2006 Academic Regulations

1
Senate Code of Practice on the Assessment of
Students
Procedural Document Briefing
An Enhanced Version of the Presentation used in
the Briefing Sessions held during July - October
2007 (revised April 2009 to reflect second
edition)
2
Senate Code of Practice on the Assessment of
Students
Procedural Document Briefing
Facilitators Paul Baxter, Assistant Director
(Quality Systems), Academic Office
paul.baxter_at_anglia.ac.uk Prof. Derrik Ferney,
Dean of Faculty of Arts, Law Social Sciences
derrik.ferney_at_anglia.ac.uk Marian Redding,
Head of Modular Programmes, Learning Development
Services marian.redding_at_anglia.ac.uk July,
September and October 2007
3
Introduction
The Senate Code of Practice on the Assessment of
Students was first published in June 2005. The
first edition of the accompanying Procedural
Document was approved by the Academic Standards,
Quality Regulations Committee (ASQRC) in May
2007. The Procedural Document was drafted
following the deliberations of a Working Party
(with representation from all Faculties and
relevant Support Services) and represents the
bringing together of various aspects of good
practice from across the University and its
collaborative partner institutions.
4
Introduction
This Procedural Document is structured in such a
way that it represents a complete journey through
the assessment process as it pertains to a
module. This presentation, adapted from the
Briefing Sessions, highlights the key aspects of
that journey. A Module Definition Form (MDF) for
the mock module The Evil of Dr. Who was
developed to support the briefing sessions to
help illustrate the various points highlighted in
this presentation. The mock MDF is available at
http//web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/
qad/sen_codes_practice/proc_doc_assess_stud.phtml
Relevant paragraph and page references to the
Second Edition of the Procedural Document are
provided throughout this presentation.
5
Introduction

• This presentation offers the following
• Familiarisation with the Senate Codes of Practice
  and their supporting Procedural Documents
• Clarification of standard assessment practices
  across Anglia Ruskin and its partner institutions
• Discussion of key areas of the assessment process
  that affect academic staff, administrative staff
  and students
• The opportunity to feedback to ASQRC on issues of
  importance to academic and administrative staff

6
Senate Code of Practice on the Assessment of
Students
Procedural Document Briefing
Context and Reference Points for the Development
of the Procedural Document
7
The QAA

• The Academic Infrastructure
• Programme Specifications (the PSF at Anglia
  Ruskin)
• Framework for Higher Education Qualifications
• Subject Benchmark Statements
• Code of Practice Section 4 External Examining
  and Section 6 Assessment of Students

further details available athttp//www.qaa.ac.uk
/academicinfrastructure/default.asp
8
Anglia Ruskin

• Senate Codes of Practice
• Admissions
• Approval, Annual Monitoring Periodic Review of
  Taught Pathways
• Assessment of Students
• Collaborative Provision
• External Examiners for Taught Pathways
• Postgraduate Research Programmes
• Work Based Practice Learning (new approved
  November 2008)

all available via the Curriculum website and
directly athttp//web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic
/qad/sen_codes_practice/senate.phtml
9
Anglia Ruskin (cont.)

• Each Senate Code of Practice (SCoP) details
  Anglia Ruskins policy in the specified area and
  is supported by a Procedural Document which
  details the procedures for the implementation of
  that policy.

• Other Key Reference Points Processes
• Academic Regulations (available via the
  Curriculum website and directly at
  http//web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/academic_reg
  ulations.phtml)
• Curriculum Website (http//web.anglia.ac.uk/curric
  ulum)
• External Examiners Induction - held in May and
  November of each year

10
Senate Code of Practice on the Assessment of
Students
Procedural Document Briefing
The Module Guide
11
The Module Guide(paras 3.1-3.6, page 8)

• Key communication tool for students, lecturers,
  partners and external examiners
• Must be backed up by clear verbal explanation
  face-to-face or web discussion
• Standard template - content may be supplemented
  by additional information
• See Appendix B pages 39-44 and visit the
  Curriculum website or go directly to
• http//web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/public/asse
  ss_scop_procdoc_app_b.doc

12
The Module Guide(paras 3.1-3.6, page 8)

• From MDF to Module Report
• Introduction / Key Information
• Intended Learning Outcomes
• Content Taught sessions / web based / work
  based / student managed learning and time
  management
• Resources / Venues / Tutorials / Attendance (see
  statement in Module Guide Template re the
  monitoring of the attendance of overseas students
  from 2008/09) / Expectations
• Learning and Teaching methods

13
The Module Guide(paras 3.1-3.6, page 8)

• Assessment guidelines and submission date
• Marking criteria / generic or specific
• Assessment Offences
• Module Report / last delivery
• Quality of Module Guides is the Head of
  Departments responsibility

14
Senate Code of Practice on the Assessment of
Students
Procedural Document Briefing
Assessment Design, Generic Assessment Criteria
and Marking Standards
15
Preparing Assessment Tasks (paras 4.1-4.4, pages
8-11)

• Assessment tasks based on contents of MDF
• Module Leader designs draft assessments and
  assessment criteria (in consultation with Module
  Tutors for multiple deliveries)
• External Examiner approval of draft assessments
• Students informed about assessments and
  assessment criteria in advance through module
  guide
• Draft assessments confirmed 4 weeks before use
  (ie approved by the external examiner and issued
  to students 4 weeks before deadline)
• Must set assessment and re-assessment tasks at
  the same time

16
Key Sections of MDF (extract from The Evil of
Dr. Who MDF)
17
Key Sections of MDF (extract from The Evil of
Dr. Who MDF)
18
Key Sections of MDF (extract from The Evil of
Dr. Who MDF)
19
Assessment Criteria (para 6.4, page 14)

• Two Options
• Assess student work according to Anglia Ruskins
  Generic Assessment Criteria and Marking Standards
  (provided for levels 0-4 and contained in
• Appendix 1 to SCoP and available via the
  Curriculum website or directly at
• http//web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/public/gene
  ric_markings_asses.doc)
• OR
• Assess student work according to the specific
  assessment criteria and marking standards (based
  on the Generic version)

20
Standards of Written English (para 6.3, page 13)

• When marking student work, to what extent should
  the standards of written English be taken into
  account?

• Embedded into Generic Assessment Criteria and
  Marking Standards
• Additional requirements can be included in
  customised task-specific assessment criteria
• Further guidance provided to students in
  Undergraduate and Postgraduate Handbooks

21
Senate Code of Practice on the Assessment of
Students
Procedural Document Briefing
Marking and Internal Moderation
22
Marking Schemes (para 6.6, pages 14-15)

• relate to generic or specific assessment criteria
• identify the basis on which marks are awarded
• support consistency in marking
• show the internal moderator and the external
  examiner the basis on which you awarded/deducted
  marks
• can be very specific (multiple choice /
  translation / mathematics)
• can be very general (based on specific assessment
  instruments e.g. essays, reports, oral
  presentations, studio art, musical performance)

23
Marking General Principles (1)

• Anonymous Marking SID numbers not names
• First marking followed by internal moderation of
  a representative sample
• Exceptions Major Projects (BLIND double marking)
• Assessments where anonymity is not possible
  require double marking

24
Marking General Principles (2)

• Student presentations contributing 25 or more of
  a modules assessment require double marking
• Annotation of scripts to be determined at
  Departmental level and applied consistently for
  all modules
• Completion of Cover sheets (Appendix D page 47)
• Summary if INSPIRE Assessment Feedback Project
  (Appendix E pages 49-50)

25
First Marking

• General Principles
• All markers use same marking scheme (as agreed)
• All markers mark in the same way (e.g.
  annotation)
• Allocation of marks should be clear
• Feedback to students should
• - be sensitive and positive
• - indicate the extent to which learning outcomes
  are achieved
• - indicate how performance might have been
  improved
• - invite student to meet lecturer to discuss
  performance if the student
• has failed (especially examinations)

26
Internal Moderation (1) (paras 7.1-7.5, pages
17-19)

• General Principles
• checks that all information has been received
  from first marker i.e. task set, marking scheme,
  representative sample of student work, overall
  mark list, marking scheme
• checks consistent application of assessment
  criteria / marking standards
• checks consistency between different first
  markers (parallel deliveries)
• checks that marks reflect achievement i.e. first
  markers have got it right

27
Internal Moderation (2) (paras 7.1-7.5, pages
17-19)

• The specifics of delivery vary
• Modules delivered at Anglia Ruskin University
  only
• Modules delivered at Anglia Ruskin University and
  one or more Partner Institutions
• Modules delivered at a Partner Institution only

But the internal sampling and moderation process
are essentially the same and use the same
moderation form See Appendix F, pages 51-56
Available via the Curriculum website or directly
at http//web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/public/a
ssess_scop_procdoc_app_f.doc
28
Internal Moderation (3) (paras 7.1-7.5, pages
17-19)

• All levels are internally moderated
• All tasks counting for 25 or more than total
  assessment must be sampled
• For each assessment task the first marker selects
  a sample for internal moderation (minimum of 8
  items or 10, whichever is greatest. May be
  larger, if required)
• The sample must cover the range of student
  achievement, and any additional external
  requirements (e.g. PSRBs)

29
Internal Moderation (4) (paras 7.1-7.5, pages
17-19)

• First marker completes Part A of the Moderation
  Form (Appendix F) and submits to designated
  internal moderator
• If marks are agreed, internal moderator signs
  Part A of the moderation form and forwards bundle
  to Module Leader
• Disagreement between first marker and internal
  moderator that cannot be resolved is referred to
  the Head of Department (not External Examiner)
• Module Leader responsible for completing
  electronic marksheet and submission to the
  Academic Office

30
Internal Moderation (5) (paras 7.1-7.5, pages
17-19)

• Modules delivered at multiple locations of
  delivery
• As above Assessed work moderated at Partner
  Institutions (using Part A of the Moderation
  Form) is sent to the Anglia Ruskin Module Leader
• The Anglia Ruskin Module Leader checks
  comparability of marking standards across
  different locations of delivery

• Modules only delivered at collaborative partners
• As for Modules only delivered at Anglia Ruskin.
  The Head of Department determines the
  responsibility for communication with External
  Examiner

31
Senate Code of Practice on the Assessment of
Students
Procedural Document Briefing
Feedback to Students and Draft Work
32
Feedback to Students (para 15.2, pages 26-27)

• Appendix E (pages 49-50)
• Within 20 working days of submission (30 working
  days for Major Project modules)
• Formative, Summative
• Peer, self, teacher
• INSPIRE project (outcome report is Appendix E)
• Should enable students to learn how to improve
• An additional source of excellent publications on
  feedback to students on assessed work
• http//tltt.strath.ac.uk/REAP/public/Resources/DN
  _SHE_Final.pdf
• Draft work maximum of 20 (paras 18.1 - 18.2,
  page 30)

33
Senate Code of Practice on the Assessment of
Students
Procedural Document Briefing
External Examiners, External Moderation and the
Departmental Assessment Panel
34
External Moderation (1) (paras 8.1-8.4, pages
20-21)

• Purpose
• To provide assurance that the marking process has
  been conducted properly
• To confirm standards are appropriate and
  comparable
• What is subject to external moderation?
• Levels 2, 3 and 4 (and level 1 when contributing
  to a level 1 award, e.g. Cert. HE, HNC)
• All work contributing 25 or more

35
External Moderation (2) (paras 8.1-8.4, pages
20-21)

• External Examiner to receive
• Sample of assessed work
• Full schedule of marks (for all assessments
  tasks, for all students, for all locations of
  delivery for the module)
• Relevant MDF
• Generic Assessment Criteria and Marking
  Standards/ customised marking scheme
• Relevant section of the Moderation Form

36
Preparing Sample for External Moderation (1)
(paras 8.1-8.4, pages 20-21)

• Modules with a Single Marker
• Internal moderation sample and Part A of
  Moderation Form
• Modules with Multiple Markers/Delivery Locations
• All internally moderated samples and all Parts A
  of Moderation Form collated by Module Leader
• Module Leader determines sample of samples
• Module Leader completes Part B of Moderation Form

37
Preparing Sample for External Moderation (2)
(paras 8.1-8.4, pages 20-21)

• Sample for external scrutiny comprises
• Minimum of 8 items or 10, whichever is the
  greater (may need to be exceeded)
• Covers full range of marks
• Covers all markers and all locations of delivery
• Addresses external requirements (e.g. PSRBs)

38
Arrangements for External Moderation (paras 8.1 -
8.4, pages 20-21)

• To be discussed between Head of Department and
  External Examiner on appointment
• Where possible, accommodate External Examiners
  preference
• Variety of practices posting of samples,
  moderation meetings, visits to different delivery
  locations combination of these

39
The Departmental Assessment Panel (DAP) (paras
9.1 - 9.4, pages 21-23)

• The DAP is the main body responsible for the
  academic standards
• and assessment in the discipline(s) within its
  remit
• modules
• academic standards (including mean marks,
  standard deviation and comparison with
  performance from previous years/assessment
  periods)
• considering the performance of students enrolled
  on modules and approving the marks achieved by
  students on modules moderating where appropriate
• awarding credit for the achievement of students
  on modules
• determining the necessary action to retrieve
  failed modules

40
The Departmental Assessment Panel (2) (paras 9.1
- 9.4, pages 21-23)

• When considering modules, the function of the DAP
  is to
• receive a brief report from the Module Leader
• receive a brief report from the relevant External
  Examiner (if present)
• consider any proposed moderation of marks
• award credit for passed modules
• confirmation of requirements for re-assessment
• agree any further action that is required

41
Powers of the External Examiner (paras 9.3.5 -
9.3.6, page 22)

• An External Examiner may propose to the DAP that
• All marks for a particular assessment task are
  moderated up
• All marks for a particular assessment task are
  moderated down
• All assessed work for a particular assessment
  task is re-marked
• All marks are agreed
• Marks for individual candidates cannot be
  moderated

42
The Departmental Assessment Panel (3) (paras 9.1
- 9.4, pages 21-23)

• Other Responsibilities
• Consider statistical information on performance
  on modules
• Agree investigations/actions, where deemed
  necessary
• Other Issues to Highlight
• Re-assessment in long-thin modules (para 9.3.7,
  page 23)
• External Examiner attendance (para 9.2, page 21)
• Publication of outcomes
• Student exchange programmes (ECTS) (Appendix H,
  page 59)

43
Senate Code of Practice on the Assessment of
Students
Procedural Document Briefing
Module Evaluation and The Module Report
44
Module Evaluation (1) (paras 13.1 - 13.3, pages
26-27)

• Principles
• co-ordinated by Office of Student Affairs but
  implemented by Faculties
• intended to gauge degree of student satisfaction
  with module delivery and assessment
• standard questionnaire provides quantitative and
  qualitative data
• integrity of process and personal anonymity of
  respondents
• crucial enhancement tool

45
Module Evaluation (2) (paras 13.1 - 13.3, pages
26-27)

• Process Overview
• used to enhance delivery
• conducted towards the end of the module
• (paper) questionnaires given out in class by
  module tutors
• tutors explain purpose of questionnaire and how
  to complete it
• generally completed by students during class

46
Module Evaluation (3) (paras 13.1 - 13.3, pages
26-27)

• Important to demonstrate anonymity of process to
  students
• Students complete questionnaires
• Tutor nominates student to bag questionnaires
  and sign across seal of envelope
• Student returns envelope to Tutor
• Tutor delivers to nominated collection point

47
Module Evaluation (4) (paras 13.1 - 13.3, pages
26-27)

• Process
• Envelopes batched and forwarded to FAM (or
  equivalent) and on to DCS for processing
• Results returned for analysis at Faculty /
  Departmental level
• Outcomes received by Programme Committees

48
Module Reports (para 13.4, page 27)

• Overview
• Appendix J (page 61 available via the Curriculum
  website or directly at http//web.anglia.ac.uk/an
  et/academic/public/assess_scop_procdoc_app_j.doc)
• Used to enhance delivery
• Completed by Module Leader following discussion
  with, and input from, individual Module Tutors
• Completed in draft after the DAP
• Provides an opportunity to reflect on most recent
  delivery
• May be considered by Programme Committees
• Published in module guide in next academic year

49
Senate Code of Practice on the Assessment of
Students
Procedural Document Briefing
Other Issues Covered by the Procedural Document
50
Other Issues

• Mitigating Circumstances (paras 10.1 - 10.5,
  pages 23-24)
• Student Review Faculty Awards Boards (paras
  11.1 12.7, pages 24-25)
• Archiving Assessed Work (paras 14.1 - 14.2, pages
  27-28)
• Communicating Results to Students (para 15.1,
  page 28)
• Assessment Offences (paras 16.1 - 16.2, page
  29)
• Special Needs in Assessment (paras 17.1 - 17.5,
  page 30)
• European Credit Transfer Scheme (Appendix H, page
  59)

Basic details with reference for further
details in the Academic Regulations
51
Other Issues

• Extensions (paras 19.1 - 19.3, page 31)
• Academic Appeals (para 21, page 31)
• Examination Regulations (including exams at
  non-Anglia Ruskin locations) (paras 22.1 -
  22.3, pages 31-32 and Appendices K and L, pages
  63-67)
• Module Attendance (paras 23.1 23.2, page 32)
• Fitness to Practise (paras 20.1 20.2, page
  31)

Basic details with reference for further
details in the Academic Regulations
Basic details with reference for further
details in Students Rights Responsibilities