黑瓜吃料网

Academic integrity - Working with honesty and fairness in academic work.

Academic misconduct - Behaviour which is not working with honesty and fairness in academic work. It can include plagiarism and cheating of any kind, and other dishonest practices, such as the inappropriate use of Generative AI tools.

Anonymous marking - The process where marking is completed without knowing who submitted the work, to avoid issues such as unconscious bias.

Appeal - A request for a mark or set of marks, or an overall result, to be reviewed due to reasons of procedural error, bias or a defect in teaching and learning.

Assessment Adjustments - Procedures that can be used when unavoidable circumstances are preventing you from engaging fully in your learning and/or assessments or impairing your performance.

Assessment criteria - The standards used to judge a piece of assessed work.

Assessment Lead - A member of staff in a department or School who has oversight of the assessment procedures in their area, and liaises with the Examinations and Graduation Office.

Calendar day - Any day of the week, including weekends and days when the University is closed (e.g. due to a public holiday).

DAS - Disability Advisory Service

Extensions - A change to the submission deadline granted either due to a recommendation from the Disability Advisory Service as part of your Individual Learning Plan (ILP) or as an outcome of following the Assessment Adjustments procedures.

External Examiner - A person from another institution appointed by the University to assist in ensuring that academic standards are maintained according to national and disciplinary expectations.

Feedback - Comments provided on marked work to indicate what was done well and what could have or should have been done better, and to suggest ways to improve in the future.

Formative assessment - A form of assessment used during the learning process to provide you with feedback to identify and encourage improvements in learning.

Generic feedback - Feedback provided to the whole class, typically summarising what was done well or what was not done well.

Individual feedback - Feedback provided on your submitted work.

Internal Examiner - Programme Directors, School Director of Teaching and Learning, School Director of Academic Tutoring and School/Departmental Assessment Lead are all Internal Examiners.

Late submission - Submitting work for assessment after the submission deadline, without having an agreed extension in place. Late submissions will be subject to a penalty, unless the mark is below the pass mark.

Learning outcomes - A list of what you should know, understand or be able to do by the end of a module (or programme). Each piece of assessment will be designed to test some or all of the learning outcomes.

Like-for-like assessment - Where the items of reassessment in a module wholly match the original (‘first-attempt’) list of assessment items in terms of their format, weightings and how they address the module learning outcomes

Marking rubric - A guide that explains how your work will be assessed, including information on how many marks will be awarded for different things. Also called an assessment rubric.

Moderation - The arrangements that are put in place to assure the proper application of the assessment criteria, including consistency of marking.

Module Convenor - The person with responsibility for the module; they have a key role to play in providing strategic oversight of the module, including curriculum and assessment strategy.

Pass/fail assessment - As assessment which is not given a numerical mark but instead has a result of pass (when the assessment’s learning outcomes have been met) or fail (when they have not).

Programme Director - The person with responsibility for the degree; they have a key role to play in providing strategic oversight and direction of the programme.

Progression - Advancing from one Part of study to the next.

Reassessment/resit - An opportunity to retake an assessment if you did not pass the first time (subject to the University’s rules for being eligible for reassessment).

Second marking - The process where a second marker reviews a piece of work, either marking it themselves without knowledge of what the first marker has given in terms of feedback and/or mark, or marking it with this knowledge. It is a form of moderation.

Step-marking - The process where a mark in the first class/distinction range is chosen to be one of 72, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, 100 only (unless there is a detailed marking scheme).

Submission deadline - The date and time that assessed work must be submitted to the University by, to avoid a penalty.

Summative assessment - Assessment which carries a mark which is used in further calculations, e.g. for module marks or in awards.

Synoptic assessment - An assessment that brings together learning from across a module or programme. Typically a single synoptic assessment may be used in reassessment in place of more than one original assessment.

Turnitin - An online platform that checks the originality of students’ work by comparing it against a large database of content, to identify matches with different sources. It can also be used as an online marking tool without the originality checks being used.

Working day - A day when the University is open for business as usual, i.e. not including weekends or days when the University is closed.

Section 5 of the Assessment Handbook states that -

The purpose of assessment is to support students’ learning and to evaluate their achievement of learning outcomes. Assessment strategies for programmes and modules should fulfil the University’s assessment principles, as set out in Assessment Handbook, section 1:

• Teaching, learning and assessment (and criteria) are aligned to learning outcomes

• Assessment is valid, reliable, consistent and fair

• Assessment is carefully planned across a programme

• Assessment is inclusive

• Assessment is proportionate

• Assessment is explicit and transparent

• Students are supported and prepared for assessment

• Assessment encourages academic integrity

Your experience of assessment may feel mostly like ‘assessment of learning’, which is the evaluation of achievement of learning outcomes. However, it is also important to embrace ‘assessment for learning’, which involves using assessment as a way of supporting learning, acting on feedback to improve understanding and skills, as well as expanding your knowledge of a topic. Both students and staff have responsibility for ensuring that assessment achieves these aims. 

Formative assessment - is usually coursework (including tests), which are provided for you to judge your own level of understanding of a topic and to identify areas of weakness that can be worked on. Formative assessment should involve feedback of some kind to achieve these aims. If marks are given for formative assessment, they are only to support these aims – formative assessment does not contribute to the module mark.

Summative assessment - is assessment where a mark is given (or a Pass/Fail result), which does contribute to either a mark or overall result in a module, and usually contributes to the overall Part result and possibly the degree classification. There should still be feedback, and summative assessment will often also allow you to judge your own level of understanding of a topic and to identify areas of weakness that can be worked on.

Many of the University’s policies focus on summative assessment, but some principles also apply to formative assessment.

Section 5.2 of the Assessment Handbook lists the different types of assessment that may be listed in module descriptions and you are advised to look there to see what types of assessment you may be given during your studies.

Study Advice have produced a guide on different types of assessment -

If you have examinations, you will find the Examinations guide to Sitting exams a useful read.  The rules for conduct in examinations is not repeated in this guide.

The staff teaching you are usually the people setting, and marking, your assessments. (This is different from national assessments such as A-level, or equivalent, where the setters and markers were unknown to you.) There are times when this is not the case, for example in a team-taught module, possibly it is the Module Convenor who sets and marks the work. Or, there might be times when another member of staff, or a postgraduate research (PhD) student, will mark the work. Rest assured that it is a key principle that marking shall be carried out by appropriately qualified people, and policy states that Module Convenors remain responsible for overseeing marking and quality of feedback for their modules and that they should support PhD students in meeting the required standards.

The University also requires that wherever practicable and appropriate, coursework should remain anonymous to the marker until marking has been completed. This applies also to examination scripts.

Section 10 of the Assessment Handbook states the marking ranges. For undergraduate work

Passing categories at Honours level

70-100 - First Class

60-69 - Second Class Division 1

50-59 - Second Class Division 2

40-49 - Third Class

Failing categories at Honours level

35-39 - Below the undergraduate threshold standard

0-35 - Unsatisfactory work

The marking scale for Foundation level is aligned to the above marking scale, for consistency and in preparation for degree-level study.

Passing categories for postgraduate/integrated Masters work

Postgraduate

70-100 - Distinction

60-69 - Merit Second

50-59 - Pass Second

Taught Integrated Masters

70-100 - First Class

60-69 - Class Division 1

50-59 - Class Division 2

Failing categories

40-49 - Below Masters threshold standard

0-40 - Unsatisfactory work

Some modules may be assessed on a Pass/Fail basis. All marking will be carried out in accordance with the relevant marking criteria (generic criteria are given in the Appendices to Section 10 of the Assessment Handbook. The University requires that step-marking is used across the First Class/Distinction range (70-100). Step-marking requires that work in the First Class/Distinction range should only be awarded one of the following ‘step marks’: 72, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, 100. Assessments which have a detailed marking scheme and in which the highest marks are clearly achievable do not have to use step-marking.

Module marks will be whole numbers, where 0.5 is rounded up to the next higher whole number, and 0.49 will be rounded down to the next lower whole number. Marks for individual items of assessment (called ‘sub-modular marks’ in RISIS) do not have to be whole numbers.

It is usually the Module Convenor who decides on the weightings for different types of assessment in a module, and these are listed in the Module Description Form (MDF), which can be found at 黑瓜吃料网 - Modules, or through the link on the module’s Blackboard page. Each degree programme is overseen by a Board of Studies and Student Experience (BoSSE) and each year this Board will consider and approve (or reject) changes to modules requested by Module Convenors, including changes to assessment type and weighting. Policy states that 20 credit modules must not have more than three items of assessment (and 40 or more credit modules must not have more than four items of assessment).

Staff delivering the module will usually decide on coursework submission deadlines, though this may also be decided by the Module Convenor alongside the Programme Director. The Programme Director should seek to ensure a reasonable distribution of workload with respect to coursework across the programme. Policy states that modules are assessed in the semester in which they are taught (with modules that are delivered over both semesters having some summative assessment in Semester 1).

Policy also states that the Module Convenor is required to provide you with information about the required format and submission deadline for any type of coursework. Deadlines should specify a date, time and time zone; for example, Wednesday 4 December 2024 at 12 noon (UK time). A deadline normally should fall on a working day between 10.00am and 4.00pm and should not fall within the two working days following a public holiday or University closure day. The University expectation is that, with a few exceptions related to physical artefacts, all summative coursework will be submitted electronically.

Schools should provide you with clear guidance on whether Generative Artificial Intelligence Tool (GAIT) can be used in their assessment. There are three categories of GAIT use:

Category 1: GAIT may not be used

Category 2: GAIT can be used to support student learning and development

Category 3: GAIT used is actively encouraged to help students develop their skills in the use of GAIT and understand how their use can be incorporated into assessment tasks

If a statement is not included in the assignment, then you should assume that it is category 1, and GAIT use is prohibited. If you have used GAIT outside of the identified category it would be considered under the Academic Integrity and Academic Misconduct regulations. Also, it is stated in policy that you are not permitted to use another person (‘third party’) to proof-read or edit your assessed work, and that use of a third party proof-reader or editor is an offence under the regulations.

It is policy that the Module Convenor and lecturers should discuss the assessment criteria with students at the beginning of the module and/or when the work is being set. It is important that you are informed of the assessment criteria which are relevant to the work which they are undertaking; and, where distinct criteria apply to different pieces of work, the relevant criteria should be clearly stated.

The University defines moderation as “the arrangements that are put in place to assure the proper application of the assessment criteria, including consistency of marking.” This usually means that another member of staff will either independently mark a sample of at least 8 submissions for the item of assessment, or will review the marking of a sample of at least 8 submissions, making use of the same marking criteria / solutions as the marker used. For some assessments, such as highly weighted projects or dissertations, second marking is often applied to all submissions. Markers and moderators are expected to discuss any issues, and resolve them, agreeing the marks for the item of assessment. Schools are responsible for deciding on the appropriate type of moderation for each assessment, with the requirement that all assessment items are moderated.

The University requires that the standard and consistency of the marking of assessments which contribute directly to an award be confirmed by the appropriate External Examiners. This means that External Examiners have the right of access to all assessed work. In practice, in most cases External Examiners will necessarily concentrate on a sample of assessed work.

Where possible, internal moderation of coursework and in-class tests should take place within the 15 working day period from submission. However, this is not always possible and in such cases you should be informed that marks given are subject to moderation and may change.

Some students come to university knowing that they have specific needs; for example, they may have received recommendations from a previous diagnosis of a specific learning difficulty. Other students may only start to realise that they have specific needs after starting at university. If you think you may need a reasonable adjustment put in place for assessment (or teaching in general) due to a disability, please talk to your tutor or lecturer to make them aware. They will also speak to you if they notice that you appear to have a disability-related need, to discuss what adjustments are reasonable and practicable to implement, before notifying the Disability Advisory Service. 

Students who have been assessed as having specific learning difficulties may apply for special arrangements in examinations. These can include extra time, use of a computer, no penalties for poor spelling, grammar or sentence structure, and sitting in a different room. If you want to discuss such arrangements, you should talk to your Disability Advisor.

In addition to making recommendations concerning examinations for students with specific learning difficulties, Disability Advisors may also recommend that such students should not be penalised for poor spelling, grammar or sentence structure in coursework. Such students will be emailed a personalised green e-Sticker by the Examinations and Graduation Office. Paste the e-sticker into electronic coursework before submitting online. .

Where in-class tests (administered locally by Schools/Departments) form part of the summative assessment for a programme, the School/Department is responsible for ensuring that students with special needs benefit from any special arrangements which have been agreed for University examinations.

Most items of coursework allow for late submission (up to three calendar days after the deadline), though Schools may choose to not allow late submission for good reason, as set out in the policy on penalties for late submission. You should be told when this is the case.

Policy states that the Support Centres will apply the following penalties for work submitted late:

• where the piece of work is submitted after the original deadline (or a DAS-agreed extension as a reasonable adjustment indicated in your Individual Learning Plan): 10% of the total marks available for that piece of work will be deducted from the mark for each part or whole calendar day following the deadline up to a total of three calendar days;

• where the piece of work is submitted up to three calendar days after the original deadline (or a DAS-agreed extension as a reasonable adjustment indicated in your Individual Learning Plan), the mark awarded due to the imposition of the penalty shall not fall below the threshold pass mark, namely 40% in the case of foundation and undergraduate modules and 50% in the case of final year Integrated Masters or taught postgraduate modules;

• where the piece of work is awarded a mark below the threshold pass mark prior to any penalty being imposed, and is submitted up to three calendar days after the original deadline (or a DAS-agreed extension as a reasonable adjustment indicated in your Individual Learning Plan), no penalty shall be imposed;

• where the piece of work is submitted more than three calendar days after the original deadline (or a DAS-agreed extension as a reasonable adjustment indicated in your Individual Learning Plan): a mark of zero will be recorded.

Assessments marked Pass/Fail

• where the piece of work is submitted within three calendar days of the deadline (or a DAS-agreed extension as a reasonable adjustment indicated in your Individual Learning Plan): no penalty will be applied;

• where the piece of work is submitted more than three calendar days after the original deadline (or a DAS-agreed extension as a reasonable adjustment indicated in your Individual Learning Plan): a grade of Fail will be awarded.

Where a piece of work is submitted late after a deadline which has been revised owing to an extension granted through the Assessment Adjustment policy and process (self-certified or otherwise), it will receive the maximum penalty, which is a mark of 0. This will also apply when such an extension is used in conjunction with a DAS-agreed extension as a reasonable adjustment.

Where the work submitted late is a piece of groupwork submitted on behalf of the whole group, the penalty will apply to all members of the group. Individual contributions to groupwork submitted separately by each member will be subject to a late penalty only for the individual contributions that are late.

A student will not normally be allowed to submit amended coursework after the deadline when they have already submitted before the deadline, unless this has been permitted as part of the Assessment Adjustment policy. In other cases, the School Director of Teaching and Learning (SDTL) can allow such resubmissions only if the wrong work was submitted prior to the deadline, such as work for a different assessment. In such cases the usual late penalty will apply to the resubmitted work.

Extensions to deadlines for submission may be requested using the Assessment Adjustments policy. You should read that policy for full details.

Feedback is best understood as a process where you make sense of performance-relevant information to promote your learning. It helps you recognise what you are doing well and where you can improve. Feedback can come from multiple sources e.g. tutors, peers, or through self-reflection, and might happen before, during, or after an assessment. The most useful feedback is timely, accessible, and something you can act on to improve your future work.

The University has a policy which outlines what feedback you can expect to receive after submitting summative assessments. This feedback is usually provided online and is intended to help you understand your performance and improve in future tasks.

The key points of the University’s policy about feedback on summative assessment are

• You will receive feedback on every summative assessment task.

• Feedback is usually individual, but group feedback may be used when appropriate.

• Feedback for coursework and in-class tests should be returned within 15 working days of the submission deadline (or your extended deadline, if applicable). Some assessments, such as dissertations, are exempt. In these cases, staff will let you know when to expect feedback.

• If you submit work late, there is no guaranteed feedback date, but you should be told when to expect it.

• Part 0, Part 1, and taught postgraduate students will receive at least one piece of formative or summative feedback before the winter break (or equivalent for non-September starters) for each module in the first semester, preferably on an individual basis.

• You will receive generic feedback on exams unless the exam was multiple-choice, a resit, or had fewer than five students. This will be available when marks are released.

• You can request individual feedback on exams and may be allowed to view your exam script under supervision, although you will not be able to take it away.

Feedback isn’t just about marks, it’s about learning. If something is not clear, ask your module convenor or marker to talk it through. You should also discuss the feedback you have received with your Academic Tutor to help you reflect holistically on your progress, identify patterns or recurring issues, and plan how to improve your work going forward.

Some useful sources of support and resources are:

• A guide by students, for students: Created by the 黑瓜吃料网 Student Panel, this guide shares student perspectives on how feedback can support your learning.

• Technology enhanced learning support: . Step-by-step instructions on how to access your marks and feedback in Blackboard.

• Study Advice: Offer guidance on how to understand and use feedback, plus 1:1 support for to discuss feedback or get help with studying and preparing for assessments. Explore their or visit the Study Advice website.

Policy states that a student who considers that they have been awarded an incorrect mark for a module may request that the mark be reviewed, provided that the grounds for the request do not relate to the academic judgement of the Examiners (this includes the marker). There are two routes to take, and the route to take depends on the time of year that the results are obtained.

A review of a mark may be requested when a student considers that they have been awarded an incorrect mark for a module on the grounds of an alleged assessment irregularity in relation to a module mark. The request for review is typically in relation to a specific piece of assessment. Ideally, before you request a review you should try to talk to the marker to understand the reason why they gave the mark that they gave you. This conversation may mean that you no longer need to request a review (either because you accept the reasons for the mark or because an issue has been identified and fixed and a new mark provided), or it might mean that you have a clearer case for the request.

To request a review, you should email the SDTL of the School responsible for the module. State clearly the reasons why you are asking for a review – this cannot relate to academic judgement, i.e. thinking that you should have got a higher mark. The SDTL will proceed with the review if your reasons do not relate to the academic judgement of the marker and Examiners (if you haven’t already spoken to the marker to understand your feedback and mark, they might ask you to do that before they proceed). Try to make your request shortly after receiving the mark that you want to query. There is no reason to wait until you have your full set of marks available if you think you have a case to have a mark reviewed.

If your appeal relates to your result of a Part of a programme (e.g. failed or not qualified at first attempt) or your classification, then it should be made to the Senate Standing Committee on Examination Results (SSCER). This can relate to a single module or assessment mark, but only where that mark has an impact on the result of the Part or classification. The appeal cannot relate to the academic judgement of the Examiners (including the marker). It can only be on one or more grounds of: a procedural irregularity, a bias, a material defect in the delivery of teaching and learning which has had a significant impact on the result. If your grounds relate to exceptional circumstances, please refer to the Assessment Adjustments policy.

If you are considering making an appeal then you are encouraged to talk to the , and to read the full policy which can be found at How to make an appeal.

There might be times when you fail an assessment and/or fail one or more modules. This won’t necessarily mean that you have to, or are even allowed to, retake them. The right to undertake reassessment in a module will depend on your overall Part or degree results. Your programme specification will include information about what you need to do in order to pass a Part or, for postgraduate taught programmes, obtain the award. Your programme handbook will include information about what you need to do to obtain other awards, including Honours degrees. If you are on an accredited programme, the requirements for progression to the next Part or for obtaining an award may be higher than the University’s threshold for passing (the basic requirements that everyone must meet). If you’re not sure what is required for your programme, then talk to your programme director or SDTL.

Students who have failed their Part, or who are not qualified to progress, are entitled to be reassessed. Students who have failed to obtain an Honours degree (at least a Third Class) or a Postgraduate taught awards are entitled to be reassessed. Even if you are eligible to leave with a lesser award (e.g. a Postgraduate Certificate instead of a Master’s), you will be offered the chance to be reassessed to obtain what is needed for the degree you are studying for. Students studying in a Foundation Year are entitled to be reassessed if they have not qualified for their intended degree or not met progression requirements for Part 1 of their integrated programme.

Policy states that students who are eligible to be reassessed can only be reassessed once (except for some MPharm practical-based assessments), and only in those modules where they have received a failing mark, or a mark below a qualifying threshold (e.g. 50 for Part 2 Integrated Master’s programmes, or some other mark set by an accrediting body). If the form of reassessment wholly mirrors the original (described as ‘like-for-like’), e.g. 20% set exercise, 80% examination for both, then your reassessment in the module will only be for the items of assessment that you failed or did not reach the required qualifying mark in the first time, not for those that were passed at the required level. In such cases the original marks in the passed items will be carried forward and used in the calculation of the module mark after reassessment. For example, if the original mark in the set exercise mentioned above was 52, and the resit examination had a mark of 38, then the module mark after reassessment for this module w×0.2 + 38×0.8 = 41.

If the form of reassessment is not fully like-for-like, e.g. 10% set exercise, 10% set exercise, 80% examination the first time and 20% set exercise, 80% examination for reassessment, then you will need to complete all items of reassessment as no previous marks from that module will be carried forward. For example, if the original mark in the set exercises mentioned above were 52 and 58, and the reassessed set exercise had a mark of 46 and the resit examination had a mark of 38, then the module mark after reassessment for this module would be 46×0.2 + 38×0.8 = 40, with no use made of the original coursework marks of 52 and 58.

Your School, e.g. Module Convenor, should make it clear which situation applies to any module that you are entitled to be reassessed in.

From 2025/26, students who have the right to be reassessed in a module will be offered reassessment in all items they are eligible for: students will no longer be asked to confirm or decline reassessment for a module in RISIS. (This does not prevent you from choosing not to complete an item of reassessment, even though you are offered it, though Schools are expected to encourage students to undertake reassessment given its benefits to learning.)

At the module level, if the mark following reassessment is lower than the original mark, then the mark returned in RISIS after reassessment will be the original module mark again. If the module mark following reassessment is higher than the original mark, then the higher mark will appear in RISIS. This higher mark will also appear on your transcript, and will be used when calculating averages for the purpose of progression from one Part to another. Your transcript will indicate which modules have been or were eligible to be reassessed, i.e. which marks are following a permitted second attempt.

Modules that are reassessed will have their marks capped when used for calculating classifications. In such cases, the module mark used in the classification calculation will be the higher of (a) the original module mark and (b) the lower of the pass mark and the module mark achieved following reassessment. For example, if an undergraduate student obtained 32 the first time, and 52 following reassessment, the capped module mark used in classifications would be 40. If an undergraduate student obtained 32 the first time, and 28 following reassessment, the module mark used in classifications would be 32. The pass mark is 40 for foundation (Part 0) and undergraduate students (Parts 1 – 3) and 50 for postgraduate taught students and Part 4 of an Integrated Master’s degree.

Failure at second attempt, i.e. following reassessment, usually results in a student having to leave the University. If there are circumstances beyond your control that have affected your results, then you should follow the procedures outlined in the Assessment Adjustments policy, or look at how to make an appeal if you believe you have grounds to do so.

If you are in the situation of needing to do reassessments, please read through the Study Advice