APP/6/11
UNIVERSITY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES PROJECT GROUP
Notes of a meeting held at 2:15 pm on 16th November 2011 at Park Campus
Membership and attendance
David James (convenor)
Malcolm MacLean
Julie Thackray
Neil Casey
Michael Pinfold
Lars Newell
Sue MacGregor
Madeleine Howe
Sheila Ollin
Ian Thackray
Deputy Dean, Faculty of Applied Sciences
Associate Dean, Academic Frameworks
Academic Registrar & Clerk to Council
Dean of Quality and Standards
Head of Collaborative Provision
Deputy Academic Registrar (Student Systems & Admin)
Head of Registry Services
Faculty Head of Quality and Standards - AS
Faculty Head of Quality and Standards – MAT
Faculty Head of Quality and Standards – BEPS
√
√
√
√
A
√
√
√
√
√
In attendance:
Claire Neale-Brown (Officer)
PA in Vice-Chancellor’s office
√
Welcome and apologies
The convenor welcomed everyone to the University Assessment Procedures Project (APP) group meeting.
Apologies were received from Michael Pinfold.
Notes from previous meeting
The notes from the meeting held on 12th October 2011 [APP/5/11] were agreed to be a true and accurate
record, apart from one amendment to the third paragraph, entitled “Collaborative Provision” on page 2:
Neil Casey and Michael Pinfold had met to plan the drafting of the new section of the Collaborative
provision Handbook on “Assessment” but this had not yet been completed. It was agreed that the APP
group members would be shown the draft revisions before the Handbook was reissued in January 2012.
Neil Casey to circulate draft revisions to the APP group members.
Update on actions from previous meeting (not covered elsewhere on Agenda)
1. Collaborative Provision: Michael Pinfold had circulated a revised Annual Institutional Monitoring
proforma which incorporated new sections for monitoring whether:
i.
Partner institutions had adopted the University Academic Regulations for Taught Provision
ii.
Partner institutions were adopting the University’s Assessment Procedures or using their
own.
It was agreed that section 4 (adoption of Regulations for Taught Provision) should be placed earlier
in the proforma, before section 3.
It was further agreed that:
i.
Where a partner institution wished to adopt the University’s assessment procedures, a
section should be added to the form asking partner institutions to clarify their timescale
ii.
Where a partner wished to seek approval to use their own procedures (in line with UoG
principles), a section should be added to the form asking partner institutions to clarify their
timescale
1
APP/6/11
iii.
Alignment with the University’s assessment procedures for any new partners would be
formally covered within the Institutional Approval process; however, this new proforma
would be useful for monitoring established partners during this transition period.
Action: Michael Pinfold
It was agreed that this action is complete, but it was recognised that the original Annual Institutional
Monitoring proforma was distributed to partners for completion. Partners had, however, been given the
opportunity to complete the revised proforma if they wished.
2. Collaborative Provision: Neil Casey and Michael Pinfold had met to plan the drafting of the new
section of the Collaborative provision Handbook on “Assessment” but this had not yet been
completed. It was agreed that the APP group members would be shown the draft revisions before
the Handbook was reissued in January 2012.
Neil Casey to circulate draft revisions to the APP group members.
Ongoing action: Neil Casey
3. Collaborative Provision: Michael Pinfold agreed to arrange a special training event for link tutors
in November 2011, with input on regulations, principles and procedures from Malcolm MacLean.
Neil Casey agreed to discuss progress with Michael Pinfold.
Ongoing action: Michael Pinfold
4. All other actions arising from the meeting on 12th October were confirmed to have been
completed, or were to be updated within the meeting’s agenda.
Marking (and Moderation)
1. A paper written by Ian Thackray and Madeleine Howe was circulated to the group prior to the
meeting. The paper discussed procedures for marking and moderation. The focus was particularly
on second marking and moderation issues, not on the broader aspects of marking. The paper
contained a précis of the key points, including looking at what was currently published on the
University website, at a range of issues which had arisen around marking and moderation, at how
other institutions such as MARJON dealt with such issues, and some published recommendations in
the sector (Bloxham & Boyd).
2. The key question to be addressed in the first instance was whether the University would wish to
simply tighten up existing procedures for marking and moderation, or undertake a complete
review. A discussion took place regarding this issue, and it appeared that clearer definitions and
tightening of existing procedures was the preferred approach.
3. It was agreed that the following action should follow:





Definitions of “second marking”, “double marking” and “moderation” to be reworked to provide
greater clarity. In particular, the definition of moderation was in need of revision.
Definitions should be developed which distinguish between marking and moderation.
Definitions of moderation should be delimited to ‘within module’ processes that take place prior to
the MBE. Broader ‘moderation’ type activities, as articulated through quality assurance
procedures, are considered beyond the scope of the marking and moderation principles and
procedures.
Existing principles should be revised, guided by QAA definitions. However, it was recognised that
the QAA definitions were very broad.
A module summary template should be developed as a means of recording the moderation
process, which could capture any second marking (or double marking) or other moderation at
module level. The completed module summary could be provided, along with the module sample,
for external examiners to consider.
2
APP/6/11

Draft definitions, principles and templates should be circulated electronically before the next APP
meeting in December.
Action: Neil Casey/Ian Thackray/Sheila Ollin/Madeleine Howe
Accreditation of Prior Learning
1. Following a meeting between Julie Thackray, Neil Casey and David James, a paper on Accreditation
of Prior Learning (APL) was produced and circulated to the group prior to the meeting. This put the
current APL procedures into context and contained proposals for a review of current principles and
procedures relating to APL. The paper identified that the current Policy for APL was now out of
date in the light of more recently adopted principles and procedures and should no longer be
accessible from the web pages.
2. It was noted that APL issues were very complex, overlapping with other areas such as international,
collaborative and admissions.
3. Implications for fees were important and complicated: if a student applied for a full level of APL
they wouldn’t be charged the administration fees; if awarded partial APL, administration fees
would be chargeable.
4. It was noted that BuSIC and IDeC should not make APL decisions; rather, staff in these areas should
inform the standard decision making process.
5. It was noted that collaborative partners receive limited guidance on APL, and it was unclear where
oversight of their APL decisions took place.
6. It was noted that Catherine Emanuelli held considerable knowledge of the APL process and there
was a risk in one person holding all this knowledge.
7. It was noted that the slowness of decision making on applications for APL had been criticised in the
past, and that any changes to procedure should not create unreasonable delays in decision making.
What was needed was a pragmatic, speedy process.
8. It was agreed that proposal no.1, to thoroughly review the current procedures with regard to APL
should be supported. An internal quality audit should be carried out by a group to include Malcolm
Maclean, Stephen Hill and an external.
Action: Neil Casey to ask Stephen Hill to lead on this work
9. The work should feed back to the APP group and via this to Academic Regulations Committee then
to Academic Standards and Quality Committee.
Action: Neil Casey
Exam Boards - Schedule
1. Malcolm Maclean reported that the Exam Boards schedule for 12-13 would go to the meeting of
the Academic Regulations Committee in February 2012, and then proceed to Academic Board in
May 2012.
Exam Boards – “wash-up” meeting
1. Neil Casey reported following the Exam Boards “wash-up” meeting on 2nd November. Notes and
actions arising would be circulated to all APP group members.
Action: Neil Casey
3
APP/6/11
2. The reports received from the Chief External Examiners who attend the Award and Progression
Boards of Examiners (ABEs) raised a number of questions about the Academic Regulations.
Responses to these questions would be considered by the Academic Regulations Committee.
Action: Neil Casey/David James/Malcolm Maclean
3. It was agreed to circulate a collated list of extracts on the regulatory questions from external
examiner reports.
Action: Neil Casey
Academic (Assessment) Offences
1. Malcolm Maclean reported that a meeting of the Assessment Offences review group would take
place in early December, with a report coming to the next APP meeting on December 20th.
Ongoing action: Malcolm Maclean
2. It was queried whether there was a need to broaden Assessment Offences to include cases of
fabrication. It was agreed that broadening the scope to include all Academic Offences was sensible.
Date of next meeting: Tuesday 20th December, 2.15 pm in FW015B, Park
4