UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL
LANCASHIRE
SCHOOL OF PSYCHOLOGY
Psychology
Assessment Handbook
2008 - 2009
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
The Role of Personal Tutors
TYPES OF ASSESSMENT & LEARNING OUTCOMES
Types of Assessment – Examinations
Multiple Choice Question (MCQ) Examinations
Conventional Essay-type Examinations
Unseen essay-type examinations
Seen essay-type examinations
Mixed unseen and seen essay-type examinations
Types of Assessment – Coursework
Reports of Empirical Investigations
Other Types of Report
Essays
Information Technology (IT) and Statistical Exercises
Presentations
Learning Outcomes & their Relation to Assessment
ASSESSMENT PRACTICES AND POLICIES
Marks and their Implications
Degree Classification and Condonement
Coursework Submission and Feedback Details
Electronic Submission of Coursework to turnitin
Extension on Coursework Deadlines
Plagiarism
Collaboration
Length of Written Assignments
Moderation
Assessment Boards
Timing and Function of Assessment Boards
Extenuating Circumstances
Results and what they Mean
Notification of Results
Appealing against an Assessment Board Decision
ADVICE AND GUIDELINES ON WRITTEN WORK
General Advice on Written Assignments
Guidelines for Writing Empirical (Lab) Reports
Postscript: Self-Feedback on Empirical Reports
How to Cite Sources and Write References
Citing the Sources of Information in your Text (text citation)
Writing a Reference List of Sources you have Cited
An Example of a Completed Reference List
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
8
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
11
12
12
13
13
13
14
15
15
17
23
25
25
26
28
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Moderation Procedures
Appendix 2: Extenuating Circumstances Guidance Notes
Appendix 3: Appeals against Assessment Board Decisions
Appendix 4: Marking Criteria Guidelines for Stage 2 Students
Appendix 5: How a practical report would meet the criteria for a first class mark
29
32
35
38
42
1
INTRODUCTION
This Assessment Handbook is primarily designed to serve three important purposes:
1. To point to the types of assessment used, and to draw attention to how they relate to
the objectives, commonly expressed as learning outcomes, of the main psychology
programmes.
2. To provide reasonably concise factual information about the School of Psychology
assessment practices and policies.
3. To provide advice and guidelines about written work.
You should spend a little time now reading the contents of this handbook and then keep it safe
for future reference. It will be useful throughout your degree. In particular, the section on
Types of Assessment outlines the different types of coursework assessment and examination
that will be required of you. The section on Assessment Practices and Policies tells you about
some of the rules on assessments and about how your marks are agreed and
recommendations made about your performance. The final section tells you more about what
is required in written assignments. The Appendices also contain valuable information and you
should make sure you read them too.
The Role of Personal Tutors
If you are a Year 1 Psychology student your Personal Tutor will be the person who takes you
for seminars in the core psychology modules. One important role for the Personal Tutor in Year
1 is to explore with you any problems you are having with assessed coursework, or help you
improve your marks and how you work. You should arrange to see your Personal Tutor to
discuss your marked work (e.g. essays and lab reports) on a regular basis. Please be proactive
in arranging these one-to-one meetings – you do not need to wait to be asked.
We aim for you to keep the same Personal Tutor throughout your degree. In Year 2 and Year 3
you should meet one-to-one to discuss, for example, your examination performance. You
cannot keep copies of Multiple Choice Question papers, but you may keep copies of essaytype examinations which you have sat, and making notes of your performance soon after an
exam may help when it is time for you to find out your marks, and then meet with your tutor to
discuss these.
Personal Tutors also have a role in Personal Development Planning (PDP). Please see your
Course Handbook for more information on the role of your Personal Tutor and on PDP.
2
TYPES OF ASSESSMENT & LEARNING OUTCOMES
Psychology employs a number of examination and coursework assessment methods.
Examinations constitute around 50% of the assessment weighting in Years 1 and 2, and
between 33% and 58% in Year 3, depending on your choice of modules. Coursework makes
up the remaining assessment e.g. in Year 3 the double module project and PS3300.
Module Handbooks include details of how the Module is assessed, and what each assessment
contributes to the overall mark, so you should read these carefully. Copies of Module
Handbooks are available on eLearn (webCT) to students enrolled on the module.
TYPES OF ASSESSMENT - EXAMINATIONS
Examinations in Psychology can be divided into two groups:
 Multiple Choice Question (MCQ) examinations
 Conventional essay-type examinations
Multiple Choice Question (MCQ) Examinations
In a Multiple Choice Question examination, typically, you are presented with a question (or a
statement to complete), and asked to select what you think is the correct answer from a choice
of four options. MCQ examinations test the breadth of your knowledge as questions are usually
taken from the content of the whole module. They are used in Year 1 in PS1000, PS1100,
PS1200, & PS1500. Each of these has 100 questions. Tutors will usually offer you some
practice in answering this type of question but you will not have access to ‘past papers’.
At Level 2, several modules use some MCQs as part of the examination (e.g. PS2100,
PS2400, PS2800), along with a conventional essay-type examination, and one uses it as the
only examination method (PS2900). MCQ examinations are not used at Level 3.
Conventional Essay-type Examinations
Conventional essay-type examinations feature in most Year 2 and Year 3 modules. Copies of
past papers are on the web, so students can practice their examination technique. Generally,
questions test depth of knowledge. They can be divided into ‘seen’, ‘unseen’ and ‘mixed’.
Unseen essay-type examinations feature in most Year 2 modules. Typically, candidates
answer two questions from a selection, and have no prior knowledge of the questions. The
question paper may be divided into sections, where you must answer one question from each
section. In PS2200 students have to answer three questions from a selection (but there is no
MCQ examination).
Seen essay-type examinations involve students being given the questions well in advance,
but answer them under normal examination conditions. Wholly seen examinations do not
currently feature on any psychology module.
Mixed unseen and seen essay-type examinations feature in all Year 3 half-module
examinations. Papers are divided into two sections: A and B. Section A is a compulsory ‘seen’
question, and Section B is four ‘unseen’ questions from which you select one, so that you
answer two questions in two hours.
3
TYPES OF ASSESSMENT - COURSEWORK
When you are asked to produce a piece of coursework, you will be given written instructions of
what is required and a coursework coversheet that you should complete when you submit the
work. The coversheet includes the assessment criteria and space for written feedback. In the
case of the Year 3 Project, you will receive a Project Module Handbook at Year 2 progression.
You are expected to word-process all coursework and to follow instructions on format.
Reports of Empirical Investigations
A substantial majority of assessed coursework is made up of reports of empirical investigations
(often referred to in Years 1 and 2 as ‘lab reports’). With regard to the investigations
themselves, you will find that there is a progression from Year 1 class exercises, through Year
2 group exercises, to the Year 3 Project which is a substantial piece of independent research
carried out under the supervision of a member of staff. In all cases, whether done as a class,
group or independent exercise, the report itself is an individual piece of work.
You will write up to six lab reports in Year 1 (two reports each for PS1000, PS1100 and
PS1200). The content for the reports is delivered in class and you have one week to write the
report and submit it. In many Year 2 modules, you will work in a small group to design and
undertake an investigation under the supervision of a member of staff. The report submission
deadline takes into account the time needed to organize and carry out the group investigation.
The Year 3 Project is the most important single piece of coursework undertaken during the
Degree Course. As a rule, students begin their Final Year with a topic or topic area and a
supervisor already decided. The Project is a double module (40 credits): this means it is worth
of 33% of Year 3 marks and about 20% of the total on which the Degree classification is
based.
Other Types of Report
There are other types of report. For example, PS3310 Health Psychology in Practice is
assessed by portfolio, and PS3700 Techniques in Applied Psychology is assessed by four
consultancy-type reports. Where a module involves other types of report you will be told
exactly what is required.
Essays
You will be asked to write a ‘practice’ essay at the start of Year 1. This allows us to give you
early feedback on your essay-writing skills using Year 1 essay assessment criteria. PS1100
and PS1200 both include an essay as part of the coursework component. In Year 3, PS3300 is
assessed by two essays. Essays may be used in other modules, but they are not common,
whereas essay-type examinations are common, so it is important you take the opportunity to
develop good essay-writing skills.
Information Technology (IT) and Statistical Exercises
The IT component of the Year 1 module PS1400 Psychology in Practice includes exercises
based on the University’s computer network, such as producing a PowerPoint presentation,
using library resources and using the Internet. Most reports of empirical investigations,
including the Year 3 Project, require you to do some IT-based statistical analysis. In Year 1,
PS1000 also has an in-class IT-based statistical test. In Year 2, PS2700 Methods in
Psychology includes IT-based statistical exercises and an in-class statistical test.
Presentations
Assessed presentations are a feature of PS1500 Topics in Psychology. Students work in small
groups to prepare and deliver a presentation to an audience of their peers and two members of
staff. The presentations usually take the form of talks supported by visual aids, but other
forms, such as debates or (role) plays, are welcome. Each student is involved in three
presentations which together account for 50% of the module’s assessment weighting. There is
4
an element of peer assessment: staff will allocate an overall mark for a given group’s
presentation; students in that group determine how marks are shared out amongst themselves.
Presentations also feature in some Year 3 modules, e.g. PS3800 Frontiers in Biopsychology
involves a presentation for 30% of marks, and PS3609 Interventions in Sport Psychology is
assessed 100% by presentation. There are also non-assessed seminar presentations in all
years.
LEARNING OUTCOMES & THEIR RELATION TO ASSESSMENT
Each course (programme) has a set of objectives, referred to as Learning Outcomes. These
Learning Outcomes (LOs) define what we expect you to be able to do by the end of the course.
As you move through the Levels of your programme, you will encounter changes in the nature
and emphasis of what you are learning. At Level 1 (Year 1), you will be exposed to fairly
straightforward, uncontroversial, material, and you will not be expected to engage in sustained
critical analysis or argument. At Level 2 (Year 2), you will be developing the capacity for
criticism and argument as well as a more sophisticated understanding of methods and
theories. By the end of Level 3 (Year 3), we expect these skills to be well-developed.
There will also be a change in the manner of learning as you move through the levels: this can
be characterised as a shift from dependence to independence. This is most clearly shown in
the empirical investigations and reports that you have to complete at each level of study
(moving from Year 1 lab classes, through the Year 2 small group investigations, to the Year 3
independent Project). Independence at Level 3 is also seen in the type of material you are
expected to rely on in developing your arguments (that is, research journal articles rather than
textbooks).
The changing manner, nature, and emphasis of the sorts of thing we are expecting you to learn
over the three Levels is reflected in corresponding changes to the manner, nature and
emphasis of assessment. For example, you will be expected to demonstrate LO 1A at all
Levels: what changes from one Level to the next is the expected degree and depth of
knowledge and understanding, and the ways of assessing them. With increasing level there is
also a progressive differentiation between the five Single Honours degree routes in aspects of
course content and in the kinds of issues and problems that are addressed.
The Learning Outcomes described in the rest of this section are for the degree programmes
that contain a substantial amount of Psychology (the B.Sc. Psychology routes, the Combined
Studies Major Professional route and the Graduate Diploma). Those who complete a
programme with a smaller psychology content would be expected to demonstrate fewer, or
more modest, LOs.
Learning Outcomes are divided into four groups:
A. Knowledge and understanding
B. Subject-specific skills
C. Thinking skills
D. Other skills relevant to employability and personal development
There are two LOs to do with knowledge and understanding:
A1. Evidence up-to-date knowledge of the major areas of Psychology, understand the
main quantitative methodologies and appreciate the conceptual frameworks.
A2. Appreciate the application of psychological knowledge to the understanding of
problems and issues at both the social and the individual level.
5
These learning outcomes will be strongly reflected in all types of examination, in coursework
essays, and in empirical reports (especially the Introduction and Discussion sections). The type
of problems and issues will depend on which modules and degree programme you study.
Our primary aim at Level 1 is to teach you the basic facts, concepts, terminology, and methods
of psychology. As the MCQ examination allows a wide range of material to be assessed
efficiently and effectively, it is our Level 1 method of choice. At Level 2 you will be developing
the capacity for criticism and argument as well as a more sophisticated understanding of
methods and theories, and so essay-type examinations are introduced. By the end of Level 3,
we expect these skills to be well-developed. In order to demonstrate these you need a degree
of freedom of expression that MCQs do not usually allow. This is why MCQs are used sparingly
at Level 2 and not at all at Level 3.
There are two LOs to do with subject-specific skills:
B1. Generate testable hypotheses about behaviour (broadly defined), devise
investigations to test such hypotheses, analyse and interpret the results and write
coherent reports of the investigations.
B2. Write about a range of topics in psychology and inform the issues involved by
drawing on relevant empirical research.
It is in the reports of empirical investigations, culminating in the Level 3 Project, that B1 is
primarily assessed. Your ability to analyse and interpret data will also be assessed in PS2700
statistical exercises and in-class statistical examinations. B2 is assessed in all types of
examination (except MCQ) and coursework, and is a very important LO.
There are two LOs to do with thinking skills:
C1. Distinguish what is important, what is relevant and what is logically coherent from
what is not.
C2. Develop coherent arguments and express them clearly and concisely.
As for A1 and A2, there is a progression from Level 1 MCQ assessment through to Level 3
essay-type examination that allows you to demonstrate C1 and C2. These LOs are also
demonstrated in more independent empirical exercises and more reflective coursework.
There are two LOs to do with other skills relevant to employability and personal development:
D1. Be IT literate, being able to make effective use of software packages such as SPSS.
D2. Evidence competence in communication skills, presentation skills, group interaction
and teamwork skills and time management.
A variety of IT skills are explicitly assessed in PS1400, but all coursework should be wordprocessed, and Level 1 and 2 modules that involve statistical analysis will require the use of
SPSS (the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences).
All the assessment methods (with the exception of MCQ examinations and perhaps some IT
and statistical exercises), will be measuring your ability to communicate in one way or another.
Group interaction and teamwork is directly assessed only in PS1500. However, these skills are
needed for the Year 2 small group empirical investigations, and are a feature of Level 3 halfmodules through group seminar presentations, or some other group exercise. Time
6
management is necessary for things like effective private study and revision, meeting
coursework deadlines, and managing the Year 3 Project.
B.Sc. (Hons) Applied Psychology has two additional learning outcomes:
A3. Demonstrate specialist knowledge and understanding in the areas of Education and
Work Psychology.
C3. Apply knowledge to specific situations.
Both LOs are met at Level 2 through PS2600 Introduction to Applied Psychology, and at Level
3 through the choice of Project topic, the compulsory modules and the selection of optional
modules allowed on the degree.
B.Sc. (Hons) Forensic Psychology has one additional learning outcome:
A3. Demonstrate specialist knowledge and understanding in the area of Forensic
Psychology.
This LO is met at Level 2 through PS2800 Introduction to Forensic Psychology, and at Level 3
through the choice of Project topic and the selection of optional modules allowed on the
degree.
B.Sc. (Hons) Health Psychology has one additional learning outcome:
A3. Demonstrate specialist knowledge and understanding in the area of Health
Psychology.
This LO is met at Level 2 through PS2350 Health Psychology, and at Level 3 through the
choice of Project topic, the compulsory modules and the selection of optional modules allowed
on the degree.
B.Sc. (Hons) Neuropsychology has one additional learning outcome:
A3. Demonstrate
Neuropsychology.
specialist
knowledge
and
understanding
in
the
area
of
This LO is met at Level 2 through PS2850 Techniques in Biopsychology, and at Level 3
through the choice of Project topic, the compulsory modules and the selection of optional
modules allowed on the degree.
B.Sc. (Hons) Sport Psychology has one additional learning outcome:
A3. Demonstrate specialist knowledge and understanding in the area of Sport
Psychology.
This LO is met at Level 2 through PS2900 Sport Psychology, and at Level 3 through the choice
of Project topic and the selection of optional modules allowed on the degree.
7
ASSESSMENT PRACTICES AND POLICIES
Marks and their Implications
The pass mark is 40%. Most Year 1 and Year 2 modules are assessed by a combination of
coursework and examination. Ideally, you should pass all components of assessment but it is
possible to fail coursework or the examination and still pass the module. This is because the
part you have passed may make up for the part you have failed.
For instance, the Year 1 modules PS1100 and PS1200 each have an equal weighting of
coursework and examination (20% Lab 1, 20% Lab 2, 10% Essay, 50% MCQ). You would pass
the module if you gained 30%, 40% and 40% for the coursework (which works out as 6%, 8%
& 4% so 18% towards the overall mark) and 44% for the MCQ (so 22% towards the overall
mark) making 40% for the module. However, if you had lots of problems with Lab 1 and got
only 20% (which works out as 4% towards the overall mark) you would have only 38% for the
module and so would have failed. You would be asked to retake the lab in the form of a
methodological exercise to make good this fail. Alternatively, if you passed the coursework
component and only failed the examination, you would just be asked to re-sit the examination.
Please also note that though the essay is worth only 10%, in this example you would fail the
module if you did not do the essay and pass it. We strongly recommend that you complete all
elements of assessment.
Degree Classification & Condonement
Marks from Stage 1 (Year 1) are not used in calculating the degree classification. The
University permits up to two failed modules to be condoned at Year 1. However, to be eligible
to progress to Year 2 of one of the B.Sc. Psychology degree routes it is necessary to pass
each of the three core psychology modules (PS1000, PS1100 and PS1200), and there is no
progression in Combined Studies Psychology (even to a Minor route) if PS1000 is failed.
Degree classification is based on Stage 2 (Year 2 and Year 3 modules). Year 3 modules are
weighted approximately 50% more than Year 2 modules. Up to one module may be condoned
at Stage 2 but the Assessment Board would not normally consider condoning failure in Year 2
modules prior to the Year 3 Finals Board. It would not condone PS2700 Methods (which is a
pre-requisite for the Project) or the Project (which is a double module). Degree classification is
based on the best 11 modules.
The University will not condone modules that have not been attempted, or are missing from
your profile. Condonement for a failure is usually considered only in September after
reassessment.
Marks translate into degree classifications as follows:
70% and above
60-69%
50-59%
40-49%
00-39%
First Class Honours
Upper Second Class Honours
Lower Second Class Honours
Third Class Honours
Fail
So long as you have passed all the modules, or had a failed module (20 credits) condoned, the
Class of Degree you are awarded will usually be determined by your APM (the calculated
percentage) of your best eleven Stage 2 modules. However, the following rules are applied
with regard to APM marks:
 An APM of x9.5 is treated as being in the category above (e.g. 59.5 will be Upper
Second)
8
Below an APM of x9.5 the higher award may be given if at least half of the counted modules
(5.5) are in the higher category as follows:
 For 5.5 modules in the higher category, the APM must be no lower than x9.0
 For 6 modules in the higher category, the APM must be no lower than x8.5
 For 6.5 modules in the higher category, the APM must be no lower than x8.0
In making these decisions, the APM must be no lower than x9 less the number of half modules
above 5.5 in the higher category. So for seven modules in the Upper Second category (which
is three half modules above 5.5) the APM must be no lower than 59 minus three half modules
(59 – 1.5 = 57.5). These rules apply to all degree classifications.
Coursework Submission and Feedback Details
At the start of a module you will receive a Module Handbook. These give information about
assessment, including coursework deadlines and return dates for marked work. Coursework
submission is carefully monitored and there are penalties for late work: work submitted up to 5
working days late will get a maximum mark of 40%. All work submitted later than 5 working
days after the published submission date will be awarded a mark of 0%.
All coursework that is on time is submitted by posting it in the appropriate module box in the
Psychology Student Room (DB124). Boxes are clearly labeled with module codes and titles. It
is your responsibility to make sure that an assignment is posted in the correct box; work posted
in the wrong box and not discovered until after the deadline will be treated as late.
You must attach a coversheet to each piece of coursework. You should complete all
information on the front of the coversheet (your name and so on) and sign the declaration that
states you have not plagiarised the work (see section on plagiarism). Coversheets include the
assessment criteria and marking scheme, with space for marker’s comments.
Late work, or work that has an extension, should be handed in at the Psychology Office, where
staff will record the submission. Failure to do this may lead to late work not being marked.
With the exception of Year 3 coursework, which has to be retained until the Final Assessment
Board has met, the School aims to return marked coursework by 5.00 p.m. three (term-time)
weeks after the submission deadline. Where there is a student vacation towards the end of this
period, we would aim to return the work on the first day of term. If we are unable to return work
to you within 15 working days (e.g. through staff illness) we will let you know via email.
Electronic Submission of Coursework to turnitin
In Year 1, every time you submit a paper copy of coursework into the coursework box, you will
also be required to submit an electronic copy of that work to turnitin.com via the module eLearn
(webCT) site. This is one of the methods we have for identifying plagiarism. Guidance on what
plagiarism is and how to avoid it will be given in Year 1 seminars and is also in this handbook.
Please note that both the paper copy and the electronic submission to turnitin should be made
by the coursework deadline. Failure to meet the deadline for either the paper copy or the
electronic copy will lead to your coursework being marked as though it were late. You should
allow time for electronic submission when you are planning your work schedule. Please also
note that electronic submission is not a substitute for a paper submission – you must submit
both and on time. Instructions about electronic submission of work will be sent to you via your
University email account. Please keep this information safe. You are responsible for making
sure you understand the process of electronic submission before your submission deadline.
In Years 2 and 3 you may be asked to submit work electronically to turnitin, when the above
rules will apply. You will be required to submit an electronic copy of your Project (you will be
told how).
9
Extensions on Coursework Deadlines
Extensions on Coursework Deadlines may be allowed for good cause at the discretion of the
Year Tutor. Year 1, 2 and 3 Tutors are listed in the Course Handbook. In the case of the Year
3 Project, extensions must be supported by your Project Supervisor and approved by both the
Year 3 Tutor and the Head of School. Illness, corroborated by a Medical Certificate, normally
would be deemed good cause; such things as over-sleeping would not. An extension of up to
ten days may be agreed by the Year Tutor. The procedures for applying for extensions to
submission deadlines are quite separate from the procedures (described later) for requesting
Assessment Boards to consider extenuating circumstances.
Plagiarism
Plagiarism means presenting the words or ideas of others as if they were your own. The
University regards plagiarism as a serious disciplinary matter and deals severely with
offenders. For a first offence, the penalty is 0% for the plagiarized work, which you must
resubmit to an acceptable standard in order to receive a maximum mark of 40% for the
module. Failure to resubmit will lead to a mark of 0% for the module. For a second plagiarism
offence the penalty is 0% for the module.
In order to avoid being a plagiarist, you need to understand what plagiarism is. For example,
you may think there is nothing wrong with reproducing in a laboratory report, unacknowledged,
an extract from the briefing handout you received in class. You might think that because the
marker would know the source of the extract, you could hardly be accused of being deceitful.
Nevertheless, this is plagiarism. You have used the words of someone else without
acknowledgment. To avoid plagiarism you would need to put the copied extract in quotation
marks and cite the source in brackets immediately following the quotation.
Another way you might commit plagiarism is by constructing parts of your text out of copied, or
barely altered, pages from textbooks or the internet. What you should be doing is using these
sources not as a source of prose but as a source of ideas. You should take notes in your own
words and then construct the essay, or whatever, from your notes. If you frequently find this
impossible, perhaps because you do not understand what you are reading sufficiently well to
be able to put it in your own words, or simply because you cannot write well enough, then you
should consult your Personal Tutor, or use the WISER drop-in sessions (see UCLan website).
Well-chosen quotes can enrich and enliven an essay. However, frequent quotes from
textbooks that serve no purpose beyond saving the writer the trouble of putting the material
into their own words should be avoided. Whatever you do, remember: All quoted (or copied)
material should be enclosed in quotation marks with the source cited in brackets.
You also need to ensure that you are not presenting other people’s ideas as though they are
your own. Imagine you had described Freud’s theory of dreams, then written “This theory is
open to a number of criticisms, however....”, and then gone on to outline the criticisms. Now, if
the criticisms you outlined were your ideas, this would be good. However, if you came upon
the criticisms for the first time in Slumber’s recent text, Theories of Dreams, you would need to
qualify what you said to avoid the charge of plagiarism. For example, if Slumber had been the
first to voice the criticisms then you could say something like, “This theory has recently been
subjected to a number of criticisms by Slumber (1997)...” If Slumber made it clear that she
was merely recounting often made and by now well-known criticisms, you might simply write
“This theory has been frequently criticised on a number of grounds...” This would be legitimate
because, although you were not specifying exactly where you had got the criticisms from, you
were making it clear that the source was not yourself, though alternatively you could add power
to this by citing several sources (all of whom have criticised the theory).
More details on how to cite sources and use quotations are given in the next section on Advice
and Guidelines on Written Work.
10
Collaboration
In Year 1, PS1500 Topics in Psychology explicitly involves collaborative exercises. The
outcome is a group product (one shared presentation) and it is assessed as such. In all other
modules it is the work of an individual that is assessed, and therefore it is not appropriate for
you to collaborate in preparing that work. If two students collaborate on, say, a laboratory
report, and then submit separate reports they are both engaging in plagiarism. This is because
each is putting their name (and only their name) to something which is partly of somebody
else’s making. You should also be clear that, while it is fine for you to try to help another
student to understand some point or other, it is not appropriate for you to help someone to
write an assignment. To guard against colluding in plagiarism, albeit unknowingly, you should
not give another student anything you have written in relation to an assessed assignment.
In Year 2 the laboratory exercises are collaborative to the extent that, within a small group, you
will help to design an investigation, co-operate in the running of it, and share the data.
However, there should be no collaboration at the writing stage. Apart from computer printouts,
all parts of the report should be constructed individually.
Most Year 3 half-modules include a seen question on the examination paper. Students’ may
draw each other’s attention to relevant books and articles, and may discuss issues, but
collaborating in the preparation of a specific answer is a serious form of plagiarism.
Length of Written Assignments
Some assignments have a maximum word length specified; for example, it is 8,000 words for
the Year 3 Project report. In such cases, you are expected to perform a word count and
indicate the result in a conspicuous place on your assignment. If the count is initially higher
than the specified maximum, you should revise the assignment to bring the word count down
below the maximum. Please do not regard the maximum as the ideal. It is not. As a rule you
should aim much lower. Thus, for example, if you write concisely about matters that are
relevant and write sparingly, if at all, about matters of little relevance or importance, then you
are unlikely to need more than 5,000-6,000 words for the Year 3 Project report. Assignments
with words in excess of the specified maximum will receive a mark of zero and no feedback.
Random word count checks will be made.
Most coursework assignments will have a maximum word length or page limit specified.
These are not arbitrary. A specified word/page length is what the person who set the
assignment judged to be a little more than the length needed to write the ideal answer in the
circumstances. You will not be explicitly penalised for being well under the maximum length.
However, an assignment well under is likely to be too superficial. Where page limits are
specified, work must adhere to the specified format (i.e. left and right margins: 3cm; top and
bottom margins 2.5cms; line spacing: 1.5; font type: Times New Roman; font size: 12).
Markers will simply stop marking an assignment when they reach the specified maximum page
limit. Thus, anything written on subsequent pages will receive no marks at all, regardless of
how relevant that text may be.
Moderation
All substantial coursework assignments are subject to moderation. The particular system
currently operating entails second marking of all assignments which were assigned a mark in
the Fail or (at Years 2 & 3 only) the First category by the first marker plus a sample of 10% of
the rest. If there is substantial disagreement between first and second marker then all
assignments will be moderated, possibly after the involvement of a third marker. There is an
exception to these general rules: All Year 3 Projects are clean double-marked.
External Examiners monitor all examination question papers. They have access to all assessed
work that contributes to Final Classification, and sample primarily Year 3 work. A full
explanation of the School’s moderation procedures can be found in Appendix 1.
11
ASSESSMENT BOARDS
The basic level of assessment at the University of Central Lancashire is the Module. A full-time
student will take six modules a year (120 credits). At Level 1, this will typically be made up of
five full modules (20 credits each) and an elective, which might be two half modules (10 credits
each), so by the end of the year you would have results from seven modules in total. At Level
2, there are only full modules in Psychology, so you will have results from 6 modules in total.
However, Level 3 includes a double module project and half modules, so you need to make
sure you are studying the correct number. Full details of what modules you should study at
each level of your course, and about progression rules, are in the Course Handbook.
Each year the University publishes its Academic Calendar on the website. This shows
examination weeks, assessment board weeks, results publication dates, appeals deadlines etc.
Timing and Function of Assessment Boards
Module Assessment Boards ratify the overall percentage marks for each of your modules. A
mark of 40% or above means you have passed the module. Module Boards are held:
 Following Semester 1 (for Semester 1 modules)
 At the end of Semester 2 (for Semester 2 and Year-long modules and for Semester 1
re-assessment)
 At the end of Semester 3 (for any outstanding re-assessment, e.g. Semester 1 reassesment where the student has asked to be assessed in Semester 3, Semester 2
and Year-long re-assessment).
Course Assessment Boards (Single Honours) and Subject Assessment Boards (Combined
Honours) are held TWICE each year: at the end of Semester 2, and again at the end of
Semester 3 (for students who had outstanding re-assessments). These look at your marks on
all the modules you have taken and make a decision or recommendation about whether you
can progress or proceed to the next Level/Year or, if you are a Finalist, make a
recommendation for your Degree classification.
It is very important that you check your results following the Semester 1 Module Boards
and the Semester 2 and Semester 3 Course and Subject Boards. You need to know if you
have failed any modules and whether you are being offered any re-assessment. You can
check results on MyUclan (See Your Data) on the date of publication. After this, results will
also be posted to you.
If you have failed some modules at Semester 2, the Course or Subject Assessment Board may
offer you reassessment over the summer. These Boards reconvene in September and
reconsider all candidates with reassessment.
Students with one fail module still on their record may be allowed to proceed to the next Level
provided that the failure is not in a core module (e.g. PS1000, PS1100, PS1200). The
recommendation would be ‘Proceed subject to registration of 7th Module’ (or half module). So
you would have to take your six modules at the next level PLUS retake all the assessment in
the failed module for a maximum of 40%.
Students with more than one fail module are unlikely to be allowed to proceed. The
recommendation might be ‘FAIL may complete by part-time route’. You would transfer to parttime to re-take the failed modules. Year 1 students may retake up to SIX (120 credits) of failed
modules. This might include taking a failed module more than once (each attempt would
count). Year 2 and Year 3 students may retake up to FOUR (80 credits) failed modules at
12
Stage 2. The Course Handbook gives more detail on progression rules. Any retake is for a
maximum of 40%.
Extenuating Circumstances
If you need an extension to a coursework deadline, you should see the relevant Year Tutor. If
your circumstances are such that a ten-day extension would not be sufficient to complete the
work, or if, for good reason, you miss an in-class test (and cannot arrange another date with
the Module Leader) then you should submit a properly completed Extenuating Circumstances
envelope, with evidence, as soon as possible.
You may feel that your assessed performance has been adversely affected by circumstances
at the time of the assessment or during a period when you were preparing for assessment (e.g.
revising for examinations). If you also feel that the relevant Assessment Board should take
these circumstances into account, then you should complete an Extenuating Circumstances
envelope. You should get whatever documentary support you can, and submit your claim as
early as possible and certainly in advance of the date of relevant Assessment Boards. Notices
will be up in the School of Psychology advising students about Extenuating Circumstances and
the deadlines for submitting these. Please read the information about Extenuating
Circumstances in Appendix 2.
Results & what they Mean
The most important Assessment Board meets towards the end of the Academic Year. It
decides whether you have passed and are eligible to proceed to the next Level (or to an exit
award – your degree), or whether you have Failed. Please note, Fail does not necessarily
mean that your hopes of achieving a degree are at an end. You could be asked to transfer to
part-time to re-take some failed modules, and for each of your modules you could be deferred,
referred, or failed.
Deferred means you have ‘good cause’ (usually some serious extenuating circumstances) for
not passing a module and will be allowed to retake, or take for the first time, some or all of the
assessment without any penalty.
Referred means you have not achieved 40% but are being offered the chance to do some
further assessment (e.g. re-sit a failed exam, submit a methodological exercise in place of a
failed lab report) in order to achieve a pass mark. You would be allowed to retake failed
elements of assessment in each referred module for a maximum module mark of 40%.
Failed means that your performance was such that re-assessment was deemed inappropriate,
or when you have been offered re-assessment but still not achieved the pass mark of 40%.
Notification of Results
The Academic Calendar gives the date when the Board’s decisions are available to view on
MyUclan (See Your Data). If you do not have access to the internet you should come in to the
University to check your results where they are pinned on notice boards: Combined Honours
results are in Foster Building; Single Honours are in the School of Psychology. The notice will
only show which of the general categories you fall into (pass or fail). You should talk to the
Programmes Co-ordinator for further details. You cannot delegate a friend to do this and the
University has a strict policy on not giving results over the telephone, it must be in person. You
will also (later) be sent a full transcript of your results from Examinations and Awards.
If you have been deferred or referred, then within three weeks of the results being published
you will be sent a ‘reassessment form’ for each module that details what work is required.
You will be told the deadline for submitting coursework, and what the work is. You must check
examination times, dates, and venues when they are published on the University website.
13
Keeping the Record Straight refers to your responsibility for making sure that your contact
details (home and term-time address, telephone numbers etc.) are correct. You should update
these details yourself in MyUclan (See Your Data). It is vitally important that these contact
details are correct so we can send you details of any reassessment, your results and so on.
If for some reason you are you are taking an examinations at a different time from the rest of
your cohort please ensure that you and the Module Leader are clear on what is required. For
example, if you are doing an examination a year after you attended a module, make sure that
an appropriate question paper has been prepared for you.
Appealing against an Assessment Board Decision
There is no appeal against an Assessment Board decision on academic grounds. This means
you cannot ask for a decision to be reconsidered simply because you thought markers had
undervalued your performance. Appeals can be made on other grounds. For example, you
may feel that you had been seriously misinformed about the nature of the assessment, or there
were Extenuating Circumstances which, for good reason, you did not submit in time for the
Board’s deliberations.
If you want to appeal, you must do so within seven days of the date of publication of results.
Requests should be made to the Chair of the Assessment Board by completing the ‘First Stage
Appeal’ form via the ‘i’ website. Appendix 3 gives details of the University’s Appeals
Procedures.
Some things may not require an appeal but do need bringing to our attention as soon as
possible. For example, if you think that one of the marks from a coursework assignment that
normally contributes to a module assessment has been mistakenly omitted, we need to know
about it so we can correct it. Please talk to the Programmes Co-ordinator or Module Leader
about such issues.
14
ADVICE & GUIDELINES ON WRITTEN WORK
The Psychology document Marking Criteria Guidelines for Stage 2 (Second and Third Year)
Students, is in Appendix 4. This describes in detail the six general criteria on which Year 2
and 3 coursework and examination answers are evaluated and classified. The six criteria are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Relevance;
Structure, general understanding, coherence, and logic of argument/analysis;
Originality;
Knowledge/content;
Explanation of empirical details
Style
There is nothing comparable written for Year 1 where much of the work is about developing
your skills in essay and report writing, and in other transferable skills. Year 1 marks do not go
towards your degree classification as we recognize that Year 1 involves learning new material
and new ways of working.
However, you should make every effort to do your best in Year 1 as it forms the foundation for
Years 2 and 3. Students who do well in Year 1 usually do well in subsequent years, but those
who take longer to pick up new skills and do less well in Year 1 can still catch up in Years 2
and 3 and obtain a good honours degree.
All students might use the First classification description as something to aim for. Appendix 5,
‘Guideline Criteria for an Excellent (First Class) Project or other Practical Write Up’ contains an
outline of how a First-class write-up of an empirical investigation would fulfill the criteria.
GENERAL ADVICE ON WRITTEN ASSIGNMENTS
Format: Your assignments should be word-processed. To leave sufficient space for markers to
add any comments, the text must be formatted as follows: Left and right margins: 3cm; top and
bottom margins: 2.5cms; 1.5 line-spacing; font type: Times New Roman; font size: 12. You
may be reminded of format in an assignment brief.
Consider your reader: Although your only reader will usually be the person who marks your
assignment, you should not assume that they know more about the matter than you do. Think
of your reader as a psychologist who will be familiar with standard terminology, conventions,
and procedures, but who happens to know nothing of the particular issue(s) you are
addressing. So, for example, you would tell your reader that you had a ‘between-subject
design’ without defining or explaining the term, but you would not tell the reader that you were
testing ‘Craik and Lockhart’s theory’ without describing what it was.
Organise your material: Your assignment should begin by telling the reader what awaits
them. In a laboratory report you do this in the Abstract. In an essay, the introduction should
provide general context, outline the main issues, and indicate how the writer intends to address
them. The same applies to the Introduction section of a Level 3 Project: as it may be quite
long, the reader needs to be told at the beginning what it contains and what it seeks to
achieve.
Be self-critical: When you have written a few sentences or a paragraph, ask yourself:
 Could a reader reasonably be expected to understand what I have written?
 Does what I have written follow on reasonably from the preceding sentences?
15
When you are changing tack, particularly in an essay, it is as well to summarise where you
have got to in your account or argument, and then tell the reader where you are heading next.
As your introduction should have provided an outline, this can be done in a sentence or two.
For example, in the middle of an essay on eyewitness testimony you might start a new
paragraph by writing:
“It can be seen, then, that eyewitness testimony is rather unreliable in many forensically
relevant contexts. The essay will now examine evidence that relates to the question of
how much faith jury members tend to place in eyewitness testimony.”
Sub-headings: You would not use sub-headings in an essay, but you might in the Introduction
to your Project. These show when your account is changing tack, but are additions to, rather
than substitutes for, the type of linking sentences shown above. You must organise laboratory
and Project reports into standard sections.
Conclusions: Just as it was important to begin your essay in a reader-friendly way, so it is
important to end in a clear and accurate way. The reader will want to see a summary of the
main themes of the essay and the major conclusions drawn. The conclusions should follow
from the evidence and arguments contained in the main body of the essay. It seems obvious,
but essays that contain a conclusion that is unrelated to the preceding text are common.
Academic style: Avoid using the first person (singular or plural) as you are aiming for an
academic style. So instead of saying ‘We did X’ try ‘X was done’, or write in the third person
(‘The experimenters…’). Also avoid writing about your personal experience or opinion. You are
encouraged to take a position on an issue, so long as you support it with relevant, publicly
accessible, research/academic evidence.
Avoid sexist language: One way of doing this is to include both the feminine and the
masculine e.g. ‘s/he’, ‘hers/his’, ‘her/him’. This is a bit awkward. A better method is to use the
plural. This can be difficult to do without losing clarity or precision. For example, instead of
writing “A person who fails her/his driving test...” try “People who fail their driving test...”.
Guidelines for Writing Empirical (Lab) Reports
The following describes the essentials of report writing. It focuses on reporting investigations
that use the experimental method. Guidance on writing other forms of empirical investigation
will be given when needed. All experimental reports should contain the following sections in
this order:
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Method with subsections on
Design
Participants
Apparatus/Materials
Procedure
Results
Discussion
References
Appendices (as necessary)
Note: The Title, Abstract and Introduction, would usually be written without using these
headings. All other sections would start with the appropriate heading.
16
Title: This should provide as much information as possible as concisely as possible. One or
two words will not do.
Abstract: This should be a brief summary of the study. Aim to write one paragraph (about 150
words). It should include statements about:




The aims of the study - Why did you do it?
What was done - How did you do it?
What the results were - What did you find?
What conclusions did you come to from the evidence of your study?
It is not necessary to include details of subject numbers, ages and so on, or number of trials. A
brief sentence to describe the type of task employed will suffice. Neither is it appropriate to
include specific details of your results e.g. mean values, standard deviations etc. The aim of
the Abstract is to provide an overview so that readers can decide whether or not the study is
likely to be of interest to them.
Introduction: The aim of the Introduction is to provide a clear rationale or explanation for why
you did your study. It should include the following:




What is the area of the study?
What other studies have been done in this area?
What did these studies find?
How did they lead you to ask the current question(s)?
Once you have ‘set the scene’ for your study, you need a brief statement of what you did and
how. Finally, the Introduction should be completed with a statement of what specific
question(s) you are seeking to answer.
For example, imagine you were interested in the general question of whether men and women
differ in the extent to which they like different types of novel. And let us say you had good
reason (based on psychological theory or research which you have included in your
introduction) to think that men might be more appreciative of thrillers relative to other forms of
novel. As a way of investigating this, let us say that you asked a sample of men and women to
rate various novels. In this case, the specific question your experiment is asking is:
‘Will male participants show a greater relative preference for the thrillers than female
participants?’
You could leave the question in that form, or state it as a directional hypothesis e.g.
‘It is expected/predicted that male participants will show a greater liking for the thrillers
relative to the other novels than women will show.’
However, you should not have a directional question/hypothesis without good reason. It
commits you to doing a one-tailed statistical test and so rules out the possibility of testing for
an effect in the opposite direction. Whichever you decide to do, you should avoid formal jargon
when stating hypotheses e.g. ‘H1’, ‘null hypothesis’ etc. You should simply state the hypothesis
in a sentence or two (as in the examples above).
METHOD
There are four sections to the Method in an experimental report:
Design, Participants, Apparatus/Materials, Procedure.
Design
17
For experimental studies, this section should include information concerning the type of design
used (e.g. between- or within-subjects), the independent variable(s) and the dependent
variable(s).
If you are not used to writing laboratory reports, it might be a good idea to make it clear to the
marker that you have correctly identified the type of design, and the independent and
dependent variables. An example would be:
‘A between-subjects design was employed. The independent variable was the modality
of the presentation of the word list, which was manipulated on two levels (verbal
presentation and visual presentation). A three-minute distractor task was given
immediately after presentation, followed by a free recall task. The dependent variable
was the number of words recalled in five minutes.’
However, this section can be written without using technical jargon, and you should aim for this
as you progress in your report writing:
‘Half the participants were read the words aloud, and half were presented with the
words singly on a computer screen. This was followed by a three minute distractor
task, after which all participants were given five minutes to freely recall as many of
the words as they could.’
Here, the reader has been told, in ordinary language, what has been manipulated (the
independent variable) and that it has been manipulated between participants (a betweensubjects design), and what has been measured (the dependent variable). Please note that in a
correlational study it would be wrong to describe the variables in terms of independent and
dependent.
In more complex research designs, particularly those you will use in Years 2 and 3, you will
also have to give details of any controls and counterbalancing procedures you employ. For
example:
‘A within-subjects 2 (time of day; morning and evening) by 2 (modality; verbal or visual
presentation) design was employed. Half the participants performed the tests in the
morning and again in the evening; the other half was first tested in the evening, and
then on the following morning. The modality of presentation was also counterbalanced,
with half the participants receiving the verbal presentation first, and half receiving the
visual presentation first. Each presentation was followed by a three minute distractor
task, after which all participants were given five minutes to freely recall as many of the
words as they could.’
These suggestions for ways in which you can lay out the design section are not comprehensive
and you may need to adapt them to the needs of the study you are describing. You can get
more ideas by looking at journal articles relevant to the general area of psychology you are
studying.
Participants
Who were the participants? How were they selected? What was their mean age and/or age
range? How many males and females? How many in each experimental group? Other
information may also be relevant depending upon the specific nature of the study. For
example, if you were investigating attitudes to colonialism it would be useful to know the ethnic
breakdown of your sample; if you were investigating depth perception it probably would not.
Apparatus / Materials
Give a description of any equipment used, including a description of stimuli where appropriate.
Do not list items. Do use full sentences. ‘Apparatus’ is the most appropriate heading when
18
large items of equipment are used, e.g. a computer. ‘Materials’ is better where only paper and
pencil type tasks are involved. Please assume that the reader has some common sense and
do not include unnecessary details such as “Pens were used for filling in the questionnaires”.
Procedure
The procedure should describe everything that was said and done, e.g. instructions to
subjects, etc. It must be clear enough to allow someone else to exactly replicate your
procedure. However, avoid including the obvious, or details that were incidental and could not
have affected the results. For example, if you tell the reader that the order in which two
experimental conditions were undertaken was random, you do not need to go on to say how
the randomisation was achieved.
RESULTS
This section is simply a description of your findings and a report of the outcome of any
statistical analysis that was undertaken.
Do not include raw data here: individual subject scores belong in an appendix.
Do not include all the details of statistical analysis here. Only the outcome of that analysis
belongs in this section: computer printouts etc. belong in an appendix.
With straightforward measures, there is no need to explain to the reader how you calculated
your summary data. For example, if you had told the reader in the method section that
participants’ reaction time was being measured you would not need to explain (as it would be
obvious) how you derived mean reaction times before you presented a table of mean reaction
times. However, if you were transforming your data in some way, or comparing differences
between differences, the reader would need to be told what you had done to your raw data to
get them into the form that they appear in the table.
Results sections will often begin with a sentence introducing a table of descriptive data e.g.
means and standard deviations. You need to think about how to present the table so that the
reader can see at a glance any general trends in the data that go in, or against, the direction of
the major hypothesis. For example, if you were reporting the results of an experiment to see if
drinking two pints of beer affected reaction time to a visual stimulus, you would present a
simple table so that the reader could make an immediate comparison between the drinking and
no-drinking condition. You would introduce the table with a simple line of text such as:
“Table 1 contains the mean reaction times (and standard deviations) for the beer
drinking and control conditions.”
As well as a sentence to introduce them, all tables must have a title above the table that
includes the units of measurement. For example:
“Table 1. Mean reaction time (msecs) for subjects drinking two pints of beer and two
pints of water resp.”
If you think that results as simple as these (only two means and two standard deviations) could
be presented clearly in a sentence, you are right. However, until you become more
experienced at report writing, we want you to follow the general rule of presenting your results
in tables.
Please do not call your conditions 1, 2, or A, B, etc. as this means nothing to the reader. It is
better to give them a name that carries information that will identify them directly e.g. ‘beer’ and
‘water’. In a simple experiment with just one experimental group and one control group, you
might just use the terms ‘experimental’ and ‘control’. If you do need to use numbers, letters, or
abbreviations to label your conditions, then provide a key on the same page as the results
19
table.
Figures (charts, histograms, graphs etc.) should be used if they extend or clarify the results in
some way. Do not re-present your data in a figure just for the sake of it. If the figure does not
help the reader then it should not be included. If you do include a figure, it should be located in
the main results section, it should be introduced and have a title below the figure, and it should
receive some comment in the discussion.
These descriptive data are followed by information about your statistical analyses. You
should say what specific statistical tests were used, and, where appropriate, whether they were
one- or two-tailed. For each test you should report the value you obtained for the test statistic
(and, for some tests, the degrees of freedom), and:




Whether or not the value obtained was significant;
If significant, at what level (i.e. p < .05, or < .01, or < .001);
If non-significant, the exact probability value;
The direction of the difference, especially if it is not obvious to the reader.
All this information can be expressed quite concisely, for example:
"A two-tailed related t-test indicated that mean reaction time in the water condition was
significantly faster than in the beer condition (t (16) = 2.98, p < .01)". (Note: the number
in brackets after ‘t’ shows the degrees of freedom.)
And here is an example for a non-significant result:
“A two-tailed related t-test found no significant difference in mean reaction time
between the two conditions (two-tailed related t-test; t (16) = .31, p = .805).”
Note: If you had a directional hypothesis and were going to do a one-tailed test but then find
your results have gone in the opposite direction then that is the end of it. Even if there is a
huge difference, you should not undertake a statistical test. In the Discussion you would
conclude that you have strong evidence for rejecting your hypothesis, but you should not argue
that you have evidence in favour of the opposite hypothesis. You will not get into this kind of
mess if you avoid directional hypotheses and use two-tailed tests. Some argue that
psychologists are well-advised to routinely restrict themselves to two-tailed tests.
As the purpose of a Results section is to summarise the results and the outcome of any
statistical analysis undertaken, there is often little need for further comment. If your study is
one that addresses lots of different questions/issues/hypotheses then you might, when you are
reporting the outcome of each statistical test, remind the reader why you are interested in that
particular comparison. If the whole study is focused on just one or two issues then the reader
ought not to need reminding.
If you do offer any comments, avoid common errors such as referring to rejecting or accepting
the null hypothesis. Also avoid comments like “The test was non-significant and therefore the
results were due to chance” or “The test was significant and therefore the results were not due
to chance”. Your statistical test does not give you the probability that your results are the
outcome of chance. The test assumes that the null hypothesis is true: it assumes that the world
is such that there is no effect of the sort you are hypothesizing, and on that basis calculates the
probability of getting data at least as extreme as yours are.
Strictly speaking you are not using a statistical test to test a hypothesis about your data. Rather, you are using it to
help you judge the extent to which your data support a hypothesis you have about the world. Put another way, you
are asking what you can say about the world on the basis of what you have found in your sample of the world. Say
your sample of the world was 10 people, nine of whom you found to have longer reaction times after drinking two
pints of beer than after drinking two pints of water. Your statistical test will tell you how likely it would be that you
would draw a sample of this kind (or more extreme, i.e., 10 out of 10) from a world in which there was no overall
20
Finally, it is important to recognise that there is much more to data analysis than establishing
whether or not results are ‘statistically significant’.
Consider the following two experiments, one investigating the possibility that a side effect of
taking cod liver oil (CLO) capsules is to reduce reaction time, and the other is investigating the
same thing with respect to garlic capsules. In each experiment there is a placebo control
condition. Assume the CLO experiment is a huge study with 100,000 participants and the garlic
experiment is a small-scale study with six participants. Assume each gives us the same
outcome in terms of statistical significance of p = .031. Should we conclude that both types of
capsule are equally effective in reducing reaction time? Or, should we be more favourably
inclined to CLO capsules because their effect had been tested in a much larger sample?
To both questions the answer is ‘no’. The fact that the CLO study was so large but only just
reached statistical significance must mean that the size of the effect it detected was very small.
On the other hand, the size of the garlic effect must have been large or it could not have been
detected with such a small sample. With modern computer packages, like SPSS, estimates of
effect sizes can be obtained at the click of an icon.
Similarly, confidence intervals, which (in the form of a vertical line) can be automatically put
on to the top of each bar in a bar chart (or to points on a graph) are also instantly available. It
is common to use the 95% confidence interval. This specifies the range within which 95% of
the participants’ scores fall. In our CLO experiment, the 95% confidence intervals for each of
the conditions would be very similar, while in the garlic experiment they would not.
DISCUSSION
This section should begin with a statement of the results in non-statistical language. It should
then go on to explore their implications for the questions that your study was addressing/the
hypotheses your study was testing. This is likely to include a re-evaluation of some of the
studies you examined in your Introduction. If you have included any Figures in your Results
section, then you need to discuss them or at least make some reference to them in the
Discussion.
Discussing non-significant results can be tricky. When the results are significant (usually when
p<.05) then convention has it that you can claim that there is a genuine effect that supports
your hypothesis. If there is no difference between your conditions/groups or the difference is in
the opposite direction from that hypothesised then, clearly, your results constitute evidence
against your hypothesis, or at the very least grounds for questioning it, and you should say so.
But what if your (non-significant) differences are in the predicted direction? Should this be
interpreted as evidence against the hypothesis? Obviously not, or you might face an absurd
situation where you interpreted a result of p = .051 as evidence against your hypothesis
whereas if it had been only very slightly different, say p = .049, you would have regarded this
as sufficient evidence for accepting it.
So how should you deal with non-significant findings? The simple advice, for Level 1 at
least, is that you should treat all non-significant results that are in a hypothesized direction in
the same way. That means you should give no more weight to results that are nearly
significant than to results that are nowhere near significant. But keep in mind that not finding
statistically significant support for a hypothesis is not the same as finding evidence against it.
Reserving judgment, pending further research, is usually a sensible response to positive but
non-significant findings.
difference. The normal convention in cases where the probability is less than .05 is to assume that the difference we
observed in our sample reflects a difference in the world – in other words, we accept our hypothesis.
21
There may be methodological weaknesses that need to be discussed. As a rule, do not pay
attention to extraneous variables that merely produce ‘noise’ in the data (that is, they are no
more likely to affect one condition or group than another). Confine yourself to trying to identify
confounding variables, that is to say ones that could have had a differential effect on your
groups or conditions (either in the same direction as the independent variable was supposed to
or in the opposite direction). If there are no discernible methodological weaknesses of this kind,
then have confidence in your results. Avoid making facile ‘excuses’ of the maybe-if-we-hadhad-more-participants-we-would-have-got-a-different-result kind.
Finally, you may have some suggestions as to what might be an interesting and useful way
to progress with future studies in the area. If so, you should say why what you suggest might
be interesting and/or useful. For example, it is not enough to say something like “our
experiment involved a student sample and it would be interesting to see if we got different
results with a sample of the general population”. You would need to go on and say why you
thought that the student sample might have been unrepresentative in relation to the question(s)
under investigation, and in what way that might have distorted the results.
REFERENCES
A reference section should appear at the end of your practical report before any appendices. It
should include only those sources you have cited in the text of your report. Sources you have
read but have not referred to in the text should not be included. However, if you have read a
relevant source, it is quite likely that you will have gained some information or ideas from it, so
check whether it should have been cited, and so included in the reference section.
APPENDICES
As a rule, an appendix is the place to put the sorts of detail a reader does not need to know to
fully understand your study but would need to know if they wanted to check your data analysis
or repeat your study. For example, you may have administered a lengthy questionnaire the full
details of which would ‘clog-up’ your Method section and which the reader would not want to
see. What the reader would want to see in the Method section would be an outline of the sorts
of item in the questionnaire, with maybe one or two illustrative items. If for some reason the
reader did want to see the complete version then they could see it in an appendix. Each
appendix should have a number and a title. In a project, this information should be included in
the contents page. Remember to number the pages of the project consecutively from the
beginning (the Abstract page) to the last page of the last appendix so that the reader can
readily locate an appendix when it is referred to in the text. If an appendix is included, you
should refer your reader to it at an appropriate point in your text, or your reader will not know it
is there.
POSTSCRIPT: Self-feedback on Empirical Reports
When you have written a first draft of a practical report, you should be able to give yourself
some feedback by asking yourself questions of the kind outlined below.
When you have written your Abstract, ask yourself whether the reader will know (in essence
but not in detail):
 What question(s) your study was attempting to address?
 How you ‘operationalised’ it/them? (That is, what variables, if any, you manipulated and
what variables you measured.)
 What you found?
 What you concluded?
When you have written your Introduction, ask yourself “Will the reader know:
 what general issue(s) my experiment is seeking to explore, and why?”
 how that general issue gave rise to my experimental hypotheses?”
22
In order to convey this information you need to have told the reader, in general terms,
something about your experiment. For example, you will need to have said what the
dependent and independent variables were in order to tell them what the experimental
hypotheses were. Remember that your experimental hypotheses/predictions relate directly
to your experimental manipulations. Thus, you will often start with a general hypothesis
that you want to explore, for example, that increases in arousal will improve performance
on a simple task. You now need to devise an experiment which will address this general
hypothesis - say, you manipulate ambient noise levels on the assumption that arousal
increases with increases in noise, and you measure performance on a simple task, say, in
terms of errors and speed of adding-up columns of numbers. Your experimental hypothesis
or prediction is not that increasing arousal will lead to improvement of simple tasks, but that
your manipulation (whatever it was) of increasing the noise level will lead to fewer errors
and greater speed on the number-adding task. Remember, too, that it is not particularly
good practice to convey this kind of information in the style of “the independent variable
was...; the dependent variable was...; the experimental hypothesis was...”. The information
can be communicated more elegantly without reference to the technical terms; e.g., “It was
predicted that as the noise level increased the speed with which the number-adding task
was undertaken would increase and that the number of errors would fall”.
When you have written your Method section, ask yourself “Will the reader:
 readily see the relationship between the experimental hypotheses and my account of
the independent variable manipulation and the dependent variable measures?”
 be able to easily understand how I went about the experiment?”
 have enough information to be able to repeat the experiment in all important details?”
Use your own judgment as to what are the ‘important details’. For example, if you were
asking participants to fill in questionnaires about their political views there would be little
point in reporting the temperature of the room in which they sat while filling them in (unless
of course that was a variable you were manipulating). However, if you were measuring
subjects’ skin resistance, room temperature might be worth reporting, especially if it
changed during the course of your skin resistance monitoring.
When you have written your Results section, ask yourself “Will the reader:
 be able to look at the Table(s) of results (e.g. mean data, correlations), and easily make
the comparisons they need to make in order to see if the results have gone in the
predicted direction?” [Overall, have you presented the data in a way that makes ready
contact with the hypotheses?]
 be able to easily see if those comparisons that speak to the hypotheses are statistically
significant?’
When you have written your Discussion you should ask yourself “Has the reader:
 been given a brief summary of the major findings?”
 been exposed to a discussion of any Figures you have included?”
 been taken through the implications for the hypotheses of the major findings (i.e. the
extent to which the results strengthen or weaken the hypotheses)?”
 had their attention drawn to the implication of the major findings for the more general
hypotheses, or rationale?”
 had their attention drawn to any flaws in the experiment that lead you to be less
confident in your results (and/or their implications) than you otherwise would have
been?”
 been invited to consider how the results of your experiment might suggest further
questions for future investigation?” If you do make a suggestion for further research,
ask yourself whether your suggestion could just as easily have been made before you
did your experiment; if the answer if ‘yes’, then consider withdrawing the suggestion
because it is unlikely that it springs from anything in your own study.
23
Summarising overall, then: Have you clearly:
 said what the general issue under investigation is?
 said what you manipulated and what you measured, and why?
 said what your experimental hypotheses were?
 given sufficient detail to permit the reader to replicate?
 presented the results in a form that makes clear and direct contact with the
experimental hypotheses?
 presented the outcome of statistical tests on those comparisons, differences, trends, or
whatever, that speak directly to the hypotheses?
 summarised major findings at the beginning of the discussion?
 discussed the findings in relation to the experimental hypotheses?
 discussed the implication of the status of your experimental hypotheses (that is, the
extent to which your findings have strengthened or weakened them) for the general
issues(s) from which they arose?
 suggested possible further research?
24
HOW TO CITE SOURCES & WRITE REFERENCES
The process of referencing consists of two elements:
 Citing the sources of your information in your text, that is, a text citation
 A reference list of sources you have cited, at the end of the main body of text.
The manner in which each of these elements is presented depends on the nature of the
primary source, and how that source has been used in the current piece of work.
Citing the Sources of Information in Your Text (text citation)
Citing work by one author: Each time you refer in the text to information from a specific
source, the author’s surname and the year of publication are inserted in brackets immediately
afterwards:
‘A recent study (Raffaelli, 1992) showed that…’
Should the author’s surname occur naturally in the sentence, only the year is given in brackets:
‘Raffaelli (1992) stated that…’
If you are quoting the author’s original wording i.e. using the author’s own words, you should
also include the page number(s) (and put the quote in quotation marks):
‘It is claimed that “violence is a common and accepted feature.” (Raffaelli, 1992, p.
660).’
Citing work by more than one author: Where a book or journal paper has been written by
two authors, both names should be given, in the order in which they appear on the document
being cited. These should be separated by the use of the word “and” if naturally occurring
within a sentence and by the ampersand (&) if not:
‘Dunn and Munn (1986) suggested that…’
‘It has been disclosed (Dunn & Munn, 1986) that…’
If there are three or more authors, all authors should be given the first time that the work is
cited:
‘Baxter, Jackson and Bain (2003) claim that…’
It may then be simplified to the surname of the first author followed by ‘et al.’, meaning ‘and
others’:
‘Baxter et al (2003) noted that…’
Citing different work by the same author (s): If you cite more than one reference by the
same author, with the same year of publication, a lower case letter is added after each date (in
the order you cite them) so the reader can tell which source you mean:
‘Dunn and Munn (1986a) discuss...‘
’In a further study, Dunn and Munn (1986b), confirmed that…’
Citing work by one or more authors from an edited book: Many academic books are
written by several contributors, and brought together into a single book by the editor(s). It is the
contributors who should be acknowledged in the body of the text, not the editor(s). For
example, R. Khan and D. J. Cooke have contributed a chapter to a textbook by Gonçalves,
Roesch, Machado, Soeiro and Winkel. This should be cited as:
‘Khan and Cooke (2004) state that…’
Citing work by Corporate authors: If the source is a publication by an organisation or group,
treat that as the author. For example, a report published by the Scottish Executive would be
cited as:
‘…. (Scottish Executive, 2004).’
25
Citing a source cited in another book or journal article (secondary source)
Every reasonable effort should be made to consult primary sources, but where this has proved
impractical you may need to refer to a piece of work which has been cited in a source written
by someone else. In other words, you have not actually read the original work yourself so you
must indicate the publication in which you read about it. For example, if Tooley (1977) was
cited by Raffaelli (1992), and you did not actually read Tooley then the citation would be:
‘…(Tooley, 1977, cited in Raffaelli, 1992).’
Writing a Reference List of Sources you have Cited
The reference list should be at the end of the text (but before any Appendices). It is arranged
alphabetically by the authors’ surnames (or first word of title, if no author). Books, journals,
conference papers, newspapers, and any other material detailed should not be separated into
discrete subsections. However, for ease of demonstration, each will be shown independently
here.
References to articles from journals where there is one author are written:
Surname of Author, followed by Initials. (Year of publication). Title of article. Title of Journal.
Volume number (part number), page range. (Note: do not use the word ‘volume’. Though it
may be included if abbreviated to ‘vol.’, it is better just to give the volume number, which may
be in bold or underlined. The part number is optional but very useful where a journal is
published in several parts each year. The page range may be preceded by the abbreviation
‘pp’ but you do not need this.)
Raffaelli, M. (1992). Sibling conflict in early adolescences. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 54, 652-663.
References to articles from journals where there is more than one author are written:
Surnames of Authors, each followed by Initials, with commas used to separate the authors.
(Year of publication). Title of article. Title of Journal. Volume number (part number), page
range.
Baxter, J. S., Jackson, M. & Bain, S. A. (2003). Interrogative Suggestibility: Interactions
between interviewees’ self-esteem and interviewer style. Personality & Individual
Differences, 35, 1285-1292.
References to books where there is one author are written:
Surname of Author, followed by Initials. (Year of publication). Title of Book. (Edition). Place of
Publication: Publisher. (Note: Only include Edition if it is not the 1st edition, and shorten to ‘ed.’)
Cleckley, H. (1976). The Mask of Sanity. (5th ed.). St. Louis: Mosby.
References to books where there is more than one author are written:
Surname(s) of Authors, each followed by Initials, with commas used to separate the authors.
(Year of publication). Title of Book (Edition, if not first edition). Place of Publication: Publisher.
Cooke, D. J., Forth, A. E. & Hare, R. D. (1998). Psychopathy: Theory, Research and
Implications for Society. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
References to a chapter in an edited book are written:
Surname(s) of Author(s) of chapter, each followed by Initials, with commas used to separate
the authors if more than one. (Year of publication). Title of chapter. In: Surname(s) of editor(s),
preceded by Initials, with commas used to separate the editors (where more than one). Title of
Book (Edition, if not first edition), page range. [abbreviate to pp.]’ Place of publication:
Publisher.
26
Khan, R. & Cooke, D. J. (2004). The experience of inter-sibling violence (ISV) in a
sample of 11-to-19-year-old youths. In R. A. Gonçalves, R. Roesch, C. Machado, C.
Soeiro & F. Winkel (Eds.), Victims and Offenders, Chapters in Psychology and Law (pp.
155-160). Brussels: Politeia.
References to multiple citations by the same author or authors published in the same year
are listed alphabetically according to the lower case letter that you have assigned in the text:
Dunn, J. & Munn, P. (1986a). Siblings and the development of pro-social behaviour.
International Journal of Behavioural Development, 9, 265-284.
Dunn, J. & Munn, P. (1986b). Sibling quarrels and maternal intervention: Individual
differences in understanding aggression. Journal of Psychology and Psychiatry, 27,
583-595.
References to a source that you have not read but have read about (secondary source):
Surname of Author of original article, Initial. (Year of publication). Title of article. Title of
Journal. Volume number, page range. Cited in Author of article that has been read. (Year of
Publication). Title of article. Title of Journal. Volume number (part number), page range.
Tooley, K. (1977). The small assassins. Journal of American Child Psychology, 14,
306-318. Cited in Raffaelli, (1992). Sibling conflict in early adolescences. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 54, 652-663.
References to a Corporate author, where the author is an organisation or group (e.g. a report
published by the Scottish Executive), treat that as the author. Note that the date is after the
publisher.
Scottish Executive. Incidents of violence and anti-social behaviour against local
authority school staff in 2002/2003. Edinburgh: HMSO, 2004.
References to a paper presented at a conference are written:
Surname of Author, followed by Initials. (Year of publication). Title of paper. Paper presented at
Title of Conference, Date of conference, Place of Conference.
Khan, R. (2006). Deliberate acts of severe inter-sibling violence (SISV) perpetration:
Risk factors for weapon use. Paper presented at the British Psychological Society,
Division of Forensic Psychology Annual Conference, June 20-22, Lancashire, UK.
References to a newspaper article (where the author is unknown) are written:
Title of Newspaper. (Year of publication). Title of article. Title of Newspaper. Date of
publication, page range.
Edinburgh Evening News. (2001). Boy, 12, killed baby brother in stabbing. Edinburgh
Evening News. December 2, p. 4.
References to reliable Internet sources are written:
Surname of Author, followed by Initials. (Year). Title [online]. (Edition if not first edition). Place
of publication: Publisher (if ascertainable). Available from: URL [Accessed Date].
Holland, M. (1996). Harvard system [online]. Poole: Bournemouth University. Available
from: http://bournemouth.ac.uk/service-depts/LIS/LIS_Pub/havardsyst.html [Accessed
15 May 2006].
27
References to an article in an online journal are written:
Surname of Author, followed by Initials. (Year). Title. Journal Title [online], volume, location
within host. Available from: URL [Accessed Date].
Korb, K. B. (1995). Persons and things: book review of Bringsjord on RobotConsciousness. Psychology [online], 6. Available from:
gopher://wachau.ai.univie.ac.at:70/00/archives/psychology/95.V6/0162 [Accessed 15
May 2006].
When referencing Internet sources, the ‘Accessed Date’ component indicates to the reader
how recently you visited the site. As Internet information is subject to change this is a useful
feature.
An Example of a Completed Reference List
Baxter, J. S., Jackson, M. & Bain, S. A. (2003). Interrogative Suggestibility: Interactions
between interviewees’ self-esteem and interviewer style. Personality & Individual Differences,
35, 1285-1292.
Cleckley, H. (1976). The Mask of Sanity. (5th ed.). St. Louis: Mosby.
Cooke, D. J., Forth, A. E. & Hare, R. D. (1998). Psychopathy: Theory, Research and
Implications for Society. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Dunn, J. & Munn, P. (1986a). Siblings and the development of pro-social behaviour.
International Journal of Behavioural Development, 9, 265-284.
Dunn, J. & Munn, P. (1986b). Sibling quarrels and maternal intervention: Individual differences
in understanding aggression. Journal of Psychology and Psychiatry, 27, 583-595.
Edinburgh Evening News. (2001). Boy, 12, killed baby brother in stabbing. Edinburgh Evening
News. December 2, p. 4.
Holland, M. (1996). Harvard system [online]. Poole: Bournemouth University. Available from:
http://bournemouth.ac.uk/service-depts/LIS/LIS_Pub/havardsyst.html [Accessed 15 May 2006].
Khan, R. (2006). Deliberate acts of severe inter-sibling violence (SISV) perpetration: Risk
factors for weapon use. Paper presented at the British Psychological Society, Division of
Forensic Psychology Annual Conference, June 20-22, Lancashire, UK.
Khan, R. & Cooke, D. J. (2004). The experience of inter-sibling violence (ISV) in a sample of
11-to-19-year-old youths. In R. A. Gonçalves, R. Roesch, C. Machado, C. Soeiro & F. Winkel,
(Eds.), Victims and Offenders, Chapters in Psychology and Law (pp. 155-160). Brussels:
Politeia.
Korb, K. B. (1995). Persons and things: book review of Bringsjord on Robot-Consciousness.
Psychology [online], 6. Available from:
gopher://wachau.ai.univie.ac.at:70/00/archives/psychology/95.V6/0162 [Accessed 15 May
2006].
Raffaelli, M. (1992). Sibling conflict in early adolescences. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
54, 652-663.
Scottish Executive. Incidents of violence and anti-social behaviour against local authority
school staff in 2002/2003. Edinburgh: HMSO, 2004.
Tooley, K. (1977). The small assassins. Journal of American Child Psychology, 14, 306-318.
Cited in Raffaelli, (1992). Sibling conflict in early adolescences. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 54, 652-663.
28
APPENDIX 1: MODERATION PROCEDURES
Marking of Student Work in the School of Psychology
1.
Introduction
1.1
The University takes great care to ensure that the assessment process under which
students’ work is marked is carried out fairly and efficiently. To this end, it has adopted
guidelines for assessment which are followed by the School of Psychology.
1.2
The method of assessment for each module is included in the module catalogue and
has been formally approved by the University when the course was validated, or
subsequently via the approved minor change process.
1.3
All assessments have been designed to measure the extent to which a student has
succeeded in achieving the module’s targeted learning outcomes.
1.4
Each piece of work will be given a percentage mark. The meanings and degree class
equivalents are as below:
70% or above
First class honours degree level
60-69%
Upper second class honours degree level
50-59%
Lower second class honours degree level
40-49%
Third class honours degree level
0-39%
Fail
Decisions in relation to referral are made by the relevant Course Board and will be
coded as follows:
R
referral recommended
X
no attempt made; reassessment inappropriate
1.5
In the case of resubmission or reassessment the maximum mark awarded will be 40%.
1.6
Assessment is carried out by members of staff who will take account of the guidelines
for assessing work in the School of Psychology. All Schools have such guidelines and
you can obtain a copy from any School in which you take a module by asking the
Module Leader.
1.7
The methods by which the percentages from the individual components of assessed
work are aggregated to produce an overall module percentage are given in the module
catalogue and can be more fully explained by the Module Leader.
1.8
The method by which module percentages are used to determine whether a student
can progress and/or whether a student will be given an award (and in what
classification) is set out in the University’s Academic Regulations.
1.9
When you submit a piece of coursework or a dissertation for assessment you will be
asked to complete a cover sheet on which you will be required to state that the work
submitted is all your own work.
1.10
In the School of Psychology it is policy that assessed coursework will be returned to you
within a maximum of 15 working days of submission unless circumstances (e.g. staff
illness) prevent this. However, coursework that forms a major or only component of a
module (e.g. the Project) will not be returned until the results of the Module, and where
relevant Course, Assessment Board are officially released.
1.11
In order to ensure that assessment is carried out fairly, the School follows the
guidelines set out in sections 2 - 5 of this document. In these sections the following
29
terms are used:
Anonymised marking is used to describe a situation in which the person marking the
student’s work will not be given the name of the student. The University generally uses
anonymised marking for examinations but not for coursework.
Double marking where work is marked independently by two members of staff.
Clean marking is where the second marker does not see the marks or comments of the
first marker prior to marking the work.
Moderation refers to samples of marked work being checked by a second marker.
2.
Guidelines for Assessment of Examinations in the School of Psychology
2.1
All examination scripts will be anonymised and anonymity of the student will be retained
throughout the marking process.
2.2
A sample, usually 10%, of examination scripts will be moderated by a second marker
who will be responsible for ensuring that the marking is appropriate and that the
assessment criteria have been correctly and accurately applied. If there is an
unresolved difference of opinion between the first marker and the moderator then all
scripts will be double marked.
3.
Guidelines for the Assessment of Coursework in the School of Psychology
3.1
The University does not require coursework assessments to be anonymised (and
therefore you should put your name on coursework).
3.2
A sample, usually 10%, of marked coursework assignments will be moderated by a
second marker who will be responsible for ensuring that the marking is appropriate and
that the assessment criteria have been correctly and accurately applied. If there is an
unresolved difference of opinion between the first marker and the moderator then all
assignments will be double marked.
3.3
The procedures set out above are published by the School of Psychology to ensure that
students are aware of the processes used and to ensure fair marking of coursework.
4.
Guidelines for the Assessment of Projects in the School of Psychology
4.1
The University does not require projects/dissertations to be anonymised.
4.2
Each project will be clean double marked. To achieve this, a separate copy of the
project will be given to each of the two markers. Note: we do not write on the projects
and thus a third copy is not necessary for use by any third marker required in 4.3 below.
4.3
If the first marker and double marker agree on a mark, this will be the mark submitted to
the Assessment Board. If there is no such agreement, the first and double markers will
meet to discuss their difference of views and attempt to obtain an agreed mark which
can then be submitted to the Assessment Board. If no such agreement is reached, the
script will be referred to a third marker (normally an internal marker). The third marker
will be informed as to the different marks reached but not given the comments of either
of the first two markers. The third marker will then be responsible, in consultation with
the first two markers, for final determination of the mark to be used at the Assessment
Board. This third and final mark will be within the range of the first two marks.
30
4.4
The procedures set out above are published by the School of Psychology to ensure that
students are aware of the processes and to ensure fair marking of projects.
5.
Guidelines for the Assessment of Oral Presentations in the School of Psychology
5.1
Where oral presentations take place as part of a module’s assessed work which does
not contribute more than 25% of the overall module mark, there is no requirement for
assessment to be on the basis of double marking.
5.2
Where such presentations contribute more than 25% of the overall module mark, the
mark awarded will normally be that agreed by at least two members of staff who have
each witnessed the oral presentation. In the unlikely event that the staff concerned
cannot resolve a mark then a final mark, which will be within the range of the two marks
awarded, will be determined by the Head of School in consultation with the Module
Leader.
31
APPENDIX 2: EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES Guidance Notes
1.What are extenuating circumstances?
'Extenuating Circumstances' is a phrase which refers to serious and exceptional
factors outside your control which have adversely affected your performance within your
course/programme of study. These factors may have prevented you from attending
examinations or other timed assessments or caused you to miss assessment submission
dates. Examples are illness, accidents or serious family problems. Normally extenuating
circumstances will relate to a change in your circumstances since you commenced your
course which have had a significant adverse effect on your studies. Everyday
occurrences such as colds or known conditions such as hayfever will not qualify unless
the effects are unusually severe. The University does not look sympathetically on
absences caused by holiday commitments, nor on work commitments in the case of fulltime students.
2.Should I be using these procedures?
If you have difficulty meeting an assessment deadline you should ask for an extension
from the relevant Year Tutor. If your circumstances are such that a ten-day extension
would not be sufficient to allow you to complete the work then you should submit ECs,
with evidence.
If you have missed or are likely to miss an in-class test (and have not been able to
arrange an alternative date with the Module Leader) then you should submit ECs with
evidence.
In each of the cases above, you should submit ECs at the earliest opportunity. Where
justified, tutors will make every effort to accommodate your circumstances so that you
are not disadvantaged.
Claims for extenuating circumstances to your Assessment Board using the University
Envelope procedure are only for the notification of circumstances which have not
previously been taken into account by your School, or where you feel that the effect
of your circumstances on your performance has been greater than any individual
allowances already made. Assessment Boards will not consider circumstances already
adequately accounted for within a module nor will they be sympathetic in cases where
students have not sought to initiate action at the most appropriate and timely point.
Where the circumstances affecting you are substantial and/or prolonged you should
consult with either your Course Leader, Year Tutor or Personal Tutor for specific advice.
Students requiring special arrangements in relation to assessment because of special
needs (eg Dyslexia, physical disability) should use the specific procedures operated
through Student Services.
3.When and how should you report extenuating circumstances?
Where you have been advised or where you feel you should make a case for extenuating
circumstances to your Assessment Board(s) you should make a submission using the
special envelope provided so that your details can be appropriately considered.
Envelopes and submission procedures are available from your School Office and also
from Faculty Offices, Academic Records, Student Services or the Students’ Union Advice
Centre. Submission procedures and deadlines are detailed on the envelope and must be
adhered to. Under these procedures you are only required to make a single submission
in any one semester even though your case may relate to modules from different
Schools.
Submissions should be lodged with the home School for your
course/programme of study as detailed on the envelope (they will inform other Schools
as necessary). If your ECs persist, you should submit further ECs, with new evidence, to
cover the Semester in question.
32
4.What form should your submission take?

Give a plain account of relevant factors which have affected your performance and/or
attendance including the period of time covered and assessments affected. Detailed
personal information is not required unless you feel it is relevant but you must give
sufficient information to explain what has happened to you and in what way you feel this
has affected your academic performance.

Provide evidence to support your account.
This can take the form of doctor’s certificates, a report from a student counsellor or a
hospital appointment card for example. You should note that unsubstantiated accounts
cannot be given any weight if some form of professional corroboration could be
expected. Normally only original documentation is accepted.

Ensure corroborative evidence is collected during the period to which your
circumstances relate.
Post-dated corroborative evidence is of limited value and will not normally be taken into
account especially if it is felt that evidence could have been collected at the time. For
example, if you miss an examination or deadline through illness, it is expected that you
would obtain a doctor's note at the time to verify the illness and that you were affected by
the illness on the day of the examination. A note from a doctor who did not see you at
the time and written some days or weeks after the event is not generally acceptable.
Once you have written your account and collected your corroborative evidence
you should enclose everything in the envelope provided and submit this to the
appropriate office within the specified deadline.
5.What action can Assessment Boards take?
Assessment Boards have responsibility for determining student progression and/or award
having regard to the adequacy with which students have met the required module/course
learning outcomes. Module Boards are concerned with determining a mark in respect of
your performance on an individual module. Progression/Award Boards are responsible
for determining the overall recommendation for the year including whether reassessment
should be offered and the operation of compensation/condonement provisions based on
the overall profile of marks confirmed by Module Boards. You should note that pass
marks for individual modules and overall progression or award decisions cannot
be confirmed unless there is evidence that sufficient learning has been
demonstrated to meet the required learning outcomes irrespective of any
extenuating circumstances submitted.





Where extenuating circumstances are submitted these will be reported to the appropriate
Module and Progression/Award Assessment Boards for consideration.
If the
circumstances are held to be valid, discretion may be operated in a number of ways. The
following are examples of action that may be taken:
To allow an additional examination sitting as if for the first time (this would apply
particularly if the original sitting was missed for valid reasons).
To allow a resit in an examination or the resubmission of coursework.
To assist the Board in determining the operation of condonement and compensation
provisions.
To provide a different form of assessment from the original where this is felt appropriate
to individual circumstances.
Exceptionally, and only where learning outcomes have been otherwise met, a module
pass mark and/or general progression may be determined in the absence of a piece(s) of
assessed work. Occasionally a mark may be modified.
Assessment Boards may also take the view, having considered all the circumstances,
that the case is not relevant to your academic performance and that discretion should not
be operated. In such instances student performance will be assessed purely on the
33
basis of work already submitted. This may result in the award of a fail mark.
6.Can you maintain confidentiality?
It is understood that the circumstances surrounding extenuating circumstances can
sometimes be very sensitive and that students may not wish the details of their case to
be widely known or discussed. In such cases students may have sought confidential
counselling either within or outside the university. Where strict confidentiality is
requested this will of course be respected but you should be aware that, in the absence
of specific information, Assessment Boards will be limited in the action they can take.
In determining whether you wish your case to remain strictly confidential you should bear
in mind the following:
The proceedings of Assessment Boards and the discussion of individual students are
confidential to the Board. Information disclosed during these meetings may not be
discussed outside the meeting or with third parties.
The role of Assessment Boards in the consideration of extenuating circumstances is to
determine whether those circumstances are likely to have affected your academic
performance and, if so, to determine what action, if any, can be taken to offset this. It is
not possible for Assessment Boards to make proper judgements without specific
information. The maintenance of strict confidentiality is likely therefore to mean that
Assessment Boards will be less able to take any account of your case.
In very sensitive cases, you may opt to disclose information only to the Chairs of
appropriate Assessment Boards and ask that details are not disclosed to other members.
You are strongly encouraged to adopt this if you are unwilling for good reason to discuss
information more widely and you wish to ensure Assessment Boards are able to give
your case proper consideration. A facility to indicate this option is available on the front
of the envelope.
7.Checklist for the submission of extenuating circumstances

Have you notified the School Office or the Year Tutor about any problems with your study
programme during the year? Are you satisfied that you have a valid case to make?

Make out your case for the consideration of extenuating circumstances clearly. Be
specific about any problems you have had and particularly about any
assessments/examinations you have missed. Give dates to indicate the period covered
by extenuating circumstances.

Ensure that you have corroborative evidence to support your case provided by someone
who is in a position to verify your circumstances. You should enclose corroborative
evidence with your submission wherever possible. It is your responsibility to ensure
corroboration is provided and you are strongly advised not to rely on direct submission by
a third party.

Place all documentation in the envelope provided and seal it. Complete all sections on
both sides of the envelope. Consider the level of confidentiality you need to maintain and
indicate this clearly on the front of the envelope. Submit the sealed envelope to the
appropriate office within the specified timescale. Wherever possible you should do this
personally. You will be given a receipt.
8.
34
Further Advice Contact Student Services, the i or the Students’ Union Welfare Officer.
APPENDIX 3: Appeals against Assessment Board Decisions
J:
Appeals against Assessment Board Decisions
JI
Principles
J1.1
An appeal cannot be made against the academic judgement of the examiner(s),
properly exercised. Appeals on this basis will be ruled invalid.
J1.2
Appeals received outside the stated timescales will be ruled invalid.
J1.3
Requests for appeals must be in writing and must state the ground(s) for the appeal.
Documentary evidence should be provided.
J1.4
Students have a right to be accompanied by a representative or friend at any hearings
in the Appeals process.
J1.5
A student whose case is under consideration via an appeal shall have the right to
continue with his/her course (provided s/he is in good standing with the University) until
such time as a decision is reached. This right is designed solely to ensure that a
student whose appeal is upheld is not academically disadvantaged and it shall not be
interpreted as acceptance of a failed student on a subsequent stage of the course.
Detailed procedures governing the appeals process are given in Appendix 10.
J1.6
The appeals procedure is also to be used for Professional awards in the fields of
medicine and dentistry and Taught/Professional Doctorates for appeals against the
decision(s) of an Assessment Board relating to the taught component of the award (for
appeals concerning the research element of the award refer to Regulation M8).
J2
Grounds for Appeal against Assessment Board decisions
J2.1
A request for an appeal against an Assessment Board decision shall be valid only if it is
based on one or more of the following grounds:
1.
that an Assessment Board has given insufficient weight to extenuating
circumstances;
2.
that the student’s academic performance has been adversely affected by
extenuating circumstances which the student has, for good reason, been
unable to make known to the Assessment Board:
3.
that there has been a material administrative error at a stage of the examining
process, or that some material irregularities have occurred;
4.
that the assessment procedure and/or examinations have not been conducted in
accordance with the approved regulations.
35
J3
First Stage Appeals
J3.1
First Stage Appeals must be lodged with the Chair of the Assessment Board within 7
days of the official publication of pass/results lists on noticeboards.
J3.2
The Chair of the Assessment Board hears the appeal and is responsible for arranging a
time with the student, usually within 14 days of receipt of the request for appeal.
J3.3
The Chair of the Assessment Board is responsible for ensuring the student is informed
both verbally (at the meeting) and in writing of the outcome of the appeal which may be:
1.
The appeal is upheld and referred back to the Assessment Board for
reconsideration
2.
The appeal is upheld and the Chair of the Assessment Board takes immediate
action on behalf of the Assessment Board
3.
The appeal is turned down
J3.4
Where a first stage appeal is turned down, the student has a right to a second stage
appeal if he/she is dissatisfied with the outcome.
J3.5
A second stage appeal will not be called if a first stage appeal has not been held.
J4
Second Stage Appeal
J4.1
Requests for second stage appeals must be made in writing to the nominated Appeals
Officer within 14 days of the first stage appeal hearing.
J4.2
Extenuating circumstances which were not declared either at the time of the
Assessment Board meeting or at the first stage appeal will be ruled invalid.
J4.3
Stage two appeals will be heard by an Appeals Panel of the Academic Board with the
following composition:
Chair:
Members:
A Deputy or Pro Vice-Chancellor
An academic staff member of the Academic Board
A student member of the Academic Board
No member of the Appeal Panel will have a direct interest in the appellant’s case.
J4.4
J4.5
36
The powers of an Appeal Panel are:
1.
to determine the validity of the grounds for the appeal. The appeal will not
proceed if the panel does not deem the grounds to be valid;
2.
to uphold the appeal based on the evidence presented and to refer the matter
back to the Assessment Board;
3.
to turn down the appeal and to uphold the original decision of the Assessment
Board.
The nominated Appeals Officer is responsible for ensuring that the appellant and the
Chair of the Assessment Board are informed in writing of the decision of the Appeal
Panel and the reasons for the decision, within 5 working days of the appeal being held.
J4.6
The Chair of the Assessment Board is responsible for arranging a meeting of the
Assessment Board, or taking immediate action to reconsider an appeal which has been
upheld by the Appeal Panel and for notifying the student and the nominated Appeals
Officer of the outcome within 15 days of the appeal hearing.
J4.7
If an Assessment Board does not modify its decision when an appeal has been upheld
by the Appeal Panel on the grounds of procedural or other irregularities, the Academic
Board has the power to annul the decision and to make alternative arrangements for
the assessment of the student.
J4.8
Where an appeal is turned down at the second stage, the student has a final right of
appeal to the Vice Chancellor (or nominee) on any remaining point of dispute on
procedural issues.
J5
Final Appeal
J5.1
Final appeals must be made in writing and must be received by the Vice-Chancellor
within 28 days of the second stage appeal hearing.
J5.2
If the appeal is turned down by the Vice-Chancellor (or nominee), the decision of the
Assessment Board will be confirmed. The student has no further right of appeal.
J5.3
If the appeal is upheld by the Vice-Chancellor (or nominee), the matter will be referred
back to the Assessment Board for reconsideration. In the case of procedural or other
irregularity, the Vice-Chancellor (or nominee) may take specific action on behalf of the
Academic Board to amend the decision of the Assessment Board and make alternative
arrangements for the assessment of the student.
37
Appendix 4: Marking Criteria Guidelines for Stage 2 (Second and Third Year) Students
These guidelines give a description of what is expected in a range of categories for first, upper second, and lower second marks. Note
the categories themselves and that there are a variety of other important factors beyond the knowledge displayed or the content
included. In general, a first class answer approaches an ideal (of what could be expected following two or three years of degree level
study), whereas an upper second displays the same type of skills and understanding but with some defects. A lower second is a
competent piece of work but lacks those ingredients that make a first. As the table below indicates, it is mainly differentiable from an
upper second in terms of relevance and structure and coherence of argument.
1st
General (Applies to all work)
Specific Relevance to Essays/Exams
Specific Relevance to Projects / Practical Reports
Relevance: All material included is
relevant. In addition, there is a very good
understanding of the relative importance
of this and that part of the material.
Attention is focused throughout on the
question, and only material relevant to the
question is included. More crucial material is
considered in more depth.
Structure, General Understanding,
Coherence, and Logic of
Argument/Analysis: The piece of work
follows a logical sequence throughout, all
sections being linked with valid argument
to produce a ‘seamless’ coherent
narrative. The work ‘tells a story’ to the
reader.
Every argument is valid and addresses one
or more issues that the writer has already
made clear. Taken together, the arguments
fit into a coherent narrative, different
arguments being given different
weightings/emphases as appropriate. Where
the question permits, the answer is rich in
argument.
Originality: There is clear evidence of
good independent thought.
The student has created a (sensible)
narrative, at least parts of which were not
suggested in the teaching.
The answer displays a thorough knowledge
of question relevant material which goes well
The Introduction introduces the study without
including any irrelevant or redundant material. The
Discussion is focused on the implications of the
results obtained. The Results section contains no
irrelevant details, and the Method section contains
only details essential for full understanding and
replicability.
The Introduction clearly explains the rationale for the
study. This is picked up in the Discussion, where the
results are considered in relation to the research
questions, and conclusions drawn as to whether or
not hypotheses have been supported and what the
implications of the findings might be for further
research. A First Class Discussion will avoid idle
speculation as to why hypotheses were not
supported; it will also eschew any claims about
intervening variables not measured in the study,
although these might be discussed in the context of
suggestions for future investigation. The Abstract
provides a near-perfect synopsis of the whole
business, including the main purpose of the study,
key aspects of the method, main results, and the
conclusions drawn from them.
Some aspect of the design of the study, its rationale,
and/or the interpretation of the results indicates a high
level of original thought.
The Introduction gives the reader enough theoretical
Knowledge/Content: There is very
38
2.1
good coverage of all relevant material.
beyond the contents of the lectures/seminars
(and thus indicates wide reading).
Explanation of Empirical Details: The
appropriate amount of experimental
details are given.
Just sufficient details are given about
empirical work referred to so that the reader
can see the logical relation between the study
and the conclusion for which the study is
cited.
Style: The writing is elegant and economical with at worst only minor grammatical errors.
Technical terms are invariably used appropriately.
On the whole the question is addressed, but
Relevance: As for a 1st, there is
there is some material that, although related,
generally good understanding of the
is not well focused on the question.
relative importance of this and that part
of the material. However, some material
is not strictly relevant to the topic.
Structure, General Understanding and This is similar to a 1st, except that the answer
is less rich in argument; there is a flaw in one
Logic of Argument/Analysis: This is
of the arguments or it does not seem to
similar to a 1st in that the work provides
address the issue it was supposed to, or the
a coherent argued sequence, but there
are some flaws in the organization of the arguments are not as well linked/organised
as they might be.
narrative or validity of arguments.
Originality: There is evidence of some
(valid) independent thought.
Knowledge/Content: There is good
coverage of the relevant material.
Explanation of Empirical Details: The
explanation is similar to a 1st, with minor
39
Something only implicitly suggested in the
teaching has been identified and elaborated.
As for a 1st, there is a thorough knowledge of
question relevant material, but this does not
go beyond the range explored in
lectures/seminars.
Details given about empirical work referred to
are similar to a 1st, but one fairly important
and empirical background so that he/she can
appreciate why the student wished to investigate the
particular question chosen, and why the hypotheses
are as they are.
The Method provides a complete, in places
exhaustive, account of what was done, with what
materials/apparatus, and to whom (although note
relevance section). The Results section provides a
clear, well-structured and concise account of the
statistical tests applied to the data and their results,
with relevant tables (eg means, ANOVA summaries
etc) but without raw data, irrelevant graphs and the
like. Clear signposts to Tables and Appendices are
included. The latter present the raw data and printouts
of statistical tests in a clear and usable manner, so
that the author's conclusions can be checked and any
desired re-analysis can be done. A full reference-list
is included.
Layout and presentation of tables, etc. is excellent.
Similar to a 1st, but some material included in the
Introduction, or possibly Method and Discussion
sections, is irrelevant or unnecessary.
The Introduction may have a little unclarity in the
rationale. The Discussion does the basic job of
relating findings to the questions asked, but is less
concise than a 1st, perhaps over-speculative, or a bit
rambling in places. The Abstract is good, but perhaps
a little too long, or lacking mention of some key
aspect of the results.
As for a 1st, but on a more modest scale.
As for a 1st, the Introduction is generally good, but
there are possibly some limitations in coverage of the
background to the study.
In the same way as a 1st, all necessary information is
included in the Method and Results sections. The only
omissions or commissions.
2.2
detail might be omitted or some unnecessary
details included.
Style: The prose is a little less elegant and well-presented than a 1st, but is overall wellwritten and clear. As a general rule there is adherence to the conventions of spelling and
grammar, although there may be several exceptions. The writer is reasonably
comfortable with technical terms.
The answer is not focused on the question.
Relevance: Irrelevant information is
Note that such an answer may contain a lot of
included and there is a limited
potentially relevant information, and may be a
understanding of the relative importance
good answer to an obvious variant of the
of this and that part of the material.
question set (eg a similar question with a
(This is most often encountered in exam
different emphasis that appeared on a
conditions where a student writes
everything from a particular lecture block previous year's paper).
in response to a question that only
requires some of that material).
Structure, General Understanding and The approach is primarily descriptive with
little argumentation; or the argumentation is
Logic of Argument/Analysis: There is
mostly superficial.
little argument, and the work is not well
structured in terms of a coherent ‘story’.
Originality: There is little or no evidence of (valid) independent thought.
Essentially the same as a 2.1 (or more limited
Knowledge/Coverage: Similar to a 2.1
knowledge coupled with 2.1 level
understanding, relevance, etc.).
Details are given about empirical work
Explanation of Empirical Details:
referred to, often at some length, but there is
There are important omissions, or a
large amount of detail is given that is not no focus on the logical relation between the
relevant to the conclusion of the study or study and the conclusion for which the study
is cited.
the issue addressed.
Style: The writing is sometimes clumsy and ungrammatical, but reasonably literate.
There is some indication that the writer finds it difficult to express things economically and
that they are rather uneasy using technical terms.
40
difference is that these sections might include a small
amount of unnecessary information.
As for a 1st.
The Introduction may go into detail about previous
studies not relevant to the current study. The Method
and Results may contain unnecessary details.
The Introduction may fail to make the rationale clear.
The Discussion is weak in places, as in not making
quite clear to what extent predictions were upheld by
results, or including inappropriate post hoc
speculation. The Abstract is somewhat flawed, though
with the gist of the study fairly well described; a typical
example would be too brief or too long.
Some relevant, possibly even essential, literature is
omitted from the Introduction.
The Method, Results, and/or Appendices may contain
minor errors or omissions, or include unnecessary
details.
The Table layouts are possibly untidy or unclear.
If the piece of work does not achieve the descriptions for a lower second, then it is slipping well below the average standard to be
expected of honours degree level. This will lead to a third class mark or a fail, depending on the seriousness of the problem. Some
ways in which work may be deficient are given in the table below. Work that meets the comments in several of these categories would
fail. Work deficient in only one or two categories would probably get a third unless the deficiency was particularly marked (for instance
an empirical report that failed to explain empirical details so that it was impossible for the reader to detect what was done and/or what
was found would fail). The relevance category is particularly important for examinations - an answer that is not relevant to the question
would normally obtain zero.
Relevance: There is very limited, or no,
discrimination between relevance and
irrelevance.
Structure, General Understanding and
Logic of Argument/Analysis: The
structure is very poor, and any
argumentation only superficial.
The answer has some focus on the question,
but contains only a small amount or
proportion of relevant information.
The approach is primarily descriptive with
little organization. The essay has no
argumentation or contains only superficial
arguments.
Knowledge/Coverage: There are
serious deficiencies in the material
included.
The essay displays a limited knowledge of
the relevant material - either only the very
basics, or an account of a wider amount of
material that has substantial errors.
There is little or no apparent understanding of
the logic underlying conclusions for which
studies are cited.
Explanation of Empirical Details:
Style: The work is poorly written throughout; showing little regard for conventions of
grammar and spelling. The writer uses technical terms very naively or inappropriately.
41
There is a large amount of irrelevant material in the
Introduction, or a large amount of unnecessary details
in the Method and/or Results.
There are serious errors in the report of the logic of
the experiment that demonstrate more confusion than
the description for a 2.2 above. For instance, the
Discussion may misinterpret or misunderstand the
results.
Essential literature is omitted from the Introduction.
The Method is seriously flawed, making it a struggle
to establish exactly what was done. The Results are
similar - it is a big job to make sense of
findings/analysis. Alternatively, the reader can
understand what was found, but the author has made
substantial mistakes/misinterpretations in the
analysis.
Table layouts or graphs are very untidy and difficult to
interpret.
APPENDIX 5: How a practical report would meet the criteria for a first
class mark - Instantiation of Guideline Criteria for an Excellent (First
Class) Project or other Practical Write Up
Abstract: A near-perfect synopsis of the report, including the main purpose of the study, key
aspects of the method, main results, and the conclusions drawn from them.
Introduction: This gives the reader enough theoretical and empirical background so that he/she
can appreciate why the student wished to investigate the particular question chosen, and why the
hypotheses are as they are. The study is introduced without including any irrelevant or redundant
material, and more crucial material is considered in more depth. The Introduction clearly explains
the rationale for the study.
Method: This provides a complete, in places exhaustive, account of what was done, with what
materials/apparatus, and to whom. However, the section contains only details essential for full
understanding and replicability - it contains no irrelevant details.
Results: This provides a clear, well-structured, concise account of the statistical tests applied to
the data and their results, with relevant tables (e.g. means, ANOVA summaries) but without raw
data, irrelevant graphs, or irrelevant or unnecessary details. Clear signposts to Tables and
Appendices are included. Layout and presentation of tables, etc. is excellent.
Discussion: This is focused on the implications of the results obtained. The background and
rationale given in the Introduction is picked up and the results are considered in relation to the
research questions. Conclusions are drawn as to whether or not hypotheses have been supported
and what the implications of the findings might be for further research. There is no idle speculation
as to why hypotheses were not supported. There are no claims about intervening variables not
measured in the study (although they might be briefly discussed in the context of suggestions for
future investigation).
References: Full reference-list, distinguishing between primary and secondary sources.
Appendices: These present the raw data and printouts of statistical tests in a clear manner so
that the author's conclusions can be checked and any desired re-analysis can be done.
General: The piece of work follows a logical sequence throughout, with Introduction and
Discussion sections being linked with valid argument to produce a coherent narrative. The work
‘tells a story’ to the reader. The writing is elegant and economical, with at worst only minor
grammatical errors, and technical terms are invariably used appropriately. Some aspect of the
design of the study, its rationale, and/or the interpretation of the results indicates a high level of
original thought.
42