Academic Quality Framework Chapter 7

Introduction 

1. This section provides information on the regulations, policies and procedures relating to assessment at Northeastern University London (the University).
2. The University recognises that assessment practice and process must be robust and conform to internal and national expectations, ensuring confidence on the reliability, validity and authenticity of marking.
3. The Framework for Higher Education in England, ongoing condition B4: Assessments and Awards, has the following requirements:
   1. Students are assessed effectively.
   2. Each assessment is valid and reliable.
   3. Academic regulations are designed to ensure that relevant awards are credible.
   4. Academic regulations are designed to ensure the effective assessment of the English language in a manner which appropriately reflects the level and content of the applicable higher education course.
   5. Relevant awards granted to students are credible at the point of being granted and when compared to those granted previously.
4. The UK Quality Code Theme: Assessment defines it as:

“…it determines whether each learner has achieved their course’s learning outcomes and allows the awarding body to ensure that appropriate standards are being applied rigorously.”

5. The UK Quality Code Theme: Assessment also states that assessments should be reliable, consistent, fair and valid, and repeatable.
6. The University’s Assessment Strategy is based upon the following principles:
   1. Assessment must be driven in the first instance by the imperatives of teaching and learning.
   2. Assessment must be, in accordance with the OfS condition of ongoing registration B4, effective, valid, and reliable, and designed to ensure the quality and credibility of the award.
   3. Assessment must be aligned to course learning outcomes, and beyond that foster the development of certain student ‘dispositions,’ central to our overarching educational strategy.
   4. The assessments and wider teaching and learning strategy do not conflate the “real world” with the “world of work,” but rather consider the student holistically, paying equal attention to employability, wellbeing, and self-actualization.
   5. Assessment and its administration should be agile and keep pace with the University’s growth and evolving research and best practice in this area.
   6. Assessment must be guided by research and best practices and supported by new internal processes which integrate the expertise of the faculty and Quality Team. The University will empower all to innovate in this space.
7. Assessment at the University is therefore instrumental in meeting the OfS’s four primary regulatory objectives: ensuring that students: succeed in and progress from HE; receive a high-quality academic experience; are able to progress into employment or further study; receive value for money.

Assessment Strategies

8. Assessment is at the heart of a number of key aspects of student learning and student experience: from learning and evaluation to quality and inclusivity.
9. The University’s Assessment Strategy can be viewed here.

Assessment Standards

10. Assessment practices and procedures must be robust and conform to internal and national expectations and standards, thereby ensuring confidence in the reliability, validity and authenticity of marking.
11. Assessment criteria should be clearly specified, aligned to the Level/stage of the course, and used as the basis for marking.

Assessment Tasks

12. Assessment tasks should relate to the learning outcomes of the course and support the overarching assessment strategy. Assessment practices should be inclusive and equitable; the methods, tasks and processes should not advantage or disadvantage any group or individual; and assessment task design should support academic integrity and minimise opportunities for plagiarism and contract cheating.

Engaging Students in the Assessment Process

13. Students should be supported in developing an understanding of expectations through detailed Assessment Briefs and active engagement with the assessment process and criteria.
14. Assessment tasks should enable student self-regulation and reflection, giving students the confidence and skills to use the variety of feedback available to them to monitor and regulate their performance.
15. Realistic and balanced assessment workloads should spread the assessment loading and ensure adequate time for associated learning.

Reviewing and Evaluating Assessment

16. Assessment is a collegiate activity, which necessitates Faculties discussing and agreeing assessment expectations and sharing experiences.
17. As part of the University’s quality assurance and enhancement procedures, a review of the effectiveness of the assessments used to measure student learning is undertaken at assessment and course Level. This is considered by the Faculties as a core element of the annual monitoring procedure. .
18. In addition, External Examiners are required, as part of their annual report, to comment upon the effectiveness of assessment procedures and how academic standards have been maintained. Course Leaders are also required to complete an Annual Course Review which is an analysis of the course performance. For more information, please see AQF5 Annual Monitoring and Reporting.

Types of Assessment

19. In general, the University seeks to follow a mixed method of assessment appropriate to the nature of the individual courses.
20. Assessment at the University is divided into two categories: formative assessment and summative assessment.

Formative

21. All programmes are required to have effective mechanisms in place to ensure that students receive feedback that enables them to continuously improve their academic performance, knowledge and skills.
22. The University emphasises the value of early formative assessment to promote both the development of skills and engagement with programme material.
23. Participating in formative assessment is not normally a requirement for progression.

Summative

24. The purpose of summative assessment is to enable students to demonstrate that they have fulfilled the learning outcomes of their programme, and the courses therein, to the standard required for the award for which they are registered.
25. Learning outcomes are specified on Programme Specifications and Course Descriptors at the time of approval of programmes and courses, or through subsequent modifications through the University’s agreed processes. (See AQF4 Programme and Course Approval and Modification.)

Designing, Setting and Arranging Assessments

Constructive Alignment

26. The constructive alignment of learning outcomes, teaching and assessment must be evident in the design of all programmes and courses and in the associated assessment tasks.
27. Assessment tasks are designed to foster student learning; to provide opportunities for reflection, feedback, and self-assessment; and to test the attainment of stated learning outcomes at the appropriate level of learning.
28. Teaching activities and the learning opportunities provided should help and support these processes.

Assessment Elements

29. The method of assessment and relative weighting of assessment elements is determined at the time of programme approval or revision of a course and are specified on Course Descriptors.
30. Each 30-credit course, based on 300 notional learning hours, should normally have a maximum of three assessment elements.
31. Each 15-credit course, based on 150 notional learning hours, should normally have a maximum of two assessment elements.
32. Where there are critical teaching and learning reasons for a higher number of assessments – and where these would not be met by adding components to individual assessments – the number of overall assessments may be increased.
33. Each assessment element may be made up of one or more assessment components (i.e. individual tasks) combined together for reporting processes. Where multiple assessment components contribute to an assessment element, the means of determining the overall mark should be indicated in the Assessment Brief (for example, where learning outcomes are to be demonstrated through work-related assessment).
34. In designing the required and optional components within a subject area, faculty must ensure that these are appropriate to the objectives of the programme.

Assessment Methods

35. Where possible, assessment methods should prioritise the application of knowledge and skills to public and professional settings, thus engaging students in, and preparing them for, employment, citizenship, and personal fulfilment. 
36. Assessment methods should be inclusive, and consider the student holistically, paying equal attention to employability, wellbeing, and self-actualisation.
37. Assessment methods should be varied in order to enable different aspects of students’ aptitudes and skills to be developed and tested, and in order to provide the University with sufficient evidence to verify the authenticity of individual students’ work.
38. Assessment methods should be diverse (from written exams to portfolios, performances and case studies) and aligned to learning outcomes and the University’s overall assessment strategy to prioritise authentic, inclusive and rigorous assessment. 
39. Assessment methods should be repeatable for first and second sittings, where possible. For further information, please see Second Sitting assessment elements. The assessment element method should be repeated for the second sitting to ensure academic standards are maintained across both sittings.

Timings of Assessment

40. Summative assessments must be scheduled during the published semester dates.
41. The scheduling of assessments is administered through Registry and submission deadlines will be published in the student’s Canvas calendar.
42. Where courses depend heavily on field work or work-related learning outside of the normal academic year, the period allowed for this must be defined and specified in the Course Descriptor.
43. Head of Discipline should ensure that there is an appropriate spread of examination and assessment submission dates across the academic year.
44. The Head of Registry is responsible for ensuring that a definitive schedule of examinations and assessment dates is published on the VLE well in advance of the assessment periods.

Assessment Toolkit and Workload

45. The University uses a broad base assessment toolkit to enable assessment workload for taught degrees to be considered by Faculties. Faculties are expected to have a clearly articulated assessment strategy for each course, which is included in the Course Descriptor, and which is benchmarked against this toolkit, with variances to the framework considered and justified as part of the programme approval and review process.
46. The assessment toolkit is designed to enable:
    1. Faculty to design effective assessment strategies.
    2. Faculty to reduce the potential for over-assessment.
    3. Faculty to ensure that students are informed about the amount of time typically required to complete any given assessment task to an acceptable standard.
    4. Students can plan their workloads.
47. The assessment toolkit uses notional learning hours as the measure of comparability. It is recognised that, where appropriate, there will be a need to have a clear specification of word lengths, so that students understand the volume of work they are expected to produce.
48. This information can be useful for students in gaining a better understanding of the effort required, and thus planning of their studies. It is therefore the total time (i.e. the projected time taken for the preparation and compilation of components combined) that should be used in estimating the workload associated with a particular assessment.
49. Methods of assessment together with their relative weightings are determined at the time of programme approval or modification of a course and are specified on Course Descriptors.
50. The total word count associated with assessment for a 30-credit course should not normally exceed 8,000 – 10,000 words and the total word count for a 15-credit course should not normally exceed 3,000 – 5,000 words. An hour written examination is equivalent to approximately 1,000 words

Changing Assessment and Assessment Weightings

51. The assessment strategy for a course will normally be agreed when the course is approved and may only be varied subsequently through the appropriate quality assurance process. (See AQF4 Programme and Course Approval and Modification.)

Design of Assessment

52. Course Leaders are responsible for preparing assessments, in consultation with those involved with the delivery of the course, and in line with the Course Descriptor. While questions should relate to the programme delivered, they may include reference to material not actually taught, provided that students have been told explicitly (e.g. in the programme/course documentation and assessment brief) that a particular subject would form part of the programme aims and learning outcomes, and that students would be expected to undertake self-directed learning on such material.
53. The assigned External Examiner must be asked to review and provide feedback on the summative assessments and should be sent all relevant Assessment Briefs, draft examination papers, and Course Descriptors, along with Assessment Peer Review Forms, to enable them to ascertain whether the draft assessments are fair and appropriate in relation to the course and programme aims and learning outcomes.
54. Once all substantive changes requested by the External Examiner have been incorporated in the examination paper, the Associate Director of Teaching and Learning may ratify the final version.
55. Where a Course Leader does not act on all changes required by the External Examiner, or makes additional substantive changes to the paper, it must be returned to the External Examiner for final approval.
56. Associate Director of Teaching and Learning should ensure that full details of their programme assessments should be submitted to Registry, thus ensuring that all examination papers are approved by the External Examiner and considered by the Assessment Scrutiny Board (ASB) as per the deadlines provided by Registry
57. If a question paper is structured and/or if a question is in several parts, the question paper should indicate the weighting that will be apportioned to each component; this will assist students in allocation an appropriate portion of the examination time to answer a particular question.
58. The University provides guidance in the form of an Assessment Toolkit on designing assessments, and different assessment methods to faculty.
59. In finalising draft assessments, Heads of Discipline, must ensure that faculty prepare students sufficiently for assessment, and should ensure that assessments:
    1. Vary as appropriate from year to year.
    2. Are developmental from Level to Level.
    3. Are distinctive and require demonstration of higher order skills and application of knowledge, not just the knowledge itself, especially at FHEQ Levels 6 and 7.
    4. For highly weighted elements, such as projects and dissertations, contain mechanisms to monitor progress and the development of the final submission.
    5. Are course specific.
    6. Are set in relation to any practical skills that may be required.
60. The ASB must approve all assessments briefs, examination papers, and associated assessment guidance prior to their publication to students.

Threshold Standards and External Benchmarks

61. In establishing the thresholds of standards for awards, courses, individual assessment tasks, and the manner in which assessments are conducted, Faculty must make use of appropriate external reference points. These include:
    1. The UK Quality Code, including the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ), which applies to degree, diplomas, certificates and other academic awards granted by a higher education provider in the exercise of its degree awarding powers.
    2. Subject Benchmark Statements which help to establish the standards set by different subjects at undergraduate Level, and in some areas at Master’s Level, by providing expectations about the subject and qualification Level of programmes of study.
    3. Degree Apprenticeship Standards show what an apprentice will be doing, and the skills required of them, by job role. Standards are developed by employer groups known as ‘trailblazers’ and the degree programme must be mapped to the relevant apprenticeship standard.
62. Each programme that the University approves is required to be mapped to a Subject Benchmark Statement to ensure that it meets national requirements.

Assessment of Assigned Group Work

63. Group and team working skills are important abilities. The importance of group working skills to students’ employability (the ability to listen, question, persuade, participate and, where necessary, lead) means that group work should feature in assessment practices. However, for the purpose of summative assessment, students’ marks at all Levels must reflect their individual abilities rather than those of the group of which they are part. Therefore, summative marks cannot be based on group marks alone but must be combined with some form of individual assessment.
64. Group work assessment element marks should be capped at a maximum of 30% of overall course assessment weighting.
65. Course Leaders must have in place procedures to ensure that individual marks can be ascribed. This may include a range of activities including supervisory meetings, observations, journals, individualised activities within a group project, personal reflection, etc. A process in which students ascribe marks to other learner’s contributions may not be used, although such practices can be used for formative feedback.

Word Length and Format of Assignments

66. All word counts provided are maximum unless stated otherwise. It is acceptable to be 10% above or below the specified word limit. If an assignment’s word count is above 10% of the word limit, it will not be marked beyond the 10%.
67. For the purposes of assessments for technology courses, the submission of ‘code’ will be considered as an artefact. There is no word limit, however students must follow the guidance provided in the Course Syllabus about the amount of time in completing the code. The report that accompanies the code will have a set amount which adheres to the regulation above [paragraph 66].
68. If an assessment element is not submitted in the specific format required, the work may be marked down, or the Progressions and Award Board (PAB) may resolve that it should not be marked.

Viva Voce Examinations

69. Examiners may exceptionally choose to examine any learner using a viva voce examination in addition to the assessment(s) specified in the Course Descriptor.
70. This form of assessment should only be used sparingly, but may be properly used:
    1. As part of the approved assessment for a course: typically, vivas are used for the extended pieces of work such as dissertations or projects, and it is important that the assessment process is open to the same security as other forms of assessment, including provision for the External Examiner to review the outcomes.
    2. Where recognised disability means that a viva is an appropriate and approved form of assessment replacing the normal assessment task.
    3. Where, whatever the initial assessment task, there are concerns about the authenticity of the learner’s work; in such circumstances vivas must not be used to mark work.
71. The University does not conduct vivas in order to adjudicate decisions about borderline classifications.
72. Students must attend viva voce examinations as required. Students should normally be given at least five working days written notice of a potential viva. Where learners do not attend without approved extenuating circumstances, examiners will make judgments on the basis of information available to them, and learners will have no right to request another viva opportunity.

Computer-Based Examinations

73. Computer-based examinations (CBEs) are subject to the same regulations as any other examination, and are normally undertaken only using server-based, centrally supported system(s) scheduled through Registry.
74. CBEs may be set at a Level of study up to and including FHEQ Level 7, provided that the assessment approach and question design are appropriate.
75. Students must be familiar with the CBE system to be used before they undertake a summative examination.
76. A paper copy of each CBE must be available to AS for duplication in the event that the electronic delivery of the CBE cannot be accomplished.

Pass/Fail Assessments

77. An assessment element may be marked as Pass/Fail, i.e. without a mark when it is a requirement of a Professional Statutory Regulatory Body (PSRB)

Compulsory Pass Assessments

78. For Undergraduate competency based assessments, the Course Leader can identify whether an assessment element is a compulsory pass. The Course Leader must confirm the compulsory pass requirement at the point of drafting the assessment brief and scrutiny process. This must be clearly stated in the assessment brief, so that the students are aware of the compulsory pass element. It is also advised that the faculty include this at the course induction presentation, i.e., first class.
79. For Postgraduate Taught programmes, the viva element of the dissertation should be at least 20% of the course weighting and the viva is a compulsory pass. If the student is unsuccessful with their viva, the PAB can offer a referral opportunity.

Providing Information to Students Regarding Assessments

80. Course Descriptors must inform students about the assessment elements for that course. In addition, students must be informed about how they may access regulations specific to their programme of study, including regulations for progression (progression criteria), eligibility for awards, and appealing against academic decisions.
81. In collaboration with Registry, the Timetable Team will provide a definitive schedule of examinations published on CELCAT and assignment submission dates which will be published on the University’s VLE well in advance of the examination period and assignment deadlines.
82. Faculty must be made aware of the following information concerning assessments and communications with students:
    1. Great caution must be exercised when informing students about the content (as opposed to the structure) of an assessment, and advice given should be sufficiently broad so as not to give students an unfair advantage in completing the assessment.
    2. The structure and/or content of an assessment should be provided in writing and made available to all students (preferably in the Course Syllabus).
    3. That the actual examination paper must be consistent with the information provided to students.
    4. All assessments must be related to the learning outcomes of a programme and should be indicated in the Programme Specification given to all students at the start of a programme.
83. Information for students in regard to assessment, including the deadlines of submission of assessments and the consequences and penalties for late or non-submission of material for assessment, should be provided to all students at the beginning of each academic year.

Assessment Briefs

84. For each assessment, with the exception of written examinations, students should be provided with clear details of the nature of the assessment task, the associated assessment criteria and other relevant information in the form of an assessment brief.
85. Typically, an assessment brief will include the following elements:
    1. Title of the assignment.
    2. The task is clearly articulated.
    3. Contribution of the assignment to the course overall mark (as a % weighting, or, where multiple assessments contribute to the final mark, the nature of the contribution from this assessment)
    4. Apprenticeship programmes only: Contribution of the assessment to the competency requirements in the Apprenticeship, by indicating the contribution to the knowledge skills and behaviours in the apprenticeship; course overall mark (as a % weighting, or, where multiple assessments contribute to the final mark, the nature of the contribution from this assessment).
    5. The relationship of the task to the course through details of the learning outcomes being assessed.
    6. Information on how the task can be completed successfully though guidance and/or the provision of associated assessment criteria, and any additional appropriate guidance.
    7. Details/entitlement of any support available during the period up to submission, including any opportunities for the developmental review of progress.
    8. Any word limit or time-limit specification.
    9. Any expectations about the presentation of work (for example, file format accepted: PDF, Word, etc.)
    10. Opportunities for the student to reflect on the task, including self-assessment opportunities.
    11. The procedure for submitting the work, making presentations etc.
    12. The projected date for the return of assessed work where appropriate (students should receive feedback on assessments within 28 calendar days of submission, excluding the study break periods).
    13. Details of how the feedback will be provided.

Assessment Criteria

86. Assessment criteria set out what is expected of students and should relate to the learning outcomes set for the course.
87. The broad criteria for assessments are set out in the University’s Categorical Marking Scheme.
88. Assessment criteria should be shared with students in advance of the completion of assessments via Course Descriptors or Assessment Briefs where applicable.
89. The University’s Qualitative Assessment Rubric can be found in the Academic Handbook.

Assessment Procedures

90. These regulations apply to all programmes, courses, credits and qualifications leading to an award of the University.
91. To be eligible for an award, a student must be registered on the award and all awards must have been completed within the approved maximum registration periods specified in AQF7, Part B: Admissions and Registration.
92. Students on an approved programme can only study the courses on that programme and may not substitute these for other courses; except through the application of Recognition of Prior Learning and Credit Transfer.
93. Practice-based standards and requirements of professional bodies may be reflected in learning outcomes where appropriate.
94. Assessment is a matter of academic judgement and not just the computation of marks. Specific rights of appeals against a decision involving academic judgement are very limited.
95. An award may, however, only be made when the student has fulfilled the objectives and learning outcomes of the programme and achieved the required academic standard.
96. For a list of definitions regarding assessment at the University, please see Annex B.

Assessment of Courses

97. All students registered for a particular course should follow the same assessment plan, though this overall plan may include a choice of assessment types, in line with the University’s commitment to diversity and inclusion. And within any given assessment type, precise assessment tasks may vary between student groups and students, with approval from the Academic Registrar. One Progression and Award Board will ratify the marks for all the students taking that course in the same sitting.
98. The first assessment attempt (first sitting) for all elements must be scheduled to occur before the end date of the course. Programme and course end dates will be published by Registry.
99. The form of assessment for each course must be specified within the Course Descriptor. Where there is more than one element of assessment, the weighting attached to each element must be stated on the Course Descriptor.
100. All courses must be summatively assessed; assessment elements will normally be marked using the relevant scheme. A mark must be produced for each assessment element such that an overall course mark can be determined.
101. For additional information, see the Qualitative Assessment Rubric for Level 4, Level 5, Level 6 and Level 7.

Course Pass Mark

102. All students must attempt and pass all assessment elements. Please see the section on Compensation for additional information.
103. The overall course pass mark is 40% for undergraduate courses and 50% for postgraduate courses. Marking on a pass/fail basis is not permitted except for zero weighted assessments.
     1. For apprenticeship end-point assessment courses, the pass mark is determined by the end-point assessment plan of the apprenticeship standard, which may be different to the standard pass mark set out above.
104. Marks for all assessment elements will be aggregated, according to their weighting as defined in the Course Descriptor, at each assessment sitting to determine the overall course mark for that sitting. For the purposes of progression and award, the best mark achieved for each element will be aggregated, regardless of sitting. The course will be deemed a pass where the aggregated course result is 40% or above for undergraduate programmes; or where the aggregated course result is 50% or above for postgraduate programmes.
105. Course marks will be rounded, when two or more assessment elements are aggregated, in accordance with the University’s convention on rounding (see section titled Using the Categorical Marking Scheme).
106. There may be a requirement for individual assessment elements to be passed in their own right (i.e., a must pass element). In these circumstances, those elements must achieve a pass mark of 40%/50% or more. Such exceptions are normally allowed when required by a Professional Statutory Regulatory Body and must be approved through the University’s programme and course approval and modification procedure and stated on the Course Descriptor (see AQF4 Programme and Course Approval and Modification).
107. Where a course has more than one assessment element, and one element is ‘deferred’ the course mark for that sitting will be calculated on the marks available and, regardless of the course outcome, the student will be offered an opportunity to attempt the deferred element at the next sitting.

Examining and Assessment Where a Member of Staff Has a Personal Interest, Involvement or Relationship With a Student

108. The University must ensure that students and staff carry out their duties in a professional manner and with integrity, without conflict of interest, bias, or the misuse of authority.
109. Staff must follow the University’s Personal Relationships between Staff and Students Policy, which is in the Staff Handbook, on the HR portal. The regulations below are the safeguards put in place to ensure that academic standards are not put at risk, and the success and progression of the student is managed entirely on a professional basis and protecting faculty from potential allegations of favouritism and unfairness.
110. In the case where a member of faculty is in any relationship with a student, and the member of faculty is the first marker of the anonymous scripts, the student’s work must be included in the sample of work to be moderated, and the sample sent to the External Examiner for moderation.
111. If the member of faculty in the relationship with a student is responsible for the marking of oral presentations or vivas that the student is required to sit, another member of faculty should be recruited to be the marker.
112. If the member of faculty sits on the relevant PAB, they shall temporarily withdraw from the meetings when the student’s specific case is being discussed.

Extension of an Assessment Submission Deadline Date

113. Extensions to a submission deadline can only be awarded through the Extenuating Circumstances Policy, except in the case where a student has a Learning Support Plan which explicitly states that the student can have a one week extension for formative and summative assessments. For more information, please refer to the Student Disability Policy.
114. Students may submit a request for an extension to an assessment submission date where Extenuating Circumstances have impacted on their learning and where a later submission would put them in a position of being ‘fit to study’ and to complete the work.
115. For further information, please see the Extenuating Circumstances Policy, which can be found here.

Feedback on Draft Summative Assessments

116. The University does not prohibit feedback on draft summative assessments.
117. Only one instance of feedback per summative assessment is permissible (i.e., students cannot submit, amend and then re-submit for additional feedback) before the final submission, unless this has been agreed as part of the approval process.
118. Feedback on draft summative assessments should give guidance on general areas of improvement but must not include re-writing of text or other forms of direct faculty amendment of the student’s work.
119. There is no mark awarded for draft summative assessments and students should be informed that any feedback provided for a draft summative assessment is not indicative of the final mark that the summative work will receive. Equally, Faculty should not give any indication of a mark that work might receive if all formative guidance is followed.
120. The timeline for submission of draft summative assessment is at the discretion of the member of faculty. If students submit their draft summative assessment late, the member of faculty is not obligated to review the draft and provide feedback.

Student Self-Assessment

121. Where in line with the demands of teaching and learning, assessment for and of learning should facilitate self-reflection and self and (formative) peer-assessment.
122. Students are provided with clear learning outcomes and assessment criteria for each course that they study. Learning outcomes are contained within each Course Descriptor, and assessment criteria are contained within each Course Syllabus.
123. Students are also provided with detailed Assessment Briefs.
124. When submitting assignments, students should be encouraged to engage in evaluation of their work prior to submission, by using the aforementioned. This may take the form of reflective essays, author’s notes or artist’s statements, or application of a rubric or set of written criteria.

Assessment Deadlines

125. The University’s regulations on submission of electronic written assignments is that all submissions are to be up-loaded to the link on the VLE by the published date.
126. The week by which submission is required is determined by the Course Leader and Registry during the development of the Summative Assessment Planner and is to be included in the assessment brief.

Submission of Work

127. All assessment elements MUST be attempted. A non-submission will be classified as a 0 mark/fail.
128. Written assignments must be submitted by students in accordance with the procedures in these regulations, and by the deadlines specified in assessment briefs.
129. Proof of submission will be provided and must be retained by the student as evidence that the work has been submitted.
130. When submitting work for assessment, students are expected to comply with all instructions issued in the Assessment Brief.
131. When the assessment element has multiple components, such as Code and Report or dissertation and oral presentation, both elements must be submitted/attempted. If only one element is submitted, the PAB will consider this as a non-submission.
132. All text-based assignments are normally submitted via the Turnitin Plagiarism Detection Service.
133. Where the assessment brief specifies that both online and hard copy submissions are required, the failure to submit either element counts as a failure and students will receive a 0%.
134. Written work presented for assessment must be word processed (unless stated otherwise), legible and comprehensible.
135. Examiners may reject work which does not meet reasonable standards of presentation, and this may result in a fail mark being awarded. For further information, please see the Marking Illegible Scripts Policy.
136. All written work must be presented in English or the language of study confirmed at programme/course approval.

Late Submissions

137. It is the responsibility of the student to make themselves aware of and available to attend examinations or submit their assessment at the specified time and place, make sure that they are properly equipped and prepared, and submit assessment elements as required in line with the University’s regulations.
138. Faculty may not approve rescheduling of examinations or extensions to deadlines for assessment elements. Extraordinarily, only the Academic Registrar, in collaboration with the Associate and Assistant Deans for Teaching and Learning, may approve rescheduling of examinations or extensions to deadlines for assessment elements.
139. Students are responsible for submitting their own assessments and the University is not responsible for chasing students who have not submitted prior to any deadlines.
140. Students are strongly advised to submit their assessments ahead of the published deadlines.
141. Students are required to make a credible and reasonable attempt at all assessments by showing that:
     1. The submission is in the form required by the assessment brief.
     2. The academic content of the submission addresses the specified topic.
142. Submissions which do not meet these criteria, including a blank document, will be regarded as a non-submission for assessment purposes and awarded a mark of zero.
143. If a student uploads the wrong version of their submission as their final submission, the submitted version will be marked – the mark achieved will be recorded. The submission of the wrong document is not grounds for academic appeal.
144. Students are permitted up to three submissions until the deadline, with the last submission before the deadline being the one marked. Any subsequent submissions will be disregarded.
145. Students who have not submitted by the deadline, may only submit late once and will be subject to the penalty outlined below. Any subsequent submissions will be disregarded. The penalty system is:
     1. Up to 48-hours late, any mark of 42% or higher will be capped at 40% for undergraduate students. Any mark of 50% or higher will be capped at 50% for postgraduate students. Any mark below 42% for undergraduate students and below 50% for postgraduate students will stand.
     2. Students who do not submit their assignment within 48 hours, and have no approved extenuating circumstances, are deemed to have failed that assessment element and the mark recorded will be 0%.
     3. 48-hours after the submission deadline, the Canvas submission area will be closed.

Standards of Academic Practice

146. A guide to good academic practice is included in the University’s Academic Misconduct Policy.
147. If a student is found to have cheated or has attempted to gain an unfair advantage in an assessment, disciplinary procedures will be implemented.
148. The Academic Misconduct Panel has the authority to deem the student to have failed part or all of the assessment, and may determine whether the students shall be allowed to be reassessed.
149. The Academic Misconduct Panel also has the authority to withdraw the student from the programme should the misconduct be considered substantial.

Work Lost After Submission or Examination

150. In the exceptional event of the mark for an assessment (recorded or received as completed) not being available due to unforeseen circumstances, students will be asked for a duplicate copy of the lost assessment where appropriate. If students are unable to provide a duplicate copy and there is clear evidence of a submission, then the relevant PAB will derive an appropriate mark based on the overall performance by the student.
151. If work or mark sheets are lost by an examiner, the Course Leader with the Associate Director of Teaching and Learning, and the External Examiner will review the situation and make a recommendation to the Chair of the relevant PAB on the students’ performance.

Marking

Roles and responsibilities

152. The Faculty Director has overall responsibility for the organisation of the faculty to ensure that assessments are compliant with the University regulations.
153. For clarity on Teaching Assistants and Teacher Assistant:
     1. Teaching Assistants can mark summative assessments. A sample of TA marked assessments (20%) should be moderated by the Course Leader. The Course Leader has the final say on marks awarded to students.
     2. Teacher Assistants cannot mark summative assessments

Anonymous Marking Policy

154. The University policy on anonymous marking specifies that work should be marked anonymously wherever possible in order to provide reassurance that marking is fair, meaning students should be identified by candidate number to markers. Similarly, decisions on progressions and awards must be made anonymously.
155. All examination scripts and all summative coursework submitted for assessment at all levels should be marked anonymously. Any exceptions to this policy should be formally approved using the Variance to Academic Regulation Form during the course approval procedure.
156. Anonymity should remain until such time as the marking process is complete. Once the process is complete, candidate names and numbers should be reconciled with marks in preparation for the PAB.
157. It is recognised that, while the principle of anonymity ought to be retained, the blanket application of anonymous marking is not always possible (e.g., oral examinations, presentations or performances, laboratory or field work, research dissertations or theses). When this is the case, it is the responsibility of faculty to ensure that marks are awarded in a fair and equitable manner through the use of specific moderation techniques.
158. Written assignments submitted electronically through the VLE/Turnitin will have a submission number generated which will ensure anonymity of the candidate. However, the following exemptions may apply for assessments:
     1. Assessments in which the identification of candidates is unavoidable, such as oral assessments and presentations.
     2. Assessments in which the production of the work has been closely supervised by the assessor (e.g., projects, dissertations, some forms of portfolios etc.).
159. With examinations, students must follow the instructions provided by the invigilators and ensure they put their candidate number in the place(s) indicated on the answer book or answer sheet provided. . If a student uses their name instead of their candidate number, the submission will be regarded as invalid and the assessment element will be recorded as a fail.
160. Where students’ assessments have been marked anonymously, the student’s identity may be established as soon as internal marking and moderation is complete.
161. The professional staff who enter assessment marks and compile lists for the relevant PABs should list students by candidate number.
162. Exceptionally, in the student’s interests, the ‘anonymity’ rule may be waived and the circumstances relating to an individual candidate brought to examiners’ attention by prior approval of the student and Academic Registrar.

Marking Illegible Scripts Policy

163. An illegible script, either in its entirety or in part, is one that is not possible for a marker to decipher in a way that is fair and/or reliable and therefore an assessment decision cannot be made.
164. If a marker is unable to read a script, the script must be sent to the Associate Director of Teaching and Learning to confirm that the script is illegible. If the Associate Director of Teaching and Learning is the marker, the script must be sent to the Academic Registrar.
165. If it is confirmed that the script is illegible, Registry will contact the student in question, in writing, and ask them to attend the University in order to dictate their examination script for transcription. If the student refuses to attend, they will be awarded a mark of zero.
166. The person appointed to type the script must not be a registered student of the University (undergraduate or postgraduate). The costs associated with producing the script will fall to the student, and the cost will be agreed between the University and the scribe.
167. The content of the original script cannot be amended in any way, including spelling or grammatical errors or altering any figures of diagrams. The student will be informed that the purpose of attendance is to transcribe the existing script and that any addition or omission of material will constitute a breach of academic integrity.
168. If any text cannot be transcribed (including by the student), it will be highlighted on the original script.
169. Following transcription, the student must sign a form to confirm that the transcript is a true copy of the original. The form should be kept separately from the transcript, to preserve the student’s anonymity during the marking process.
170. This procedure does not apply where alternative examination arrangements are in place for a student or where special considerations apply which relate to a student’s ability to write legibly.

Marking and Moderation Processes

171. Various marking processes are put in place to help ensure fairness and objectivity in the assessment process.

Double Marking

172. In ‘double marking’ there are two markers who mark the students’ work with the second marker seeing the first marker’s mark and feedback. Double marking is used for all Level 6 and Level 7 dissertations and final projects.
173. Double marking must be carried out by a marker with appropriate academic knowledge and experience.
174. When double marking, both markers assess the work according to the defined Assessment Criteria and Marking Scheme (where appropriate) with the second marker seeing the first marker’s mark and feedback. The work and marks awarded should then be discussed so that both markers can arrive at an agreed mark and enter it onto the Mark Sheet.
175. The marks and comments of all markers and the agreed final mark must be kept for reference by the Course Leader and submitted to the External Examiner where such works form part of the External Examiner sample.
176. Assessments that have been double marked will not be subject to internal moderation.

Moderation

177. Moderation is when another member of faculty reviews a representative sample of students’ scripts with full knowledge of the mark and feedback made by the marker.
178. For more information, please see the Marking, Moderation and Feedback Policy.

Second Marking

179. Second marking is similar to moderation but offers a review of the whole cohort scripts. It can be used to assist markers less familiar with assessment at HE Level and/or other University standards. In this case, the second marker will be an experienced member of faculty and should provide feedback to the first marker on both the Level and the nature of the feedback provided.
180. For detailed regulations on marking and moderation, please refer to the Marking, Moderation and Feedback Policy.

Moderation Sample Size and Selection

181. Moderation of summative assessments must be conducted in order for the University to remain compliant with the UK Quality Code and the conditions of registration with the Office for Students. Formative assessments do not need to be moderated.
182. The size of the sample of work for each summative assessment element will be a minimum of 10% or at least five pieces of work – whichever is the greater. These are the minimal standards for moderation but in some circumstances, sample sizes may be increased to maintain academic standards.
183. The sample must be properly representative across the bands of award classification and borderline fails, and fails, where appropriate.
184. Where assessments are divided between several first markers or several sections, the sample must include assessments marked by each marker or from each section of assessment.
185. Late submissions will be available to be part of the sample for moderation.

Marking of Oral Presentations

186. All oral assessments are audio-visual or audio recorded.
187. Oral assessments that are at Levels 6 or 7, and worth 30% or more of the overall course mark, are double marked by two members of faculty who are present during the assessment. Where operational considerations make the attendance of two markers impracticable, recordings of all the oral assessments must be moderated.
188. For oral assessment that are at Levels 4 or 5, or are less than 30% of the course mark, have one marker. All of these oral assessments are recorded, and a sample is moderated, in accordance with the moderation sample size regulations noted above
189. Sample oral assessments at all Levels must be available for moderation by the External Examiner.

Marking of Portfolios

190. The application of portfolios across the courses varies respective to the requirements of the discipline. Some courses have multiple small pieces of work staggered over a period of time that constitute one assessment element, for example: some types of portfolios, lab reports or set exercises. In such cases, the Course Leader can opt for one of the following regulations regarding the marking of the portfolio constituents:
     1. All submitted pieces will be marked and counted towards the final mark for the assessment element.
        1. There are no deferral opportunities for portfolio element submissions.
        2. For referral opportunities, failed submissions should be revised and resubmitted.
     2. For the first sitting, at least 50% up to a full number of submitted pieces will be marked. Students will not be informed of the submissions being marked.
        1. The same pieces must be marked for all students, for clarification if submission two and submission four are selected for marking, all students must have submissions two and four marked.
        2. If a student fails to submit one of the submission pieces identified for marking, this will be classed as a non-submission and a fail will be awarded for that individual piece. The submitted pieces will be marked and the average taken from all expected submissions will be used to calculate the mark for that portfolio.
        3. For clarification, the number of submissions marked will be as follows: four submissions = two marked; five submissions = three marked.
        4. There are no deferral opportunities for portfolio individual submission pieces, only for the final portfolio submission, if relevant.
        5. For referral, the unmarked submissions will be marked.
        6. For this process, there will be no individual, section, or cohort feedback provided to students after each submission, so consideration regarding the aims of each submission must be considered.
     3. All submitted pieces will be marked and counted towards the final mark for the assessment element. Percentage point deduction for late submissions: If a student is late with their assessment element submission up to 24 hours, they will be deducted up five percentage points (5%). Submission over 24 hours late will be classed as a non-submission and a fail for that individual submitted piece.
        1. There are no deferral opportunities for portfolio individual submission pieces, only for the final portfolio submission if relevant.
        2. For referral opportunities, the student will have to resubmit their unsuccessful submissions only.
        3. Students will receive cohort, section or individual feedback on their individual submissions only 24 hours after the individual submission deadline.
191. The Course Leader must identify their chosen marking process at the point of drafting the assessment brief and scrutiny process.
192. The selected process must be clearly stated in the assessment brief, so that the students are aware of how their portfolio is being marked. It is also advised that the faculty include this marking process at the course induction presentation.

Categorical Marking Scheme

193. The University uses two Categorical Marking Schemes – one for undergraduate (shown in Table 1) and one for postgraduate (shown in Table 2) to mark all programmes leading to an award of the University. This ensures that a consistent and transparent approach to the way in which students are assessed, marked and reported on across all taught programmes is used. It also enables comparable levels of student achievement to be recognised (in line with the UK Quality Code Theme Assessment).
194. A variance to the Categorical Marking Scheme, for instance due to specific programme/course requirements, must be agreed at the approval event. In such cases a Variance to the Academic Regulation Form will be completed at programme approval noting the modified marking scheme and will be communicated to students through their Programme Handbook.

Table 1 Categorical Marking Scheme – Undergraduate

Table 2 Categorical Marking Scheme – Postgraduate

Using the Categorical Marking Scheme

195. All assessment elements should be marked using the marks included in the scheme (see Table 1 and Table 2).
196. Internal Examiners should use the full range of marks available to them, in line with the relevant Categorical Marking Scheme (Table 1 and Table 2), in the process of confirming the mark for a composite assessment task.
197. Assessment elements that have linear marking, for example multiple choice or mathematics, should round up to the next mark available on the Categorical Marking scheme. For example, if the AE mark is 46, the next categorical mark is 48, and that is the mark that is recorded for the assessment element.
198. Course marks will be calculated according to the assessment weighting as defined in the Course Descriptor, as agreed at the programme approval or course modification event. The percentage calculated will be the final mark for that course.
199. The University’s convention on rounding of numeric marks for all awards is as follows:
     1. Marks should be rounded when two or more assessment elements are computed, using a weighting formula, the result should be rounded into a single number course mark.
     2. For final course marks, rounding means that any mark of X.5 and decimal fractions above, becomes the next highest number e.g., 69.5 is rounded to 70, 59.5 to 60, and so on. Decimal fractions below X.5 are rounded to the next lowest number e.g., 69.4 is rounded to 69. For the purposes of rounding, only the first decimal place is used.

Work Not Meeting the Threshold Standard

200. The established pass mark of all assessments leading to an award of the University is 40% for undergraduate programmes and 50% for postgraduate programmes. Similarly, the established course pass mark is also 40% for undergraduate courses and 50% for postgraduate courses.

Compensation

201. Compensation is not permitted, therefore ALL assessment elements must be passed, for the following programmes:
     1. Degree Apprenticeship programmes
     2. BA (Hons) Psychology (PSRB requirement for Final Project only)
     3. Postgraduate programmes.
202. Compensation is the process by which the Programme and Award Board, in consideration of the undergraduate student’s overall performance in the programme and their engagement on a programme, recommends that credit be awarded for a course in which the student has marginally failed to satisfy the assessment criteria, in order to enable the student to progress to the next level or be awarded the appropriate qualification.
203. Compensation can only be used when a student has attempted all assessments for a given sitting across all courses at that level.
204. Compensation will be used to re-dress marginal failure where a student has obtained an overall course mark of 38% or 39% and has met all learning outcomes for the course.
205. Compensation can only be applied to one course per academic year, where all other courses have been passed.
206. The maximum number of credits that can be compensated is 30. Courses over 30 credits cannot be compensated.
207. Compensation may not be applied to courses where a student has failed an element which has been designated as a ‘must pass’ or where a student has failed the course as a result of receiving an academic misconduct penalty of failing the course with no right to resit.
208. Compensation will be applied automatically when all the above criteria for compensation have been met.

Accessing Feedback and Marks

209. Assessment feedback is normally provided electronically, in line with the University’s Marking, Moderation and Feedback Policy.
210. Provisional assessment marks are also made available to students electronically. Students are made aware, via the Programme Handbook, that where marks have not yet been considered by the relevant PAB, these marks are provisional, pending endorsement by the relevant PAB and may be subject to change.
211. Students are responsible for collecting, accessing and engaging with any assessment feedback provided.
212. The University has an institutional policy regarding the provision of feedback to students that offers guidance to faculty on providing effective feedback to students and provides students with guidance on how to use the feedback they receive to effectively improve their performance. See the Marking, Moderation and Feedback Policy for further information.

Feedback on Formative Assessments

213. Students receive qualitative and quantitative feedback on their formative work. This yields immediate developmental feedback. Faculty are able to tailor the feedback to suit the level at which the learners are performing, and this enables students to explore their own arguments and comprehension of the subject at hand.

Feedback on Summative Assessments

214. For assessment elements which are assessed during the programme or course, including projects and written assignments, feedback must be returned to students within 28 calendar days of submission, excluding the study break periods.
215. Exceptionally, when this is not achievable (for example due to staff absence), students must be notified as soon as is reasonably possible of the revised date and the reason behind the change.

Feedback on Summative Examinations

216. For summative examinations, students receive feedback in a form relevant to the type of examination taken. The Course Leader is responsible for ensuring that students receive constructive and developmental feedback in a timely fashion. This can be in the form of individualised feedback, e.g., for multiple choice exams it may involve seeing their marked script along with the correct answers to the questions, or generic feedback to the cohort in the form of an Internal Examiner Report, which may include outlines of ways in which students performed especially well or notes on opportunities that were generally missed.

Awarding Academic Credit

217. As defined by UK Quality Code Theme Course Design and Development, academic credit is:

“…allow providers to accurately describe and market their qualifications in consistent manner. Not only are they tools for securing threshold academic standards nationally, they allow valid comparisons to be made with qualifications in other nations which enables student mobility.”

218. Students may gain academic credit at the University by:
     1. Being awarded a pass mark for a course.
     2. Being credited with a course on the basis of the Recognition of Prior Learning and Credit Transfer (RPLCT) in which the credit may be given in line with the RPLCT Policy.

Reassessment

219. Reassessments are when students have been unsuccessful at the first attempt and are given the opportunity to retake the assessment elements they have failed.
220. Reassessment opportunities happen at the next sitting of that assessment element.
221. Annex C indicates which assessment brief should be used for referral, referral due to academic misconduct and deferral assessments:

Second Sitting Assessment Elements

222. Second sitting assessment elements must be set at the same time as the first attempt assessments and undergo the same level of scrutiny and approval.
223. The type and format of the second sitting assessment element should, as far as practical, be similar to those of the assessment elements of the first attempt. However, if the second sitting assessment is different to the first sitting, the assessment method must enable the student to meet the same learning outcomes as for the first sitting, and consideration must be taken to any skills that are to be met by two versions of assessment methods.
224. In determining the nature of the second sitting task for assessments other than written examinations, Course Leaders should consider how students can demonstrate the learning outcomes while maintaining the integrity of the assessment system. The academic level and nature of the assessment task will be a key factor. For example, assessments based on a project may require resubmission while those based on essay topics may require a new topic to be set to prevent plagiarism.
225. Second sitting written assignments will be completed to a specified deadline ensuring that learners have adequate time to complete the task set.
226. Second sitting examinations will be held at specified time periods, unless otherwise confirmed through academic appeal or extenuating circumstances.
227. For the technology courses where the assessment element has two components (code and report), where the student has failed the assessment element, they will be required to resubmit both elements.
228. Second sitting assessments where the student has been referred by the PAB or re-submission of failed work will be awarded a maximum (capped) mark of 40% for undergraduate and 50% for postgraduate. Students will be provided with the mark that the work could have received prior to being capped but the student’s record will show the capped mark.

Second Sitting Requirements

229. Students will be notified of the nature and timing of second sitting assessments by Registry after the PAB has confirmed the student’s progression status.
230. Students are responsible for observing information about second sitting requirements, including details of the referral assessment such as dates and times of referral examinations and/or submission dates for written assignments.

Reassessment Opportunities

231. Where students have failed to achieve a pass mark for the course at the first sitting, and they cannot be compensated for a marginal fail, they shall be offered a referral opportunity for each failed element at the second sitting, except where the recommendation of an Academic Misconduct Panel invokes a ‘no right to referral’ academic penalty.
232. Students shall not be able to re-attempt any passed elements of assessment except where students are required to repeat a course or where an academic misconduct penalty of fail course has been recommended.
233. Students must attempt the referred and deferred assessments at the next sitting as indicated at the time of results publication.

Deficit Credit

234. Students who have failed up to 30 credits or have deferred assessment elements, may progress to the next level/stage with the deficit credit, unless there are two levels between the deficit credit level and the progression level. For more information, please see Progression Criteria.

Repeat Course

235. Students who, after the second sitting, failed the course and are eligible to progress to the next level/stage with deficit credits will be granted a repeat course where all assessment elements are retaken as if for the first time, i.e., not capped.
236. Students who, after the second sitting, did not pass the course because of deferred elements but are eligible to proceed with deficit credits will be granted the relevant number of attempts at the deferred assessment element(s).
237. Repeat courses that have not been passed after the fourth and final attempt will be classified as an ‘Irretrievable Fail”. Students cannot progress to the next level with an irretrievable fail and will be withdrawn from the programme by the PAB.
238. For students who have 30 credits or more outstanding, are not permitted to proceed ‘with deficit’ and are required to remain at their level/stage and either repeat their outstanding assessment elements (if they have been deferred) or repeat the course (if assessment elements have been failed after two sittings).
239. Students who, after the second sitting, are unable to progress to the next level shall be permitted one opportunity to repeat the course(s) which were not passed, except where the recommendation of the Academic Misconduct Panel invokes a ‘no right to resit’ academic penalty. Students must register for the repeat course(s) and attempt all assessment elements.
240. Where a student is referred in an assessment element as a result of a proven case of academic misconduct, they must make a valid attempt at the referred element. If no valid attempt is made, the course mark will be marked as zero, fail.
241. Where a student has submitted Extenuating Circumstances which have been accepted, they will be offered a deferral, that is, another attempt to take the missed assessment element. In such cases, the deferred assessment element will be marked as normal and the earned mark awarded. In cases where a deferral is offered in respect of a referred assessment, the mark will be capped at 40% (UG) and 50% (PG).
242. Where a student has passed a course, but been deferred in an element, they will be offered the opportunity to take the deferred element.

Reassessment for Student Route Visa students

Referred Assessment Element

243. Tuition, i.e., scheduled classes, is not provided for referred assessment elements, and therefore students on a Student Route Visa will not be issued a CAS. Normally, referred assessments happen with the standard academic year and the need for a CAS will be minimal.
244. For further information, please contact the Visa Compliance Team.

Deficit Credit and Repeat Course

245. A student may be affected by the academic progression (immigration rules for the student) and the study caps (time limit) visa. They will need to request a new CAS for your new student visa, at least three months prior to their current visa expiry date.
246. The University may assign a CAS if the student cannot undertake a deficit credit within their visa expiry date. This will be subject to getting approval from the Registry and the Visa Compliance Teams office.

Reassessment

Table 3 Reassessment Definitions

Progression Criteria

Undergraduate degrees ONLY

247. Students can proceed to the next level of the programme with a maximum of 30 referred/deferred credits from the current level. Students cannot progress to the next level with an irretrievably failed course where all its reassessment opportunities have been exhausted. Students cannot progress to the next level with a failed course which is a pre-requisite for a course required at the next level of their degree programme.
248. Students who are unable to progress to the next level will be required to repeat the failed courses. However, where a student has demonstrated a lack of engagement through low attendance, non-submission of assessments, and/or failure to respond to outreach from the University or where a students has not progressed on their degree over a period of two years, the Progression and Award Board may consider whether it would be appropriate in all the circumstances to withdraw the student.
249. If a student has deficit credits that are two levels below the level they are able to progress to, for example deficit Level 4 credits, with 120 Level 5 credits, the student is not able to progress and register on the next level until the deficit credits have been achieved. This could result in the student completing the deficit credits over an academic year, which will impact on their graduation year.
250. Final year Level 6 students who are referred in 30 credits or less after the referral period and cannot be compensated in the failed course(s) will be offered the opportunity to have two further referral attempts at the failed assessment elements or accept the exit award for which they are eligible. Where a student fails to notify the University of their choice within 14 calendar days they will be given the appropriate award.
251. Students who achieve fewer than 90 credits at Level 6 after the referral period will be offered the option to retake the failed course(s) or accept the exit award for which they are eligible.

Postgraduate

252. Students are required to achieve 180 Level 7 credits to be awarded the postgraduate taught programme.
253. Within the programme structure, some courses may be designated as a corequisite or a prerequisite for another course. This is to enable the student to demonstrate that their skills and knowledge are at a standard to progress to the next course.
     1. Corequisite: a course required to be taken in conjunction with another course.
     2. Prerequisite: a course that is required to be taken before another course.
254. Corequisites and prerequisites are agreed through the University’s regulations (AQF4 Programme and Course Approval and Modification).

Conferment of Awards of Students Admitted With Advanced Standing or Awarded Through RPL

255. PAB will take account of the credit value of the exempted level in judging a student’s eligibility against the thresholds set for conferment of the University’s Awards. When calculating the final classification/result, only the courses assessed at the University will be counted – no marks for the exempted level(s) will be awarded.
256. When a student has been given credit for prior learning, Progression and Award Boards will take account of that credit in judging the student’s eligibility against the credit thresholds set for conferment of the University’s Awards.
257. Where the calculation method includes discounting of courses and the student has 60 or more credits at Level 5 then discounting will be applied in line with the classification method below using only those courses and credits studied at the University.

Classification of Awards

Undergraduate Awards

258. In order to complete a Degree with Honours, students shall satisfy the requirements associated with such an award as set out in the programme specification.
259. Students may be considered for an Honours degree, having been assessed in and been awarded 360 credits, Levels 4-6. Students must have been assessed in all courses.¹
260. Where a student has been assessed in 360 credits, and has achieved at least 300 credits, the student will be eligible for the award of an Ordinary Degree.
261. Awards within an Apprenticeships are subject to the same classification structure for the awards related to their study programme. When an Apprenticeship standard’s assessment plan specifies a specific degree classification calculation method, the specific method in the programme specification overwrites the general degree classification method.
262. Apprenticeship end-point assessment categories however do differ. Where the apprenticeship end-point assessment is not integrated and takes place after the underpinning degree programme has completed, the apprenticeship is awarded pass, merit, distinction or fail, in accordance with the Apprenticeship standard’s assessment plan.
263. For students coming from the US recruitment funnel who have the opportunity to take NU Accelerate courses prior to matriculation, are not permitted to register on the same courses again and must have successfully passed the course if wishing to transfer their credit to the University degree. Grades will not be translated or used towards the degree classification calculation.
264. For students who study abroad in the Spring semester of Level 5, in either the Boston or Oakland campus, those courses are considered on a pass/fail basis.
     1. The grade achieved in the US will not be converted to a UK mark. The grade will not be used in the degree classification calculation.
     2. Students are required to pass the course in order to gain sufficient credit to progress.
265. Classification marks for undergraduate programmes will be calculated using the weighted average course marks for:
     1. the best 90 credits at Level 4, weighted at 1;
     2. best 60 credits at Level 5, weighted at 3;
     3. all Level 6 120 credits, weighted at 5.
266. Classifications averages are calculated to one decimal point. For further information on the weighting calculation, please see the University’s Qualitative Assessment Rubric.
267. The calculated overall classification mark will determine the Honours classification awarded; the classification boundaries are:
     1. First Class: 69.5% or more
     2. Second Class (First Division): 59.50% – 69.49%
     3. Second Class (Second Division): 49.50% – 59.49%
     4. Third Class: 39.5% – 49.49%

Postgraduate Taught Awards

268. In order to complete a Degree, students shall satisfy the requirements associated with such an award as set out in the programme specification.
269. Students may be considered for an award, having been assessed in and been awarded 180 credits, Level 7. Students must have been assessed in all courses. Credit awarded through the Recognition of Prior Learning Process is assessed credit.
270. Classification marks for postgraduate programmes will be calculated using the weighted average course marks for
     1. the best 60 credits weighted at 3;
     2. with the next best 60 credits weighted at 2;
     3. the remaining 60 credits weighted at 1.
     4. Students who satisfy the requirements for a Master’s degree may be awarded a Master’s degree with Merit if they have attained an overall mark greater than or equal to 59.5%.
     5. Students who satisfy the requirements for a Master’s degree may be awarded a Master’s degree with Distinction if they have attained an overall mark greater than or equal to 69.5%.

Degree Apprenticeship Awards

271. Awards within an Apprenticeships are subject to the same classification structure for the awards relate to their study programme. When an Apprenticeship standard’s assessment plan specifies a specific degree classification calculation method, the specific method in the programme specification overwrites the general degree classification method.
272. Apprenticeship end-point assessment categories however do differ. Where the apprenticeship end-point assessment is not integrated and takes place after the underpinning degree programme has completed, the apprenticeship is awarded pass, merit, distinction or fail, in accordance with the Apprenticeship standard’s assessment plan.

Classification with Transfer Credit

273. When a student transfers credits in from another higher education provider which have been approved through the Recognised Prior Learning and Credit Transfer Policy, the following will be applied to the calculation of the student’s degree classification:
     1. If the student has transferred a full 120 level 4 credits, the calculation will only use the level 5 and level 6 credits achieved at the University, with the weighting as currently stated for level 5 and 6 in the calculation.
     2. If the student transferred a smaller number of credits, the credits achieved at the University will be used in the degree classification at the same weighting as the standard degree classification calculation.

Exit Awards

274. Certificate in Higher Education: Achieved 120 L4 credits
275. Diploma in Higher Education Achieved 120 L4 credits and 120 L5 credits
276. Ordinary Degree: Achieved 300 credits, minimum of 60 credits at L6
277. Postgraduate Certificate: Achieved 60 L7 credits
278. Postgraduate Diploma: Achieved 120 L7 credits

Posthumous Awards

279. An award may be conferred posthumously where a student was close to completing their programme of study. The relevant PAB will consider each case on an individual basis.
280. No classification shall be awarded in the case of a posthumous award.
281. Exit awards and the University’s Diploma may also be conferred as a posthumous award.

Aegrotat Awards

282. An aegrotat award may be conferred where a student was close to achieving an award but due to illness or other valid reason, as confirmed by the Academic Registrar, is unlikely to be able to complete their studies within the maximum registration period. The relevant PAB will consider each case on an individual basis.
283. Where a student is receiving an aegrotat undergraduate or postgraduate degree no classification shall be awarded.
284. The Diploma of Higher Education may also be conferred as an aegrotat Diploma of Higher Education.
285. Aegrotat awards for students on other programmes may be conferred in certain exceptional circumstances.

Factors Affecting Assessment and Assessment Boards

286. This section provides information specifically on marking and other factors affecting assessment and its relationship to the PAB. Full details of the function of the PAB is provided in AQF12: Assessment Boards.
287. Where the performance profile of a course is at variance with general performance of the cohort or reflects a continuing problem in the operation of the course, this should be identified by the relevant Head of Discipline to the relevant  PAB. For the definition of a “Flagged Course”, please see AQF12 Assessment Boards.
288. In all the above cases:
     1. PAB must consider the circumstances and their impact to determine whether there was a material impact on students’ performances (e.g. in respect of their performance in other similar assessments and courses).
     2. External Examiners must be part of the process of consideration of any alteration to be made to the expected outcomes (e.g. an additional attempt allowed).
     3. The decision and reason must be minuted in detail to ensure that the basis of any change is made clear.
289. Students have the right to appeal against decisions made by the PAB. For further information, see the Academic Appeals Policy and Procedures.

Sanctioned Students

290. Students who are not in good financial standing should attempt all assessment elements and will be assessed alongside other students for consistency. Student results will be processed by the PAB but not released until good financial standing has been restored.

Access to Material After Assessment

Access to Marked Summative Assignments and Examination Scripts

291. Hard copies of written assignments, other than copies retained for external examining and archive purposes, will not normally be returned to the students with any associated feedback. See Feedback on Summative Examinations for further information.

Access to Past and Practice Examination Papers

292. Past examination papers are made available to students from the previous three academic years or practice papers where past papers are not suitable if it is a new course, or the course has been modified
293. Registry are responsible for the uploading of the past examination papers to the Virtual Learning Environment Home page, which also has a link on the course page at the earliest opportunity after the examination has taken place. Registry is also responsible for publishing the practice papers which should be provided by the faculty along with the assessment briefs.
294. Papers not normally released are multiple choice papers and computer-based examination papers.

Administration of Assessments

295. The University has in place a range of processes to ensure that assessment standards are set at an appropriate level and are consistently applied. These involve assignment setting, moderation, external examining, and collective decision making at the PAB.

Drafting of Examination Papers and Assessment Briefs

296. Registry is responsible for the administration of Examination Papers and Assessment Briefs. Registry will provide timelines for the submission of draft examination papers and assessments briefs. Submission deadlines must be met in order for documentation to be processed in accordance with the University’s regulations.
297. Course Leaders draft examination papers and assignments briefs for assessment. These draft examination papers and Assessment Briefs are peer reviewed. The member of faculty completing the peer review will complete the Assessment Peer Review Form. Modifications can be made after the peer review process and the final draft assessment are prepared and then sent to the External Examiner for external moderation, ensuring that standards are appropriate and achievable.
298. When the Associate Director of Teaching and Learning receives the feedback from the External Examiner, an ASB is convened for each programme. The role of the ASB is to undertake a final scrutiny of all assessments prior to publication, and this Board should check for readability.
299. Registry is responsible for inserting the date and start time of the examination, in line with the assessment timetable.

Assessment Moderation Process

300. In seeking to achieve equity, validity and reliability in the assessment of student work, a range of moderation processes are employed at the University.
301. The Head of Registry will ensure all assessments are marked in line with the University’s Marking, Moderation and Feedback Policy.
302. Academic Board is responsible for approving the moderation procedure. If a variance to the University procedure is required, this request must be included during the approval procedure for the programme. The Variance to Academic Regulation Form must be completed and submitted.

External Review of Draft Examination Papers and Assessment Brief

303. External Examiners are given the opportunity to review draft examination papers and assessment briefs where the work contributes to an award and provide feedback.

Assessment Samples Sent to External Examiners

304. External Examiners receive samples of assessments in good time before Progression and Award Board meetings for moderation.
305. The size of the sample of work for each summative assessment element will be a minimum of 10% or at least five pieces of work – whichever is the greater figure – and a maximum of 15 pieces of work.
306. The sample must be properly representative across the bands of award classification and borderline fails, and fails, where appropriate. However, the selection may be extended to all first class/distinction, borderline fails, and fails through agreement with External Examiners in advance.
307. A schedule must be set and maintained for the dispatch and return of work for scrutiny. If the schedule is not adhered to, internal examiners may be referred to the Disciplinary Procedure for Staff and External Examiners may have their contract rescinded.

Visiting Lecturers and External Assessors

308. The University appoints External Assessors in line with the External Assessors Guidance.
309. Where visiting lecturers and external assessors are involved in the assessment of learners, Course Leaders are responsible for ensuring that the visiting lecturer or external assessor has a comprehensive induction regarding the University’s assessment regulations, the marking of the visiting lecturer or external assessor is included in the moderation procedure, and that appropriate additional steps are taken depending on their experience of the University and its standards.
310. Exceptionally, where there is a dispute with the marking of a student’s assessment, an external assessor can be recruited to be the first marker with the External Examiner moderating the assessment.

Collecting and Collating Marks

311. Registry is responsible for the administration of assessments.
312. If the assessment element has one marker, the marker places their mark directly into Canvas. Registry is able to produce a report from Canvas to conduct quality checks, for example checking the Extenuating Circumstances, and to send to External Examiners as part of the external moderation procedure.
313. Where an assessment has several parts (e.g., Section A and Section B) or several questions and these have different weightings, and the overall mark needs to be calculated from the marks assigned, a marks sheet will be supplied by Registry with automatic calculators. Faculty should email Assessment if a mark sheet is required for your course assessment.
314. The Moderation record will continue to document which work needs to be/has been moderated.
315. The Course Leader should check the assessments, the Mark Spreadsheet(s) and the moderation/double marking record for accuracy prior to returning them to Registry. The Associate Director of Teaching and Learning is responsible for ensuring that faculty complete their marking and return of documentation in line with the timeline published.
316. When all assessment submissions for a course have been marked, Registry checks the Mark Spreadsheet against the assessments. Once this check has taken place, the marks are entered in the student information system. This mark input is then cross-checked.

Internal Monitoring of Assessment Procedure

317. The University places great emphasis on reviewing and improving assessment and examination processes.
318. The administrative processes associated with assessment are under constant internal scrutiny; mark entry and PAB processing are subject to a number of mechanisms to ensure that standards are of the highest.
319. Registry confirms assessment through submission by learners through a series of reports and logging methods, ensuring that records are auditable.
320. Course information regarding assessment deadline dates and submission type is collated each academic year and is audited for accuracy by its comparison to Course Descriptors.
321. Registers of attendance to examinations are maintained throughout the examination period. Non-attendance at examinations is monitored and actioned by Registry.

The Conduct of Examinations

322. Registry centrally coordinates formal invigilated examinations, including first and second sitting examinations.
323. Registry will communicate with staff and students with regard to examination timings, locations, timetables, guidance, instructions for candidates, and a variety of other necessary information.
324. The University will deliver examinations in a number of locations, details of which are made available to students. It is the student’s responsibility to ensure that they are in attendance at the specified location in a timely manner.
325. The timetable for each period of examination will be prepared as soon as practically possible after learners are successfully registered for their courses or for referral assessments, and as soon as PAB have completed their deliberations.

Assessment Results

Recording and Notification of Results

326. The Academic Registrar is responsible for ensuring a robust and reliable system is in place for the computation, checking, and recording of assessment decisions, and for providing relevant information in time for the final meetings of the PAB.
327. Assessment data is centrally stored electronically within the University’s student information system where access is limited to relevant professional staff. The platform is cloud-based and back-up functions are integrated into the system.
328. Staff involved in the marking, recording and collating of assessments should regard electronic and hard copies of assessment results and decisions as confidential documents, and should store and dispose of them appropriately.
329. Provisional marks for undergraduate and postgraduate courses are entered into the exams database,. Students are notified of their results by Registry, and any implications for learner progression/graduation by Registry.
330. Access to assessment results and information regarding assessment judgments about individual students is restricted to the student’s line manager and other employer contacts (for degree apprenticeships students), and Registry , but may be viewed by faculty or professional staff on request.
331. Results are recorded using the following conventions:
     1. A mark per assessment is indicated using the Categorical Marking Scheme (see Table 1 and Table 2).
     2. An overall mark for each course is indicated which has been calculated using the appropriate weightings for each assessment of that course.
     3. Non-submission of summative assignments, or non-attendance at an examination or presentation, is awarded a 0.
332. Programme results are processed following confirmation by the PAB.
333. Students are normally informed in advance of the date of the release of results through the Programme Handbook.
334. Results of assessments taken during the academic year are normally released to students’ University email accounts by Registry. Results of assessments released prior to a PAB are provisional, pending endorsement by the PAB and may be subject to change.
335. End of year progression results will normally be emailed on the date published in the Programme Handbook. Information about who students can contact should they require clarification of their results or advice about their results will be included.
336. No results should be divulged to students until the results have been published by Registry, and in the case of degree apprenticeship programmes, the learner has completed their end-point assessment. This regulation may be varied if it is deemed in the best interest of a student to notify them of their assessment results early. This decision must be made in consultation with and approved by the Academic Registrar. A file note shall be produced and retained in the student’s file to record that their results were released to them early.
337. Results should only be given to students in person or by the phone if steps have been taken to confirm the student’s identity: they should NOT be disclosed to third parties (including parents) without a student’s explicit written consent. In view of the above, staff are not permitted to release final results to students.

Amended Results

338. Where the outcome of an academic appeal is that a student’s mark and/or course result should be amended as a consequence of an academic appeal being upheld, Registry will inform the student of the decision in writing.

Retention of Assessed Work

The University has a statutory requirement to retain student’s assessed work for a period of five years after they have completed their programme of study. For further information, please see Quality and Standards Conditions of Registration B1.

Academic Appeals

340. Academic Appeals are the route by which students may seek reconsideration of the PAB decisions. Specific rights of appeals against a decision involving academic judgement are very limited.
341. Although rigorous procedures are followed to ensure that all student assessment elements are conducted and marked fairly and appropriately, students may appeal against a decision made by the PAB in the following circumstances:
     1. New, relevant, written extenuating circumstances are presented (see the Extenuating Circumstances Policy), supported by appropriate evidence, that for good reason were not originally made available to the Extenuating Circumstances Panel, and therefore were not considered at the time of the decision of the Board.
     2. Marking and/or moderation processes were not conducted in accordance with current approved policies and procedures, or other irregularity concerned with the assessment process.
     3. There has been a material and significant error in the recording and/or processing of assessments/results.
     4. There has been a procedural error in the calculation of the award/progression decision.
     5. There is evidence of bias.
342. Where a student lodges an appeal that is upheld after the relevant PAB and is found, after submission, to be a valid academic appeal, notification of the outcome of the appeal should be sent to the Academic Registrar who will initiate a review by the PAB.
343. Academic appeals should be considered in line with the Academic Appeals Policy and Procedures.

Academic Offences

344. Academic offences include:
     1. Collusion
     2. Fabrication
     3. Cheating
     4. Impersonation
     5. Plagiarism
345. This list above is not exhaustive. More information regarding academic offences and their penalties, along with guidance on good academic practices, is described in detail in the University’s Academic Misconduct Policy.

Assessment of Students with Disabilities

Specific Learning Differences or Difficulties with Disabilities

346. Upon recommendation from the Student Wellbeing Coordinator (SWC), students with evidence of Specific Learning Difference or Difficulty (SpLD) can request a reasonable adjustment for the assessment element. For further information, please see the Marking, Moderation and Feedback Policy.
347. Such students are normally permitted 25% extra time.
348. Additional examples for consideration are given below:
     1. Students with SpLD (e.g. dyslexia) and related problems will normally be permitted extra time beyond the approved duration for the reading of the examination paper and for the writing of their answers. Such students may be permitted additional time for examinations and/or the use of a reader or appropriate assisted technology. Question papers may be provided in alternative formats.
     2. Students with a mental health or stress-related disorder, or with physical conditions which cause excessive fatigue may, at the discretion of the SWC, and only where medical evidence is available to support the claim, be permitted additional time and/or be allowed to take an examination alone, with provisions for rest breaks at suitable intervals if required. In severe cases, an alternative form of assessment may be used but care must be taken that the standard is safeguarded. Evidence of need must be provided in the form of a medical report from a GP or specialist.
     3. Students with mobility impairment or mental health illnesses may be granted a number of rest breaks during an examination or similar task, in order to ease or exercise joints or muscles. This applies also to those with long term or short term (e.g. broken limbs) disabilities. Some students in this category may have no need for such rest breaks.
     4. Students with impaired manual dexterity may need to dictate answers, to a scribe or recording device, and therefore be separate from fellow students. If the student can write, but more slowly than most students, time may be allowed for this during the period of examination. Extra time may be appropriate when a reader is used (for more information, see the Student Disability Policy).
     5. Students with a visual impairment, up to and including total blindness, may be provided with a reader for written examinations, who will read the question paper and write answers at the student’s dictation. Consideration may be given to the use of appropriate technology for the production of answers by the student. In examinations, extra time may be needed for reading and re-reading of the questions, but this would normally be accommodated within the stipulated time period.
349. Students whose first language is not English will not normally be regarded as requiring special consideration in the sense of this section (British Sign Language is formally recognised as a language) and will be required to provide answers to questions in English.
350. Students are not normally permitted the use of any reference tools such as dictionaries in examinations.

Undergraduate Degree Students

351. If a student is unable to be assessed by the approved assessment element, because of a diagnosed condition, prescribed for the course, a Student Wellbeing Coordinator (SWC) will liaise with the Associate Director of Teaching and Learning in order to determine a ‘reasonable adjustment’ to the method of assessment (bearing in mind the objectives of the course and the need to assess the student on equal terms with other students). This may involve an occupational health report from an external source.
352. To be able to explore these options, the onus is on the student to ensure that the University is made aware of their condition and to apply for consideration of variation in assessment commensurate with the condition. Written evidence must be provided in the form of a medical or diagnostic report provided by a doctor or other appropriately qualified professional.
353. Students with a diagnosed condition must be assessed in such a way that they are neither systematically penalised nor systematically advantaged compared to other students. In order to make judgments as to the nature and extent of the variation in assessment methods appropriate to any particular student, the SWC must make use of all the information available, including taking advice from within and outside the University where appropriate.
354. Students wishing to be considered for specific assessment requirements must do so as soon as practicable and in good time for the first assessment. It may not be possible to accept applications received close to assessments, although the University will always attempt to deal with genuine cases of unforeseen need.
355. If students have diagnosed conditions, acute or chronic, which are demonstrated to the satisfaction of the SWC but cannot be accommodated through special conditions for assessment, students will normally be expected to carry out the assessment under the approved conditions and the condition can be taken into account when the students’ achievement and progression is reviewed.

Degree Apprenticeship Students

356. All apprentices will complete the Additional Learning Support assessment in their application. Where disabilities are declared, the Student Support and Development (SSD) will work with the student and employer to agree an action plan before the start of the apprenticeship. This support continues through their end-point assessment.
357. If a student is unable to be assessed by the approved on programme assessment element prescribed for the course because of a diagnosed condition, the SWC will liaise with the Associate Director of Teaching and Learning in order to determine a ‘reasonable adjustment’ to the method of assessment (bearing in mind the objectives of the course and the need to assess the student on equal terms with other students). This may involve an occupational health report from an external source.
358. To be able to explore these options, the onus is on the student to ensure that the University is made aware of their condition and to apply for consideration of variation in assessment commensurate with the condition. Written evidence must be provided in the form of a medical or diagnostic report provided by a doctor or other appropriately qualified professional.
359. Students with a diagnosed condition must be assessed in such a way that they are neither systematically penalised nor systematically advantaged compared to other students. In order to make judgments as to the nature and extent of the variation in assessment methods appropriate to any particular student, the SSD must make use of all the information available, including taking advice from within and outside the University where appropriate.
360. Students wishing to be considered for specific assessment conditions must make this clear either in the application so as soon as practicable and in good time for the first assessment. It may not be possible to accept applications received close to assessments, although the University will always attempt to deal with genuine cases of unforeseen need.
361. If students have diagnosed conditions, acute or chronic, which are demonstrated to the satisfaction of the SWC but cannot be accommodated through special conditions for assessment, students will normally be expected to carry out the assessment under the approved conditions and the condition can be taken into account when the students’ achievement and progression is reviewed.

Assessment of Learners with Disabilities in End-Point Assessment

362. At end-point assessment, where this is not conducted by the University, the Academic Mentor will ensure that all information about the apprentice is shared with the End-Point Assessment Organisation (EPAO) and that the EPAO makes ‘reasonable adjustments’ as part of the end-point assessment.

Version History

Annex A: Undergraduate/Degree Apprenticeship Calculation of Classification Mark

Annex B: Definitions

Annex C: Assessments for Referrals, Academic Misconduct Referrals and Deferrals

The rubric below indicates which assessment brief should be used for referral, referral due to academic misconduct and deferral assessments:

Footnotes

¹Credit awarded through the Recognition of Prior Learning Process is assessed credit