Assessment Policy

Preamble

• The following policy relates to all programmes of study (courses or modules) validated as leading to colleges awards.
• The policy relates to the college strategic objective of providing an outstanding student experience and the key institutional risks of failure to provide an outstanding experience, leading to decline in levels of recruitment, retention and achievement, and student satisfaction, failure to achieve (and meet the needs of) a diverse student population, failure to comply with legislative framework, and poor-quality assessments.
• The intended audience for the policy is academic and learning support staff, including those involved in the approval and review of courses. The policy is also made available to students.

Terminology

Note: these terms apply as they are used in this document. They are not intended to be authoritative or definitive.

Assessment item: a piece of assessed work, e.g. an essay, project, assignment, or examination; assessment items should be valid, reliable, and authentic.

• validity relates to the need to ensure that the assessment task measures student attainment of the intended learning outcomes.
• reliability relates to the need to ensure that the assessment is accurate and repeatable.
• authenticity relates to the design of assessments that require students to demonstrate skills and capabilities that represent problems and situations likely to be encountered in the ‘real’ world.

Assessment brief: guidance provided for students on how to complete a specific item of assessment, to include information about the nature of the task, the format for presentation, and assessment criteria, and, if used, the marking scheme.

Assessment criteria: specify the qualities of student work required to successfully complete the assessment item and indicate how particular grades may be achieved.

Approval of assessment: a process involving both internal and external scrutiny to assure assessment items and assessment criteria are appropriate in terms of academic level, and learning outcomes are valid, reliable, and authentic and that there is broad equivalence for students across modules/units.

Marking scheme: a detailed framework for assigning marks, where a specific number of marks are given to individual component of assessments.

Moderation of marking: a process to assure assessment criteria and thus academic standards has been applied consistently and that assessment outcomes are fair and reliable.

Internal moderation/verification: a process of professional engagement by the college staff to demonstrate that the grades awarded are accurate, appropriate, and consistent to ensure parity of standards.

External moderation: a process of objective engagement by experienced academic peers (external examiners), independent of the college, to ensure that the level of achievement of students reflects the required academic standards and is comparable to similar programmes nationally.

Principles of Assessment

• LCPS believes that assessment is an integral part of effective learning processes and has established the following principles for the design and management of assessment practice.
• Each module/unit or course element will have an assessment strategy which is aligned with the intended learning outcomes and learning activities.

2. All stated learning outcomes for a module/unit/course element will be cumulatively assessed.

3. Assessments will enable students to demonstrate that they have met the learning outcomes of the module(s)/units/course elements and the overall aims and learning outcomes of their course or programme of studies and achieved the standard required for the award.

4. Each course will include a variety of assessment types and an appropriate balance of assessment for summative and formative purposes.

5. Assessment tasks and assessment items will be reliable, valid and authentic.

6. The scheduling and amount of assessment will be manageable for students.

7. Constructive and timely relevant feedback will be an integral part of the assessment process.

8. Assessment processes and regulations will be transparent, consistent, and equitable across courses.

9. Assessment processes and outcomes will be monitored and evaluated through the annual monitoring process.

<br>

4. Assessment Scheduling and Loading

4.1. Each module/unit of a course will specify the summative assessment items, together with any specific requirements for passing the modules (e.g. requirement to obtain a pass grade in each assessment item and/or attendance requirements) in the module specification, as set out below. The assessment details for each module will be subject to validation.

4.2. In determining the assessment for a module, account will be taken of the guidance provided in appendix 1 on assessment loading, together with consideration of the assessment design, schedule and loading for the course, also provided in appendix 1. This guidance aims to ensure some standardisation of the assessment loading across different modules and courses.

4.3. Where courses utilise end-of-course/module/unit formal examinations as a part of their assessment strategies, such examinations will take place in the last week of the semester, or at scheduled points in the academic year as published in the course handbook.

Written examinations will be of no more than three hours duration, but

Courses/units/modules employing practical type examinations may employ examinations lasting up to five hours.

4.4. Where courses utilise ‘within module’ or ‘in class’ tests, the arrangements for the organisation and management of such assessments must ‘ensure the assessment is conducted with rigour, probity and fairness and with due regard to security’ (QAA Code of Practice Section 6 Assessment of students, precept 5).

This will mean consideration of:

arrangements for disabled students, arrangements for preparation and moderation of the test papers/activities and associated security at all stages, arrangements for students with mitigating circumstances for example who may not be able to attend the assessment, arrangements for recording results. In the case of multiple-choice tests, determination of the pass mark.

All the above should be considered when planning the assessment and where appropriate information should be included in the student course and/or module handbook.

4.5. The validated summative assessment strategy for a module or unit, together with details of the relative weighting of each assessment item, the assignment brief, submission deadline and assessment criteria (including any special rules for passing the module), must be published to students in the module outline or course handbook at the start of the academic year, or at the start of the semester (or other defined teaching period) in which the module/unit will run, as appropriate.

4.6. Where modules include an attendance requirement, this must be approved at validation (or through college procedures) and must be made clear to students in the module outline or course handbook. It is expected that attendance records are maintained for modules which include attendance requirements as a condition of passing the module.

4.7. Course teams must discuss the assessment loading on students across modules within a programme to try to avoid unnecessary loading of assessments at the same time and/or ‘bunching’ of hand-in dates. Hand-in dates should normally be set within semester/term dates taking account of designated examination dates where relevant.

Word Counts

5.1. For all written assessments, normally, guidance should be given to students on the maximum amount that should be written in order that the learning outcomes can be assessed. This can be expressed as a ‘Word Limit’. Assessors should use their professional judgement as to whether or not to implement a system of fixed penalties for exceeding a word limit.

5.2. Where a word limit is used, students must be informed of why it is being used, what is included within the word limit and how particular aspects of academic writing (e.g. footnotes and appendices) are used. It is ‘normal practice’ for example, not to include bibliographies/reference lists and appendices as part of the word count.

5.3. Where a fixed penalty is not used students must be:

– advised of what aspects of the assignment constitute part of the word count.

– asked to give a word count for each written assignment submitted.

– informed of the rationale for the word limit and its relationship to the assessment criteria.

– advised that if they write more than 25% above the word limit, the grade awarded will be on the basis of the work up to this point.

5.4. If a fixed penalty is used students must be:

– advised of what aspects of the assignment constitute a part of the word count.

– asked to give a word count for each written assignment submitted.

– advised of the nature of the penalties.

5.5. Where a fixed penalty is used programme or course teams must ensure that assessors can determine the ‘true’ word count for any work submitted, and also ensure that each assessor implements the penalty system in a manner consistent with other markers and in a fair and transparent manner.

<br>

Language of Assessment

All assessments contributing to LCPS award will be conducted in English, except in the case of awards or modules in modern foreign languages. Dictionaries will not be permitted in formal examinations.

7. Formative, Formal and Informal Assessment

7.1. All modules/units/course elements should include both formal and informal assessments.

7.2. Formal assessments are those which have a summative role in contributing to the final grade or mark for the module/unit or course element. Informal assessments have a more formative purpose and do not carry a grade contributing to the final mark or grade for the module; their primary purpose is to improve the learning of students. Informal assessment can include peer-assessment and self-assessment as well as tutor assessment and may include evaluation of the effectiveness of the learning process carried out while the module is in progress. It is recognised that summative assessments can also have a formative function.

7.3. Work presented for a module/unit/course, whether for summative or formative purposes, should conform to the norms of academic scholarship and referencing unless otherwise specified.

8. Feedback to Students and Return of Student Assessments

8.1. Effective and timely feedback should be given to students for all formal and informal assessments including examinations.

8.2. Feedback to students encompasses a marker’s comments on student performance in an item of assessment and should be provided on all summative and formative assessments. Types of feedback include, but are not limited to: individual oral feedback, group oral feedback, written comments for individual students, model answers, generic written or oral feedback, e.g. assessor’s or examiner’s report.

8.3. Where appropriate, feedback may be given in advance of the return of individual assessment items to students and may be provided electronically.

8.4. Feedback to students on their assessments should:

• promote learning and enable students to improve their performance in subsequent assessments, by indicating areas for improvement and/or setting specific targets or goals for improvement, be clearly linked to learning outcomes and assessment criteria.
• provide the students with an understanding of the way in which their grade was derived and their relative success in meeting the learning outcomes, be based on a consistent course team approach to providing assessment feedback to students.

8.5. The details of all formal assessment items should be included in module outlines, together with the deadline for submission and the date by which students will be able to collect the marked assessment item.

8.6. In normal circumstances assessment items should be marked and returned to students with feedback within twenty working days of the date of submission. Where, for valid reasons, this cannot be achieved, the member of staff concerned should consult with the course leader and where appropriate their line manager; agree an alternative date, and inform the students affected of the revised date of return. In such circumstances it may be desirable to provide students with feedback in advance of the return of the assessment item and determination of the provisional grade.

8.7. Staff should enter grades for marked assessment items onto the student record system as soon as possible after the work for the whole group has been marked. All grades for assessment items remain provisional until confirmed by an examination board.

8.8. Feedback on performance in examinations should be provided for students. This may take the form of generic feedback to a student group, e.g. in the form of an ‘examiner’s report’ on each question or similar. Additionally, and/or alternatively students may be offered the opportunity to discuss their examination scripts and receive personal feedback. All students are entitled to see their marked examination script; however, this remains the property of the college. The arrangements for providing feedback on examinations should also be specified in the module outline.

9. Assessment Briefs and Assessment Criteria

9.1. Students must be provided with written assessment guidelines describing the nature of the task, the format for presentation and the assessment criteria (see below) for all items of assessment. This normally takes the form of an assessment (or assignment) brief and provides clear information for students on what they are expected to do, how they are expected to go about it, and how their work will be marked.

9.2. Assessment briefs should include:

– an explanation of how the item of assessment relates to the learning outcomes and skills requirements of the module, any specific constraints, or requirements, e.g. word limits, and the need for good academic practice, e.g. referencing of sources.

Assessment criteria:

• the basis upon which the quality of a student’s work will be graded.
• Details of any marking scheme (if used)

– Submission procedures and deadlines, the consequences of lateness, incomplete or non-submission.

9.3. Assessment criteria can be specified at different levels: for example, criteria can be set for each individual item of assessment, for each type of assessment (e.g. essays, laboratory reports, presentations), for each module, or they can be set at the level of the discipline (although in such cases it is usual to establish specific criteria for individual assessments also). There is no right approach to establishing assessment criteria and a variety of approaches are acceptable; however, course/subject teams should have a consistent approach to assessment criteria, for example whether they are specified at the assignment or module level and how they are presented to students.

9.4. In establishing assessment criteria, course teams should ensure they are benchmarked to the college’s grade descriptors, and take account of level descriptors, the FHEQ, and subject benchmark statements as appropriate.

9.5. Assessment criteria should be subject to internal and external scrutiny to assure academic standards.

9.6. Assessment criteria should be discussed with students, and feedback to students on their assessments should be informed by assessment criteria.

10. Anonymous Marking

10.1. Wherever possible and practical the anonymity of students in the marking process should be maintained. Anonymous marking is a system whereby the student’s identity is not made known to the internal/external examiner at the time of marking. Its purpose is to protect students and markers against the possibility of bias, whether conscious or unconscious. A student’s assessed work should be identified only by a reference number, which will normally be the student number found on their identity card.

10.2. Anonymity must be retained until the grade for the assessment (which remains provisional until the examination board has confirmed it) has been formally recorded on the student record system.

10.3. It is recognised that certain forms of assessment cannot be marked anonymously as it is impossible for the students not to identify themselves. The following forms of assessment should normally be marked anonymously:

• Essays, written seminar or other presentation papers, examinations, book reviews library assessments/projects, data analysis, case study analysis, reports of practical’s for taught courses.

10.4.A sample of internally approved assessment items and related assessment criteria (together, where appropriate, with assessment briefs) to include all examination papers must be provided to the external examiner for comment. Course/subject teams will agree with external examiners whether external scrutiny of assessment items and assessment criteria (including marking schemes/grids or model answers or similar) should take place before publication of assessment briefs to students, or alternatively may be carried out as part of the process of external moderation of student work.

<br>

11. Moderation of Marking

11.1. Moderation is employed to ensure that academic standards are appropriate and consistent across course/subject teams and reflect agreed assessment policies and assessment criteria, and that the assessment outcomes for students are fair and reliable.

11.2. It is the responsibility of the internal verifier to ensure internal moderation of all marking (student examination papers and coursework assignments), before grades are presented for confirmation to the Board of Examiners.

11.3. The internal verifier must have a formal statement of procedures for the internal and external moderation of marking which takes account of the college stated minimum requirements, and the specific assessment strategy of the course/subject must be maintained. College course/subject policies and procedures should be subject to regular review and formal approval through college management.

11.4. The college takes the view that a variety of practice in relation to moderation of marking exists, reflecting discipline differences and conventions, differences in the assessment tasks and/or assessed materials. There is, therefore, a range of different acceptable models of moderation of marking:

– Blind double marking: two separate assessors each independently assess a piece of student work, assigning a mark and providing comments which justify the marks in relation to the learning outcomes and assessment criteria. Both examiners record their marks and comments separately and then compare marks and resolve differences to produce an agreed mark. Agreed marks and comments may then be entered on the work. Normally carried out as a universal exercise, i.e. every piece of student work is considered by two assessors.

– Non-blind double marking: an assessor marks a piece of student work, assigning a mark and providing comments to justify the mark, and then a second assessor also assigns a mark and provides comments, normally carried out as a universal exercise.

– Second marking: an assessor marks a piece of student work, assigning a mark and providing comments to justify the mark as above. A second assessor then reviews the mark and comments to confirm (or not) the mark awarded by the first marker. Normally carried out on a sample basis, to corroborate the accuracy of the marking standards applied by the first marker but can be applied as a universal exercise.

– Marking standardisation exercises: a group of assessors (e.g. a module marking team, or a course team) all independently mark a sample of pieces of student work and assign grades using agreed criteria, compare and discuss the outcomes. The purpose of this exercise is to establish that all assessors are applying the agreed criteria consistently. Following the exercise, the assessors each mark student work in the normal way. Marking standardisation exercises as a model of moderation can be used in addition to various models of double or second marking – it is particularly useful as a means of assisting new staff become familiar with marking standards and conventions.

College minimum requirements for internal moderation of marking

11.5. Internal verifiers are required to maintain a formal statement of moderation procedures that is regularly reviewed.

11.6. Where a course or module is delivered at more than one site, there must be a specific course or module statement of moderation procedures which specifies the arrangements for ensuring consistency of marking standards across sites.

11.7. Moderation of marking procedures applies to all modules/units and items of assessment (including live assessments), and since these vary significantly, there is no assumption that a course or subject will use only one model of moderation. College and internal verifiers should consider the method(s) of moderation of marking to be employed taking account of:

– The principle that for all assessments more than one marker should be involved in grading decisions the nature of the material or task to be assessed.

– The number, experience, and role of staff (including employers/mentors or practice professionals) involved in the marking process.

– The level of study of the module or unit.

– The relative importance in terms of weighting of the item of assessment.

– The significance of the decision arising from the mark awarded.

– The norms of the discipline.

– The expertise and views of the external examiner(s).

11.8. All independent studies and dissertations or similar projects must be blind double marked.

11.9. All failed assessment items must be internally moderated through non-blind double marking.

11.10. Where sample double or second marking is employed, the sample of student work must include all fails and a minimum of 10% of all other work across the grade bands. In the case of small cohorts, the sample should not be less than 6 pieces of work, and normally no more than 20 pieces of work (excluding failed student work).

11.11. The college policy must specify how differences between markers are to be resolved (e.g. discussion between the two markers, taking the mean, resort to a third marker). In the case of sample second marking, normally the process will confirm the appropriateness of the standard of marking; however, where this is not confirmed, the policy must provide for the review of the student work and/or the marks of the whole cohort.

11.12. The college must specify the method for recording whether a piece of work has been moderated and what the outcome was.

College minimum requirements for external moderation of marking

11.13. In order to carry out their responsibility for external moderation, in addition to the sample of student work, external examiners must be provided with the module outline, examination papers and/or assessment briefs and assessment and grade criteria, together with the provisional statistical profile of marks for the modules/units for which they are responsible.

11.14. External examiners are not expected to arbitrate in the event of disagreement between first and second markers and are not expected to change marks for individual items of student work.

11.15. A minimum sample of 15% of the work for each item of assessment for individual modules must be made available to the external examiner(s). This should normally include all modules contributing to the final award and must include student work across all grade bands. The 15% sample must also include student work in the highest and fail categories. In the case of small cohorts, the sample should never be less than 6 in number, and should normally be no more than 25. The external examiner is expected to use the sample to ensure that marking standards are appropriate and that internal moderation has been effective. The rationale for providing a larger sample for external moderation is to enable the external examiner to ascertain the effectiveness of the internal moderation procedures – there is little point in asking the external examiner to moderate only student work that has been subject to internal moderation – rather, the external examiner will compare marking practices and grading across a sample of internally moderated and non-moderated student work, and from this will be able to reach judgements regarding the effectiveness of internal moderation processes.

11.16. Where a course or module is delivered at more than one site, the external examiner should be provided with the provisional statistical profile of marks for each site of delivery, so that they are able to comment on the standards for each delivery site. If the provisional profile of marks indicates significant discrepancies, then the external examiner may require a further process of second marking to be carried out.

<br>

12. Review of Student Performance

12.1. There is a two-stage process for considering the assessment taken by a student in any given year or other defined period of study.

Stage 1 involves staff from academic will review the results for the modules taken, to make recommendations regarding the grade achieved by each student to the appropriate Board of Examiners. This stage normally takes place at the end of each semester. The recommendations remain provisional until approved by the Board of Examiners.

Stage 2 involves the Board of Examiners who review the student’s entire profile of module results, confirm grades achieved, make decisions regarding reassessment and progression, and recommend to Academic Board any award and, if appropriate, the classification of each student. Boards of Examiners normally meet at the end of the academic year. Boards of Examiners make recommendations on grades and re-assessment, with Scheme Boards of Examiners recommending to Academic Board any award and classification.

12.2. Reassessment decisions may only be taken by a Board of Examiners.

12.3. Normally work set for re-assessment should only be made available to the student after the Board of Examiners has confirmed the grade and any reassessment decision, to prevent students from being overloaded with reassessment at the same time as commencing new modules. Where exceptions to this are necessary, such as courses involving professional placements when the reassessment must take place immediately after the original assessment, either the Board of Examiners should be convened, or Chair’s action should be taken and approved at the next meeting.

13. Failure and Reassessment

13.1. Reassessment is not available to improve upon a mark or grading above the pass level required for an award.

13.2. A candidate for reassessment may not demand reassessment in elements that are no longer current within the programme. However, the Board of Examiners may exercise its discretion in providing special arrangements where it is not practicable for students to be reassessed in the same elements or by the same methods as at the first attempt. Such arrangements shall be subject to the principle that an award is only made when a candidate has fulfilled the objectives of the programme and achieved the required standard.

<br>

14. Late Submission of Assignments

14.1. Students will be permitted to submit course assignments late in accordance with the Procedures approved by the Academic board.

15. Mitigating Circumstances

15.1. Students who believe that their assessment performance has been affected by exceptional mitigating circumstances may bring forward claims for consideration by the Committee. Such claims must be submitted and considered according to the procedures which are approved by the Academic Board.

16. Allegations of Cheating

16.1. The college will investigate all cases of alleged cheating and where upheld will impose penalties as appropriate. All cases will be investigated according to the Procedures approved by the Academic Board. Appendix 1

Guidance on designing module and course assessment strategies.

1. Taking a course overview

As set out in the general principles for assessment it is essential that the assessment for an individual module or unit is aligned with the learning outcomes. However, it is also essential that an overview is taken of the assessment design, schedule and loading for the course as a whole:

a) Diversity of assessment modes and tasks and innovation are integral to good assessment practice.

b) The assessments taken together should ensure that the course learning outcomes are tested.

c) Students following different pathways or specialist routes through courses should not be able to avoid certain assessment modes/tasks if these are testing course level learning outcomes.

d) The balance of assessment over the course of a semester/academic year should be carefully considered.

e) Care should be taken to ensure that students are not completing multiple assignments for the same deadline.

f) good practice is to publish both the assignment submission deadline and the date when marked and graded assignments may be collected.

The use of assessment maps can assist in taking a course level overview.

<br>

Taking the module view

In designing the assessment details for a module or course unit, account should be taken of the following:

a) The total student effort hours represented by the credit weighting of the module, and the proportions of this total available for formal taught sessions, independent study, and assessment.

b) Although students’ motivation, background, skills and abilities will make any assessment task more difficult and time-consuming for some than others, as a rough guide a 2,000-word essay might represent 20 – 25 hours of student effort time for the ‘average’ student (taking into account research, planning, drafting and editing and proofreading).

c) Reliance on a single assessment for a module – e.g. a single examination or one extended piece of course work will mean that a student’s fate in the module depends on that single item of assessment – in such cases the teaching and learning strategy for the module should be designed so that student may benefit from formative feedback before the single summative assessment.

d) To avoid the above, it is recommended that 15/20 credit modules are assessed by 2 items of assessment (both of which contribute to the overall module grade), and that these are scheduled such that the student can receive feedback on the first assessment before they complete the second assessment.

e) The alignment of the assessment task(s) with the learning outcomes and the rules for passing the module:

– where passing the module is based on aggregated results from 2 or more assessments, it may be appropriate to test the learning outcomes through more than one assignment – to permit a student to redeem an initial failure by an improved performance in a second task; where the learning outcomes for a module are tested through 2 or more different assessment tasks each testing different learning outcomes, then it may be appropriate to specify that students must achieve a minimum pass grade in each assessment – however, this means that there are additional points at which a student may fail the module.

f) The weighting of an individual assessment item should normally reflect its value as contribution to the total amount of assessment for the module as indicated in the assessment table and guidance below.

g) Normally no single assessment task should contribute less than 20% to the overall mark.

<br>

Appendix 2

Guidance on designing module and course assessment strategies.

Taking a course overview

As set out in the general principles for assessment it is essential that the assessment for an individual module or unit is aligned with the learning outcomes. However, it is also essential that an overview is taken of the assessment design, schedule and loading for the course as a whole:

a) diversity of assessment modes and tasks and innovation are integral to good assessment practice.

b) the assessments taken together should ensure that the course learning outcomes are tested.

c) students following different pathways or specialist routes through courses should not be able to avoid certain assessment modes/tasks if these are testing course level learning outcomes.

d) the balance of assessment over the course of a semester/academic year should be carefully considered.

e) at level 4 especially, students should benefit from early (within the first 4-6 weeks) formative feedback on assessment whether from early summative assessments or informal assessments.

f) care should be taken to ensure that students are not completing multiple assignments for the same deadline.

g) good practice is to publish both the assignment submission deadline and the date when marked and graded assignments may be collected.

The use of assessment maps can assist in taking a course level overview.

Taking the module view

In designing the assessment details for a module or course unit, account should be taken of the following:

a) the total student effort hours represented by the credit weighting of the module, and the proportions of this total available for formal taught sessions, independent study, and assessment.

b) although student’s motivation, background, skills, and abilities will make any assessment task more difficult and time-consuming for some than others, as a rough guide a 2,000-word essay might represent 20 – 25 hours of student effort time for the ‘average’ student (taking into account research, planning, drafting and editing and proofreading).

c) reliance on a single assessment for a module – e.g. a single examination or one extended piece of course work will mean that a student’s fate in the module depends on that single item of assessment – in such cases the teaching and learning strategy for the module should be designed so that student may benefit from formative feedback before the single summative assessment.

d) to avoid the above, it is recommended that 15/20 credit modules are assessed by 2 items of assessment (both of which contribute to the overall module grade), and that these are scheduled such that the student can receive feedback on the first assessment before they complete the second assessment.

e) the alignment of the assessment task(s) with the learning outcomes and the rules for passing the module:

– where passing the module is based on aggregated results from 2 or more assessments, it may be appropriate to test the learning outcomes through more than one assignment – to permit a student to redeem an initial failure by an improved performance in a second task.

– where the learning outcomes for a module are tested through 2 or more different assessment tasks each testing different learning outcomes, then it may be appropriate to specify that students must achieve a minimum pass grade in each assessment. However, this means that there are additional points at which a student may fail the module.

f) the weighting of an individual assessment item should normally reflect its value as contribution to the total amount of assessment for the module as indicated in the assessment table and guidance below.

g) normally no single assessment task should contribute less than 20% to the overall mark.

← Back to Policies & Procedures