Assessment Regulations

Students must review the assessment briefs for presentation-based tasks, including role plays and seminar presentations. Any queries should be directed to the module leader. Module leaders will provide details and dates of such assessments early in the semester to aid preparation.

The module leader will specify whether the presentation is online or in person, along with the date and time. Students must join the presentation at least 10 minutes early. They should be prepared to verify their identity via the AGS or with their ID card and follow all instructions given by the assessor. Students should ask any questions before the assessment begins. The assessor will signal the start of the assessment and notify students when 5 minutes and 2 minutes remain. Students must consult the provided instructions and assessment criteria during their presentation.

Module leaders will inform students with learning support plans about their presentation arrangements.

Assessors will record presentations, and the videos will be used for marking and moderation, in accordance with the School's data and retention policies.

Students must attend their presentation on the scheduled date and time. A student who registers for a module is deemed to have registered for its assessments unless they have formally withdrawn through the system. Missing an assessment will result in a mark of 0%, except in cases of intermission or extenuating circumstances. Starting an assessment, such as an exam or presentation, will be considered as having completed it, and the School's policies, including those on extenuating circumstances, will apply.

The module leader must draft summative assessments for undergraduate and postgraduate modules according to academic regulations and submit them for moderation. These assessments should align with the module's learning outcomes, sector-recognised standards, and credit values.

Summative assessment drafts are reviewed by an internal moderation panel, coordinated by the Director of Education. This panel, comprising relevant School academic staff, will evaluate the assessments to ensure they:

• Assess learning outcomes to the required standards
• Are rigorous and appropriate for the module level
• Evaluate the content, knowledge, and skills taught
• Accommodate a broad range of student abilities

Module leaders must address feedback from internal moderators and send the revised assessment to the external examiner. The assessment must be approved by the Director of Education before it can be used as a summative assessment.

The School uses Generic Assessment Criteria at Levels 4-7 to determine student classifications based on demonstrated outcomes. These criteria are aligned with SEEC Credit Level Descriptors for Higher Education and Subject Matter Benchmarks, also following OfS sector-recognised standards ('School Descriptors').

Assessment criteria are based on:

• Knowledge and Understanding
• Intellectual Skills
• Technical/Practical Skills
• Professional/Transferable Skills

All undergraduate and postgraduate module leaders must use these criteria when drafting summative assessments and marking criteria to ensure standards and consistency.

All draft summative assessments for undergraduate and postgraduate modules must include bespoke assessment marking criteria detailing the outcomes required for each classification. These criteria, along with model answers, must also be aligned with the general level-specific Generic Assessment Criteria to ensure consistency and uphold standards.

After a summative assessment for undergraduate or postgraduate modules, the module leader must organise a meeting with all markers to ensure consistent marking and application of assessment criteria. The module leader is responsible for providing the marking team with all necessary materials, including the assessment paper, generic and specific criteria, model answers, and any other relevant instructions.

Marking should follow these principles:

• Adhere to academic regulations.
• Base grading on academic judgement.
• Use only the material provided by the module leader.
• Employ the full range of marks.
• Treat all students equally and fairly.
• Ensure consistent marking standards for all papers.
• Report any issues to the module leader promptly.

If a student answers more questions than required in an exam, and it is unclear which answers they intended to submit, markers must use the first answers provided in sequence.

All papers must undergo internal scrutiny.

Double marking involves two independent markers assessing a student's work separately, each using the stated assessment criteria to provide their own marks and comments. This process is required only for Final Project Modules at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, or when specified by PRSB regulations.

Moderation involves another marker reviewing a sample of marking and feedback for appropriateness, consistency, and fairness. This applies to all undergraduate and postgraduate modules except Final Project Modules, which require double marking. A 25% sample of scripts, including all fails and borderline cases within 2 marks of grade boundaries, must be reviewed by an internal moderator. If the moderator approves the marks, they stand. If not, a second moderator will be chosen, and if there is still disagreement, the papers will be remarked by a different marker. The module leader must then review the final marks to decide overall consistency and conformity.

After internal scrutiny and final checks by the module leader, a 25% sample of scripts from all grades, including fails and borderline cases within 2 marks of grade boundaries, along with materials specified in the External Examiner Regulations, must be sent to the external examiner for review. The external examiner will provide their feedback to the module leader in their module-specific report.

After completing all marking, internal, and external scrutiny on undergraduate and postgraduate modules, the module leader must submit the marks to the Module Examination Board (MEB) under the Examination Boards and Academic Appeal Regulations. The MEB reviews and ratifies the marks, determines progression, and the Programme Examination Board (PEB) uses these marks to decide on awards.

Markers for undergraduate and postgraduate modules must provide comments explaining the rationale behind the awarded marks. These comments should assist with internal and external scrutiny and help students understand their marks, especially for progression. Feedback must be given within the body of the work and in a separate section. Students should be informed of when and how they will receive feedback, which should be within 20 working days of the assessment deadline. If this timeline cannot be met, staff must consult the Module Leader and inform students of the revised date and reason. Additional feedback opportunities, such as module-level feedback and model answers, should be provided, particularly before reassessment for students who have failed.

Students on undergraduate and postgraduate modules may request to view their summative assessments, feedback, and model answers, if available. This viewing must be supervised. For students who have failed the assessment, this opportunity should be provided before the reassessment examination.

In accordance with the Equality Act 2010, the School may grant reasonable adjustments for students’ learning and assessments, such as extra exam time, deadline extensions, or marking aids for conditions like dyslexia or dyspraxia. These adjustments must be recorded on the student’s profile in the Automated Governance System (AGS), following data protection rules. Requests should ideally be submitted before the module begins but can be made any time before an assessment. Post-assessment considerations are handled under the extenuating circumstances process.

If a programme is accredited by a Professional, Statutory, and Regulatory Body (PSRB), the specific conditions for awards will be detailed in the programme’s specifications.

Assessments will be retained and managed according to the School’s data retention, privacy, and data protection policies.

After summative assessments, assessment papers, briefs, model answers, criteria, and rubrics must be stored and made available online.

Work submitted after the published deadline will be deemed late, unless an application for extenuating circumstances is approved.

• Submissions to the AGS within 24 hours of the deadline will incur a 10% deduction if passed, but not fall below the pass mark. If extenuating circumstances are accepted, the full mark will be awarded. Marks below the pass mark will remain unchanged.
• Submissions made after 24 hours of the deadline will be marked but awarded 0%, unless extenuating circumstances are accepted, in which case the full mark will be given.

Late submission penalties apply only to the late assessment element, not to the entire module.

If an assessment task with multiple parts is submitted late, the entire task is considered late if any part is overdue. If each part has a different deadline, only the late part will incur a penalty.

Each module in undergraduate and postgraduate programmes must be assessed independently of other modules.

Each module must be assessed within the semester it is delivered, except for Final Project Modules.

The final 3 weeks of each 14-week semester will be for revision and summative assessments.

Assessment schedules, including exam and coursework submission dates, must be published on the website and AGS. No assessments will be set on Fridays, weekends, or outside operating hours unless approved by the Academic Board. Module leaders must also provide assessment details early in the semester and notify students of any date changes immediately.

Dates for all summative assessments will be published on the website and AGS. Students will also receive personalised notifications from AGS.

All School examinations are online and open book.

Students must check and confirm their exam dates and consult the module leader with any questions. Registering for a module implies an attempt at its assessments unless written notice of withdrawal is given by the School's published deadline. Non-attendance without approved extenuating circumstances will result in a 0% mark.

If a student starts an exam, it is considered an attempt, and the assessment will be marked in line with the School's policies, including those on extenuating circumstances.

To ensure assessment integrity and prevent academic misconduct, the following security measures apply:

• Assessments must be taken at either:
  • The School library or designated areas
  • A private room outside the School, with no other person or device present
• Device camera(s) must be available and will automatically record the environment every few seconds and securely store the footage on the School's cloud servers for 3 months. This can be achieved using:
  • A dual camera system (front and back)
  • A single camera with a suitably large mirror
• During a live exam, the student must not leave the room or be out of view of the camera.

All exams are time-limited, open-book. Those taken in a private venue, such as the student’s home, during the designated assessment period, must follow these controlled conditions to ensure quality and academic integrity: 

• Exam Format: Students should familiarise themselves with the exam format in advance and consult their module leader with any questions.
• Access and Timing: Exams will start at the date and time specified in the assessment schedule and will be conducted via the School’s AGS platform or mobile app. Students must use a device meeting these requirements:
  • Operating System: Android or iOS
  • Functionality: Working microphone; a dual camera system (front and back), or a single camera with a suitably large mirror
  • Connectivity: Reliable internet
  • Storage: At least 2GB of free space
• Authentication: Students will log in using 2-factor authentication, and a real-time audio/visual camera feed will confirm their identity.
• Pre-Exam Steps: Students must complete the preliminary steps outlined in the AGS at least 10 minutes before the exam begins. Late completion (more than 30 minutes after the start) will result in a 0% mark, subject to extenuating circumstances policy.
• Exam Integrity: While students may refer to course materials, they must not consult others. The School's misconduct policy applies to all assessments.
• Timing and Completion: The exam will end automatically at the scheduled time. Students are responsible for managing their time.
• Absence and Issues: Students who are registered and do not withdraw are considered to have attempted the exam and will be marked accordingly. Absence without valid reasons will result in a 0%. For technology issues, students should inform the module leader immediately and submit an extenuating circumstances application. The School will notify students of any system-wide issues and alternative arrangements if necessary.

Where a student does not have access to the conditions of remote examination they may take the exams on School premises instead. If so, they should provide one week's advanced notice for the arrangements to be put in place.

Students should bring with them a valid photo ID as proof of identity. This should normally be a student’s electronic School Mobile ID. This photo ID should be produced to the invigilator for verification upon arrival at the examination and then securely stored out of reach for the duration.

Students will be admitted to the examination room 10 minutes before the stated commencement time for the examination to complete the pre-exam steps outlined in the AGS

After entering the examination room, no student may read or otherwise appraise themself of the work of another student; nor is communication between students in writing, speech or gesture or by electronic devices permitted.

The exam will start at the scheduled time.

Students will not be allowed into the exam room more than 30 mins after an exam has started. They will not be permitted to take the exam and will be awarded 0%. They will be subject to the extenuating circumstances policy.

Any student in breach of these examination room regulations will be reported immediately after the conclusion of the examination period and a hearing will be arranged at the earliest possible opportunity. For serious breaches of the rules, such as proved 'cheating', severe penalties may be applied, including the withholding of an award.

Invigilation:

All students must complete identity verification using their School mobile identification or other suitable photo ID, such as a valid passport or photo driving licence before starting the examination. Where students do not have photographic proof of identity they should speak to an invigilator before the start of the examination. The student should be asked to remain behind at the end of the examination for their identity to be verified through the Technology Team via the student records system.

Invigilators should:

• Check students’ identity against their photo ID;
• Take whatever action may become necessary in an emergency. If, for example, a fire alarm causes an interruption to the examination, the invigilator should ensure that students evacuate the room quietly and, as far as possible, should keep them under examination conditions until such time as the examination can be restarted or an alternative decision is taken. The invigilator, using discretion, may allow the students additional time, if possible, on return to the room. The time allowed should be equivalent to the time lost. If the interruption occurs in the closing stages of the examination, this may not be feasible and in such cases, students should be advised to complete the necessary information on the front of their answer books and hand in their work. The circumstances and action is taken, must be fully detailed in the invigilator's report. The student should be allowed to continue with the examination having had their attention drawn to the fact that a report will be made to the President about the incident; if the unauthorised material is portable, it should be confiscated immediately and submitted with the invigilator's report form. The invigilator initiating the action must enter a full and detailed account of the evidence on the invigilator's report form, including the student's examination number. The Principal Invigilator must submit a full report to the President within two working days of the examination.
• All incidents, including illness, absence from the examination room (other than the occasional visit to the toilet), late arrivals, and breaches of the examination room regulations, must be entered on the invigilator's report forms.
• The Principal Invigilator should warn students of the approach of the end of the examination at a time deemed appropriate (15 minutes is generally considered to be adequate).
• The Principal Invigilator should announce the end of the examination and instruct all students to stop writing and remain seated until instructed to leave. Students may be allowed to complete any details which may be required on the front of the answer book such as their student number and the number of questions answered.

The School will endeavour to accommodate requests for religious observance if exams coincide with religious festivals and holy days, where feasible. 

The policy for religious observance applies only to scheduled exams. Deadlines for assessed coursework will not be extended for religious observance, so students should plan their work accordingly.

Students must submit a formal written request via the AGS, using the 'Religious observance and examination arrangements' form, to the Director of Education as soon as possible. 

Approval of an alternative exam time will consider exam integrity, feasibility, and the importance of the religious observance. Rescheduled exams must occur within the standard exam period. The Module team will notify the Module Examination Board of any changes. The Director of Education's decision is final.

The School does not accept religious observance as a valid reason for Extenuating Circumstances.

The School’s academic regulations, including the Assessment Regulations, Academic Misconduct Regulations, Research Ethics and Governance Code of Practice, and the Free Speech and Academic Freedom Policy, enforce academic integrity as central to its standards.

The School enforces a blind marking policy for all undergraduate and postgraduate modules, ensuring that staff involved in marking, including for first and second marking and examination boards, do not know the student's name or identity. Exceptions occur when blind marking is impractical, such as in group work or reflective assessments. Students must use only their ID numbers on assessments and not include their names. If anonymity is compromised, assessors must still avoid letting the student’s identity affect their academic judgement.

Student IDs will be verified before in-person assessments, including multiple-choice exams, analytical exams, and presentations. For other submissions, such as essays, artefacts, peer reviews, and final projects, students must sign a declaration affirming that their work is their own before submission.

Students must take the same assessment for a module simultaneously. Exams should be conducted together, presentations given within the same timeframe, and other work submitted at the same time. This is subject to reasonable adjustments and extenuating circumstances. The Module Leader must ensure the integrity of the assessment is maintained.

Markers must adhere to the academic regulations, base their marking on academic judgement (which is final), use only the materials provided by the module leader, employ the full range of marks, and ensure fair and consistent marking for all students. Any issues should be reported to the module leader immediately.

Students must adhere to correct academic practices, including proper referencing and citation of sources. The School’s Academic Misconduct Regulations apply if these practices are not followed. Students will be trained on avoiding academic misconduct during their modules and should familiarise themselves with the Academic Misconduct Regulations. The following are considered forms of academic misconduct:

• Plagiarism (explicit): Submitting work, with or without consent, that is not originally created by the student without proper acknowledgment.
• Collusion: Collaborating with another student on assessed work (when not expressly permitted) and presenting the joint work as one's own.
• Fabrication: Falsifying academic results, data, sources, or references.
• Duplication: Submitting the same or similar work for academic credit more than once without acknowledgement.
• Cheating in invigilated exams: Gaining an unfair advantage through copying from unauthorised material, another student’s script, or communication with others.
• Impersonation: Assuming another person’s identity to gain an unfair advantage.
• Ghostwriting: Submitting work completed wholly or partially by someone else, or providing material to another student with the intention of committing academic misconduct.
• Unethical behaviour: Violating ethical standards, such as failing to obtain ethical approval, coercing or bribing participants, or misusing privileged or private information.
• Negligence: Repeated poor academic practice that can be considered academic misconduct.

Students must not submit the same substantive piece of work for more than one summative assessment. The academic misconduct regulations will apply if this rule is breached.

Once a student has passed a module, they cannot attempt to improve their mark.

For all undergraduate and postgraduate modules, the School will:

• Provide study and pastoral support;
• Facilitate extensions;
• Assist with extenuating circumstances;
• Allow students to retake assessments up to two times after a first attempt if they fail, while maintaining sector-recognised standards.

The undergraduate and postgraduate programme specification must include details of core and optional modules available, and each module specification must specify the:

• Module name;
• Module description;
• Credit value;
• Level;
• Learning outcomes;
• Teaching system, student workload, and activities;
• Summative assessments and weightings;
• Module content;
• Programmes on which the module appears.

The Academic Regulations, including assessment regulations, programme and module specifications, assessment briefs, Generic Assessment Criteria, and other relevant information, must be available to students on the School's website and through the AGS.

For all undergraduate and postgraduate programmes, the schedule of assessments, including exam and coursework submission dates, will be published on the website and the AGS. Assessments will not be scheduled on Fridays, weekends, or outside operating hours unless the Academic Board approves exceptional circumstances. Module leaders must provide students with assessment details and dates, such as for presentations, as early as possible in the semester and notify them immediately of any changes.

If attendance is required for a summative assessment, such as peer reviews, it must be approved during the validation and periodic review of the programme or module and clearly stated in the Module Handbook.

An assessment brief must be provided for all modules and assessments, including the following details:

• Module name
• Module description
• Credit value
• Level
• Learning outcomes
• Description of summative assessment e.g. word counts and its weighting
• Assessment criteria
• Summary of applicable regulations
• Dates
• Contact information for further help

The Academic Board oversees the standards and quality of the School's undergraduate and postgraduate programmes and assessments and enforces the assessment regulations. It has delegated some responsibilities to the Director of Education and Examination Boards, who must report back to the Academic Board. The Director of Education ensures compliance with assessment regulations, provides training for staff, and manages processes related to assessments, including drafting, moderation, marking, scrutiny, and presentation of marks. The Director reports to the Academic Board, which can question them and request actions to uphold programme standards and quality.

The roles and responsibilities of the Examination Boards are detailed in the Academic Regulations, including the Examination Boards and Academic Appeal Regulations and Module Results and Award Conferment Regulations.

The AGS manages various assessment activities, including providing access to programme and module specifications, assessment briefs, schedules, exam administration, work submission, similarity checking (anti-plagiarism), marking, and the recording and management of marks. It also facilitates the transmission of marks to the Examination Boards. The Education and IT Departments will collaborate closely on these tasks.

The School awards the following undergraduate and postgraduate qualifications based on successful attainment of credits and descriptors:

A 'programme' is a structured set of teaching and learning activities with defined outcomes in a subject discipline, approved by the School to lead to a recognised qualification upon meeting the required credits and descriptors. Programmes consist of modules related to the discipline, each defined by a subject matter, credit volume, learning outcomes, and summative assessments. Modules may also determine progression between levels.

Key information on programmes and modules, including descriptors, credit values, teaching systems, and assessment briefs, is detailed in their specifications available via the Automated Governance System (AGS). These specifications and the academic regulations define the requirements for the School's awards.

The School follows the OfS principle that qualifications are awarded based on demonstrated achievement rather than years of study. This is achieved through a credit and descriptor system where students earn credits by completing modular assessments successfully. Summative assessments on undergraduate and postgraduate modules are designed to confirm that students have met the expected learning outcomes, achieved the necessary credits, and are progressing toward their qualification.

Formative feedback is integral to the School’s learning and teaching strategy. Throughout modules, students receive formative assessment tasks and comments. Students can discuss their progress with staff and peers in class, during office hours, and online. Formative assessments provide actionable feedback to improve work and support success in summative assessments, enhancing overall understanding. Summative assessments may also provide formative feedback.

These assessment regulations ensure that assessments are:

• Effective
• Valid
• Reliable
• Credible
• Aligned with sector-recognised standards

Students are responsible for understanding assessment requirements, including criteria, formats, word counts, submission methods, and deadlines. They should consult their module leader with any questions. All assessments, including individual essays, artefacts, peer reviews, and Final Projects, must be submitted through the Automated Governance System (AGS) by the specified deadline. Submissions via email or other methods are not accepted. If a student cannot submit via the AGS, they must contact the module leader and submit an extenuating circumstances application. The decision will be based on a systems check and the student's communications. In case of a widespread system issue, the School may grant an automatic extension and notify affected students by email. Students should keep a copy of their work.

Students must submit all work for assessment by the published deadline or any granted extension, whether on an ad hoc basis, through reasonable adjustments, or as part of a support plan.

Each member of a group must submit their project individually.

No further submissions are allowed once work is formally submitted for assessment.

All work submitted via the AGS will be checked for plagiarism and academic integrity using integrated software.

A student who registers for a module is deemed to have registered for its assessments unless they have formally withdrawn through the system. Failure to submit work by the deadline will be subject to the late submission rules below, unless extenuating circumstances apply.

All undergraduate and postgraduate modules are assigned one of the School’s 8 teaching systems.

Summative assessments are assigned to modules based on their teaching systems.

Module teams must follow the New Programme and Module Approval and Modification Regulations to change summative assessments on undergraduate and postgraduate modules.

For the research project, students must submit an artefact that meets the problem statement that they articulate in their final report. You will have a workshop on the module on how to ideate and design practical solutions for problems using an implementation lifecycle and how to succeed with your project. Throughout the programme, in particular, their programme modules, students will regularly receive formative assessment tasks and feedback opportunities to gain actionable feedback (from self, peers and staff) on their own work to indicate how to improve future work and learn how to give constructive feedback to other people.

- The artefact should take the form of a practical solution for the problem statement set out in the proposal that covers all or part of the implementation lifecycle. The artefact will need to reflect the learning outcomes, including how complex IT problems were used to develop a structured knowledge base for innovation and optimal solutions, how different IT research designs were evaluated during the project to determine their suitability for complex problem-solving, how IT project lifecycles incorporating iterative development and revision processes were used, especially in the implementation lifecycle, and how professional ethics, legal compliance,

Markers will use the School's Generic Assessment Criteria classifications to mark this assessment and give it a final grade. Please refer to this marking criteria available on the website, which sets out how percentages are determined based on the extent to which students met a learning outcome. 

The final grade for this particular assessment reflects the weightings and marker's academic judgement across all the learning outcomes.

Students must deliver a presentation on their artefact. The purpose of the presentation is to assess their ability to communicate their research findings, methodologies, and implications effectively to a diverse audience in a concise, professional, and engaging manner. The presentation stems from the research problem statement set out in the project proposal, which require students to come up with a practical solution in the form of an artefact that uses the implementation lifecycle. It is envisaged that the final project will require students to apply the tools and architectures they have learnt in their programme modules to diagnose problems, undertake requirements analyses, and produce an artefact. This presentation will require them to expand on how they strategised and overcame practical, professional, ethical and other issues and constraints they may have come across. Students will have a workshop in the research module on how to make an effective presentation, and their module leader will be able to provide them with further support whilst they work on their project. They will have the opportunity to present their work in their programme modules and receive peer and tutor feedback. Throughout such programme modules, students will also regularly receive formative assessment tasks and feedback opportunities to gain actionable feedback (from self, peers and staff) on their own work to indicate how to improve future work and learn how to give constructive feedback to other people.

- Students will have to present for 20 minutes outlining their research process, how they used the implementation lifecycle, and produced their artefact, which will be video recorded and marked based on the learning outcomes and assessment criteria for the research module. Please see module handbook on formatting.

Markers will use the School Generic Assessment Criteria classifications to mark this assessment and give it a final grade. Please refer to this marking criteria available on the website, which sets out how percentages are determined based on the extent to which students met a learning outcome. 

The final grade for this particular assessment reflects the weightings and marker's academic judgement across all the learning outcomes.

Students will be required to submit a final report. The purpose of the final report is to assess how students conducted independent research, applied critical thinking, and demonstrated a systematic understanding of their subject of study within computer science in producing their artefact. The final report also allows students to showcase their originality in applying knowledge and techniques in producing the artefact, as well as their proficiency in utilising established research methods and tools. It provides an opportunity for students to communicate their research findings, interpretations, and conclusions effectively, both to specialist and non-specialist audiences. Students will have a workshop in the module on how to prepare, structure, and submit a final report, and your module leader will be able to provide you with further support whilst you work on it. You will be shown examples of successful and unsuccessful final reports. You will also have the opportunity to present your work during your programme modules and receive peer and tutor feedback. Throughout the programme, students will regularly receive formative assessment tasks and feedback opportunities to gain actionable feedback (from self, peers and staff) on their own work to indicate how to improve future work and learn how to give constructive feedback to other people.

- The final report should be 5,000 words (Level 6) or 10,000 words (Level 7). It should set out the problem, literature in the field, why the artefact was considered an answer, how it was tested by using the various tools and techniques that have been looked at on programme modules, what refinements were made, and how the implementation lifecycle was used. The project should synthesise knowledge and concepts that you learn on the programme modules, and during your own study, and how the learning outcomes and grading criteria have been met. Your module handbook will contain further information on the final report, including format and referencing, how it should be submitted, and applicable parts of the assessment regulations, including on plagiarism. Please see module handbook on formatting.

Markers will use the School Generic Assessment Criteria classifications to mark this assessment and give it a final grade. Please refer to this marking criteria available on the website, which sets out how percentages are determined based on the extent to which students met a learning outcome. 

The final grade for this particular assessment reflects the weightings and marker's academic judgement across all the learning outcomes.

The assessment for this 15-credit module is a comprehensive, open-book examination that combines multiple-choice questions, analytical problem-solving, and essay writing. This hybrid format is designed to assess a broad range of skills, including knowledge and understanding, critical thinking, analytical skills, professional and transferrable skills, and technical writing abilities. The assessment will be conducted under the School’s remote invigilation conditions to maintain quality and academic integrity. Throughout the module, students will engage in various formative activities, such as quizzes, mock exams, and workshops, to prepare for the exam and receive feedback from peers, staff, and self-assessment opportunities.

• Section 1: Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)
  • Consists of 20 multiple-choice questions designed to assess knowledge and understanding of key concepts from the module.
  • Each question will have 4 possible answers, with only one correct answer.
  • This section will be weighted at 20% of the total assessment.
  • Duration: 30 minutes.
• Section 2: Analytical Problem-Solving and Short Essays
  • Comprises 2 problem-based questions requiring analytical skills to interpret issues, evaluate competing perspectives, and apply theoretical concepts to practical scenarios.
  • Students must produce concise responses that demonstrate reasoned judgement and the application of knowledge gained throughout the module.
  • This section will be weighted at 40% of the total assessment.
  • Duration: 1 hour.
• Section 3: Individual Essay
  • Students will write an essay on a topic provided during the examination. The essay will require independent interpretation of a technical question, critical analysis, and the articulation of coherent arguments supported by appropriate research.
  • The essay should demonstrate knowledge and understanding, critical thinking, and writing skills, as well as the ability to evaluate a question from multiple perspectives.
  • This section will be weighted at 40% of the total assessment.
  • Duration: 1 hour.
• Total Duration: 2.5 hours.

The assessment will take place during the scheduled examination period under remote invigilation conditions. An annual schedule of assessment activities, including the exact timing of this assessment, will be provided at the start of the module. All answers must be submitted through the designated online platform within the time limits set for each section. Please refer to the Academic Regulations for rules related to assessments, including integrity and plagiarism.

• Multiple Choice Section: Each correct answer will contribute equally to the total 20% weighting for this section.
• Analytical Problem-Solving and Short Essays Section: Marks will be awarded based on the quality of analysis, application of concepts, and clarity of argument, contributing to 40% of the total grade.
• Individual Essay Section: Marks will be awarded based on the Generic Assessment Criteria, focusing on the demonstration of knowledge, critical analysis, structure, argument coherence, and use of appropriate research, contributing to 40% of the total grade.
• Final grades will be assigned according to the School's Generic Assessment Criteria bandings, reflecting the overall achievement across all learning outcomes.

This assessment, titled "Professional Case Presentation and Analytical Reflection," is a single-session exercise designed to test both presentation and analytical skills. Students will analyse a professional scenario and present their findings and solutions in a structured presentation, followed by a written reflective analysis that will be due in within 24 hours of the presentation. This format evaluates key competencies such as communication, decision-making, and critical thinking skills.

• Total Duration: 2.5 hours
• The assessment consists of two parts:

Part 1: Presentation Preparation and Delivery (1 hour)

• • Students will receive a case scenario at the start of the assessment session, detailing a professional situation involving specific problems or challenges.
  • They will have 30 minutes to prepare a 15-minute individual presentation that proposes a solution or approach to the given scenario.
  • Presentations will be conducted in small groups (e.g., 10 groups of 10 students) to manage the logistical constraints. Each student will present their individual response to the case scenario while peers and an assessor listen.
  • This section assesses the student’s ability to quickly synthesise information, make strategic decisions, and communicate their solutions effectively within a time limit.

Part 2: Reflective Analytical Response (Due Within 24 Hours of Presentation)

• • Immediately following the presentation, students will write a reflective analytical response. This response should critically evaluate their presentation and decision-making process, including their interpretation of the problem, the rationale behind their proposed solution, and any feedback received during the presentation.
  • The reflective analysis should be 800-1,000 words and demonstrate depth of critical thinking, self-assessment, and the ability to incorporate constructive feedback into future professional practice.

The assessment will take place in a designated room with a clear schedule communicated to all students beforehand. Students will submit their written reflective analysis via the AGS within 25-hours. Detailed guidelines on the assessment process, including time management, presentation tips, and reflective writing techniques, will be provided in the module handbook and on the AGS. Students are encouraged to consult the Academic Regulations to ensure compliance with all assessment rules.

• Presentation (50% of the total mark): Assessed based on clarity of communication, relevance and practicality of the solution, adherence to the time limit, and engagement with the audience.
• Reflective Analytical Response (50% of the total mark): Assessed based on critical analysis, self-evaluation, coherence, and integration of feedback into their reflections. The final grade will be calculated according to the School's Generic Assessment Criteria.

The "Seminar Presentation and Evaluation Assessment" integrates seminar presentations in each seminar with a peer evaluation component to assess students' communication, research, and analytical skills. Students will designated and deliver a presentation in a seminar on a designated seminar topic, demonstrating their ability to interpret and communicate complex ideas to a diverse audience. Following the presentation, other students will participate in a structured evaluation process, critically reviewing the presentations of their peers. Students will be assessed on a portfolio of their assessment and their peer evaluations. This assessment aims to enhance both the ability to present effectively and to provide constructive feedback, fostering a deeper understanding of the subject matter and promoting professional communication skills.

• Total Duration: Presentation conducted in one session at a seminar group; feedback ongoing during all seminars.

Part 1: Seminar Presentation (20 minutes per student)

• Students will be assigned a seminar topic and date at the start of the module and prepare a 20-minute presentation on that topic.
• The presentation should demonstrate a deep understanding of the topic, effective research and analysis, and the ability to present in a clear, engaging, and professional manner.
• The presentation will be assessed by the tutor on knowledge and understanding, research quality, analytical skills, presentation structure, clarity, engagement with the audience, and overall effectiveness.
• Guidance on effective presentation techniques and assessment criteria will be provided in the module handbook and through a dedicated workshop.

Part 2: Peer Evaluation

• During each presentation session, students will use a structured evaluation form to provide constructive feedback on their peers' presentations.
• The evaluation form will cover criteria such as the presenter’s clarity of argument, depth of analysis, engagement with the audience, use of evidence, and overall presentation effectiveness.
• Each student will complete a brief written evaluation (200 words) for at least five peer presentations, focusing on constructive feedback that aligns with the learning outcomes of the module. Student can submit their best five peer evaluations.
• The evaluations will be submitted at the end of the session and contribute to the overall mark for this assessment.

Students will present on their allocated topic and date as provided by the tutor. Completed peer evaluation forms and written feedback must be submitted at the end of the seminar session on the AGS. Please refer to the Academic Regulations for important rules related to assessments and submissions.

• The final grade for this assessment will be based on a combination of the seminar presentation (70%) and the quality of peer evaluations (30%).
• Presentations will be marked using the Generic Assessment Criteria, focusing on the demonstration of knowledge, research and analytical skills, presentation effectiveness, and overall professionalism.
• Peer evaluations will be assessed based on their constructiveness, relevance, and depth of analysis.
• The final grade will reflect the assessors' academic judgement across all learning outcomes.

The "Integrated Solution Design and Analysis Assessment" combines practical design and analytical skills into a single, cohesive assessment. Students are required to design a solution to a complex problem within a simulated domain and then critically analyse their design through a comprehensive written report. This assessment evaluates both the practical application of technical concepts and the ability to critically assess and articulate the effectiveness of the proposed solution. The assessment will be conducted in one session, ensuring that students can showcase their technical and analytical skills effectively.

• Total Duration: 3 hours

Part 1: Solution Design (2 hours)

• Students will be given a complex problem within a simulated domain. They will be required to design a solution, which involves creating an artefact (such as a prototype, model, or detailed plan) that addresses the problem.
• The artefact should demonstrate the application of concepts, tools, techniques, and architectures from the module.
• Students must prepare a comprehensive design that includes consideration of professional, ethical, and practical constraints.

Part 2: Analytical Report (1 hour)

• Students will write a report of up to 1000 words that critically evaluates their solution design.
• The report should include a discussion of the problem, the design process, justification of the chosen solution, and how it meets the module’s learning outcomes.
• The report should also reflect on potential improvements and the feasibility of the solution based on appropriate research and analysis.

The solution design and analytical report must be submitted at the end of the 3-hour session. Detailed instructions and submission deadlines will be provided in the module handbook. Please refer to the Academic Regulations for rules related to assessments and submissions.

• The final grade for this assessment will be based on a combination of the artefact (60%) and the analytical report (40%).
• Artefacts will be assessed on their technical accuracy, creativity, and how well they address the problem using the concepts and techniques from the module.
• The report will be marked based on clarity of analysis, justification of design decisions, depth of critical reflection, and alignment with learning outcomes.
• Marking will follow the Generic Assessment Criteria available on the website.

This assessment requires students to develop a solution to a complex problem within a simulated domain, followed by a detailed analysis and reflection on their design and its theoretical underpinnings. The aim is to assess students' abilities to design practical solutions, critically analyse their work, and articulate their understanding of the technical and theoretical aspects of the module.

• Total Duration: 4 hours

Part 1: Solution Design Artefact (2.5 hours)

• Students will design a solution to a complex problem presented in a simulated domain. This solution will be represented through an artefact (such as a prototype, model, or detailed design plan).
• The artefact must demonstrate the application of module concepts, tools, techniques, and architectures.
• Students should consider professional, ethical, and practical constraints and detail how their design addresses these factors.

Part 2: Analytical Report (1.5 hours)

• Students will write a report of up to 1500 words that evaluates their solution design.
• The report should include an explanation of the problem, design process, and justification for the chosen solution.
• It must also critically analyse the effectiveness of the design, reflecting on potential improvements and discussing theoretical aspects related to the module’s content.

Both the artefact and the analytical report must be submitted at the end of the 4-hour session. Detailed submission instructions and deadlines will be provided in the module handbook. Please refer to the Academic Regulations for rules regarding assessment submission and integrity.

• The final grade will be based on the artefact (60%) and the analytical report (40%).
• Artefacts will be assessed on technical accuracy, creativity, and how well they address the problem using module concepts.
• The report will be evaluated based on clarity of analysis, justification of design decisions, depth of critical reflection, and alignment with learning outcomes.
• Marking will adhere to the Generic Assessment Criteria available on the website.

In cases of force majeure that severely disrupt the normal operation of these regulations, the Academic Board may suspend all or part of them if it is in the students' best interest and as a last resort.

When the Academic Board decides to suspend regulations, the Chair must publish a Suspension of Regulations Notice (SRN) to all staff and students via email. The SRN should detail the suspension's start and end dates, the relevant department or regulatory area (e.g., admissions, progression, assessment, Examination Boards), and any other pertinent information about temporary operational requirements.

The Director of Education must present a report on the suspension at the next scheduled Academic Board meeting to seek approval for any extension of the suspension's period or scope.