Post on 31-Dec-2015
description
transcript
UEL’s Assessment and Feedback Policy
David RowleyAssociate Dean, School of Health, Sport and Bioscience
Academic Practice and Student Experience
Context
Context
Assessment + Engagement Policy1. 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. IntroductionThe 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:
Assessment Design -effective design ensures:
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, Moderation + Marking
Assessment, Moderation + Marking – key issues
Assessment, Moderation + Marking
Assessment, Moderation + Marking
Assessment, Moderation + MarkingResolving differences between markers
Significant differences identified?
The first mark stands
Second Marker will mark ALL remaining work marked by the
first marker
No Yes
Is agreement on marks reached through discussion
and negotiation?
Marks Agreed
Yes
A third internal marker is required
No
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 + MarkingExternal Moderation: External Examiners are sent
4. Management of assessment
Management of assessment
Management of assessment
Management of assessment
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
5. Feedback
6. Disability
Disability
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
Coursework 3000 words 6000 words
or
Written Examination 135 minutes 270 minutes
(with no one component exceeding 180 minutes)
or
Practical (face-to-face) examination, viva, presentation or practical skills demonstration
45 minutes 90 minutes
or
Dissertation 4500 words 9000 words
UEL’s Assessment and Feedback Policy
http://www.uel.ac.uk/qa/AssessmentPolicy.htm
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 Systemis 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 http://www.uel.ac.uk/qa/policies/policies/
Key Contacts:
School Responsible Officers:•ADI Dr Abel Ugba•ACE TBC•Cass Debbie Brearley•HSB Deidre O’Kelly•Law + Business Ian Porton/Delia Langstone +Carol Luckett•Psychology Ian Wells & Susy Ajith•Social Sciences TBC
Key Contacts:
Academic Misconduct Officer:
Dee Bozacigurbuz academicmisconduct@uel.ac.uk