Graduate School
11 June 2008
Agenda Item 13(i)
Paper GS/08/33
Working Party on Marking Policy - Report for Discussion
1.
Introduction
The University’s policy on double marking was last subject to a University-wide review in
2006/07. Following consultation with departments the marking policy for undergraduate and
postgraduate taught work was approved by the Undergraduate and Graduate School Board in
June 2007 (appendix to assessment policies for undergraduate and taught postgraduate awards
at the University of Essex). The Working Party on Marking Policy was constituted in
November 2007 to review a number of assessment related areas that were not covered by this
initial review. The Working Party’s was asked to:
a. Review the use of oral presentations by Departments and Partner Institutions and consider
the appropriate marking policy in light of performance-based work.
b. Review the use of peer assessment by Departments and Partner Institutions.
c. Review the University’s guidelines on the moderation of assessment of work-based
learning.
d. Review the University’s guidelines on the moderation of assessment of placement
learning abroad, where students studying abroad are required to complete coursework that
is marked by the host institution.
e. Review existing practice and develop a policy for assessing performance and practical
work.
f. Review existing practice for awarding marks for student participation.
g. Review the use of one hundred percent coursework assessment. 1
The membership of the Working Party included:
Mr Bob Mack, Dean of the Faculty of University of Essex Southend (Chair)
Professor Stuart Manson, Dean of Law and Management
Dr Leon Burnett, Dean of Humanities and Comparative Studies
Dr Michael Roper, Head of Department, Sociology
Dr Peter Martin, Head of Department, HHS
Dr David Collins, Deputy-Dean of Academic Partnerships
Mr Jonathan Lichtenstein, Director for the Centre for Theatre Studies
Mrs Jane Corbey, Departmental Administrator, History
Ms Sheila Chan, Academic Manager, East 15
Ms Angela Turton, Assistant Registrar, Academic Section
Ms Nicola Billam, Learning and Teaching Officer
Ms Collette Coleman, Head of Higher Education, South East Essex College
Ms Liz Warr, Director of Educational Development, Writtle College
In attendance:
Miss Natalia Francis, Secretary
Miss Laura Middleburgh
The Working Party met three times over the Spring and Summer Terms, on the 12th March,
9th April and 19th May 2008. In advance of the first meeting a questionnaire was sent to all
departments2 to ascertain current practice within departments relating to the terms of
reference outlined above. The Working Party’s discussions focused on the existing
1
Added to the original terms of reference in light of discussions at the October meeting of the Quality
Assurance Committee in 2007.
2
“Departments” – denotes all departments at Colchester, Southend and Loughton campuses, and
Partner Institutions of the University.
assessment methods used by departments, and how a revised marking policy could enable and
encourage the use of a wider range of coursework. A summary of the key discussions and
recommendations put forward to the School Boards is given below, along with a number of
points for further discussion. A copy of the current marking policy showing tracked changes
is attached as Annex A. A copy showing the revised wording after track changes have been
accepted is attached as Annex B.
The Undergraduate and Graduate School Boards are asked to discuss the
recommendations put forward by the Working Party on Marking Policy, with a view to
introducing the revised marking policy with effect from 2008/09.
2.
Summary of Key Discussions and Recommendations
2.1
Practice at Partner Institutions
The Working Party recognised that practice differed at partner institutions, in comparison to
departments within the University, and that the recommendations put forward by the group
would not necessarily be a practical fit for all. Members agreed that their discussions should
not be driven by current practice at partners, if a department or partner wanted to deviate from
the revised marking policy a request for variation could be submitted to the appropriate
School Board. Members agreed that this principle should act as a guide for all their
discussions.
2.2
Assessment of Performance-based Coursework
The Working Party discussed the use of oral presentations, and considered the
appropriateness of the current marking policy in light of other practical/performance-based
coursework such as drama, art and construction. The Working Party decided to review
performance and practical-based work under one umbrella, ‘performance-based coursework’.
Although, members recognised that performance-based coursework was different to oral
assessment, and that it was important to differentiate between the learning outcomes that were
being assessed, it was agreed that performance-based assessment should be incorporated into
a single policy. Members agreed that the revised policy should only apply to marks that
contributed to a student’s degree classification, in the same manner as the current policy.
Recommendation 1: The current policy for the assessment of oral presentations should be
amended to include all performance-based coursework. The new policy for the assessment of
performance-based coursework should only apply to work that contributes to the award
classification.
The current policy for the assessment of oral presentations is as follows:
“The External Examiner must be present, or must have access to a video or audio
tape of the examination or to separate reports from two internal examiners where an
oral presentation falls under the following University policy which regulates the
assessment of oral presentations by students on taught schemes, or any other
assessment in which students are assessed by oral means.
The policy applies to assessment contributing to a mark appearing on the
Examination Board grids from which a student's final degree classification is
derived,
AND: EITHER contributing 25 percent or more to the overall mark for a course (or
other component generating degree classification - such as a project)
OR where the performance being assessed is in a more informal context involving
participation in discussion - contributing more than 10 percent to the overall mark
for the course.”
The Working Party felt that this policy was no longer appropriate and discussed what the
appropriate threshold for single-marking should be for performance-based coursework, either
with a permanent or non-permanent output, and concluded that performance-based
assessment with a permanent output, capable of being shown to the External Examiner,
should be subject to the normal single marking policy for essays/assignments. However, it
was considered that coursework consisting of performance-based assessment with no
permanent output at all should have a maximum threshold for single marking; if the volume
of this type of coursework exceeded the threshold, then it should be either double marked,
team marked, video/audio recorded, or attended by the External Examiner.
Members questioned how a student appeal for coursework with a non-permanent output
would be dealt with. Although the group agreed that appeals were an area of concern, it was
felt that any problems that arose would not normally reach the appeal stage. The Working
Party agreed that an appropriate threshold for single marking would be 40% of the
course/module. By setting the threshold at 40%, External Examiners would have access to
either second marker’s comments or permanent output for the majority of the assessment,
which would demonstrate that academic standards were being maintained and would act as a
safeguard in the event of an appeal.
Recommendation 2: Performance-based assessment with a permanent output, capable of
being shown to the External Examiner should be subject to the normal single marking policy
for essays/assignments, but only where the permanent output is the main component being
assessed.
Recommendation 3: Performance-based assessment with a non-permanent output worth up
to and including 40% of a course/module may be single marked. Where this type of
assessment contributes to more than 40% of a course/module, work must be double-marked,
or team-marked, or video/audio recorded, or attended by the External Examiner.
Members agreed that where a course/module exceeded the threshold for single marking that
all coursework should be double-marked, or team-marked or video/audio recorded (unless
attended by the External Examiner), not just those elements that exceed the 40% threshold.
The Working Party was undecided on whether the additional marking/recording should be
carried out for the whole cohort or using sampling. Some members of the group felt that the
whole cohort should be subject to double-marking, to give the External Examiner access to all
the work and to provide evidence in the event of student appeals.
Point for discussion: The School Boards are asked to discuss whether non-permanent
performance-based coursework that exceeds the 40% threshold for single marking should be
double marked, team marked or recorded based upon sampling or 100% coverage.
2.3
Assessment of Group Work
The Working Party discussed the assessment of group work. Members agreed that there were
two types of group assessment:
i)
Joint mark; where a single group mark is derived from people working together in a
group;
ii)
Individual mark; where individuals work in groups, but are assessed in whole or part
individually (for example, through an individual report/portfolio that focuses on the
individual’s contribution to the group’s output).
Current practice indicated that group work was mainly used for formative purposes within
departments at the University, however where group work was assessed it often involved both
joint and individual assessment. Practice differed at partner institutions; group work was well
established and on some programmes comprised 100% of a module’s assessment, with
oversight of the assessment policies and procedures provided through the validation process..
The Working Party discussed whether a threshold should be set on the amount that group
work could contribute to a single course/module. It was decided that it was not necessary to
set an overall limit on group work, however a limit was needed on the amount that a joint
mark could contribute to a single course/module because it would not be possible to have full
oversight at the programme level due to the amount of optionality on most schemes. The
Working Party considered a threshold of 25% would be appropriate as this would ensure that
a student’s degree classification could never be based on more than 25% of joint marks in
total. However, some members of the group were concerned that the joint mark threshold
proposed did not take into account necessary discipline-based variation, and questioned
whether it should be left up to departments to put a case to the School Board for a
department-specific higher threshold.
Point for discussion: To acknowledge that there may be necessary discipline based variation
to the amount that a joint mark should contribute to a student’s overall mark for the
course/module, should it be left up to departments to put a case to the School Board for a
department-specific threshold higher than the recommended threshold of 25%?
Recommendation 4: Subject to the outcome of the discussion point above, a joint mark
threshold should be instated and should be set at a maximum of 25% of the assessment of a
course/module.
The Working Party concluded that group work that produced a permanent output would fall
into the normal marking policy for essays/assignments. Group work that produced a nonpermanent output would fall into the proposed policy for assessment of performance-based
assessment, as outlined in recommendation 3. It should be left up to departments to design
how group work within each course/module was assessed. Departments should be encouraged
however to include both an individual mark and a joint mark in all group work, and put in
place a set of robust mechanisms to ensure that the assessment strategy for group work was
transparent, fair and equitable. It was suggested, as an example of good practice, that the
following four aspects of assessment could be used: tutor’s marks/feedback; individual
reflection; peer feedback and assessment of the final output.
2.4
Peer Assessment
Responses gained from the marking policy questionnaire indicated that peer assessment was
mainly used to help inform tutor’s marks, students themselves did not normally award marks.
The relative merits of using peer assessment were discussed and it was felt that further study
and discussion around this area, perhaps through a Teaching and Learning Innovation Fund
(TALIF) funded project, would better inform the policy. It was also suggested that a
course/module on peer assessment could be introduced onto the CHEP programme.
Recommendation 5: The Learning and Teaching Unit should consider initiating a TALIF
funded project on the use of peer assessment, and interested departments should engage in
discussions with the LTU in order to take part in a pilot project.
Recommendation 6: The LTU should consider introducing a course/module on peer
assessment onto the University’s CHEP programme.
2.5
Work-based/Placement Learning
The Working Party discussed whether the current marking policy for the moderation of
placement learning and study abroad was still appropriate in light of current practice. The
current policy is as follows:
The University publishes guidelines on work-based learning which state that ‘the assessment
of work-based learning/placement should be subject to the normal departmental procedures
in respect of moderation and external examining. Where students are studying abroad and
are required to complete coursework that is marked by the host institution, their work should
be made available to the External Examiner.’
Members agreed that the policy was appropriate for the moderation of work-based
learning/placement. A record was maintained by the placement provider, which kept track of
assessment on a continuous basis.
However, it was felt that the policy was no longer appropriate where students studied on
formal study abroad programmes. In these programmes marks are returned by the host
institution and the Study Abroad Office uses conversion tables, which are regularly reviewed,
to convert the returned marks to conform to the University marking scales. It was agreed that
requiring coursework to be made available to an External Examiner, where it is marked by a
host institution, could seem to undermine the integrity of the host. Host institutions had their
own marking policies and procedures for student complaints. If there was any doubt regarding
the host institution’s assessment methods then the University should not enter into a study
abroad arrangement with them. In addition, coursework completed at a host institution could
not always be made available depending on the country, language and type of coursework
completed. The Group therefore concluded that it was not appropriate to encompass study
abroad in the work-based learning/placement policy.
Recommendation 7: The current policy for the moderation of placement learning should
remain unchanged. This policy would include all work-based learning/placement and field
trips.
Recommendation 8: The current policy pertaining to study abroad should be changed as
follows. The University should take the mark awarded by the host institution and use the
established conversion tables to convert the mark. The External Examiner should continue to
have oversight of the marks awarded by a host institution and the conversion used. The
External Examiner should be invited to provide comment, through his/her report, if he/she
observes any anomalies between the converted marks and the rest of the students’ marks
profiles.
2.6
Marks for Participation
The current policy for awarding marks for participation is incorporated into the policy for
assessment of oral presentations. Current practice indicated that marks awarded for student
participation varied between 5% and 10% of the overall course/module. Participation marks
were generally used to assess students’ preparation for, attendance at, and contribution to
lectures or seminars. Members expressed some concern with awarding marks for
participation, where this was used to encourage attendance, and advocated that departments
should consider using other assessment strategies if participation marks were used in this
way. Departments could for example introduce a professional code of conduct (PCC), similar
to that used by East 15 School of Acting. The East 15 PCC is used to access factors such as
attendance on a pass/fail basis in addition to the summative assessment marks for a module;
this aims to develop students’ attendance and engagement with their degree.
Recommendation 9: The concept of marks for participation should be retained, although the
contribution to the overall mark for the course/module should be reduced from 10% to a
maximum of 5%
Point for discussion: Departments should be encouraged to use a variety of assessment
strategies to help encourage attendance and participation in class. The School Boards are
asked to discuss whether departments should be able to award marks based on attendance
alone.
2.7
The Use of Coursework as the Sole Means of Assessment on a Course/Module (100%
Coursework)
The Working Party was asked to review the use of 100% coursework, in light of growing
requests from Departments to increase the weighting of coursework relative to examinations.
There was concern that a precedent would be set if Deans continually approved the use of
100% coursework for individual courses/modules, which could lead to an increase in the
number of whole degree schemes that were assessed predominantly by coursework. An
additional concern was that the level of plagiarism could increase as there was more
opportunity for students to plagiarise coursework than exams.
Members however highlighted the need to recognise the evolutionary nature of assessment
towards coursework, and emphasised that they did not want the revised marking policy to
restrict innovation. It was felt that departments should be given more autonomy to determine
assessment strategies in the design of their degree schemes, which would help encourage the
use of a wider range of assessment. Departments could seek advice and guidance from the
Learning and Teaching Unit on the use of more innovative assessment methods, and how to
deter plagiarism. For example the Learning and Teaching Unit run a variety of workshops
which focus on learning and assessment methods.
Departments should be encouraged to use the most appropriate mode of assessment available
to them. The Deans would continue to have oversight of the weighting of examinations to
coursework; however departments would be given more autonomy to determine what
assessment methods to use. Departments should use the annual monitoring process to discuss
any specific issues related to their assessment strategies. For example departments should
include a statement outlining and reviewing their assessment methods; in particular, how they
ensure the assessment of learning outcomes, how they address the issue of plagiarism and
discussion of any External Examiner’s comments on the appropriateness of assessment
methods and weightings.
Recommendation 10: Limits should not be introduced on the relative volume of coursework
allowed in either courses/modules or degree programmes. Departments should be encouraged
to use the most appropriate mode of assessment available to them. Departments should use
the annual monitoring process to review their assessment methods, to discuss how they
address the issue of plagiarism and to respond to any External Examiner’s comments
regarding assessment.
3.
Revised Marking Policy
In light of the Working Party’s discussions and recommendations, the marking policy has
been revised for the School Boards to consider. A copy of the current policy with tracked
changes is attached as Annex A. A copy showing the revised wording after track changes
have been accepted is attached as Annex B.
Recommendation 11: The School Boards approve the attached marking policy, with effect
from 2008/09.
Bob Mack (On behalf of the Working Party)
May 2007