UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS LONDON ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE NOTES 2014/15
3.1
Assessment Briefs ....................................................................... 2
3.2
Marking Criteria ........................................................................... 8
3.3
15 Point Marking Scale ................................................................ 9
3.4
Holistic and Element Assessment .............................................. 10
3.5
Assessment Deadlines .............................................................. 13
3.6
Marking and Moderation ............................................................ 14
3.7
Assessment Feedback Turnaround Policy ................................. 20
3.8
External Moderation ................................................................... 22
3.9
External Examiner Samples ....................................................... 23
The following regulations and guidance notes apply to all taught Higher
Education courses at the University of the Arts London. Further Education regulations and guidance are provided by the University of the Arts London
Awarding Body.
Page 1 of 25

UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS LONDON
ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE NOTES 2014/15
All summative element and unit assessment briefs must be given to students in writing.
The following guidance is provided to support staff in drafting effective assessment briefs.
Some information will only be relevant to some assignments and this has been indicated where appropriate. The exact format of the assessment brief (font/ layout etc.) may be defined by a college-level policy, or devolved to staff delivering the course; it may also contain additional information to that given below. The Assessment Brief may take the form of a unit handbook, dissertation handbook or other document, as defined by local
College policies.
The Assessment Brief will normally include the following information:
Section Guidance
1. Unit title and code
•
From the unit descriptor in the course handbook.
2. Assessment requirement
3. Assessment weighting
4. Mandatory and optional components
5. Full details of the assessment task
•
Title of the assessment requirement from the unit descriptor in the course handbook.
•
If marked holistically: 100%.
•
If marked by elements: the weighting of each element.
•
Where holistic assessment is used, the assessment brief should include clear details of what the student needs to submit. Students are expected to submit all components specified in the assessment brief unless the component is explicitly flagged as optional (non-submission of a mandatory component will result in a fail for the unit; nonsubmission of an optional component will not be recorded).
•
Where components are not submitted as a single body of work, the brief should also include the submission date, time and location for each individual component.
•
Further details of holistic and element assessment can be found in Guidance Note 3.4 Holistic and Element
Assessment
•
A full description of the project/ assignment task.
•
If the brief is for a project within a unit or element, the brief should include a clear indication of where the project sits in the unit and how it relates to other summative assessments for that unit.
Page 2 of 25

UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS LONDON ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE NOTES 2014/15
Section Guidance
6. The unit learning outcomes being assessed
7. The Marking
Criteria according to which the work will be marked
8. Any specified parameters
9. Negotiated projects and dissertations
(where applicable)
10. Assessment
Deadline
•
The assignment brief should be designed to help students demonstrate achievement of the unit learning outcomes.
•
Where element assessment is used, the brief should clearly indicate which of the learning outcomes apply.
•
The course handbook will indicate how the unit learning outcomes map to the Marking Criteria against which the assignment will be assessed. In the assessment brief, this mapping can be presented in the form of a matrix, or by adding the relevant marking criterion after the learning outcome in brackets.
•
The standard UAL Marking Criteria Matrix cannot be altered but the assessment brief can provide further information on how each criterion relates to the particular subject area.
•
The course handbook may indicate that some criteria will be given more emphasis at times than others. For example, a dissertation unit might place a strong emphasis on
Research. Any particular emphasis in terms of the criteria should be made clear in the assignment brief.
•
Further information on Marking Criteria can be found on the
Assessment Website.
For example:
•
The minimum/ maximum word count.
•
The minimum/ maximum pieces of work.
•
Approved submission format e.g. A3 portfolio, exhibition, blog, A4 word-processed, double-line spaced etc.
•
The brief should include details of the agreed mechanism for approving students’ responses to negotiated projects, normally in the form of a project or dissertation proposal.
•
A written record should be kept of the agreed dissertation title or project proposal for each student.
•
Where there are limitations or parameters on how a student can respond, these need to be detailed clearly, e.g. word count, number of pieces etc.
•
The brief should also contain information on the allocation of supervisors, or a link to this information on Moodle.
•
This should include a date and time by which the student must submit (students submitting at any point after the stated time will be recorded as a non-submission. See the
Assessment Submission Policy for more details).
•
Careful consideration should be given to online submission deadlines as platforms cannot be supported technically out of normal office hours.
•
If work is to be handed into a studio, staff should ensure
Page 3 of 25

UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS LONDON ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE NOTES 2014/15
Section
11. Submission
Location
12. Details of assessment events and written examinations
(where applicable)
13. How to submit online
(where applicable)
Guidance that there will be someone available to issue receipts.
•
To avoid any confusion, it is helpful to put the precise time and time zone of the deadline e.g. 16.00.00 GMT.
For example:
•
Online submission platform.
•
College Administration Office.
•
Specific room number and times when the room will be open/ staffed.
•
Date, time and location of assessment event (e.g. presentation, performance, exhibition).
•
If individual time slots are to be arranged, details of where this information will be published.
•
Where applicable, details of what students may or may not bring with them.
•
The approved platform to be used (e.g. Turnitin, Moodle)
•
Accepted submission formats and file sizes (see below)
•
The date and time by which the student must submit
•
A link to college-specific online submission information and/ or the following text:
“The CLTAD e-learning blog includes step-by-step guides to uploading assignments to both Moodle and Turnitin: elearningsupport.myblog.arts.ac.uk/studenthelp/student-help/assessment-how-to.
If you have difficulties uploading your assignment, please contact the e-Learning support team for help: elearning-support@arts.ac.uk.”
•
Where Turnitin UK is to be used, the assessment brief should also include the following statement:
“ This assessment will be submitted via an online submission platform called Turnitin UK. As part of the submission process, the University will utilise
Turnitin UK to check the authenticity and originality of your work” .
•
The assessment brief should include clear guidelines on accepted file sizes and formats (or a link to such information).
•
The University’s online submission platforms will normally accept the following:
Page 4 of 25

UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS LONDON
Section
ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE NOTES 2014/15
Guidance
•
Moodle Accepts a range of file types including but not limited to word-processed documents, spreadsheets, images, audio / video clips etc.
Students can upload a maximum of 3 attachments totalling 20MB.
•
Turnitin .DOC or .PDF files to a maximum of 20MB.
•
Where a different format is a fundamental part of the assessment (e.g. websites, blogs etc.), alternative acceptable formats should be included in the assessment brief.
•
If a student wishes to submit in another format, this must be agreed with the unit leader, in writing, at least one week before the submission deadline.
•
If a file format is unreadable, the student will be recorded as a non-submission.
•
Where students are experiencing difficulties with their file format, they should contact the e-Learning support team for help: elearning-support@arts.ac.uk
. This service is only available during office hours so students are strongly encouraged to give themselves plenty of time to upload assignments.
•
Careful consideration should be given as to when students can submit work on the deadline date. Online submission platforms cannot be supported technically out of normal office hours so course teams are strongly recommended to set a deadline between 10.00am and 4.00pm. To avoid any confusion, course teams are encouraged to include the precise time and time zone of the deadline in the assessment brief e.g. 16.00.00 GMT.
•
Assessment briefs should avoid the requirement for ‘dual submission’ i.e. submission online and in hard copy, as this often leads to issues with version control and keeping accurate submission records. Similarly, assessment briefs should, where possible, avoid allowing students to submit in different ways e.g. giving the option to submit a hard copy or submit online, unless this is indicated in a student’s
Individual Support Agreement.
Further guidance can be found in Guidance Note 5.3 Online
Submissions
Page 5 of 25

UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS LONDON ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE NOTES 2014/15
Section Guidance
14. Feedback target date
15. Exam Board date and publication of results
16. Reading lists and resources
17. A link to the course regulations
•
The date when students will receive written feedback and an indicative mark as defined in Section 3.7 Assessment
Feedback Turnaround Policy .
•
The mode by which students will receive written feedback
(e.g. Online Assessment Tool, collect from college office, attend tutorial).
The brief should contain the following information or clearly signal to students when and where this information will be published:
•
The Exam Board or Progression Board at which the indicative marks will be confirmed.
•
The date on which students can expect to receive their confirmed results.
•
How results will be published (Moodle, collect from college office etc.)
•
If applicable, when students can collect their work.
For example:
•
Details of key and supplementary texts.
•
Useful websites and journals.
•
Information about how to source materials.
•
Where to find the course’s placement handbook.
•
Details of the University’s online referencing system for practical and written work: Cite Them Rite Online
Example wording:
“The UAL Assessment Webpages include useful information on:
• The course requirements
• What happens if you fail a piece of work or miss a deadline
• What to do if you are ill or have other extenuating circumstances
• What to do if you want to take time out from your studies
• The adjustments that can be made to assessments if you have a disability
• How to avoid plagiarism in your work
• What to do if you want to appeal an exam board decision”
Page 6 of 25

UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS LONDON ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE NOTES 2014/15
All referred or deferred students must be provided with a clear, written retrieval brief.
The retrieval brief must make clear whether students should complete the same assignment, an alternative assignment or an adapted assignment designed to assist students in retrieving specific marking criteria, elements or components. Students retrieving failure are not entitled to any additional tuition, although some students might be entitled to Disability Support.
Optimally, the new brief should be included in the student’s results letter, published one week after the Exam Board. Where the brief needs to be adapted, it may be emailed to the student’s UAL email address or uploaded to Moodle separately as soon as possible.
It is the responsibility of the Chair of the Exam Board to ensure that this happens.
The Exam Board is responsible for ensuring that, overall, the assessment for a course covers all the validated course learning outcomes. The authority to approve project briefs and assignments therefore lies with the Exam Board who may formally delegate this authority, either to a Sub-Board or to the College Quality Committee, to undertake this task on their behalf. The Exam Board should review this arrangement each year to satisfy itself that its authority is being properly discharged.
External Examiners must approve final year dissertation and project briefs. Where dissertations or major projects are substantially negotiated by students, Exam Boards should ensure that mechanisms are in place to verify the appropriateness of the range of students’ responses to the dissertation or project specification. Such mechanisms could include proposal panels, interim visits by External Examiners or approval by identified members of the course team. In all cases the course team must keep a written record of the agreed dissertation title or project proposal.
Page 7 of 25

UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS LONDON
ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE NOTES 2014/15
There are eight standard UAL Marking Criteria:
•
Research
•
Subject knowledge
•
Experimentation
•
Analysis
•
•
•
Technical competence professional working
Communication and presentation
•
Collaborative and/or independent
Personal and professional development
These will be applied to students’ work to help give an understanding of what has been accomplished, how any grade given was arrived at, and how the student can improve their work in future. Course handbooks should contain guidance on the relationship between the course learning outcomes and the Marking Criteria by which they are being assessed. Not all the criteria will be relevant to every course unit or assignment.
Full details, including the Matrix, Feedback Forms, guidance and templates for the mapping of learning outcomes against the Marking Criteria can be found on the Marking
Criteria webpages: www.arts.ac.uk/assessment/markingcriteria/
Page 8 of 25

UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS LONDON
ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE NOTES 2014/15
C-
D+
D
D-
E
F
F-
NS
B
B-
C+
C
A+
A
A-
B+
All work will be given a letter grade on the 15 Point Marking Scale. The letter grades represent a high, middle and low point within each degree classification. The markers will use the Marking Criteria to inform their decision of what grade to give. Each letter grade has a point value which is used by the University to calculate the end of year result.
Classification
Undergraduate
BA, BSc FdA, FdSc
CertHE,
DipHE
Postgraduate
MA, PGDip,
PGCert,
GradDip,
GradCert
3
2
1
0
7
6
5
4
15 95-100%
14 90-94%
13 85-89%
12 80-84%
11 75-79%
10 70-74%
9
8
65-69%
60-64%
55-59%
50-54%
45-49%
40-44%
30-39%
1-29%
0%
0%
1
2:1
2:2
3 st rd
Distinction
Merit Plus
Merit
Pass
Distinction
Pass
Marginal fail
Fail
Non-submission
Distinction
Merit
Pass
Further information about the 15 Point Marking Scale can be found on the UAL
Assessment webpages: www.arts.ac.uk/assessment/markingscale
Page 9 of 25

UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS LONDON ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE NOTES 2014/15
Most units of study will include a number of assessment requirements e.g. students are asked to submit a presentation, an essay and a self-evaluation form. Holistic and element assessment are categories in defining whether a single grade, or more than one grade, is entered for each student on each unit. In the case of more than one grade being entered, the student record system, QL, uses a formula to calculate the student’s final grade for the unit, based on the weighting of the elements. The process for combining the grades for individual assessments into a final grade for the unit as a whole must be transparent and clearly explained in the assessment brief.
The following clarifications of usage have been agreed to encourage course teams to consider their assessment practices, and adopt element or holistic assessment where it is educationally appropriate to do so:
Holistic assessment is the practice of awarding a single grade for a submission which comprises one or more component/s. One grade is submitted to QL, the student records system.
Element assessment is the practice of assessing more than one component, where each component (or element) is awarded a grade. The unit grade is calculated by combining the grades for the elements, according to their relative weighting. The weighting allocated to each element must be defined before the unit is taught, and the calculation is undertaken by QL, the student records system.
The educational aims of the unit and its assessment should determine whether holistic or element assessment is needed.
Element assessment is normal where one or more of the following applies:
• there is no direct connection between the components
• the components are assessed by different individuals or teams
• the components are submitted at different points in the unit
• separate grades are combined to arrive at a final grade
Holistic assessment is normal where one or more of the following applies:
• the components constitute an interdependent whole
• the components are submitted at the same point
• the different components are assessed by the same individuals or teams
• the components are assessed in relation to each other, or as a commentary on each other
Sometimes an assessment will not fall cleanly into either holistic or element assessment, as described above. In this situation the course team can make a case for whichever of element or holistic assessment is pedagogically more sound in the context. However, if the unit grade is reached through a calculation applied to separately graded components, the unit must be identified as having element assessment.
Page 10 of 25

UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS LONDON ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE NOTES 2014/15
There is no maximum, although it has been observed that having too many elements can increase the failure rate of students since they struggle to meet multiple deadlines.
No, a student can pass a unit if they receive a Marginal Fail (E) for one element, if their overall grade for the unit is at least D-.
Yes. Within a course it is possible to have units assessed both using elements and holistically:
Fig 1 – showing Holistic and Element units within a course
Within a unit, it is possible to assess using elements, and for one or more of the elements to include holistic assessment:
Fig 2 – showing a course unit with 2 elements, one of which has a single grade for multiple components
Page 11 of 25

UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS LONDON ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE NOTES 2014/15
If the brief states specific components are required, then the submitted work is incomplete without these components, resulting in a Fail grade for the unit. This is regardless of whether holistic or element assessment is in use.
In element assessment, failure to submit an element results in a Fail grade for the whole unit.
Within holistic assessment, the brief may provide a guide, enabling the student to negotiate the balance/extent/medium of the evidence provided for assessment, as long as their evidence aligns with the unit learning outcomes, level, and credit weighting.
It is also possible for the assessment brief to specify the type and number of components to be submitted (for example, if the assessment requirement is four garments, of which one is a jacket; or 10 sketches; or a dissertation plus a class presentation). This includes assessment where the ‘body of work’ is negotiated, but the brief states that additional supporting material is required – for example, documentation of the research and experimental process underpinning the work, and an account of the individual’s contribution if the work is a collaborative effort (see 5 above).
To ensure fairness and validity, it must be clear to students undertaking holistic assessment whether their entire submission is by negotiation, or whether some specific components are required. Any course may include instances of both approaches to holistic assessment, as well as element assessment:
Fig 3 shows a model of two units, one adopting element assessment and one adopting holistic assessment where the assessment evidence is partly defined by the student in consultation with a tutor, and where specific components are also identified.
Page 12 of 25

UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS LONDON
ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE NOTES 2014/15
Planning, time-management and the meeting of deadlines are part of the personal and professional skills expected of all graduates. For this reason and to avoid students building up a backlog of work, and last but not least, to be fair to all students, no extensions beyond the notified submission deadline are allowed. Students who submit work late will be deemed to have failed that particular assessment unless they complete an extenuating circumstances form (handed in at the assessment deadline or as soon as possible thereafter) and follow the procedures outlined in the Extenuating Circumstances
Regulations.
This policy is separate from the University Accommodated Assessment Policy; disabled students may be offered alternative deadlines if this is the most appropriate way to accommodate their needs. Alternative Deadlines should be arranged in advance, and not viewed as ‘extensions’ (see Accommodated Assessment Regulations).
•
Ensure that course handbook contains an explanation of what to do if a deadline is missed.
Page 13 of 25

UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS LONDON
ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE NOTES 2014/15
Page 14 of 25

UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS LONDON ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE NOTES 2014/15
Marking and Moderation are the processes used internally to assess student performance and ensure that the grades awarded are accurate, fair and consistent. The
University Assessment Regulations set out the following minimum requirements:
1) All summative assessment briefs are given to students in writing and follow the UAL guidance on content and approval.
2) All assessments are carried out using the UAL Marking Criteria and
Assessment Feedback Form.
3) All Final Major Project units are double-blind or group marked.
4) In all other units, a minimum of 10% of student submissions are sampled.
5) All grades are provisional until ratified by the Exam Board and by the External
Examiner for final awards.
There are 2 main marking methods: individual marking and group marking . The method will depend on the discipline, the size of the cohort, the nature of the assignment
(text, artefacts, performances etc) and whether the unit is a final major project unit (all students’ final major projects must be double or group marked). Marking and moderation may be separate phases of the assessment process but are also frequently undertaken in tandem. The key objective is to ensure that marking is rigorous, consistent and reliable and that all students are treated fairly.
Individual marking is commonly used for text-based work, dissertations or other assignments where it is not possible for tutors to mark the work together. The moderation process can take one of two forms: sampling and blind double marking .
Sampling takes the form of second-marking a systematic sample of work, looking at examples of high, medium and low grades and checking the rigour and consistency of judgements made by markers. Where sampling is used, a minimum of 10% of student submissions must be moderated. The sample must include all fails and all A grades
(other than courses with greater than 60 students where only a sample of A grades need be included).
An individual marker assesses the student’s submission with reference to the marking criteria and completes an assessment feedback form for each student. The course team then identifies a sample of student work from across the grade bandings. A 2 nd
marker assesses the sample using the marking criteria and referring to the 1 st
marker’s assessment feedback forms. The 2 nd marker does not need to complete an assessment feedback form in full, but should use the marking criteria to assess the student’s performance with reference to each individual criterion that applies and come to a conclusion about an overall grade. The markers will then compare their decisions, resolving any discrepancies and agreeing the final grade and feedback for the student.
All final major project units must be double-blind or group marked. Blind double marking is commonly used for written coursework, where the markers cannot assess the work together. A 1 st
and 2 nd
marker independently assess the work with reference to the
Page 15 of 25

UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS LONDON ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE NOTES 2014/15 marking criteria and complete individual assessment feedback forms in full. The markers then compare their decisions, resolving any discrepancies and agreeing the final grade and feedback for the student.
Group marking is commonly used for artefacts, practical works in situ, performances, exhibitions and shows. The group may consist of 2 or more markers and all assessors act as both markers and moderators. Each marker assesses the student’s performance with reference to each of the marking criteria that applies, recording separate notes on feedback forms before coming together to discuss their individual judgements and agree the final grade and the feedback to the student.
Parity review is an additional step for courses with multiple teams of markers (e.g. on larger courses or those with different pathways). The review ensures that grades have been awarded consistently by different marking teams and that there is a common understanding of the grade boundaries. Parity reviews often take the form of a meeting of all the markers and moderators, or they can take place online. The Course Leader (or equivalent) will normally identify a sample of student work to be reviewed, taking examples from all the marking teams. The course team will compare the grades awarded, resolving any discrepancies and agreeing the final grade and feedback for the students.
All marking must be carried out using the UAL Assessment Feedback Form or Online
Assessment Tool and with reference to the UAL Marking Criteria Matrix (see UAL
Assessment webpages ).
Where moderation takes place, one marker is responsible for completing the final version of the assessment feedback form to be released to the student.
The moderation process must be evidenced. This can take the form of either :
•
The final assessment feedback form plus the 1 st
and 2 nd
markers’ initial assessment feedback forms
•
OR the final assessment feedback form plus a Moderation Record which includes details of the students in the sample and their grades before and after moderation.
Where a student’s grade has been changed, notes should also summarise the reasons for the change. The following table provides an example of how this might look:
Marker 1 name:
Student Name/ ID
Grades before Moderation
Marker 1 Marker 2
Marker 2 name:
Grade after Moderation Notes
Page 16 of 25

UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS LONDON ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE NOTES 2014/15
All records should be retained by the Programme Lead Administrator and be available to the External Examiner.
The size of the sample will depend on the size of the cohort and the number of marking teams. The minimum requirements are that the sample must include:
•
All fails (E, F, and F-) should always be included in the sample for all courses.
•
All A grades (A+, A, A-) should normally be included. However, on a large course, only a sample of A grades need be included. This would generally be true where a cohort has more than 60 students or where there are more than 6 A grades.
•
Examples of all grades in between (D, C and B).
The following table is provided for guidance:
Number of Students in
Cohort
Under 10
Students
10-30 30-60 60-100 100+
A+, A, A-
B+, B, B-
C+, C, C- all all at least 1 1-3 at least 1 1-3 all
2-5
2-5
6-10
3-6
3-6
6-10
4-10
4-10
D+, D, D- at least 1 1-3 2-5 3-6 4-10
E, F, F- all all all all all
Total Size of Sample up to 10 up to 15 up to 25 up to 35 up to 45
Where there is more than one marking team, a parity review needs to take place. At the parity review, there should be an equal representation from all teams of markers. E.g. if there are 2 marking teams consisting of 4 markers each, the sample should include at least one example of a D Grade, a C Grade and a B Grade from each of the 2 teams.
The sample should, where possible, include examples from the top, middle and bottom of each band (e.g. a B-, a B and a B+). Where this is not possible (i.e. on smaller courses) the sample should represent an even spread of grades awarded. The purpose of the parity review meeting is to ensure the standards being used by different groups of markers.
Markers should discuss their assessment of the student submission in relation to the
Page 17 of 25

UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS LONDON ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE NOTES 2014/15 marking criteria, face to face, by phone or virtually, and compare where they identify strengths or weaknesses in the work, with reference to the indicative marking criteria matrix. Most of the time, it is hoped that markers can resolve their difference in this way and agree on a grade. The agreed grade and feedback should be recorded on the final feedback sheet to the student, and the reason for the amended/agreed grade noted on the moderation record. If two feedback forms have been completed, a record of the agreed amendment can be recorded on one of the forms (which must then be retained) prior to the production of the final agreed form. The record keeping allows the external examiner to check the process. The use of a third marker should be a last resort, and the third marker’s role is not to over-ride the two previous markers, but contribute to resolving the discussion with reference to the marking criteria.
Sampling is a process to confirm the reliability of grading. “Reliability” means that on any submission, two or more appropriately qualified markers reach similar grades most of the time. Grading can be said to be reliable when discrepancies between markers are normally relatively few and relatively slight. If extensive discrepancies emerge between markers during moderation, then the course team has a responsibility for extending the marked sample until the grading is demonstrably reliable. It is expected that substantial discrepancies between markers will occur progressively less frequently as staff teams discuss the marking criteria with one another and with students, and a shared understanding of grading principles is established more strongly.
As a minimum , you will need to retain: a. The final completed UAL feedback sheet for each student whose work has been moderated b. The original first and second marker forms, annotated to explain how any differences were resolved OR the moderation record indicating the assessments sampled, the names of the markers, the grades before and after moderation, and an explanatory note where grades have changed.
It is good practice to keep copies of the draft assessment feedback forms/ notes completed by each marker before the moderation takes place. Course teams might also want to retain examples of student work as evidence of the process for the external examiner.
Page 18 of 25

UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS LONDON ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE NOTES 2014/15
Across UAL we were using very many different terms to describe the process of agreeing grades: verification, moderation, standardisation, parity checking, double marking, blind double marking and sampling are just some of those in use, and different people meant different things by the same terms. The terms in this document (i.e. individual marking, moderation, group marking, sampling, blind double marking and parity review) replace previous uses. The moderation flowchart indicates the process and terminology now in use for UAL’s HE provision.
The process described here is the minimum required. As long as practices include the steps and records described here, other steps can also be included. In the process of developing this guidance, variations in approach have become apparent which are compatible with the process described here. For example, in some cases, the parity review partially takes place before individual marking, as markers agree standards by marking a sample together before undertaking the majority of their marking. This is an acceptable variation. It can also be acceptable to record the reasons for adjustments to grades by hand on one of the feedback forms and not the moderation record, if this is a closer fit with existing practice, as long as all the documents are retained and all the required information about the original grades and the reasons agreed for adjustments are retrievable .
Normally, the student sees only the final version of the form, after moderation. Students do not normally have sight of pre-moderation feedback forms, marker notes or the moderation record. However, students do have the right to make data protection requests to see copies of all the documents relating to them retained on file. On receipt of a correctly constructed data protection request, the programme administrator would need to provide the student with the first version/s of their feedback form, if these exist, and any notes on the moderation record relating to the student.
Page 19 of 25

UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS LONDON ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE NOTES 2014/15
Assessment is a very important part of student learning. Feedback on that learning helps students understand what is expected of their work at this level, what they have achieved so far, and how they can improve their work in future. The University therefore recognises how important it is that students receive this feedback as soon as possible, so that they can apply that learning to new projects and assignments.
To this end, the University aims to give all taught Further and Higher Education students written feedback on summative assessments within three weeks of the submission date.
The maximum turnaround time for feedback is four weeks, except in the case of dissertations, where feedback will be returned within a maximum of six weeks to allow for the thorough application of the University’s moderation processes.
Students will be given a written assessment brief for all summative assessments
(assessments which count towards the unit grade). This will include clear details of when and how students should submit work (or, in the case of performances, presentations etc., when and where to attend). The assessment brief will also include the date when students can expect to receive written feedback.
Feedback will be provided on the standard University Assessment Feedback Form, either through the University’s Online Assessment Tool or as a paper or electronic document. It will include an indicative grade, but this grade will not be finalised until the
Board of Examiners meets.
Formative assessment (assessment which does not count towards the unit grade) is also a very important part of student learning. Students can expect to receive formative feedback on their progress throughout their course, and may also receive verbal feedback on summative assessments on the day of the assessment or soon after. This feedback is an essential part of student learning, but is not included in the University’s
Assessment Feedback Turnaround Policy – in other words, students will be provided with written feedback for all summative assessments, within the time parameters set out above, in addition to any verbal or informal feedback given.
The policy applies to summative assessments for all Further Education, Undergraduate and Taught Postgraduate students in the University.
The feedback turnaround target policy excludes :
•
Formative assessments
•
Verbal feedback (unless accompanied by written feedback)
•
Units concluding at the end of the course (within eight weeks of the final board of examiners)
•
Weekends; bank holidays; the week before and after Christmas Day and the week before and after Easter Day.
Page 20 of 25

UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS LONDON
Assessment type
Progression Units
Final Year Units
Dissertation
ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE NOTES 2014/15
Submission point
All Units
Feedback turnaround
3 week target; 4 weeks max.
Submitted in weeks 1-22* 3 week target; 4 weeks max.
Submitted in weeks 1-22* 6 weeks max.
Dissertation Submitted in weeks 23-30* Excluded
Final Major Project Submitted in weeks 23-30* Excluded
* Based on a standard 30-week academic year. Courses of different lengths should adjust the week numbers as necessary. For example, on a 45-week academic year, assignments submitted in weeks 38-45 are excluded from the policy and on a 90-week academic year, assignments submitted in weeks 82-90 are excluded from the policy .
•
Provide formative feedback at regular intervals throughout the course
•
Provide written feedback to students when it can best inform their learning
•
Include the written feedback return date on the Assessment Brief
•
Provide written feedback on the standard UAL Assessment Feedback Form
Further details of the policy, including Frequently Asked Questions, can be found on the
Assessment webpages: www.arts.ac.uk/assessment/feedback
Page 21 of 25

UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS LONDON
ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE NOTES 2014/15
Through its approach to assessment the University seeks to ensure that all students are given a grade that reflects their performance against the University’s Marking Criteria and which evidences their achievement of the course and unit learning outcomes. Marking is expected to be in line with sector norms and fair to all students in a cohort and over time.
All courses operate systems of internal moderation which allow for some adjustment of grades by internal staff to ensure this parity and accurate marking. External moderation is a final check, by the External Examiners, who are subject experts, that the marking is at the right level for the type and level of course.
External Examiners will consider a sample of student work, either sent to them in advance or by viewing a sample selection of work on display. The sample is chosen by the Course Leader to reflect a range of achievement from the top, middle and bottom of all the student grades. There is no significance in being chosen for the sample and students whose work is sampled will not have their work remarked.
After discussion with the internal markers about how the grades were decided the
External Examiners have the right to moderate the whole cohort of grades if they feel the marking is out of line with national norms. They may do this in a number of ways, including raising or lowering the letter grades of all students in a unit, or only some students (e.g. all 2.2s); or moving a grade boundary, in which case they may say that all students on a specific letter grade should be moved up to the next grade (e.g. all students on B be moved to B+). External Examiners do not have the right to change the letter grades of individual students.
•
Include External Moderation Policy in Assessment Section of Course Handbooks
•
Prepare sample for External Examiner(s) for all units contributing to the final award
Page 22 of 25

UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS LONDON ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE NOTES 2014/15
The University of the Arts External Examiner regulations cover sampling under section
2.2 on the role, responsibilities and rights of External Examiners (para 2.2.2.6) where it states that External Examiners have the right “ to normally see the work of all students proposed for the highest available category of the award, and for failure, and samples of the work of students proposed for each category of the award ”. This note gives further guidance on the extent of the sample, upper and lower limits of the sample size, and other matters. It is intended to help both Course Leaders and External
Examiners.
The choice of sample must meet the formal regulations and should take account of the advice in this guidance note; however if there is any doubt then consideration of the basic principle of sampling should be enough to resolve the issue. External Examiners need to see enough student work to be able to make a judgement about the standard of marking undertaken by the internal examiners and therefore be able to confirm that the marking is in line with that of similar courses elsewhere or, where necessary, to exercise their right to moderate grades.
The Course Leader should choose the sample which should be based on the placement of a particular student within the range of grades on the full mark sheet rather than on the nature of their work.
For BA and FdA courses External Examiners should sample final year work only. This is not to say that External Examiners are forbidden from seeing the work of students on earlier years on a studio tour at interim or final visits. However it should be made clear that any viewing of work of earlier years is for general briefing and to help External
Examiners get a feel for the course and is not sampling. For Grad Cert, Grad Dip and for postgraduate courses structures vary and the sample will be drawn from the units that contribute to the calculation of distinction on the particular award in question.
All UAL courses are unitised. All units that contribute to the final award must be externally examined. Where there is a team of External Examiners it is acceptable for individual units to be externally examined by just one examiner. However the final major project unit or equivalent should be examined by all examiners from the relevant specialism.
Page 23 of 25

UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS LONDON ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE NOTES 2014/15
All fails should be included in the sample for all courses. All firsts or distinctions should be included in the sample for most courses. However on a large course it is permissible to provide a sample of the first/distinction category. This would generally be true where a cohort has more than 60 students or where there are more than 6 firsts or distinctions.
For the other categories the sample should be taken from the top, middle and bottom of the band so will be at least 3 and would not normally need to be higher than 6 for each band. From this general guidance it can be seen that no matter what the size of the cohort the sample size will generally be between 12 and 45. For cohorts of 12 or fewer students this may mean External Examiners are seeing the work of all students and this is permissible. The sample should include a selection of work that has been internally moderated (as defined in section 3.6 of the University Assessment
Policy Guidance Notes) and provide enough information for the External Examiner to make a judgment on how the process has operated.
Please note that this table is for guidance only to help course teams make judgements on an appropriate size sample for External Examiners to consider.
Number of Students in
Cohort
Under 12
Students
12-30 30 - 60 60-100 100+
1 st
/Dist all all all 6-10 6-10
2.1/Merit Plus all 3 4-5 6 10
2.2/Merit
3 rd
/Pass
Fail
Total Size of Sample all all
3
3 all all
Up to 12 12-15
4-5
4-5 all
20-25
6
6
10
10 all all
Up to 30 Up to 45
External Examiners should be given the full mark sheet for the entire cohort along with the sample work or when they are viewing work. External Examiners may, if they wish, ask to see more samples of work. This may be needed when the examiner feels unable to come to a conclusion on the standards of the course from the original sample and will generally be needed if there is the possibility of external moderation.
The sample should be sent to the External Examiner(s) in advance together with the full mark sheet for the cohort for that unit or the whole course. It is good practice to anonymise the mark sheet by using only the numeric part of the student ID code.
Page 24 of 25

UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS LONDON ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE NOTES 2014/15
Sampling on studio based courses varies depending on the specific nature of the discipline. Generally the external examining is carried out in the same way as internal examining and this is normally by each examiner viewing the work and coming to their own view on a grade followed by collective discussion and agreement of a grade.
Whatever method is used the following outlines generally accepted practice. Internal examiners should view alone, mark and then discuss collectively to arrive at a final grade for each student before external examination takes place and this should include any process of internal moderation that is used. A sample of students should be identified.
External Examiners should be given the full mark sheet for the cohort with the sample students identified. External Examiners should view the sample work, without the internal examiners initially, and then should have an opportunity for dialogue with the internal examiners about how they arrived at the grade.
External Examiners sometimes meet with the students whose work they are viewing
(again generally reflecting the practice of internal examination); while this is acceptable
University rules no longer allow this to be called a viva voce , only internal examiners may carry out a viva voce , that is use the information given by the student to help them arrive at a grade. Where External Examiners meet with a student in the sample it is to help them understand the work in question. Where the work of all students is displayed it is normal for External Examiners to want to view the whole show and this is of course acceptable to get a general feeling for the cohort; however a full discussion about individual students should be limited to the sample chosen by the Course Leader and any extended sample requested by the External Examiners.
Page 25 of 25