Presentation on theme: "UEL’s Assessment and Feedback Policy David Rowley Associate Dean, School of Health, Sport and Bioscience Academic Practice and Student Experience."— Presentation transcript:
UEL’s Assessment and Feedback Policy David Rowley Associate Dean, School of Health, Sport and Bioscience Academic Practice and Student Experience
Context Assessment lies at the heart of a student’s HE experience To support this and align with our Transformation for Excellence objective of an “outstanding student experience: distinctive, challenging, lifelong”, our aim is to offer a transparent, robust, consistent, accurate, accessible and fair assessment and feedback policy
Context Policy revised in 2012 as part of our Transformation for Excellence strategy Recently further revised to align with the new academic framework.
Assessment + Engagement Policy 1.Introduction 2.Assessment Design 3.Assessment, Moderation and Marking 4.Management of Assessment 5.Feedback 6.Disability 7.Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body Exemptions
1. Introduction The Policy applies to ALL UEL programmes within the UEL Academic Framework Principles of assessment: based on learning outcomes integral to programme design fair and free from bias valid, transparent and reliable timely and incremental demanding yet manageable + efficient consistent
2. Assessment Design - effective design ensures: Students can demonstrate achievement of LOs All LOs are assessed through summative tasks Assessment tasks are efficient in terms of student + staff time. Over-assessment is avoided Assessment is both formative + summative Assessment tasks are accompanied by, & mapped to, a set of assessment criteria Student effort & amount of work involved is consistent across modules at each level & aligns with the UEL Assessment Tariff and Equivalences
Assessment Design - effective design ensures: Students experience a range of assessment types Likelihood of academic misconduct reduced All students have an equal chance of understanding the assessment task and of demonstrating their achievement of the learning outcomes
Assessment criteria Assessment criteria are helpful to students in that they enable the students to better understand what is expected of them Assessment criteria are helpful to staff/ external examiners in that they are also clear on what is expected and they help to ensure consistency in marking Try to avoid subjective terms such as ‘good’ or ‘poor’ when writing your criteria Carefully constructed criteria can also encourage staff to use the full range of marks available.
3. Assessment, Moderation & Marking Assessment Preparation Assessment & reassessment tasks drafted simultaneously Every summative component of assessment subject to EE moderation All 1st & 2 nd opportunity assessment & reassessment tasks to be submitted to EE by end of term prior to required first use
Assessment, Moderation + Marking EEs asked to comment on: Suitability of assessment task with regard to module specification Level of work expected Standards of the tasks in comparison with similar programmes at other HEIs
Assessment, Moderation + Marking – key issues Marking plans Full spread of marks used Anonymous marking wherever possible & 2 nd marked If e-Submission used, marking & 2 nd marking within e-Submission Support for new/less experienced colleague
Assessment, Moderation + Marking Second marking Second marking as sampling or moderation 10% or 10 (whichever greatest) will be second marked If first marking undertaken by > 1 marker, sample = min of10% of work marked by each individual marker
Assessment, Moderation + Marking Resolving differences between markers Significant differences are defined as: where the difference is 10 marks or more; and/or where marks spread across critical boundaries (even if fewer than 10 marks) i.e. pass/fail or grade boundaries
Assessment, Moderation + Marking Resolving differences between markers
Changing marks If, as a result of moderation, marks for pieces of work in the sample moderated are changed, then it becomes necessary to remark the whole group. It is also necessary to second mark every submission for work where the assessment cannot be done anonymously e.g presentations, project work etc.
Assessment, Moderation + Marking External Moderation: External Examiners are sent Module specificationAssessment detailsAssessment criteria Assessment GuidanceSample of assessed word record of marks + comments from 1st and 2nd (+ 3rd) markers Schedule of all marks agreed for all candidates assessed in the module following internal moderation
4. Management of assessment Coursework details will be released at the start of each semester or at least 8 weeks before the submission date Timings
Management of assessment Led by ML (nominee) + supported by external invigilators as necessary Question papers cannot be removed but questions can be released via VLE when marks released Exam Invigilation
Management of assessment All single pieces of text-based coursework will normally be submitted via e- Submission If not possible, all feedback to be word- processed unless the nature of the work prevents this Coursework submission
Management of assessment Assessment should be designed to reduce possibility of plagiarism Where suspected, Academic Misconduct Regulations will be invoked Breaches of academic misconduct
Submission and deadlines Deadlines should not be set outside of normal university working hours to ensure support is available in the event of submission problems Students who submit after the deadline but within 24 hours can have their work marked. In such cases you should deduct 5 marks as a penalty for late submission from the achieved mark (assuming marking is /100). Work submitted more than 24 hours late should not be marked, however if it is within 7 days it should be retained in case the student is granted extenuation.
5. Feedback Central to learning. Provided to develop students’ knowledge, understanding, skills and to help promote learning and facilitate improvement Timely: given within 20 working days Can be offered in range of formats e.g. Audio file, video file Should be: clear, relevant, motivating, constructive, developmental Given in relation to LOs + assessment criteria, Given for both coursework + exams Word-processed where e-Submission not used
5. Feedback Feedback may be: IndividualGeneric Given for formative assessment
6. Disability We practice an inclusive approach in supporting our students with disabilities/ specific learning difficulties. We focus on our capacity to understand + respond to the requirements of individual learners + not to locate the difficulty or deficit within the student. In this way we move away from ‘labelling’ students and towards creating an appropriate learning environment for all students.
Disability In consultation between the student + DDAC, a Learning Support agreement will be drawn up + shared with Schools. Any student who discloses a disability to a member of staff must be referred to the DDAC. Students must be informed that they must be registered with the DDAC for any adjustments.
7. Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body Exemptions Exemptions require written approval of the Chair of University Learning and Teaching Committee
8. Appendices Glossary and Supporting Information Second Marking Assessment Criteria Roles and Responsibilities Assessment Tariff and Equivalences Guidelines: Electronic submission, marking and feedback of coursework Using assessment to enhance learning
SUMMATIVE TARIFF: Maximum Assessment loads per module Assessment Mode * Level 0-M (15 credits) Level 0-M (30 credits) or Coursework3000 words6000 words or Written Examination135 minutes 270 minutes (with no one component exceeding 180 minutes) or Practical (face-to-face) examination, viva, presentation or practical skills demonstration 45 minutes90 minutes or Dissertation4500 words9000 words
UEL’s Assessment and Feedback Policy
Academic Integrity at UEL The AI Policy ensures consistency of treatment and equality of experience for all students at UEL Our responsibility to protect the credibility of the qualifications The AI Policy is supported by policies on standard referencing and use of Turnitin + Academic Misconduct Regulations Turnitin utilised as a text matching tool not a plagiarism detector Identifying plagiarism is an issue of academic judgement, not a Turnitin percentage – no percentage is acceptable
Cite Them Right UEL’s Standard Referencing System is Cite Them Right (Harvard) or APA for students studying programmes in the School of Psychology.
Defining Academic Misconduct UEL defines academic misconduct as any behaviour: “likely to confer an unfair advantage in assessment, whether by advantaging the alleged offender or disadvantaging (deliberately or unconsciously) another or others” (UEL Manual of General Regulations, 2010, Part 8 Academic Misconduct, 8.2.1)
Most common types of Academic Misconduct Plagiarism: The submission of material (written, visual or oral), originally produced by another person or persons or oneself, without due acknowledgement, so that the work could be assumed to be the student's own … includes incorporation of significant extracts or elements taken from the work of (an)other(s) or oneself, without acknowledgement or reference
Most common types of Academic Misconduct Collusion: The submission of work produced in collaboration for an assignment based on the assessment of individual work.
Process for dealing with cases of suspected misconduct New Regulations being considered by Academic Board in September 2014 Overview: First and non-serious suspected offences dealt with at School level Subsequent or serious (grossly dishonest) suspected offences dealt with centrally Academic Misconduct Panels consider cases where necessary
Policies and Regulations Academic Integrity Use of Turnitin Standard Referencing
Key Contacts: School Responsible Officers: ADIDr Abel Ugba ACETBC CassDebbie Brearley HSB Deidre O’Kelly Law + BusinessIan Porton/Delia Langstone +Carol Luckett Psychology Ian Wells & Susy Ajith Social SciencesTBC
Key Contacts: Academic Misconduct Officer: Dee Bozacigurbuz