University of Bahrain
College of Information Technology
Assessment, Grading, and Exam Moderation Guidelines
Version 0.53 12-3-2013
Assessment Strategy
The College of IT Assessment Strategy relies on the following main objectives, which are
in line with the NAQQAET Institutional and Program Review criteria as well as
international best practice:
1. Student assessment reflects learning outcomes and academic standards.
2. Assessment regulations are applied consistently and fairly.
3. A variety of assessment methods are employed and cover both formative and
summative assessment.
4. Appropriate and prompt feedback is provided to students on their assessment
results.
5. Moderation of assessment, exams, and grading to ensure consistency and
fairness.
Reflects
learning
outcomes
Moderation
of grades
and exams
Assessment
at College
of IT
Prompt
feedback to
students
Consistant
and fair
Formative
and
summative
Figure 1. College of IT Assessment Strategy Objectives
1
The assessment strategy can be applied using many policies and mechanisms. The
NAQQAET Handbook for Program Review summarizes some good practices in this
regard and these have been excerpted from the handbook in Appendix C.
In order to satisfy the objectives of the assessment strategy, below are the policies and
guidelines that will be applied at the College of IT.
1. Alignment of student assessment and learning outcomes
1.1 Assessment items including exams, assignments, homework, projects, etc.
should assess the extent to which the students are meeting the Course
Intended Learning Outcomes that have been published. As the CILOs are
mapped to the Program Intended Learning Outcomes, the assessment in turn
contributes to satisfying the PILOs.
1.2 Instructors must ensure balanced and comprehensive assessment of CILOs
during the semester.
1.3 The assessment methods should be suitable to the level of the assessed
learning outcomes.
2. Fair and consistent application of assessment regulations
2.1 Instructors must ensure fair and consistent application of assessment across
all sections and students. When more than one instructor is teaching a
course, there should be:
2.1.1 Common tests/exams/policies.
2.1.2 Each question in the test/exam should be marked by the same
instructor across all sections.
2.1.3 The same grading range (grade distribution) should be applied to all
sections.
2.1.4 Common marks distributions shown in the key solutions for
tests/exams should be used across all sections.
2.1.5 Common exams should be reviewed by all instructors and moderated
before the exam by the course coordinator.
2.2 Students must be allowed access to the assessment results (excluding final
exam) and have the right to enquire about the marking scheme and how it
was applied.
2.3 Students have the right to appeal their assessment and ask for a re-grading
and verification of the grade. In the case of the final course grade the
University process is implemented. In case of protest of other assessment
during the semester, the faculty member will verify his grading and explain to
the student how the grade was awarded. Students who are not satisfied can
2
raise the issue to the course coordinator and then to the chair of the
department.
2.4 Students have the right to access their course assessment summary (detailed
grades in course assessment tasks and midterms) before the end of the
semester. A University Council decision requires all instructors to post the
detailed “sessional” marks before the last day of classes.
2.5 Students should have access from the start of the course (typically in the
course plan/syllabus) to the schedule of assessment, the types of
assessment, weight from total marks and criteria for marking and grading.
2.6 Course coordinators should ensure that all course instructors and lab
assistants also have access to the assessment schedule and weights.
2.7 Instructors must submit a detailed record form which includes student
grades, weights, and maximum grade for each assessment activity to the
course coordinator who will submit the report to the chairperson at the end
of the semester. The method used for calculating the total grade should also
be indicated on this record.
2.8 Results of the final assessment of the course and the letter grades should be
submitted to the Deanship of Admission and Registration after they have
been checked and approved by at least two members of the Grade
Distribution Committee and the Chairperson. Any suggested grade
distribution changes must be submitted to the course instructor/coordinator
on the same day the draft grades are submitted to the GDC or the
chairperson.
2.9 Complete records of the assessments should be kept in the department. This
is both for student appeal and for accreditation/review purposes. The final
exam student papers should also be submitted for storage and appeal
purposes. These are usually stored for two years before being disposed of.
3. Range of assessment methods
3.1 Instructors are encouraged to use a variety of assessment methods. These
may be diagnostic, formative and summative. A policy of using formative
assessments should be specified and attached to this strategy.
3.2 Assessment can include a mixture of techniques including midterm exams,
projects, term papers, case studies, quizzes, etc. University and College
council regulations specify the weight of final exams at 40%. Other tasks
should share the other 60% of the final grade.
3.3 Exams and tests should also include a variety of question types including
essay, short-answer, multiple-choice, and other types of questions. The
3
multiple-choice questions should not exceed the 20% of the overall marks in
any test.
3.5 Formative assessment should be employed to inform the students of their
progress in learning and means of improving it. In order to achieve this,
formative assessment should be the basis for prompt and objective feedback
to the students.
4. Prompt feedback to students
4.1 Feedback to the student should be prompt, fair, objective. The feedback
might be given to students verbally or in a written form but a record of
verbal feedback should be kept.
4.2 Assessment results should be returned to students within 2 weeks from the
date of the assessment activity.
4.3 Project work should be done in phases feedback for each phases should be
forwarded to student.
5. Moderation and grade distribution
5.1 A Grade Distribution Committee (consisting of 3-6 members) will be created
by each department to ensure moderation and consistency of grading among
all courses offered by the department.
5.2 The GDC will ensure application of the University and College policies in
grading.
5.3 The GDC will prepare a schedule during the grading period for staff who
would like to submit their grades.
5.4 Consultation by the staff with the GDC for reviewing the grade distribution
will be in a meeting where at least 2 of the GDC members present and should
not be done individually.
5.5 In the event when the student population is large enough a normal curve
distribution can be used, taking into consideration the University normal
curve as basis for the grade distribution.
5.6 Change of curve points is possible due to class level, student population, or
other considerations. However, in this case the instructor/coordinator must
obtain the consent of the GDC.
5.7 It is highly recommended that external examiners should be involved
especially in the assessment project work and summer training.
5.8 Internal/departmental exam moderation and grade distribution committee for
the moderation of midterm tests and final exams should be created annually.
5.9 The procedure for internal pre-moderation of midterm and final exams for
multi-instructor courses is as follows:
5.9.1
The course coordinator will ask instructors to submit candidate
questions for the exam.
4
5.9.2
The coordinator will prepare a draft exam and must discuss it with
other instructors.
5.9.3
Upon receiving their comments, the course coordinator will
prepare a final version of the exam with a key solution.
5.9.4
The coordinator should refer any disputes regarding premoderation of exams to the GDC.
Appendix A. Grading Guidelines
1. The standard University grading curve.
Letter
A
AB+
B
BC+
C
CD+
D
F
Points
4
76.3
7677
7
76.3
7677
7
06.3
0677
0
9
Grade
099-09
70-73
7.-74
77-79
30-33
3.-34
37-39
.0-.3
..-.4
.7-.9
<60
Note that it has been considered as usual practice to round grades on the
boundary upward. For example, a student receiving 89.8 or 89.5 or even 89.1 will
be considered an A.
2. The percentage of the student population that should be awarded a grade has
been set as follows in the American and European systems. Note that this
basically follows the normal curve and is meant here as an indication of good
practice and for benchmarking purposes only.
Benchmark
ETCS: European Credit
Transfer System
Academic Grading
System in USA
A
10%
B
25%
C
30%
D
25%
F
10%
7%
24%
38%
24%
7%
3. To eliminate doubt when specifying the grade boundaries and especially for
large sections, the Grade Distribution Committee should maintain suitable gaps
between grades and thus can move the boundaries slightly accordingly. This has
5
to be discussed in the GDC and should be approved by at least 3 members with
the consultation of the course coordinator.
6
Appendix B. NAQQAET Indicators Related to Assessment
Below are the indicators that are concerned with assessment in the NAQQAET
handbooks.
Table 1. NAQQAET Institutional Review Indicator 10 Statement
(see http://en.qaa.edu.bh/UsersFiles/FckFiles/file/HERU-ins.pdf)
Indicator 10
Assessment of student learning is appropriate for the learning outcomes sought and
accurately reflects the academic standards achieved by students.
What is expected of a higher education institution operating in Bahrain:
 There are policies on student assessment which set out: examination processes;
grading schemes and marking criteria; rules for special consideration and reexamination; requirements for more than one piece of assessment; and the ways
in which moderation is applied.
 These policies reflect research findings on good practice in assessment, so that
assessment tasks are designed to ensure accurate measurement of student
learning, in accordance with the learning outcomes for the subject and to
provide early identification of student learning difficulties
 These policies are implemented consistently throughout the institution
 There are staff development opportunities on how to measure subject and
programme learning outcomes through appropriate design of assessment and
the use of varying assessment tasks
 There is external scrutiny or comparison of the relative academic standards
achieved by the institution’s students.
Table 2. Excerpt from the Program Review Handbook
(http://en.qaa.edu.bh/UsersFiles/FckFiles/file/HERU-prog.pdf)
Indicator 1: The programme complies with existing regulations in terms of the
curriculum, the teaching and the assessment of students’ achievements; the curriculum
demonstrates fitness for purpose.
1.1 The programme has clear aims (that is, the broad purposes of providing the
programme) that relate to the missions of the institution and the Faculty and comply
with the Higher Education Council’s (HEC) regulations.
1.2 Intended learning outcomes are expressed in programme and course specifications.
1.3 The syllabus (curricular content) is accurately documented in terms of breadth,
depth, relevance, appropriate references to current and recent professional practice
and published research findings.
1.4 The curriculum is organized to provide academic progression year-on-year, suitable
7
workloads for students, and balances between knowledge and skills, and between
theory and practice.
1.5 Teaching and learning approaches are adopted which support the attainment of
aims and intended learning outcomes; these approaches relate to the range of
methods, participation in learning by students, exposure to professional practice or
applications of theory, encouragement of personal responsibility for learning and
the development of the habit of self-learning or independent learning after
graduation.
1.6 Suitable arrangements are in place, and known to all faculty and students, to assess
students’ achievements; these arrangements cover formative and summative
functions. There are clear criteria for marking; appropriate mechanisms for students
to get prompt feedback on their progress and performance that assists further
learning; clear links between what is assessed and the programme aims and
intended learning outcomes, and mechanisms for ranking students’ achievements
fairly and rigorously.
8
Appendix C. QAAET Program Review Handbook Excerpt (Section 2.6)
(source http://en.qaa.edu.bh/UsersFiles/FckFiles/file/HERU-prog.pdf)
76. Guidance on the assessment of students’ achievements
The assessment of students’ performance and achievements in terms of the stated aims
and intended learning outcomes of a programme presents a challenge in higher
education worldwide. Success in this respect contributes to the level of confidence in
the programme and its graduates more than any other single component of a
programme. The development of an outcomes-related approach to higher education
quality assurance requires considerable investment in student assessment strategies
and methods and in an institution’s regulations and procedures, including internal and
external moderation and evaluation.
Sources of good practice in assessment include the Code of Practice for Assessment
published by the Quality Assurance and Accreditation Project (QAAP) in Egypt, and the
Code of Practice on Student Assessment published by the Quality Assurance Agency for
Higher Education (QAA) in the UK.
The essence of good practice may be summarised as follows:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
Student assessment should be “fit for purpose” in being appropriate for the
articulated academic standards.
Programmes may employ three forms of assessment: diagnostic, formative
and summative.
Diagnostic assessment determines the abilities of a student to determine the
suitability of a course or programme; this is particularly useful for direct
entry at levels of a programme higher than first year, and for some courses
such as foreign languages.
F ormative assessment provides information for teachers and the students
on progress and what is being learned and applied, and on how the student
can further their learning. Feedback to the student should be prompt, fair,
objective and may be structured in a standard proforma or template for
consistency; feedback may also be face-to-face or by e-mail tutorial.
Summative assessment contributes to credits and can use a range of
methods ranging from laboratory and other practical work through major
projects, case studies and dissertations, multiple choice questions (MCQ), to
formal time-constrained and unseen written examinations.
9
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.
xii.
xiii.
xiv.
xv.
Self-assessment by students features in programmes or courses where the
student is given greater responsibility for their learning.
Peer assessment may also be used in suitable contexts such as seminars with
students’ presentations and group projects.
In any viable total population, a normal distribution curve will apply. A
normative assessment method, together with the use of reference points
such as trends in outcomes, may be used to moderate aggregate outcomes;
selective admissions can, however, create bias in the student group.
The development of outcomes-related approaches to higher education
quality assurance emphasises criterion-referenced assessment, where
students either demonstrate the specified performance or not; criteria may
be graded upwards from threshold in order to differentiate levels of
performance.
The balance and proportion of the total course assessment allocated to each
type of assessment enables the students to demonstrate the achievement of
all the intended learning outcomes, addressing knowledge and skills.
Professors responsible for courses, their academic colleagues and assistant
teachers and examiners, should have access to the detailed arrangements for
assessment of courses at all times, including type of assessment, schedule,
credit rating, criteria for marking and grading, marking schemes and model
answers.
Students should have access at all times (typically in a student handbook,
programme handbook or website) to the schedule of assessment, the types
of assessment, credit rating and criteria for marking and grading.
The Faculty or institution should have a clear policy and set of regulations for
assessing students’ achievements, including a clear function in either or both
a senior faculty member and a Committee or Board.
Internal moderation is essential to the quality assurance of the assessment of
students’ achievements. It ensures, before the students take the assessment,
that the assessment designed to establish the students’ progress in learning
and their level of achievements, is valid, fair and meets the intended learning
outcomes. Following the assessment, it checks that the marks awarded are
correct, fair and statistically normal. Where justified, modifications to the
accumulated marks and decisions on grades of pass, refer, and fail may be
made.
External evaluation provides an independent professional opinion on the
appropriateness of the assessment of the students’ performance and the
academic standards achieved on graduation. This is sometimes referred to as
verification of the academic standards attained. The functions and
10
xvi.
xvii.
xviii.
xix.
responsibilities of the external evaluator are normally the responsibility of
the institution.
Security of summative assessment is paramount (in particular, ensuring that
examination questions and answers are not leaked and that questions are
not repeated unduly in successive years; ensuring anonymity of answer
scripts to protect students from bias; preventing plagiarism and cheating by
students; and ensuring that marks or pass/fail rates are not altered without
justification).
Results of assessment should be released as soon as they have been checked,
ratified and endorsed by the appropriate Committee or Board.
An appeals mechanism should be in place and made known to students.
Adequate records for the programme are required, including the
examination questions and results itemised for each student and each
assessment; these provide information for scrutiny by HERU external peer
reviewers, the institution’s external evaluators or an appeals committee.
11