and Enhancement Processes
-6-
 Checks on Marking Standards: Internal Moderation: All student assessed work
must be first marked, then second marked (internally moderated13). The ALSS 1
Form is designed for this purpose.
 Checks on Marking Standards and Student Achievement: External
Moderation: Assessments at HE Levels 2, 3 and 4 must also be externally
moderated. The Senate Codes of Practice on External Examiners (September
2005, Sec 4.1.14) and on the Assessment of Students (September 2005, Sec.
6.2.5) state clearly that all module assessments at these levels must be externally
moderated. Most Departments already achieve this and it will be the Faculty’s
standard expectation from 2006-7.

However, in some Departments whose work is characterised by high levels of
collaborative provision and large numbers of modules, this may prove difficult to
achieve in the transitional year 2005-6 (when a large volume of regional
assessments previously handled by the Regional Office will for the first time be
channelled through Departmental Assessment Panels). Exceptionally, such
Departments may wish in 2005-6 to agree with their External Examiners an
arrangement for focusing attention on a representative sub-set of assessments at
Levels 2 and 3. Such an arrangement would be for one year only in anticipation
of a return to the moderation of all assessments at HE Levels 2, 3 and 4 from
2006-7. Where such an arrangement operates, all assessments which have not
previously been externally moderated must be made available to the External
Examiner prior to the Departmental Assessment Panel (DAP) so that s/he may
‘have access to all assessed work’ (Senate COP on External Examiners, Sec
4.1.10).
 The ALSS1 (Internal Moderation Form): The ALSS1 is located in Appendix 6 of
this Guide. The first marker should complete the form, attach it to the sample of
student work as defined in the ALSS 1, along with the overall mark list and mark
scheme, and forward the bundle to the second marker (internal moderator) who
signs the sample off if s/he is content with the marking standards. It is advisable
for the first marker to keep a photocopy of the mark list, mark scheme and student
work. The bundle (bearing the signatures of the first and second markers) is sent
off to the External Examiner who then also signs it if s/he is content with marking
standards. The Programme or Pathway Leader will then arrange for the archiving
of the bundle (not just the student work) for TWO YEARS, this being the normal
retrospective horizon for QAA audits and reviews14.
1.6.4. First Marking
First marking will normally be conducted by module tutors based at the centre where
delivery has occurred; first marking will be informed by assessment criteria and a
marking scheme (see 1.6.3. above). In the case of a module delivered in more than
one centre, the common assessment criteria and marking scheme will have been
issued by the Module Leader and will be used for all deliveries. Module Tutors will
13
Internal moderation is the process whereby an internal moderator reviews and moderates a defined sample of student work for a
module which has been anonymously marked by a first marker. The sample draws on all items of assessment contributing to the
overall assessment of the module, including written assignments and examination scripts. The sample includes student work
associated with delivery of the module by a partner institution.The internal moderator has access to the approved assessment criteria
and marking scheme for each assessment instrument in the sample, knows the mark awarded by the first marker, and also has
access to any written feedback given to the student by the first marker. The purpose of internal moderation is to check the consistent
application by the first marker of the assessment criteria, marking scheme and grading standards for the items of assessment in the
sample. (Senate COP 2.2.1).
14
This will change with the forthcoming change in audit methodology, and the question of archived work will be reviewed at that point.
D:\612935467.doc
ALSS Short Guide to Quality and Enhancement Processes
-7-
select a representative sample of scripts, complete an ALSS1 (Internal Moderation
Form) and forward the sample to the second marker (internal moderator).
1.6.5. Second marking (internal moderation) of modules offered at partner
institutions and at the University
Second marking will normally take place in one of two ways. At the discretion of the
University Head of Department, the second marker (internal moderator) may be
located either at the partner institution where the module has been delivered, or at
the University. [Where the second markers (internal moderators) are based at the
partner institution, Departments must ensure that they are fully briefed about
procedures and proformas beforehand]. Departments must consider which of these
two arrangements will best assure quality and provide the speediest means of
internally moderating student work prior to sending it on for external moderation.
However, where student work is first and second marked (internally moderated) at a
partner college prior to being sent to an Anglia Ruskin External Examiner, the sample
must be scrutinised by the member of the University Department’s academic staff
(who may be the Module Leader) before it is forwarded to the External Examiner.
Departments may take the view that the above can best be achieved by means of a
single Departmental or Programme Moderation meeting.
1.6.6. Second marking (internal moderation) of modules offered at partner
institutions but not at the University
On occasion, a module may be delivered at partner college but not at the University.
This is nuanced as follows:
1.6.6.1. partner colleges may offer modules which are not taught by the University
but which fall within in a discipline in which the a Department of the University has
subject expertise and therefore within the remit of the Department and its External
Examiners. In this case, 1.6.5. (above) broadly applies, and the responsible
Department will nominate a member of its academic staff to co-ordinate the
assessment process on behalf of the Department and to ensure that all University
and Policy requirements are satisfied. Such a role may be adopted by a colleague
from a partner institution acting on behalf of the University Department,
1.6.6.2 partner colleges may offer modules in disciplines which are not taught at the
University and in which the University has no subject expertise. In this case the
responsible Department will nominate a member of its academic staff to co-ordinate
the assessment process on behalf of the Department and to ensure that all University
and Policy requirements are satisfied. Such a role may be adopted by a colleague
from a partner institution acting on behalf of the University Department, provided that
colleague is fully briefed by the Department beforehand.
1.7. Dispatch of samples of assessed student work to External Examiners
The Head of Department is responsible for co-ordinating general liaison with,
External Examiners. This will include arrangements for the dispatch of scripts and/or
the viewing of student work. The Head of Department may delegate some aspects of
liaison with External Examiners to Pathway/Programme Leaders who will, in turn,
rely on Module Leaders (or other nominated colleagues) to provide fully documented
samples of assessed work for external moderation.
1.7.1. Sample of assessed student work: Modules offered at a single centre
Where modules (other than dissertations) are offered at a single centre, be it the
University or a partner college, the ALSS 1 Internal Moderation form must be used to
create a record of the moderation process.
D:\612935467.doc
ALSS Short Guide to Quality and Enhancement Processes
-8-
1.7.2. Sample of assessed student work: Modules offered at more than one
centre
Where modules (other than dissertations) are offered at more than one centre, the
procedure for first and second marking (internal moderation) is initially as detailed in
1.6.5., 1.6.6. and 1.7.1 (above). This will result in the Module Leader receiving a
‘bundle’ of assessed student work from each centre at which the module has been
taught.
The Department may, at its discretion and in consultation with the responsible
External Examiners, either:
1.7.2.1. send or otherwise make available to External Examiners multiple ‘bundles’ of
student assessed work for the same module, The advantage of ‘multiple bundles’ is
that Externals see a full sample form each centre of delivery. The disadvantage is
that this increases their workload very considerably and probably unacceptably in
some cases.
1.7.2.2. send or otherwise make available to External Examiners a single ‘sample of
samples’ drawing on the ‘bundle’ received from each centre of delivery. The
advantage of the ‘sample of samples’ approach is that the External Examiner only
has to deal with one ‘bundle’ (albeit a slightly larger one) per module. In addition, the
External Examiner is always at liberty to see the full ‘bundle’ from a given centre. If
this option is chosen, Form ALSS 4 must be completed by the Module Leader. (See
Appendix 10)
1.8. Module Evaluation
The standard University Module Evaluation Questionnaire (SMEQ) should be handed
to students towards the end of the teaching period. Students may complete the
SMEQ at home or in the class, at your discretion, but the aim is to get as high a
return as possible.
The ALSS 2 form provides an opportunity for lecturers to reflect on student
feedback about their modules and student achievement; it also provides an
opportunity to look forward to the next delivery of the module The ALSS 2
should be completed in draft around the time of the Departmental Assessment Panel
(DAP), with externals' comments and details about marks being added at the DAP.
ALSS 2 forms will be made available (in 'raw' or synoptic form) to students in 2005-6
(e.g. on notice boards or via a folder in the Departmental Office), discussed at staffstudent Programme Committees, and needed for the Reports Meeting in September,
so please hang on to them and copy them to your HoD or nominee, who will be able
to answer any additional queries you may have. A copy of the ALSS2 is located in
Appendix 8 of this Guide.
1.9 Archiving the Module ‘Bundle’
1.9.1. If all the above procedures are adhered to, the end result will be a ‘bundle’ of
materials which provide physical evidence of the teaching, learning and assessment
of a given module. This bundle must be archived for TWO YEARS following the year
in which the module was delivered, this being the retrospective audit horizon
specified by the QAA.
D:\612935467.doc
ALSS Short Guide to Quality and Enhancement Processes
-9-
1.9.2. The Module Leader is responsible for compiling the ‘Bundle’
1.9.3. The Head of Department is responsible for overseeing the physical storage of
the ‘Bundles’, delegating this authority to Programme or Pathway Leaders as
appropriate.
1.9.4. A Module ’Bundle’ consists of:
Module Guide
Assessment questions (copy of question papers, task/s set)*
Assessment Criteria (in Module Guide)*
Marking Criteria (specific to the assessment/s set)*
Sample of Student Work (min. 6 scripts or 5%, whichever is greater)*
Module mark list* (list of all marks for the module)
ALSS 1 (signed by first marker, internal moderator and external examiner)*
Student Questionnaires
ALSS 2 Module report Form
(*compiled by first marker and seen by internal moderator/second marker and external examiner)
1.9. The Reports Meeting
Reports Meetings are organised on a Departmental basis and take place in
September/October each year. They should be attended by representatives of all
centres delivering Faculty modules.
Meetings will deal solely with action taken/to be taken in respect of three reports:
 Module Reports: these may be presented either in ‘raw’ form (i.e. the meeting
will simply receive the ALSS 2 forms for all modules delivered in the previous
academic year) or in synoptic form (where the Programme or Pathway Leader has
read all ALSS 2 forms, identified any missing forms and modules where action
needs to be taken, and prepared a synoptic report to this effect). Module reports
should be disseminated to students via notice boards and the first Departmental
Committee meeting each year.
 External Examiner Report/s: the most recently received External Examiner’s
Report and the Pathway/Programme Leader’s response to it
 Learning and Teaching Adviser’s Report. This report will synthesise observers’
comments from the previous year’s peer observation into proposed topics for staff
development workshops in the current year. Departments will have the opportunity
to endorse these topics and identify other areas that might provide a focus for the
L&T Adviser’s activity in the current academic year.
D:\612935467.doc
ALSS Short Guide to Quality and Enhancement Processes
Appendix
D:\612935467.doc
- 10 -
ALSS Short Guide to Quality and Enhancement Processes
Appendix 1
Department
- 11 -
Programme
Programme Leaders
Pathway Leaders
FACULTY QAE ‘Who’s
Who’ (HEFCE funded)
Arts, Law and Social
Sciences
Anglia Law School
HoD: Kathy Quinlan
Deputy HoD: Peter Clayton


Law, Academic Courses
Law, Professional Courses


David Stott
Julia Ramsay
Cambridge School of Art
HoD: Paul Marris
English, Communication,
Film & Media
HoD: Rowlie Wymer
Deputy HoD: Paul Marris

Art and Design

Paul Shakeshaft


Pat Coyle

Communication, Film and
Media
English and Writing

John Gardner
Humanities & Social
Sciences
HoD: Alison Ainley
Deputy : Colleen Moore

Humanities


Social Sciences

Clarissa Campbell
Orr
Shaun Le Boutillier
Languages and Intercultural
Studies
HoD: Annie Morgan-James
Deputy HoD: Tony Morgan


Nick Hillman

English as a Foreign
Language
Languages and Intercultural
Studies

Sarah Fitt
Music and Performing Arts
HoD: Paul Jackson
Helen Odell-Miller


Music
Performing Arts


Alan Rochford
Gianna Bouchard
Dean:
Monika Thomas
Associate Deans:
Curriculum Development
& Student Experience:
Ed Esche
Academic Development:
Derrik Ferney
Director of Studies:
Rick Allen
Learning & Teaching
Adviser (Cambridge): Jill
Cosh
Learning & Teaching
Adviser (Chelmsford):
Angela Yeoman-Clark
Faculty Quality Officer:
Richard Monk
D:\612935467.doc
CPE - Eva Joyce
Law - Roger Thomas
LLB: Nigel Stockwell
LLM: Dorothy Heeneman
LLM in LPC: David Chalk
LLM International Sports Law - John O'Leary
LPC: Ian King
t.b.c.
Communication, Media and Cultural Studies Pat Coyle
English – John Gardner
Film -Sarah Barrow
MA in Communication, Media & Culture Joss Hands
MA English Studies -Catherine Silverstone
Writing - Katy Price
Criminology: Colleen Moore
History: Rohan McWilliam
Philosophy: Katerina Deligiorgi
Politics: Theo Schulte
Public Service: Dave Baigent
Sociology: Liz Bradbury
English Language : Sarah Fitt
French: Veronique Fournier
German: Uwe Richter
Intercultural Studies: Mike Fay
Spanish: Carlos Toranzos
Creative Music Tech -Julio d'Escriván
Drama – Gianna Bouchard
Music Richard Hoadley
MA Music Therapy - Eleanor Richards [0.5]
Other roles:
MA Music Co-ordinator [until 2006] Nicholas Toller
ALSS Short Guide to Quality and Enhancement Processes
- 12 -
Appendix 2
Module Leader
1. Be responsible for the effective implementation and operation of the module wherever, and by
whatever means, it is delivered
2. Produce module definition form/s in collaboration with the Head of Department for the
purposes of periodic review and approvals
3. Agree with all module tutors the times at which assessment will be conducted, ensuring that
students in different cohorts are treated equally
4. Liaise with all module tutors and maintain regular communication with them
5. Agree with all module tutors a common approach to the presentation of the module to
students, including a module guide
6. Agree with all module tutors a common approach to learning, teaching and assessment
including collaborative providers, where applicable
7. Provide a representative sample of student work for moderation by the external examiner in
consultation with the Head of Department
8. Organise the collection and internal moderation of student work so as to produce
marks/grades agreed by the module team for presentation to Assessment Panels in
accordance with published schedules
9. Monitor the progress of students and provide help and advice in relation to the module
10. Attend relevant staff-student committees
11. Support Programme Leaders in annual monitoring process, reviewing modules, identifying
desirable modifications and initiating them in consultation with the Head of Department
12. Monitor the effectiveness of teaching on the module by analysing student evaluation
questionnaires and the reports by module tutors. Produce reports for students on actions to be
taken in response to module feedback
13. Highlight and seek solutions to any operational difficulties affecting the module, in liaison with
the Head of Department where necessary
14 Attend Assessment Panels as required
Module Tutor
1.
Be involved in teaching the module to students
2.
Maintain a weekly record of attendance and alert the Programme Leader (or nominee) to
recurrent absence on the part of students
3.
Liaise with module leader as necessary
4.
Be responsible for the presentation of the module to students, using such templates for
Module Guides and accompanying materials as may be specified by the Module Leader,
5.
Explain the content of the module to students, in particular the close relationships between
programme aims, module aims and learning and teaching activities
6.
Teach the module effectively, in accordance with the learning, teaching and assessment
strategies specified in the relevant module definition form
7.
Provide draft assessments for the approval of the module leader and external examiner in a
timely manner
8.
Set and assess student work according to the guidelines established in the Module
Definition Form and in discussion with the Module Leader
9.
Monitor the progress of students and provide help and advice in relation to the module
10. Attend relevant staff-student committees as required
11. Administer a university questionnaire to students and provide a response to their comments
to the module leader
12. Contribute to the assessment of the module
13. Inform the module leader of and operational difficulties affecting the module
14. Attend relevant Assessment Panels by invitation
D:\612935467.doc
ALSS Short Guide to Quality and Enhancement Processes
- 13 -
Appendix 3
Faculty: Arts, Law and Social Sciences
Form ALSS3
Subject: (enter Pathway or Programme title)
Module/Unit title: (Note: ‘Unit’ is included here for non-modular programmes)
Module/Unit Code: (Add)
Module/Unit Leader: (Add)
Module Tutor/s: (Add Module Tutor’s/ Tutors’ details)
Building/Room: (Add Module Tutor’s/ Tutors’ details)
Tel: (Add Module Tutor’s/ Tutors’ details)
Email: (Add Module Tutor’s/ Tutors’ details)
Contents
1. Overview/Catalogue Summary ............................................................................ 13
2. Module Learning Outcomes ................................................................................ 13
3. Graduate Learning Outcomes ............................................................................. 13
3.1. Knowledge, Understanding and Intellectual Skills ......................................... 14
3.2. Transferable and Practical Skills ................................................................... 14
4. Pathway Outcomes ............................................................................................. 14
5. Outline Programme ............................................................................................. 14
6. Assessment......................................................................................................... 15
7. Assessment Criteria ............................................................................................ 15
8. Learning Resources ............................................................................................ 15
8.1. Recommended Texts .................................................................................... 15
8.2. Recommended Internet Resources............................................................... 15
8.3. Other Resources ........................................................................................... 15
9. Module Definition Form ....................................................................................... 15
1. Overview/Catalogue Summary
(paste in Catalogue Summary from Box 14 of the MDF; MDFs can be located in the
Anet on-line catalogue at http://web.anglia.ac.uk/dso/catalogue/ . If you don’t find it
there then you have a problem (since the students won’t be able to see it either!) but
you can also look for it in the j:\ drive (My Computer -> J:\Information\Validation
Documentation\Module Definition Forms\Information), or from Anet
(http://www.anglia.ac.uk/dso/catalogue/)). MAKE SURE THAT THE MDF YOU USE
IS THE CURRENT ONE.
2. Module Learning Outcomes
On successful completion of this module you will be able to:
(paste in from Box 13 of the MDF)
3. Generic Learning Outcomes
On successful completion of this module you will be able to:
(delete any of the 9 GLOs below that don’t apply to your module; expand the
retained GLOs if possible, by giving examples)
D:\612935467.doc
ALSS Short Guide to Quality and Enhancement Processes
- 14 -
3.1. Knowledge, Understanding and Intellectual Skills
1. Demonstrate a capacity for systematic, conceptual and critical thinking
2. Act in an ethical manner, demonstrating political, social and cultural awareness
3. Identify a major area of discipline-based learning and demonstrate expertise within
it, including evaluation of aspects of scholarship
4. Demonstrate an awareness of the transferability of skills and learning to future
career/ further study/training
3.2. Transferable and Practical Skills
5. Work with confidence both independently and as a member or leader of a group or
team
6. Show flexible and creative approaches to problem solving
7. Communicate clearly and appropriately, demonstrating a sense of audience
8. Produce output that is literate, numerate and coherent
9. Manage information in a range of media
4. Pathway Outcomes
Module title contributes to the achievement of the outcomes of pathways relating to
the following Pathways: (complete, as appropriate)
In particular the module contributes to the attainment of the following asterisked
Outcomes specified in the Pathway Specification (FV) Forms.
(paste in appropriate Outcomes from box 14 of the Pathway Specification form. You
can get PSFs from the j:\ drive, by typing:
My Computer -> J:\Information\Validation Documentation\Module Definition Forms\Information
MAKE SURE THAT THE J:DRIVE PATHWAY SPECS ARE THE CURRENT ONES)
5. Outline Programme
(you can use all or some of the table provided below if you wish, or otherwise adapt it
to suit; if it doesn’t suit your module then delete it and write a statement instead,
perhaps pasting information from box 14 of the MDF ‘Indicative Outline Content’)
Wk
Lecture
Seminar/Workshop
Student-managed learning
1
2
3
4
5
6
e.g. Hand in Assignment 1
7
8
9
10
11
12
e.g. Hand in Assignment 2
D:\612935467.doc
ALSS Short Guide to Quality and Enhancement Processes
- 15 -
6. Assessment
(paste in assessment info from Box 16 of MDF, providing more detail as necessary.
Make sure weightings are clear if there is more than one assessment task)
7. Assessment Criteria
Note to students: You should refer to the Undergraduate Student Handbook which
contains generic Assessment Criteria for each level (year) of study (0-3) and generic
marking standards (70%-100%, 60-69%, 50-59%, 40-49%, and 0%-39%).
(the above reference provides a generic framework; you need to add some subjectspecific assessment criteria here. There needn’t be many of them, but they should
test ALL the outcomes mentioned in sec 2 & any relevant ones form sec 4 (above).
You may need to do this for each type of assessment task e.g. if you have an oral
presentation that counts for marks, you need to specify exactly what you will be
looking for, referring perhaps to 3.2.7. and 3.2.9. above).
NOTE: The generic assessment criteria can be accessed online at:
http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/staff/15-30/faq.phtml
8. Learning Resources
8.1. Recommended Texts
(list recommended texts, possibly by pasting in from Box 18 ‘Indicative Learning
Resources’ of the MDF; it is good practice to add ‘available in library’, or ‘in Short
Loan collection’ after titles)
8.2. Recommended Internet Resources
(please do provide some websites here; it is School policy to promote the use of
C&IT in learning and teaching)
8.3. Other Resources
(e.g. computer rooms, language laboratory, GIS lab, map room, local museum, local
law courts ……)
9. Module Definition Form
(paste in the current MDF for this module here. The purpose of doing this is to ensure
that this delivery corresponds to the current MDF. (REM: parts of the MDF can be
amended quite simply by obtaining the signature of the DoS, but the delivery MUST
correspond to the current MDF) which students see at
http://web.anglia.ac.uk/dso/catalogue/
Last Updated: September 05
D:\612935467.doc
ALSS Short Guide to Quality and Enhancement Processes
- 16 -
Appendix 4
Module Guides and Module Study Packs
Clarification of key terms and Faculty policy in respect of charging students for learning
materials produced by staff
1. Definitions
Module Guides provides students with the basic information needed about each module
they are taking. It is a QAA and therefore a Faculty expectation that all modules will have a
Module Guide. The Faculty template for the Module Guide (ALSS 3) is attached to this email.
A Module Guide is normally no more than 6-8 pages in length.
Study Packs collate a range of learning materials, including copyright material covered by
the agreement between HEIs and the Copyright Licensing Agency, into a single volume which
is often provided as an alternative to purchasing one or more textbooks. Study Packs can
vary in length from 20 to 200 pages and usually incorporate the Module Guide as their
introductory pages.
2. When can a charge be made?
2.1. NO CHARGE will be made for Lecture Notes and Handouts given out during lectures
or other classes. So if, say, you provide students with paper copies of Powerpoint slides on a
weekly basis you cannot make a charge for this.
2.2. NO CHARGE will be made for Module Guides which do not exceed 10 pages in length
and are stapled rather than bound. Module Guides of this type should be distributed to
students free of charge by the lecturer and not distributed via the Faculty Module Bookshop.
2.3. A CHARGE will be made for Study Packs. The Faculty makes a small charge in order
to cover the very significant reprographics and other costs it incurs by providing students with
Study Packs. Because Study Packs are normally a good deal cheaper than the text books
that might otherwise have to be bought, they usually save students money. It is important to
recognise that the price at which a Study Pack is sold to students will not exceed the
reprographic, binding and distribution costs incurred in its production i.e. students will be
charged at cost. The Faculty makes no profits through the sale of Study Packs and seeks to
do no more than recoup its costs.
The Faculty nonetheless recommends that staff producing Study Packs ensure that a small
number of copies are placed in the library or in an appropriate learning resource centre where
students can consult them free of charge.
D:\612935467.doc
ALSS Short Guide to Quality and Enhancement Processes
- 17 -
Appendix 4 (cont)
3. The legal basis for 2 (above)
The provisions governing what students may be asked to pay for over and above their fees is
contained in the Education (Student Fees) (Exceptions) regulations 1999, according to which
the following charges may or may not be made:
Category of
Goods/Services
Study materials
Ref.
Comments
2
Charges for individual lecture notes and handouts are specifically
excluded. However, we consider that paragraph 2 would allow a charge
to be made where handouts and lecture notes, available individually
free of charge, are gathered for convenience into a summary pack. This
paragraph would also allow charges for study packs covered by the
agreement between HEIs and the Copyright Licensing Agency, i.e.
packs which draw from a range of materials, including copyright
material, often provided as an alternative to purchasing a number of
textbooks.
Other course
materials
2 (b)
Institutions may charge for materials where a student’s work produced
with those materials becomes his own property. Examples include
materials on art and design courses from which students create
artefacts that they are allowed to keep or sell, and could also cover food
on catering courses.
2 (a)
In keeping with the above principles, we are of the view that institutions
would not be able to charge for materials such as chemicals for use in
experiments on science courses. These would fall under core provision
and do not result in a product that becomes the student’s own property.
Derrik Ferney (Associate Dean, Academic development)
November 2005
D:\612935467.doc
ALSS Short Guide to Quality and Enhancement Processes
- 18 -
Appendix 4 (cont)
DIGITISATION OF DATA – ADVICE TO FACULTIES / DEPARTMENTS
“Please note that the process of scanning (or digitising) pages of text and / or images
in printed books and journals is, in most cases, subject to the permission of the
copyright owner. Not obtaining permission from the rightsowner is likely to result in
an infringement of copyright law for which the University may be prosecuted or fined.
‘Blanket’ permission for UK published titles is delivered by becoming a signatory to
the Higher Education Trial Licence (covering Photocopying and Scanning Rights), a
licence to which the University is not currently subscribed.
While the University is looking at when it might participate in the trial (possible with
effect from 1 August 2006), permission to scan extracts must be obtained on a
transactional basis either from CLA Customer Services or INGENTA-HERON (under
the terms of the HE Digitisation Agreement) or via direct permission from the
appropriate rightsowner.” My Digital Copy Services Managers Jacqui Crane and Sue
Fry can advise further on this. The responsibility to do so rests with the originator of
the digitised module/extract.
During the period January to July 2006, it would be helpful if Faculties and
Departments would log with each copy centre use of the digitisation of modules in
advance of clearance being obtained. We are presently examining whether optical
scanning can be provided via the copy centres as an additional recharged service
wef Spring 2006. In the interim this is not possible however due to pressure of
reprographic work.
Chris Hackett
Director of Corporate Services
November 2005
****************************************************************************************
May I remind staff of The University Library's role as a provider of
copyright cleared content (particularly journal articles and book
extracts). We are agents with the HERON digitisation service and make
digitised content available to students studying particular modules
through our website and Digital Library (although we can extend this to
WebCT etc.) . If you are interested in making digitised content
available online I would encourage you to approach your Academic Liaison
Librarian (list below) or myself directly to see if we can help.
Thanks,
Graham Howorth
November 2005
List of Academic Liaison Librarians with e-mail addresses:
http://libweb.anglia.ac.uk/helpdesk/staff.htm
D:\612935467.doc
ALSS Short Guide to Quality and Enhancement Processes
- 19 -
Appendix 5
Assessment
1. Examinations will NOT be used as an assessment instrument in level 1 Semester 1 and
pathway teams are invited to consider extending this to Semester 1 at other Levels, where
this is not precluded by PSB requirements. This will facilitate a less stressful inter-semester
marking period in January.
2. Closed assessment must account for a minimum of 25% of assessment per Level. This
may be interpreted as 25% of assessment per module at the Department’s discretion.
2.1. Closed assessment consists of one or more tasks completed in controlled conditions.
While the precise definition of ‘controlled conditions’ can be debated, the goal is to engineer
situations in which

it is highly probable that the work submitted by students is their own, and

caeteris paribus their performance will provide a reliable measure of their level of
achievement

opportunities for poor academic practice, plagiarism, cheating or collusion are
minimised
2.1.1. It is important to distinguish between closed assessment in general and examinations
in particular; the principal difference resides in the fact that while all examinations are closed
assessments, the opposite is not true. So while the archetypal form of closed assessment is
the traditional unseen examination, other types of closed assessment may include open book
examinations, oral tests (used extensively in Italian universities to prevent cheating in
examinations), some types of field work and practicals, in-class tests, some types of group
work, and so on. The Faculty will take advice from practice-based Departments about the
extent to which artistic and musical products whose creation is closely and regularly
supervised by lecturers can be seen as examples of closed assessment.
2.1.2. Closed assessment may take place at any point in the semester or in the assessment It
is important to note that examinations are timetabled centrally by the Assessments Office to
take place in the post-Semester Assessment period (Exams Week), while other forms of
closed assessment are administered locally at Pathway level.
2.2. Open assessment consists of one or more tasks completed by students in their own time,
with relatively little supervision, on or off the university's premises and using any reference
materials they wish. The ‘largest’ open assessment is the Dissertation, with other forms of
open assessment including in-course essays, portfolios, learner logs etc. Every open
assessment will have an associated deadline by which it must be submitted and colleagues
must make this clear in the MDF.
2.2.1. Non-examined assessment must normally be handed in no later than 6 working days
after the completion of teaching
3. All modules should contain elements of formative assessment (including diagnostic
assessment where required) as well as summative assessment.
In its Code of Practice on the Assessment of students - May 2000 the QAA makes the
following distinctions (Introduction 9, 10):
Diagnostic assessment provides an indicator of a learner's aptitude and
preparedness for a programme of study and identifies possible learning
problems.
D:\612935467.doc
ALSS Short Guide to Quality and Enhancement Processes
- 20 -
Formative assessment is designed to provide learners with feedback on progress
and informs development, but does not contribute to the overall assessment.
Summative assessment provides a measure of achievement or failure made in
respect of a learner's performance in relation to the intended learning outcomes
of the programme of study.
Any assessment instrument can, and often does, involve more than one of these
elements. So, for example, much coursework is formative in that it provides an
opportunity for students to be given feedback on their level of attainment, but also
often counts towards the credit being accumulated for a summative statement of
achievement. An end-of-module or end-of-programme examination is designed
primarily to result in a summative judgement on the level of attainment the student
has reached. Both formative and summative assessment can have a diagnostic
function. Assessment primarily aimed at diagnosis is intrinsically formative though it might,
rarely, contribute towards a summative judgement.
4. Modules extending over two semester will normally assess work completed in each
semester. This assessment may or may not be completed during the semester in which the
material tested is delivered. Thus, for example, students could be allowed the inter-semester
break to prepare Semester 1 work for assessment/submission in Semester 2. Alternatively,
they could complete, say, an in-class test (closed assessment) at the end of Semester 1.
5. Assessment instruments should test Graduate (Generic) Learning Outcomes (GLOs) as
well as LOs. The contribution made by individual modules to the attainment of Pathway LOs
should be evidenced on an Outcomes grid (See Appendix 3a below)
6. Pathway Designers should use a full range of assessment instruments when designing the
curriculum and evidence this on an assessment grid (See Appendix 3 b below). The purpose
of this grid is to provide evidence that pathways use a range of assessment instruments that,
between them, (a) deliver the Learning & Teaching Strategy described in the PSF, (b) use an
appropriate variety of assessment instruments, and (c) provide diagnostic/formative
opportunities
7. Assessment for the same module must be identical or, where this is not possible for good
academic reasons, comparable at all points of delivery
Derrik Ferney
18 July 2005
D:\612935467.doc
ALSS Short Guide to Quality and Enhancement Processes
- 21 -
Appendix 6
FACULTY OF ARTS, LAW AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
ALSS1 - 1
ASSESSMENT MODERATION FORM
Standard Procedure for marking modules at HE Level 1(B), 2(D), 3(H) and KVS
Level 1 (B) and KVS modules NOT counting for degree classification
1. First marker marks all scripts and, using this form, passes a representative sample of scripts to
internal moderator (2nd marker). Scripts should be marked according to assessment criteria and
mark scheme and a brief explanation provided if the average of the passing marks given falls
outside the expected range. The sample should consist of a minimum of 6 scripts (or 5% of the
scripts if this is greater) and cover the top, bottom and middle of the range of marks.
2. Internal Moderator reads scripts received from the first marker and
either
(a) signs Assessment Moderation Form (overleaf) to indicate agreement with the marks
awarded, or
(b) suggests a review of marks for all students, explaining reason
3. If (a) then 2nd marker returns Assessment Moderation Form to 1st marker who
(i)
(photocopies the sample scripts if necessary);
(ii)
passes the completed Assessment Moderation Form and
original sample scripts to the Subject Leader;
(iii)
gives Subject Leader a list of all marks and a mark scheme;
(iv)
returns to students the originals of scripts which do not feature in the
sample, along with photo-copies of sample scripts
If (b) then repeat steps 1-3
4. Subject Leader retains sample for TWO YEARS for monitoring/audit purposes
Level 2(D), 3(H) and KVS modules counting for degree classification
1. At levels 2 & 3, first marker passes a representative sample of scripts to internal moderator (2nd
marker). Scripts should be marked according to assessment criteria and mark scheme and a brief
explanation provided if the average of the passing marks given falls outside the expected range.
The sample should consist of a minimum of 6 scripts (or 5% of the scripts if this is greater) and
cover the top, bottom and middle of the range of marks.
2. Internal moderator reads sample scripts and
either
(a) signs Assessment Moderation Form (overleaf) to indicate agreement with overall standard of
marking or
(b) suggests a review of marks for all students, explaining reason;
Internal markers should seek to resolve uncertainties before the sample is forwarded to the
external.
3. If (a) then 2nd marker returns Assessment Moderation Form to 1st marker who
(i)
(photocopies the sample scripts, if necessary);
(ii)
passes the completed Assessment Moderation Form and
original sample scripts to the Subject Leader;
(iii)
gives Subject Leader a list of all marks and a mark scheme;
(iv)
retains remainder of scripts for eventual return to students
If (b) then repeat steps 1-3
4. Subject leader sends sample scripts to External along with completed Assessment Moderation
Form, list of marks for all students and mark scheme.
5. Subject Leader retains sample for TWO YEARS for monitoring/audit purposes (after return from
External if External requires to see them).
This proforma conforms with the requirements of the Senate Codes of Practice on External Examiners for Taught
Programmes of Study (3rd Edition, January 2005) and on the Assessment of Students (April 2005). Last updated
September 2005.
D:\612935467.doc
ALSS Short Guide to Quality and Enhancement Processes
- 22 -
FACULTY OF ARTS, LAW AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
ASSESSMENT MODERATION FORM
ALSS1 - 2
Module (name and code):
Point of delivery:
Field/Set:
Number of candidates taking module:
Academic Year:
Semester (1, 2):
First marker:
Script Identifier
(Normally SID no.)
First
Mark
Internal Moderator’s Comment
(need only be completed in detail if there is
concern about the overall standard of
marking)
Alternative
Mark
(if
remarked)
1
2
3
4
5
6
Continuation Sheet available
For Internal Moderator: Please tick below as appropriate
[ ] 1. The marks allocated to this sample of scripts indicate that the module has been fairly
assessed.
[
] 2. All scripts should be re-marked because (Continue on separate sheet if necessary):
Signed:
Second marker______________________________________ Date:
In the event of a re-mark (delete as appropriate)
I now agree/do not agree that the marks allocated to this sample of scripts indicate that the
module has been fairly assessed.
Signed:
Second marker______________________________________ Date:
For External Examiner: Please tick number as appropriate
[ ] 1. The marks allocated to this sample of scripts indicate that the module has been fairly
assessed.
[
] 2. All scripts should be re-marked because (Continue on separate sheet if necessary):
Signed:
D:\612935467.doc
External Examiner____________________________________ Date:
ALSS Short Guide to Quality and Enhancement Processes
FACULTY OF ARTS, LAW AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
ASSESSMENT MODERATION FORM
- 23 -
ALSS1 - 3
Continuation Sheet
Module (name and number):____________________________________
Script Identifier
(Name or SID no.)
First
Mark
Internal Moderator’s Comment
(need only be completed in detail if there is
concern about the overall standard of
marking)
Alternative
Mark
(if
remarked)
For Internal Moderator: Please tick number as appropriate
[ ] 1. The marks allocated to this sample of scripts indicate that the module has been fairly
assessed.
[
] 2. All scripts should be re-marked because (Continue on separate sheet if necessary):
Signed:
Second marker______________________________________ Date:
[In the event of a re-mark (delete as appropriate)
I now agree/do not agree that the marks allocated to this sample of scripts indicate that the
module has been fairly assessed.
Signed:
Second marker______________________________________ Date:
For External Examiner: Please tick number as appropriate
[ ] 1. The marks allocated to this sample of scripts indicate that the module has been fairly
assessed.
[
] 2. All scripts should be re-marked because (Continue on separate sheet if necessary):
Signed: ___________________________________________________ Date:
D:\612935467.doc
ALSS Short Guide to Quality and Enhancement Processes
- 24 -
Appendix 7
ALSS Guidelines on Written Feedback to Students15
First Marking
First marking measures the extent to which students have achieved the learning
outcomes associated with the module. In addition, it provides students with feedback
that they can use to help them learn from their successes and mistakes. First
marking needs to be as transparent as possible so that the basis on which you have
allocated marks will be clear to the second marker/internal moderator and to the
External Examiner.
Guidelines on First Marking
1. Mark in a different coloured pen, or pencil, to that used by the student so that your
comments can be clearly distinguished on the script
2. Write short comments at appropriate intervals, indicating strengths and
weaknesses of individual sections of the work and giving pointers (where
appropriate) to how they might be developed.
3. Where an assessment consists of several sections, make comments on each
4. Where you have no comment to make on a page, mark it in some way to indicate
that you have not overlooked it by accident
5. Transfer marks to the examination or assessment cover sheet as required
6. Write an overall comment at the end of the script, or on the cover sheet, as
appropriate. The overall comment should provide a range of information for the
student, which might include: an indication of how well s/he has achieved the
learning outcomes associated with the module, the quality of language used and of
arguments constructed, an indication of how the mark might have been improved.
7. Where a FAIL grade is awarded, ensure that your overall comment specifies which
learning outcomes the script has failed to achieve. If you feel that the student can
best be helped by discussing the work with you, then invite her/him in writing to make
an appointment to see you.
8. Compile the sample in accordance with the requirements of the Senate COP on
External Examiners, ensuring that it contains ‘a minimum 6 items or 5% (whichever
is the greater) of the marked work .. (covering) .. the top, bottom and middle of the
range of marks including some failures and borderline cases (where such examples
exist)’. (COP, 8.14).
9. Enter details of the sample and marks awarded on the ALSS 1, sign it, and pass it
to the second marker/internal moderator, along with copies of the assignment task or
examination, overall mark list and assessment criteria/mark scheme.
10. When the sample has been signed off by the second marker/internal moderator,
forward it to the Module/Pathway/Programme Leader, as appropriate
15
This applies to all assessments other than major projects which are blind second marked
D:\612935467.doc
ALSS Short Guide to Quality and Enhancement Processes
- 25 -
Second Marking/Internal Moderation
The purpose of internal moderation is to check the consistent application by the first
marker of the assessment criteria, marking scheme and grading standards for the
items of assessment in the sample (Senate COP on the Assessment of Students).
Note: Neither the second marker/internal moderator nor the External Examiner may
change the marks of individual students (Senate COP on External Examiners, 8.22)
Guidelines on Second Marking/Internal Moderation
1. Check that the sample of scripts conforms with the requirements of the Senate
COP (see above)
2. Check that you have also been provided with copies of the assignment task or
examination, overall mark list and assessment criteria/mark scheme. You should not
moderate the sample until you have received all these documents.
3. Check the appropriateness of the assessment criteria/marking scheme used by
the first marker. If you have any doubts, raise them with the first marker before
moderating the scripts.
4. Check that marks have been transferred accurately to the cover sheet.
5. Check that feedback and the overall comment conform to the guidelines given
above.
6. On the basis of the marking scheme (which tells you what the first marker is
looking for) and the comments on the student script where these exist (which tell you
what the first marker has found), check that the marks awarded are consistent across
all the scripts in the sample
7. If you feel that the range of marks awarded correlates with the standards achieved
by students in the work you have seen, and that the scripts have been marked fairly
and consistently, then indicate this by completing the relevant sections of the ALSS
1, signing it off and returning it to the first marker.
8. If you have reservations, provide a brief explanation in the relevant sections of the
ALSS 1 and return it to the first marker with the sample. It will be useful to discuss
your views and seek to achieve agreement. If agreement can be reached and ALL
marks in the affected range moderated, then sign off the sample and return it to the
first examiner.
Derrik Ferney
Associate Dean (Academic Development)
September 2005
D:\612935467.doc
ALSS Short Guide to Quality and Enhancement Processes
- 26 -
Appendix 8
Faculty of Arts, Law and Social Sciences
ALSS 2
Module Report Form
This form should be completed by module leaders (where there is more than one delivery) or module
tutors (in the case of single deliveries) who should provide the HoD or nominee with a copy of this form,
along with the end-of-module student questionnaire around the time of the Departmental Assessment
Panels. The Programme Leader will compile the results for use at Programme Staff-Student Committee
and/or for display on noticeboards.
Department:
Centre of Delivery
(Core/Partner):
Academic Year:
Semester:
Module Code
Module Title
Module Leader(s)
Module Assessment Profile:
A
B
Results in band
Enrolment
Other Tutors
C
D
L
R
F
Mean
Pass Mean
The above figures can be read directly from SITS stats available at the DAP but may require modification after resits
Student Feedback Briefly summarise results of student evaluation questionnaire/s
Response of Module Leader/Tutor to Student Feedback (including resources if appropriate)
Developments during the current year or planned for next year (if appropriate)
External Examiner’s Comments State whether the external agreed the marks and/or commented on the module
Last Updated: September 2005
D:\612935467.doc
ALSS Short Guide to Quality and Enhancement Processes
- 27 -
Appendix 9
Draft Calendar of Quality Assurance and Enhancement Activity in ALSS (2005-6)
The proposed calendar for 2005-6 rolls out to the whole of the new Faculty the Module Report Meetings trialled in the former LLSS
last academic year. Discipline Network Groups (DNGs) are also included in this Calendar for the first time.
Month
(do by)
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
March
April
May
June
July
Aug
Response to
External’s
report16
Departmental
Reports
Meeting17
√
√
Dean’s Grid /
Standards at
risk18
AMR +
√
√
SMART
Plan)19
Programme
Committee20
- Sem 1
- Sem 2
Module
Evaluation21
(Pre-)
DAPs +
Module
Review22
- Sem 1
- Sem 2
AMR SubCttee O/view
Report to
Faculty
Board23
√
Peer
Observ
-ation
Discipline
Network
Groups24
(Department
-based)
L&T
Committee
- Sem 1
- Sem 2
√
√
√
√
√
Appraisal
(current/
prospective)
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
HODs co-ordinate Pathway/Programme Leaders’ responses to external examiners’ reports
These will be conducted at Departmental level, ideally in September each year, chaired by the Head of Department, attended by the AD (Academic Development) and/or the Faculty Quality Assurance Officer.Their purpose
is to ensure Pathway/Programme/Departmental alignment with university and QAA expectations regarding responses to three key areas of feedback: External Examiners’ Annual Reports, Module Reports (collated by the
Pathway /Programme Leader from student feedback and ALSS2 Module Report Forms for the previous academic year, and which may be synoptic), and the Learning and Teaching Adviser Report/s
18
The Dean’s Grid is a summary of key issues/ recurring themes/good practice contained in External Examiners’ reports for the Faculty; the ‘Standards at Risk’ document identifies matters of serious concern for consideration
by Senate
19
To be considered by Programme Committees in early November prior to collation by the Department for submission to AQSO by mid-November (Senate CoP Jan 2005 Sec 4.4: 27); then goes to ALSS DoS who assigns
Reader for each AMR and to Sub-Committee of Faculty Board charged with the scrutiny of AMRs. Sub-Committee normally reports to Faculty Board in late January/February
20
The Annual Monitoring Report must be approved by the relevant Programme Committee before submission to the HOD
21
Module Tutors and Module Leaders use standard university questionnaire, then complete ALSS2 Module Report Form . and submit – with questionnaires – to Module Leader. Module Leaders collate MRFs from all
contributing Module Tutors into a Synoptic Module Report. The synoptic report, along with the individual MRFs and the end-of-module student questionnaire should be given to the relevant Pathway/ Programme Leader so
that Module Review can be conducted at or around the time of the pre-Departmental Assessment Panels (pre-DAPs), when the module assessment profile and External Examiner’s comments should also be available. The
Pathway/Programme Leader may compile a synoptic overview report at Pathway/ Programme level (as appropriate), will report on them at DAPs, post them on student notice boards, and place them on the agendas of
Programme Committees.
Module Leader produces an overview report for the module and forwards this to Pathway Leaders,/Programme Leaders for the consideration of HoDs. Pathway/Programme Leaders compile synoptic overview reports at
Pathway/Programme level (as appropriate), post them on student notice boards, and place them on the agendas of Programme Committees.
22
Module Review is conducted at pre-Departmental Assessment Panels (pre-DAPs) or at Departmental Assessment Panels (DAPs) at discretion of Department.
23
Faculty Board to determine whether the AMR has monitored standards and quality at an appropriate level of scrutiny. Remedial action may be required
24
Terms of reference: DNGs will provide a forum for the Faculty and its collaborative partners in related programme areas to share expertise, develop the curriculum and assure and enhance the quality of provision
16
17
D:\612935467.doc
ALSS Short Guide to Quality and Enhancement Processes
- 28 -
Appendix 10
FACULTY OF ARTS, LAW AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
ALSS4 - 1
ASSESSMENT MODERATION FORM FOR MODULES OFFERED AT MORE
THAN ONE CENTRE
Standard Procedure at HE Levels 2 – 4
How to use this form:
1. Module Leader receives ALSS 1 Forms + samples of assessed student work from Module
Tutors. The samples should consist of a minimum of 6 scripts (or 5% of the scripts if this is greater)
and cover the top, bottom and middle of the range of marks.
2. If the Module Leader is also acting as internal moderator, s/he moderates the sample, signing
the ALSS 1 as appropriate.
3. If the Module Leader is not acting as internal moderator, s/he verifies that the quality of the first
marking and internal moderation is appropriate and that it assesses fairly the standards achieved
by students
4. The Module Leader then selects from each sample the accompanying ALSS 1 form and the
number of scripts shown below:
2 centres: 5 scripts per centre
3 centres: 4 scripts per centre
4 centres: 3 scripts per centre
5 centres: 3 scripts per centre
Additional scripts may be sent if desired.
The sample of student assessed work from more than one centre should cover the top, bottom and
middle of the range of marks
5. The Module Leader forwards or otherwise makes available the sample of student assessed
work from more than one centre to the External Examiner who
either
(a) signs the Assessment Moderation Form (overleaf) to indicate agreement with the marks
awarded, or
(b) suggests a review of marks, explaining reasons. NOTE: the External may require that all marks
be reviewed, or that marks within a specified range only be reviewed); the External may not
change individual marks.
6. The Pathway Leader archives all samples for TWO YEARS for monitoring/audit purposes
D:\612935467.doc
ALSS Short Guide to Quality and Enhancement Processes
- 29 -
FACULTY OF ARTS, LAW AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
ASSESSMENT MODERATION FORM
Academic Year:
ALSS4 - 2
Semester:
Module (name and code):
Department:
Centres at which module
was delivered
D:\612935467.doc
Number of
candidates taking
module
First Marker
Moderator
ALSS Short Guide to Quality and Enhancement Processes
- 30 -
ALSS4 - 3
Script Identifier
(Normally SID no.)
Centre
of
Delivery
Agreed
Mark
(Internal)
External Examiner’s Comment
(need only be completed in detail if there is concern about
the overall standard of marking)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Continuation Sheet available
For External Examiner: Please tick number as appropriate and sign and date below:
[ ] 1. The marks allocated to this sample of scripts indicate that the module has been fairly
assessed.
[
] 2. All scripts should be re-marked because (Continue on separate sheet if necessary):
Signature:
D:\612935467.doc
Date: