UEL’s Assessment and Feedback Policy David Rowley Associate Dean, School of Health, Sport and Bioscience Academic Practice and Student Experience

Assessment lies at the heart of a student’s HE experience Context Assessment lies at the heart of a student’s HE experience To support this and align with our Transformation for Excellence objective of an “outstanding student experience: distinctive, challenging, lifelong”, our aim is to offer a transparent, robust, consistent, accurate, accessible and fair assessment and feedback policy

Recently further revised to align with the new academic framework. Context Policy revised in 2012 as part of our Transformation for Excellence strategy Recently further revised to align with the new academic framework. Drivers:   Internal: the introduction of e-Submission, marking and feedback of coursework feedback from External Examiners and UEL academic colleagues feedback from students, particularly via the Joint Student Staff Consultative Committee and Programme Committees External: NSS and NUS Charter on Feedback and Assessment (2010) HEA: Assessment Special Interest Group QAA UK Quality Code for HE – Chapter A6: Assessment of achievement of learning outcomes (2011) and Chapter B6: Assessment of students and accreditation of prior learning (2011) QAA: Understanding assessment: its role in safeguarding academic standards and quality in higher education (2011) QAA UK Quality Code for HE - Chapter B4: Student support, learning resources and careers education, information, advice and guidance (2011)

Assessment + Engagement Policy Introduction Assessment Design Assessment, Moderation and Marking Management of Assessment Feedback Disability Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body Exemptions

1. Introduction Principles of assessment: The Policy applies to ALL UEL programmes within the UEL Academic Framework Principles of assessment: based on learning outcomes integral to programme design fair and free from bias valid, transparent and reliable timely and incremental demanding yet manageable + efficient consistent Programmes which function outside the Academic may have alternative arrangements approved by(e.g. credit ratings for modules; use of terms rather than semesters; other Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body requirements) Collabs have 1 more year to implement

2. Assessment Design - effective design ensures: Students can demonstrate achievement of LOs All LOs are assessed through summative tasks Assessment tasks are efficient in terms of student + staff time. Over-assessment is avoided Assessment is both formative + summative Assessment tasks are accompanied by, & mapped to, a set of assessment criteria Student effort & amount of work involved is consistent across modules at each level & aligns with the UEL Assessment Tariff and Equivalences Greater emphasis on formative at levels 0 and 1 Assessment Criteria should ensures assessment of the learning outcomes is appropriate to the demands of the level of the assessment undertaken – obviously find much more info in policy on assessment criteria

Assessment Design - effective design ensures: Students experience a range of assessment types Likelihood of academic misconduct reduced All students have an equal chance of understanding the assessment task and of demonstrating their achievement of the learning outcomes Greater emphasis on formative at levels 0 and 1 Assessment Criteria should ensures assessment of the learning outcomes is appropriate to the demands of the level of the assessment undertaken

Assessment criteria Assessment criteria are helpful to students in that they enable the students to better understand what is expected of them Assessment criteria are helpful to staff/ external examiners in that they are also clear on what is expected and they help to ensure consistency in marking Try to avoid subjective terms such as ‘good’ or ‘poor’ when writing your criteria Carefully constructed criteria can also encourage staff to use the full range of marks available.

3. Assessment, Moderation & Marking Assessment Preparation Assessment & reassessment tasks drafted simultaneously Every summative component of assessment subject to EE moderation All 1st & 2nd opportunity assessment & reassessment tasks to be submitted to EE by end of term prior to required first use Obviously, sent by secure means + full policy details exactly what needs to be sent to the EE (e.g. for assessment due to be used in Semester B, the External Examiner should receive the proposed assessment for comment prior to the end of the previous Semester A)

Assessment, Moderation + Marking EEs asked to comment on: Suitability of assessment task with regard to module specification Level of work expected Standards of the tasks in comparison with similar programmes at other HEIs They are also asked to comment upon the clarity of the task, and on the guidance provided.

Assessment, Moderation + Marking – key issues Marking plans Full spread of marks used Anonymous marking wherever possible & 2nd marked If e-Submission used, marking & 2nd marking within e-Submission Support for new/less experienced colleague Marking Plan for each module at beg of each academ year = first and second (and third, if subsequently needed) markers, and timetables indicative content of answers to coursework and/or examination questions/tasks provision in relation to e-Submission assessment (marking and grading) criteria, which will ensure appropriate use of the full spread of marks Aware of e-submission within schools? Another outcome of Project work of student academic advice + support Less experienced/probationary colleagues new to UEL or sector will be supported. Their marking will normally be second marked by experienced members of staff, and will be monitored to ensure: the development of necessary skills that students are receiving equitable marks Anonymouse marking may not be possible for: dissertations, oral presentations, oral examinations, practical examinations, laboratory tests, performance etc.)

Assessment, Moderation + Marking Second marking Second marking as sampling or moderation 10% or 10 (whichever greatest) will be second marked If first marking undertaken by > 1 marker, sample = min of10% of work marked by each individual marker Although several types of second marking have been identified across the sector the preferred method at UEL is “second marking as sampling or moderation” for both written and practical assessments 10% or 10 individual pieces of each assessment task Again, sample where more than one marker must be taken from range of marks

Assessment, Moderation + Marking Resolving differences between markers Significant differences are defined as: where the difference is 10 marks or more; and/or where marks spread across critical boundaries (even if fewer than 10 marks) i.e. pass/fail or grade boundaries

Assessment, Moderation + Marking Resolving differences between markers Where e-Submission is used, should a second marker disagree with the first mark, this must not be changed within the e-Submission tool before discussion and negotiation between the markers Marking conducted in all forms of assessment including e-Submission, will ensure that students are only presented with one final (agreed) mark, although comments from all markers will be available. In order to eliminate arithmetic errors, for any component of assessment that requires aggregation of marks, all calculations undertaken by hand will always be checked by a second marker in order to correct, if necessary. Second markers will provide a short report to the module leader, following the second marking process.

Changing marks If, as a result of moderation, marks for pieces of work in the sample moderated are changed, then it becomes necessary to remark the whole group. It is also necessary to second mark every submission for work where the assessment cannot be done anonymously e.g presentations, project work etc.

Assessment, Moderation + Marking External Moderation: External Examiners are sent Module specification Assessment details Assessment criteria Assessment Guidance Sample of assessed word record of marks + comments from 1st and 2nd (+ 3rd) markers Schedule of all marks agreed for all candidates assessed in the module following internal moderation Sample = a minimum of 10% or 10 individual pieces of each assessment task (whichever is the greater) Sample to be taken from the full range of marks and will include some work that has been second marked External Examiners will not be requested to act as a second or third marker or to adjudicate on disagreements between internal markers. What can EEs do? They may, based on their moderation process, recommend to the Field Board that: all marks for a particular assessment task are raised or lowered request that all candidates’ work be reconsidered if significant discrepancies and/or inconsistencies are revealed

4. Management of assessment Coursework details will be released at the start of each semester or at least 8 weeks before the submission date Timings Coursework questions will be released to students at the start of each semester in the module guide, which will be accessible to students via the module’s virtual learning environment. All reasonable adjustments are therefore built into this process for all students. AlsoPublished results for both Field and Award Boards will normally be produced within 8 working days of the Award Board. Students will be entitled to a transcript each academic year identifying their progress.

Management of assessment Led by ML (nominee) + supported by external invigilators as necessary Question papers cannot be removed but questions can be released via VLE when marks released Exam Invigilation EXCEPTION = MCQ papers which cannot be released to students

Management of assessment All single pieces of text-based coursework will normally be submitted via e-Submission If not possible, all feedback to be word-processed unless the nature of the work prevents this Coursework submission Also, if e-sub not possible: Published and secure mechanisms will exist within each school, and will be clearly explained to students within their module guides, accessible via the module’s virtual learning environment. the receipt of work submitted will be logged and students will be provided with access to recorded evidence of submission (normally through use of the bar-code process) feedback on submitted work will be provided in word-processed format unless the nature of the work prevents this e.g. mathematical formula (see Section 5, Feedback to Students ) a secure method for the return of marked coursework will be in place  This caveat has been incorporated following comments from the extended consultation.

Management of assessment Assessment should be designed to reduce possibility of plagiarism Where suspected, Academic Misconduct Regulations will be invoked Breaches of academic misconduct Won’t say any more on AI as Toby Grainger will cover all aspects of AI including our AI Policy and Turnitin Policy

Submission and deadlines Deadlines should not be set outside of normal university working hours to ensure support is available in the event of submission problems Students who submit after the deadline but within 24 hours can have their work marked. In such cases you should deduct 5 marks as a penalty for late submission from the achieved mark (assuming marking is /100). Work submitted more than 24 hours late should not be marked, however if it is within 7 days it should be retained in case the student is granted extenuation.

5. Feedback Central to learning. Provided to develop students’ knowledge, understanding, skills and to help promote learning and facilitate improvement Timely: given within 20 working days Can be offered in range of formats e.g. Audio file, video file Should be: clear, relevant, motivating, constructive, developmental Given in relation to LOs + assessment criteria, Given for both coursework + exams Word-processed where e-Submission not used working days refer to ‘normal’ working days i.e. Monday to Friday (excluding public holidays and periods of university closure) If (for example) mathematical calculations as part of feedback, wouldn’t expect it to be word-processed Can be individual When feedback (including marks) is provided to a student before an Award or Field Board, all marks will be clearly identified as: provisional available for EE scrutiny subject to change and approval by the Assessment Board All students will be actively encouraged to collect feedback, review and consider its recommendations and implications, and seek further advice and guidance from academic staff when required

Given for formative assessment 5. Feedback Feedback may be: Individual Generic Given for formative assessment Feedback may be: Individual – identifying specific issues relating to one student’s work Generic – referring to general points about the assessment as a whole, arising from an overview of the work produced by the student group Module Guide, which students receive at start of semester should clearly state what type of feedback will be received for examinations (i.e. Individual or generic) and whether feedback will include the return of examination scripts and/or work, or not, in accordance with agreed procedures within each School.

6. Disability We practice an inclusive approach in supporting our students with disabilities/ specific learning difficulties. We focus on our capacity to understand + respond to the requirements of individual learners + not to locate the difficulty or deficit within the student. In this way we move away from ‘labelling’ students and towards creating an appropriate learning environment for all students. Assessment needs of students with disabilities, including specific learning difficulties e.g. dyslexia, are supported in compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 (DDA 2005) and the Equality Act 2010. Also informed by the Students, within the UK Quality Code for HE - Chapter B4: Student support, learning resources and careers education, information, advice and guidance (until 2013 when it will have been integrated into each chapter of the Quality Code) and UEL’s Equality and Diversity Strategy 2011-15.

Disability In consultation between the student + DDAC, a Learning Support agreement will be drawn up + shared with Schools. Any student who discloses a disability to a member of staff must be referred to the DDAC. Students must be informed that they must be registered with the DDAC for any adjustments. Assessment needs of students with disabilities, including specific learning difficulties e.g. dyslexia, are supported in compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 (DDA 2005) and the Equality Act 2010. Also informed by the Students, within the UK Quality Code for HE - Chapter B4: Student support, learning resources and careers education, information, advice and guidance (until 2013 when it will have been integrated into each chapter of the Quality Code) and UEL’s Equality and Diversity Strategy 2011-15. DDAC = Disability, Dyslexia Access Centre Deadline dates, by which students must apply to the DDAC in order to have reasonable adjustments in examinations, will be set by the Head of the DDAC at the start of each academic year for both Semester A and B Extenuation: )the only way in which a disability would come within the scope of the extenuation procedures would be if there was a serious, unpredictable, and unpreventable increase in the disability which might be expected to have a serious impact on performance

7. Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body Exemptions Exemptions require written approval of the Chair of University Learning and Teaching Committee Should any module/programme be unable to comply with any aspect of this Assessment and Feedback Policy as a result of requirements from a PSRB Body, a written request for relevant exemption(s), together with associated evidence from the PSRB must be made to the Director of Academic Practice and Student Experience.

8. Appendices Glossary and Supporting Information Second Marking Assessment Criteria Roles and Responsibilities Assessment Tariff and Equivalences Guidelines: Electronic submission, marking and feedback of coursework Using assessment to enhance learning

SUMMATIVE TARIFF: Maximum Assessment loads per module Assessment Mode * Level 0-M (15 credits) (30 credits) or Coursework 3000 words 6000 words Written Examination 135 minutes 270 minutes (with no one component exceeding 180 minutes) Practical (face-to-face) examination, viva, presentation or practical skills demonstration 45 minutes 90 minutes Dissertation 4500 words 9000 words Where more than one component of assessment is specified per module:   the tariff will be divided between components the balance of the weighting applied to each component with the tariff will be consistent. E.g. two components at levels 0-3 (coursework and written examination) each worth 50% = coursework 2000 words, written examination 90 minutes i.e. each are reduced to achieve the total tariff. ‘Double modules’ will carry double the stated amounts e.g. a dissertation module of 40 credits at levels 0-3 will have a maximum word count of 12000 words.

UEL’s Assessment and Feedback Policy http://www.uel.ac.uk/qa/AssessmentPolicy.htm

Academic Integrity at UEL The AI Policy ensures consistency of treatment and equality of experience for all students at UEL Our responsibility to protect the credibility of the qualifications The AI Policy is supported by policies on standard referencing and use of Turnitin + Academic Misconduct Regulations Turnitin utilised as a text matching tool not a plagiarism detector Identifying plagiarism is an issue of academic judgement, not a Turnitin percentage – no percentage is acceptable

Cite Them Right UEL’s Standard Referencing System is Cite Them Right (Harvard) or APA for students studying programmes in the School of Psychology. Newer version of Cite them right to be available online shortly. Designed to be more student friendly to support accurate referencing

Defining Academic Misconduct UEL defines academic misconduct as any behaviour: “likely to confer an unfair advantage in assessment, whether by advantaging the alleged offender or disadvantaging (deliberately or unconsciously) another or others” (UEL Manual of General Regulations, 2010, Part 8 Academic Misconduct, 8.2.1)

Most common types of Academic Misconduct Plagiarism: The submission of material (written, visual or oral), originally produced by another person or persons or oneself, without due acknowledgement, so that the work could be assumed to be the student's own … includes incorporation of significant extracts or elements taken from the work of (an)other(s) or oneself, without acknowledgement or reference

Most common types of Academic Misconduct Collusion: The submission of work produced in collaboration for an assignment based on the assessment of individual work.

Process for dealing with cases of suspected misconduct New Regulations being considered by Academic Board in September 2014 Overview: First and non-serious suspected offences dealt with at School level Subsequent or serious (grossly dishonest) suspected offences dealt with centrally Academic Misconduct Panels consider cases where necessary

Policies and Regulations Academic Integrity Use of Turnitin Standard Referencing http://www.uel.ac.uk/qa/policies/policies/

Key Contacts: School Responsible Officers: ADI Dr Abel Ugba ACE TBC Cass Debbie Brearley HSB Deidre O’Kelly Law + Business Ian Porton/Delia Langstone +Carol Luckett Psychology Ian Wells & Susy Ajith Social Sciences TBC

Key Contacts: Academic Misconduct Officer: Dee Bozacigurbuz academicmisconduct@uel.ac.uk