The School is committed to upholding the highest standards of academic integrity and excellence by ensuring a fair, transparent, and consistent marking and grading process. This regulation provides clear guidelines for assessors, emphasises the importance of meaningful feedback, and includes robust accountability mechanisms. Our aim is to foster an inclusive learning environment and maintain the credibility of our academic programmes.
This Policy has been developed in line with the applicable laws, regulations, regulatory advice, and sector best practices, including the following:
A summative assessment evaluates student learning at the end of an instructional period, used to award formal credits based on performance. The module leader is responsible for drafting summative assessments, submitting them for internal moderation, and sending them to the external examiner for comments. They get final approval from the Director of Education. After assessments, the module leader ensures standards and consistency by meeting with the marking team and oversees internal and external scrutiny to validate marks for the Module Examination Board.
This process ensures academic standards are upheld through transparent and consistent assessments, providing reliability and trust in the evaluation and marking system.
Markers must grade student submissions using only the materials provided by the module leader, including the assessment paper, generic and specific criteria, model answers, and instructions. They must return the marked submissions to the module leader by the specified deadline. Markers can contact the module leader or Director of Education for guidance during marking.
This ensures consistency and fairness in marking, enabling the module leader to complete necessary internal and external scrutiny before submitting marks to the Module Examination Board.
Markers must use the School's generic assessment criteria for Levels 4-7, which are based on SEEC Credit Level Descriptors, Subject Matter Benchmarks, and OfS sector-recognised standards ('School Descriptors'). The criteria cover:
This ensures a standardised and fair assessment process that accurately reflects student outcomes and maintains sector-wide academic standards.
Markers must assess student performance using only the materials provided by the module leader, including generic assessment criteria, specific marking criteria, and published module learning outcomes, approved by the School's bodies.
This ensures consistency and compliance with sector-recognised standards, maintaining fairness and accuracy in assessing student performance.
Markers must:
These principles maintain fairness, consistency, and academic integrity in the marking process, ensuring all students are evaluated to the same high standards.
Staff must mark summative assessments blind, without knowing the student's identity, as outlined in the assessment regulations.
Blind marking ensures impartiality and fairness, preventing bias and maintaining the integrity of the assessment process.
Markers must grade the first answers in order when students answer more questions than required and it is unclear which were intended for submission.
This ensures consistency and fairness in marking by applying a standard approach to all students' submissions.
Marks reflect the examiner's judgement based on the School's generic assessment and marking criteria, and the student's competence in relation to the module's learning outcomes. All submissions must be marked consistently and fairly.
This ensures that marks are an accurate reflection of student performance, maintaining fairness and consistency in the evaluation process.
Markers must use the full range of marks, from 0 to 100.
Using the entire mark range ensures accurate and fair assessment of student performance.
The marking team must follow the assessment regulations and uphold academic integrity.
Adhering to these standards ensures fairness, trustworthiness, and ethical conduct in the assessment process.
After marking, the module leader must oversee internal and external scrutiny. Double marking involves two independent assessors and applies to Final Project Modules and when specified by PRSB regulations. In other cases, a sample is moderated. For double marking, all assessments must be reviewed, not just a sample.
This ensures thorough, fair, and consistent evaluation in line with assessment regulations, maintaining academic standards.
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.
Moderation ensures that marking is fair and consistent across all assessments. By involving multiple reviewers, the process helps maintain high academic standards and addresses any discrepancies in grading.
External examiners must be involved in all modules that determine the final classification for undergraduate and postgraduate awards, as per the External Examiner Regulations.
This ensures independent oversight and maintains the integrity and credibility of the final award classifications.
After marking and internal scrutiny, module leaders must send the external examiner:
External examiners are appointed to:
External examiners will not:
Their auditing role includes:
They must send their module-specific report to the module leader, who should collaborate with them. The Director of Education can offer assistance.
This process ensures objective, independent assessment and feedback, maintaining academic integrity and promoting continuous improvement in line with academic standards.
According to the External Examiner Regulations, external examiners must receive:
External examiners will be invited to Module and Programme Examination Boards and given dates at the semester's start.
Providing these resources ensures external examiners can effectively perform their duties, maintaining academic standards and integrity.
External examiners must submit two reports:
These reports ensure assessment standards are upheld and provide essential feedback for maintaining academic quality and integrity.
After external examiner scrutiny, the module leader must:
This ensures marks are verified, academic regulations are followed, and all pertinent information is available for informed decisions by the MEB.
All module marks are provisional until ratified by the Module Examination Board and may change as per the School's Academic Regulations. Module leaders should inform anyone inquiring, including students, that marks are provisional and subject to change.
This ensures transparency and avoids misunderstandings, making clear that marks are not final until officially confirmed.
Feedback must be provided within 20 working days of the assessment deadline, with a disclaimer that module marks are provisional until ratified by the Module Examination Board.
Timely feedback supports student progression, while the disclaimer clarifies that marks are not final, maintaining transparency and preventing misunderstandings.
The maximum number of attempts for a summative assessment is regulated by the Module Results and Award Conferment Regulations.
This maintains academic standards and ensures consistency in assessment opportunities.
Students who pass a module cannot retake it to improve their mark.
This policy ensures fairness and maintains the integrity of the grading system.
The final module grade is the one ratified by the Module Examination Board and recorded on the AGS.
This ensures that only officially confirmed grades are considered final, maintaining academic integrity and accuracy.
Module results are used for:
Results ensure proper assessment of student progression and accurate determination of awards.
The Academic Board oversees standards and quality for undergraduate and postgraduate programmes and assessments. Responsibilities are delegated to the Director of Education and Examination Boards, who report to the Academic Board. The Director ensures compliance with assessment regulations, provides necessary training, and reports on external examiner feedback. Examination Board roles are detailed in the Academic Regulations.
This structure ensures consistent enforcement of assessment regulations, maintaining academic standards and quality across the School’s programmes.
The following metrics will be measured and regularly reviewed as performance indicators for the School to ensure the effectiveness of this policy and associated operations.