University of Greenwich External Examiners’ Handbook€¦ · Web viewYour completed report in...

External Examiner's Handbook

December 2019

Should you require this document in an alternative format please contact:

Email: [email protected]

Tel: 0208 331 9381

2

ContentsContents...................................................................................................................................3Academic Structure..................................................................................................................5The role of an External Examiner at the University of Greenwich............................................6The role of the External Examiner at Greenwich......................................................................8What information you can expect from your Faculty?...........................................................10Attendance at the University..................................................................................................12The nature and role of Subject Assessment Panels (SAPS).....................................................13The nature and role of Progression and Awards Boards (PABs).............................................15Academic Regulations............................................................................................................19University Pass mark..........................................................................................................19Compensation....................................................................................................................20Undergraduate first degree classification..........................................................................21Borderline Judgements...................................................................................................... 23Extenuating circumstances.................................................................................................23Postgraduate Awards.........................................................................................................24Case Studies of Progression & Award Board profiles.........................................................25

The Examiner’s Annual Report...............................................................................................29Principles for completing your report....................................................................................30Claiming Fees and Expenses...................................................................................................34Termination of Appointment.................................................................................................35Resignation.........................................................................................................................35Early termination of appointment......................................................................................35Whistle-blowing................................................................................................................. 36

Getting to your campus..........................................................................................................37Greenwich Campus............................................................................................................ 37Medway Campus................................................................................................................38Avery Hill Campus.............................................................................................................. 39

APPENDICES........................................................................................................................... 40External Examiner report form...........................................................................................41Learning teaching and assessment strategy.......................................................................44University of Greenwich Assessment and Feedback Policy................................................52

3

Welcome to the University

Thank you for accepting our invitation to act as an external examiner. Although in recent years much has changed in the management and assurance of quality in higher education, the bedrock for maintaining the standard of awards is the external examiner system. Your knowledge and experience will ensure that we can maintain high quality programmes at the University of Greenwich. The University continues to place great importance upon its examiners for the breadth, depth and independent professional viewpoints that you bring to bear when reviewing the standards of assessments, the fitness for purpose of quality processes relating to assessments and the level of achievement our students attain. Your views as a critical peer will be invaluable in enhancing our provision and we look forward to working with you.

The University can trace its history back to Woolwich in 1890, when the newly founded Woolwich Polytechnic, only the second Polytechnic in the country, began teaching courses in 38 different subjects. The Polytechnic’s revised Charter of 1895 stated that the object of the institution was “the promotion of the industrial skill, general knowledge, health and well-being of young men and women belonging to the poorer classes'. After a period as Thames Polytechnic (1970 to 1991), the Polytechnic was granted University status in 1992. The University today retains a commitment to widening participation, employability and expanding opportunities for its students: aims that still reflect the reasons for the founding of the original Polytechnic over a century ago.

The University has three main campuses: Maritime Greenwich, situated in the Old Royal Naval College, Avery Hill, in Eltham, and Medway, at Chatham. It hasfour Faculties, each comprising a number of departments with a particular discipline or subject focus, ranging right across the academic spectrum, from vocational programmes to the more traditional academic disciplines. The university works closely with 12 Partner colleges, 2 specialist and 9 Colleges of Further Education, in the local region. Nationally, the Faculty of Education & Health maintains links with around 15 Colleges which deliver a PGCE (Lifelong Learning) in collaboration with the University. The University’s international links are diverse; many academic Departments collaborate with Partners from Europe to Asia and the Far East.

No doubt your appointment as an examiner will make demands on your time but I hope that you find your period of appointment worthwhile through the sharing of expertise and good practice.

With best wishes

Professor Karen Bryan

Provost

4

Academic Structure

The University is organised academically into 4 Faculties, each consisting of a number of academic Departments or Schools. The latter, since 2001, have retained responsibility for Quality Assurance and Enhancement within a framework set by the central University.

Each Faculty is run by a Pro Vice-Chancellor who is assisted by Directors in three key areas; Resources, Research and Learning & Teaching. Heads of Department maintain an overview of quality processes and standards within their Departments. Working with each Faculty there are representatives from the Greenwich Learning and Teaching.

Greenwich Learning and Teaching (GLT), which is part of the Vice-Chancellor's Office, provides an institutional focal point for the University's approach to integrating learning and quality. It is responsible for supporting the University's oversight of quality management and its development of learning- and quality-related policy and strategy.

GLT has a key role in ensuring that University policies and procedures relating to quality assurance are effectively and consistently implemented, whilst reflecting national developments. It oversees the way in which the University safeguards the standards of its awards, through its regulatory framework, the operation of its external examiner system and its relationships with professional and statutory regulatory bodies (PSRBs).

GLT also plays an important role in the development of a range of University strategies and policies, such as its Academic and Student Experience Strategy, e-Learning Strategy, Collaborations Strategy and Retention Policy. More generally, working with the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) GLT is closely involved in developing the institution's learning and quality enhancement agenda.

5

The role of an External Examiner at the University of Greenwich

An external examiner at the university is an independent reviewer of assessments and student work with the aim of contributing to the moderation of standards and providing the University with a report on the standards achieved, the comparability of standards with other known Higher Education Institutions and the extent to which the programme of study meets the expectations of industry and the professions. The final outcomes of examining are recommendations for enhancing the academic provision and the student experience. The role can be divided into three main categories, and how the examiner works with individual Faculties may vary as a result of the perceived different balances and requirements of those Faculties in respect of these categories.

“Examiner” – Product

You act as an examiner of “output” and the standards achieved by those outputs. For example: review of assessments designed by the Faculty and review of the student achievement in the resultant work submitted. You will be expected to provide a view upon how effective and appropriate the assessments are in measuring the intended outcomes of the programme or module together with a view on the level of student achievement which might indicate areas for improvement in teaching practice or areas for commendation of teaching and learning practices.

“Auditor” - Process

You act as an auditor on the appropriateness and effectiveness of the Faculties implementation of University processes for assuring the standards of its awards. In this capacity you might for example provide commentary upon the deliberations of the Progression and Award Board, upon Faculty implementation of University policies, upon the University’s regulatory framework or perhaps the Faculty’s management of the moderation process. These may include, for example, the impact of extenuation on the decision making processes of a Board of Examiners (but not individual cases), the application and consistency of University regulations governing the conferment of awards, or the consistency with which “borderline” grades are treated and subsequent awards conferred. This is not exhaustive but indicative of the regulatory areas we would ask you to bear in mind as part of your role.

Your role will entail the endorsement of the decisions made by Progression and Award Boards that you attend, normally through signature of the relevant papers that contain the student profiles and through confirmation in your annual report to the University.

“Consultant” - Curriculum

You may be consulted by your Faculty on changes that affect the student experience and the development of the curriculum. For example, changes to the programme structure or more particularly to the overall assessment regimes for the courses which you examine.

6

During the course of the academic year your role will therefore normally include:

Review and comment upon all first sittings of Examination papers for the courses for which you are responsible

Review and comment upon sample coursework assessments for the courses for which you are responsible

Opportunities to attend the University, its Partners and to meet staff and students

Opportunities to attend Subject/Departmental Assessment Panels and provide an independent view on course standards

Opportunity to attend Progression and Award Boards to provide an independent view of student progression

But remember….you are NOT a third marker for internal examiners!

Examiners have no special role in marking or adjudicating individual scripts and student work, and you are not expected to act as a third marker for any assessment where there is disagreement over a mark between internal examiners. The role of the internal examiners is to award an appropriate mark on the basis of the quality of the submitted work of a student. Your role in this respect is to review the standard of the marking across the cohort and advise upon its general appropriateness to the work submitted. You can recommend adjustments to cohort marks where there is evidence of under- or over-marking across grades. We would ask you to decline politely any requests to act as an individual third marker for any given student work.

7

The role of the External Examiner at Greenwich

The essential role for External Examiners appointed to the University shall be to provide independent, informative comment and recommendations upon whether or not:

a. The University is maintaining the academic standards set for its awards;

b. The assessment process measures student achievement rigorously and fairly against the intended outcomes of the programme(s) and is conducted in line with the University’s policies and regulations;

c. The academic standards and the achievements of students of the University are comparable with those in other UK higher education institutions of which the External Examiners have experience.

d. In providing an oversight of the University’s standards, examiners will be encouraged to identify effective practice and innovation relating to learning, teaching and assessment and enhancements to the quality of the learning opportunities provided to students.

e. In providing oversight of the university’s standards external examiners will be expected to:

i. Participate in either the Subject Assessment Panels (SAPs) or progression and award boards (PABs), or both, as required by faculties.

ii. Attend, as required by the Faculty or the relevant PSRB, other specified assessment activities, which may include, inter alia, teaching practice assessments, vivas, objective structured clinical examinations (OSCES), in which students are assessed and where external comment is normally expected to form part of external quality oversight of the module or programme.

iii. Report to the Vice-Chancellor of the University, as Chair of the Academic Council, on any matters of serious concern arising from the assessments, which put at risk the standard of the university’s awards.

iv. Undertake formal visits to partnership programmes, either in person or through electronic conferencing, at least once every two years during their period of tenure, in order to meet staff and to review student work and assessments.

v. Provide the university with specific commentary on individual teaching centres within partnership arrangements.

vi. Provide the university with a formal report at the end of each academic session in a manner and on a timescale determined by the university.

8

What information you can expect from your Faculty?

You should be provided with the material that you need to fulfil your duties as an examiner in respect of the programmes and courses to which you have been appointed. The following list, whilst not necessarily exhaustive, is a threshold minimum of what you can expect to receive.

Module outlines and Programme Specification

Details of the courses and/or programmes for which you are responsible which should include as a minimum the Aims, Outcomes, Indicative Content, Assessment Regime and Key Texts Reading List.

Programme handbook

The programme handbook is a more student focused document which provides details on how the programme is structured, its aim, outcomes, courses and course outlines together with information on assessment regimes, submission dates and general information relating to University services and regulations. Where the programme has specific regulations, these should also be included.

Assessment Policy

The University’s Academic and Student Experience Strategy and Assessment & Feedback Policy are provided as appendices to this document. Each Faculty or Department will provide information on matters relating to all aspects of assessment such as examiners, scheduling, marking, moderation, re-assessment, late submission of work, extenuation and aspects of the regulatory framework as delivered at a local level.

Faculty SAP and PAB Schedule

The Faculty should clearly indicate when it is running its assessment schedules and where and when it would expect you to attend its assessment meetings.

A statement in line with the Assessment and Feedback policy on the size of the sample of student work to be reviewed by you.

This may be included in the documentation provided by the Faculty but if it is not, there should be clear indications of the number of scripts that you can expect to see as part of your duties. If you have been appointed to act as an examiner for a programme/course which runs in multiple Partners you should expect to see clearly labelled samples from each Partner. The University requests that you comment upon the standards of each Partner in your final report at the end of session.

9

The last subject Review Report or Periodic (Internal Review) of the Programme or Subject Area

In 2019 the University introduced a revised programme review framework; the new annual ‘Portfolio Review’ process replaces periodic programme review. The aim of Portfolio Review is to better align requirements for ‘Teaching Excellence Framework’ (TEF), NSS etc. with the faculty planning round. The new process will review data relating to individual programmes and programme portfolios linked to TEF subject groupings. If you have been appointed to a collection of modules that span multiple programmes, you may expect to receive a summary of the modules outcomes from previous sessions in lieu of a programme review. These would normally be constituted by the Subject/Departmental Assessment Panel Papers and reports.

The last examiner’s report

If you are succeeding a previous examiner it would be more than helpful for you to have access to the previous incumbent’s view of the modules/programme over the previous four years.

Over the course of the year you should also receive copies of the assessments for the courses under your jurisdiction and which the University asks you to review and comment upon their standard and appropriateness to the module and its intended outcomes.

10

Attendance at the University

There are two key elements of the assessment year which you may be asked to attend. These are the Subject Assessment Panel (SAP) and the Progression and Award Board (PAB). When you are required to come into the University will vary between Faculties. Some Faculties, which continue to utilise 15 credit courses, will be running SAPs twice per annum in addition to its end of year PABs. Some Faculties may request that you attend the SAP only in one session and alternate with PAB attendance in the following session.

Depending upon the discipline you may be asked to attend other aspects of the University’s management of its assessment processes and this may include such elements as practical assessments in Health related disciplines or teaching practices as part of the Faculty of Education and Health programmes of study.

Your Faculty should make clear at the outset its expectations of when is the most appropriate time of the year for you to attend the University (and its Partners if you are responsible for collaborative provision). If you have been appointed to a programme that runs solely in a University Partner, your contact will normally be the HE Coordinator for that Partner or the Programme Leader for the particular programme for which you are responsible.

If you are to examine work that is specifically based in a University Partnership, the University may arrange for you to make a visit to the Partner.

11

The nature and role of Subject Assessment Panels (SAPS)

A Subject Assessment Panel (or in the Faculty of Education, Health and Human Sciences, a Departmental Assessment Panel) is generally responsible for the consideration and review of the nature of assessments, examinations and the student results for a group of courses within the Panel’s subject area. It is responsible for the review and confirmation of student cohort marks for individual courses under its remit, taking into account any circumstance that may have adversely or otherwise affected the delivery of the courses in the discipline. As part of this review it is expected to receive, note and act upon comments received from External Examiners and course co-ordinators on the student cohort’s performance in individual courses and other general issues that may has affected the delivery of the course(s).

The membership of Subject/Departmental Assessment Panels normally includes the Head of the Department (or nominee), teaching staff for courses under consideration by the Panel, as internal examiners and appropriate external examiner(s).

What a SAP cannot do

Adjust marks for any individual student UNLESS a recorded mark is proven inaccurate.

What a SAP can do

Adjust cohort marks on the basis of consideration of all factors that contributed to teaching and learning on that course.

The formal requirements placed upon the SAP are:

a. The consideration and review of the nature of assessments and examinations for a group of courses within the Panel’s subject area;

b. Receiving comments from external examiners and course co-ordinators on the student cohort’s performance on individual courses.

Membership:

a. the Head of Department (or nominee) within which the majority of courses lie, who shall be Chair;

b. teaching staff for courses under consideration by the Panel, as internal examiners;c. appropriate external examiner(s) - (at least one external examiner must be involved

and evidence provided for all Level 5 and Level 6 panels).

12

A SAP example (Percentages converted to Edexcel grades of Pass, Merit and Distinction)

13

The nature and role of Progression and Awards Boards (PABs)

The Progression and Award Board (PAB) decides the final outcome of the results of the assessment for each student: whether to permit progression to the next level, conferment of an award, whether to require reassessment in failed elements or whether to agree a repeat year and so forth. The decisions of the Board are not subject to any further approval within the University but, in the case of an externally validated examination, they are subject to confirmation by the external body concerned. The Board is responsible for ensuring that standards are maintained and that all the requirements for assessments that contribute to the giving of an academic award, as laid down in the programme and in the regulations of any other appropriate awarding or accrediting body, are complied with. No other body has authority to recommend to the University the conferment of an award, nor to amend the decision of a properly constituted Progression and Award Board acting within its terms of reference and in accordance with the regulations for the programme.

The functions and terms of reference of the Board are:

a) To oversee award and progression procedures in designated programmes to maintain standards.

b) To ensure that the requirements for progression and awards are complied with.

c) To examine individual student assessment profiles.

d) To review and make decisions on the progression of students and on reassessment in the light of overall performance, where necessary taking personal extenuating circumstances into account.

e) To make decisions on awards.

f) To authorise the decisions made, including certifying through the signing off of results by the Chair, the Officer and the external examiner and through the minuting of key decisions in relation to progression, reassessment in the light of overall performance and consideration of any extenuating circumstances.

Exceptionally it may be necessary to use Chair’s action before making a final decision, and in such circumstances the Chair should normally consult the External Examiner. The decisions made by Chair’s action must be recorded and presented for information at the next meeting of the Progression and Award Board.

The membership of a Progression and Award Board shall normally include the following:

a) A Pro Vice-Chancellor of Faculty or their nominee who shall be Chair; b) Appropriate programme leaders;

c) Representative members of teaching staff as internal examiners;

d) At least one external examiner (for all Boards where an award may be decided);

14

e) Greenwich Learning and Teaching representatives are responsible for ensuring that the decisions are recorded in accordance with University requirements and that Boards are advised of the appropriateness of decisions that need to be made in accordance with University regulations.

The proceedings of a Progression and Award Board are not invalidated by the absence of any person designated by the Chair as a member of the Board. The Progression and Award Board shall be advised if any member has a personal or professional connection with any of the students being considered. The Chair has discretion to request anyone declaring an interest to retire from the meeting at the point at which discussion of the student’s profile takes place. Details of grades are considered by the Progression and Award Board and any matters discussed at their meeting are confidential to the Boards. In order to comply with the Data Protection Act, marks put on computer for the purpose of calculating a student’s grades etc, and which are not to be disclosed to the student, must be deleted from computer records within 40 days.

Considerations of confidentiality shall not affect the requirement that students be kept advised of their academic progress and made aware of the means by which they are being assessed and when they are being assessed. Transcripts of students’ grades may be disclosed to outside bodies at the discretion of the Director of Student and Academic Services.

15

A PAB sheet exemplar: coding demystified

This is a typical PAB sheet showing a full student profile. It has been anonymised, but student information will be present on the left together with these course marks and yearly averages.

December 2019

The year in which the course was studied

The credit value for the course

The level of the course

The overall course mark

The unweighted average for 120 credits studied for this year

The unweighted (discounted) average for the best 90 credits studied for this year

The unweighted average of the 120 credits studied in the second year

The weighted overall average under the 80%/20% rule.

Some of the symbols you will come across in the PAB sheets will include:

17

A Hash symbol indicates that a course has a component rule

A Double Star symbol indicates that a course has been partially discounted in the 80/20 weighted calculation

A Single Star indicates that a course has been fully discounted from the 80/20 weighted calculation

A Percentage symbol indicates a course that MUST be included in degree classification, irrespective of its overall mark.

An “At” symbol indicates that a course has a component has had an Assessment Offence occur at some point

Extenuating Circumstances flag indicate whether a claim has been successful for impaired performance, late submission, not yet agreed, rejected or not yet decided

Academic Regulations

The University’s Academic Regulations can be found at:

http://www2.gre.ac.uk/current-students/regs

Key principles

In 2016-17 the University introduced a new weighting of the year 2 and Year 3 undergraduate first degree averages. Until May 2019 the current undergraduate classified degree awards, based upon a weighted average of the ultimate and penultimate years of the student’s programme of study in a ratio of 75% to 25% respectively will also be accompanied by revised weightings of 80% and 20% respectively. From June 2019 only the revised weightings of the 80/20 model will be utilised. Under the revised 80/20 regulations the 80% average will also be based upon the best 90 credits at Level 6 and not all 120 credits as under the 75/25 weighting. The aim of this change is to ensure due weight is given to the Level of the undergraduate award. Boards of Examiners will be presented with both sets of calculations and will take the better of the two for their consideration.

The first and second years of non-classified undergraduate awards (HNC, HND and Foundation Degrees) contribute to the overall student award and may lead to an award “with Merit” if a 60% averaged overall is achieved or “With Distinction” if an averaged overall grade is 70% or above.

Postgraduate awards may also be conferred “with Merit” or “with Distinction” based upon level of achievement across all 180/240 credits

University Pass mark

The University pass mark is 40% for undergraduate students. The University pass mark is 50% at postgraduate level.

No separate regulations exist for Edexcel (HNC/D) provision and all work is marked on a numeric scale, though converted on Edexcel certificates of achievement to Edexcel grades of Pass, Merit and Distinction.

Some programmes may have an undergraduate/postgraduate component rule where the overall must be 40%/50% and no component drop below 30%/40%.

18

http://www2.gre.ac.uk/current-students/regs

Compensation

Students who fail courses may, where circumstances permit, be considered for the failure to be either compensated or condoned. That is, though a failure is recorded, the credit will be awarded, usually on the basis of a successful profile of marks elsewhere. Neither compensation nor condonement is viewed as automatic: the overall profile must be taken into account by the Progression & Award Board (PAB) before arriving at a decision to utilise either.

The following is extracted from the University’s Academic Regulations (September 2019)

D4.9 The application of compensation or condonement is a discretionary decision made by the Progression and Award Board on consideration of the student’s overall academic stage profile.

D4.10 Condonement cannot be applied in addition to compensation.

D4.11 Programme specifications may identify particular courses to which compensation or condonement may not be applied.

D4.12 In consideration of a student’s profile, the Progression and Award Board will apply its discretion in the following manner:

a) Undergraduate Degree programmes: At Stage One compensation OR condonement may be applied up to a maximum of 30 credits regardless

of the amount of credit failure. Reassessment may also be permitted in addition to compensated or condoned courses.

For subsequent stages compensation OR condonement may be applied up to a maximum of 30 credits only where total failure is 30 credits or less.

b) Extended Degree programmes: At Stages Zero and One compensation OR condonement may be applied up to a maximum of 30 credits

regardless of the amount of credit failure. Reassessment may also be permitted in addition to compensated or condoned courses.


c) Accelerated Honours Degree programmes: At all stages compensation OR condonement may be applied up to a maximum of 45 credits in an

academic year, provided that the maximum of 30 credits per level is not exceeded. At Stage One reassessment may also be permitted in addition to compensated or condoned courses.

d) Integrated Masters programmes: At Stage One compensation OR condonement may be applied up to a maximum of 30 credits regardless

of the amount of credit failure. Reassessment may also be permitted in addition to compensated or condoned courses.


e) Postgraduate programmes:At all stages compensation OR condonement may be applied up to a maximum of 30 credits only where total failure is 30 credits or less.

19

D4.13 The PAB may apply compensation or condonement at any point in time provided that the maximum credits permitted per academic stage are not exceeded.

D4.14 Where a student’s work has been graded on the numerical scale and the overall course grade falls up to 10% below the minimum course pass mark, the Progression and Award Board may apply compensation for that failure.

For courses at levels 3, 4, 5 and 6 compensation up to 30 credits may be applied where:(a) An average grade of 40% or more has been achieved across ALL courses at that stage; and(b) The grade for that course does not fall below 30%;

For courses at level 7 compensation up to 30 credits may be applied where:(c) An average grade of 50% or more has been achieved across ALL courses at that stage; and(d) The grade for that course does not fall below 40%;

D4.15 In cases where compensation is applied, the actual grade attained will be recorded and credits awarded. For the purpose of stage average/award classification, each compensated course will be computed as the minimum pass mark for the course level.

D4.16 Where a student’s work has been graded on the numerical scale and the overall grade is more than 10% below the minimum overall course pass mark, the Progression and Award Board may condone the failure.

D4.17 In cases where condonement is applied, the actual grade attained will be recorded and credits awarded. For the purpose of stage average/award classification, the actual grade attained will be used and appear on the transcript.

Undergraduate first degree classification a) The following is extracted from the University’s Academic Regulations (September

2019) Degree classification for the award of an Honours degree will be according to the following bands:

70% or more = First Class Honours60-69% = Upper Second Class Honours 50-59% = Lower Second Class Honours 40-49% = Third Class Honours

20

b) The class of Honours will normally be calculated on the grades achieved in stages 2 and 3 of a programme in the ratio of 20:80. Aggregation of grades to obtain the class of Honours will be based on averaging the full spread of grades in Stage 2 to obtain 20% of the final grade and the average of the best 90 credits of overall course grades in Stage 3 (Level 6 or above) to obtain 80% of the final grade [20:80].

c) The final average grade will be rounded to the nearest whole number e.g. 69.50 will be recognized as 70 and 69.49 will be recognized as 69.

d) Students must pass, or otherwise gain (D4.1), the full number of credits required to achieve the award for which they are registered.

e) For students who do not achieve the final average grade for a particular class of degree, the Progression and Award Board, in applying its discretion, will be guided by section 'D6 Borderline Judgements'.

a) Where a student on an undergraduate degree has undertaken only the final stage at the University of Greenwich, the Honours classification will be based on the average of the best 90 credits of overall course grades at level 6 or above to produce the Final Average Grade

December 2019

Borderline Judgements


D6.1 The Progression and Award Board may use its discretion in considering cases on the borderline of classification bands. A borderline case is normally defined as a student who has a final average grade within 2.0 percentage points below the classification boundary.

D6.2 Progression and Award Boards may give consideration to candidates who fall outside of the borderline definition, provided there is a strong argument to indicate that the profile of the candidate warranted such an approach.

In deliberating the merits of borderline and exceptional candidates Boards MAY consider the following factors, particularly for those students whose overall average falls within a borderline classification

Performance in key courses Performance in Final Stage Project Exit velocity: (i.e. improving averages from Stage 2 to Stage 3) Extenuation Recommendations from External Examiners.

Extenuating circumstances

Factors that may have affected a student’s performance form a natural part of the Board’s view of progression of conferment. However, the Board should not need to discuss any detail of a student’s circumstances but more the impact upon the result as advised by an independent Panel. It is expected that such work is delegated to an Extenuating Circumstances (EC) Panel. Whilst you may be engaged in the process of deciding and advising upon how to approach a student profile in the light of accepted extenuation, as an examiner you are not expected to attend or partake in any way in the acceptance or rejection of claims for extenuation by students.

An EC Panel has delegated authority from a Board to consider all claims relating to extenuating circumstances. The composition of an Extenuation Panel will be convened as per Appendix C Procedures and Guidance for Student Claims of Extenuating Circumstances, to the Academic regulations for Taught Awards. Confidentiality will be preserved by the membership of Extenuation Panels.

An Extenuation Panel considers all claims for extenuating circumstances and communicates its decision to the PAB and individual students. A record of its decisions are be kept by the Faculty.

Decisions available to the Extenuation Panel will be the acceptance or rejection of claims (or parts thereof) or a request to the student for further information. Whilst indicating the severity and scale of extenuation to Progression and Award Boards, EC Panels, like PABS themselves, have no authority to amend individual marks.

22

A PAB will use discretion regarding nature and timing of assessment (as of the first time). Grades will not be capped.

At final stage, a PAB MAY make an award (without further assessment) if there is sufficient evidence of aptitude.

AEGROTAT awards are still permitted where PAB is satisfied that, but for illness or valid cause the standard would have been attained. In this case and in the case above students may decline the award

Postgraduate Awards

All general regulations governing undergraduate provision essentially apply to postgraduate provision.

Compensation or condonement is limited to a maximum of 30 credits across the whole award.

Awards with Distinction are permitted where students attain an average of 70% across the programme. PABS may also make distinction awards, where there is evidence of exceptional performance.

The conferment of a postgraduate award with Merit is permitted where an average of 60% across the programme is attained.

HNC, HND and Foundation Degree Award


D5.3 Foundation degree and HND programmes:a) Students who achieve a Final Average Grade of 60% or above at Level 5 will have that

award conferred ‘with Merit’. b) Students who achieve a Final Average Grade of 70% or above at Level 5 will have that

award conferred ‘with Distinction’.

D5.4 HNC programmes:a) Students who achieve a Final Average Grade of 60% across all courses will have that

award conferred ‘with Merit’. b) Students who achieve a Final Average Grade of 70% across all courses will have that

award conferred ‘with Distinction’.

23

Case Studies of Progression & Award Board profiles

The following case scenarios are taken from the Higher Education Academy External Examiner’s Handbook and provide some detailed guidance on issues that might arise in PABs and how to report on them to the University.

Case study one

After reviewing a selection of exam scripts from a couple of compulsory modules taken in semester one, you feel that the marking has not been rigorous and is overgenerous. This is compounded by question-setters providing vague and poorly structured model answers.

There is no full exam board after semester one so you send a detailed analysis and argument and request the Head of department consider re-marking or at least a review of the marking on these two compulsory modules.

At the final exam board after semester two you find that nothing has been done and your views appear to have been put aside. The module leaders maintain they have spoken to colleagues and see nothing out of order with the marking. You feel marginalised and ask why there was no earlier response to you. The module leaders reply that as far as they were aware this exam board was the appropriate point to respond. You maintain that the marking of the modules does not meet the standards you have experienced in other institutions. The chair of the exam board cuts short any debate stating that there is no time now for review or re-marking as results and classifications have to be with the exams office by the end of the day. Reluctantly, and for the sake of graduating students, you agree to sign off the award lists but refuse to sign off the module mark sheets. The chair of the exam board signs these off.

Key issues in this scenario

1. Poor quality of model answers. 2. Marginalisation of the external examiner. 3. No clear procedures for the timely addressing of the external examiner’s comments on semester one

modules. 4. Process (results must be with exams office) taking precedence over integrity and fairness.

Possible line of action

Inform staff at the exam board that you will be taking the issue up in your report. Put a strongly worded paragraph in the report about the lack of response to your recommendations and request feedback on this aspect of your report.

If there is still no satisfactory response write a confidential letter to the Head of the institution outlining the case and ask that the institution clarify the powers of the external examiner. Depending on the response from the Head decide whether or not you need to resign – an inadequate response from the Head probably means you are a difficult position with lack of trust and mutual respect

shown by departmental staff.Case study two

On a validated programme at a collaborative partner to the awarding HE institution you see that there is a large failure rate (55%) on a compulsory core module in year 2. A selection of scripts is available to you on the afternoon before the exam board. There is no model answer or marking guide for the exam paper and you see that the exam has been marked by a team of staff. Your analysis shows that the problem appears to arise from students getting very poor marks on two questions and in your opinion some pretty harsh marking of their answers. Both questions appear to have been marked by the same member of staff. There is no evidence of double marking on any of the scripts. From informal conversations you gather that staff are not too worried by the high failure rate; it is a level 2 module and in aggregate level 2 modules only account for 20% of the marks going towards degree classification.

24


Has the partner institution followed the awarding institution’s policy on assessment and examination? For example, does the awarding institution’s assessment policy require double marking and/or provision of marking guides?

Does the partner institution have a policy on internal moderation of team marking?

Had the team actually carried out double marking or discussed the aggregate marks?

Did the two questions with poor performance have sufficient clarity and content to allow students to produce answers with the rigour expected?

Does the casual attitude of staff toward year 2 performance permeate all modules at that level?


1. Request a short meeting with the marking team prior to the main exam board to discuss your concerns informally.

2. If there is no satisfactory outcome to the above, at the exam board ask the secretary to clarify the ‘official’ institutional position with regard to double marking and provision of marking guides.

3. Request the chair of the exam board/head of department to explain how question papers are constructed and agreed.

4. Having gained a clear understanding of the procedures in the presence of departmental staff discuss whether or not they have been following the awarding institution’s assessment guidelines.

5. If there appears to be deviation from the examination policy of the awarding institution then the matter needs to be brought to the attention of the awarding institution.

6. Point out that poor performance in year 2 can have a real impact on those students around classification borderlines.

7. Indicate to staff that you will include in your report the need for a more professional approach to the setting and marking of year 2 modules.

8. Await a satisfactory response from the awarding institution on the issue raised in your report and expect that in the coming year there will be a much more professional approach to year 2 modules at the collaborative partner institution.

Case study three

At the final exam board just under two-thirds of the finalists for a programme are around the upper second/lower second borderline. The board has discretionary powers to allow students within 1% of the borderline (60%) to be considered for the higher award, but apart from that there is no further guidance or policy on considering borderline cases.

Ten students fall within the 58.8-59.3 range. Six of these students have a mark greater than 59.0 but only two have a dissertation/major project mark of over 60%. Four students have marks of 58.8-58.9, but three of these have dissertation/project marks well over 60% including one with a borderline first class dissertation/project. A long debate ensues covering such things as:

simply sticking by the rules so all over 59% get put up; suggestions that only those with >59% overall and >60% on dissertation/project be put up; suggestion of ‘finding’ additional marks for the three students with <58% overall and >60%

dissertation/project so that they can be put up; the need to agree to consider all borderline students on an individual basis.


1. Does the HEI need to write tighter or clearer criteria for discretionary powers of exam boards considering borderline cases?

25

2. How rigorous is the marking of dissertations/major projects? Is there blind double marking with arbitration from a third marker if agreement cannot be reached?

3. Is the assessment strategy exacerbating the tendency for bunching at borderlines (e.g. too many pieces of assessment having an equalising effect on candidate performance)?

4. Is poor student performance at level 2 endemic and leading to bunching around the borderline?


1. Support the proposal that you consider best maintains integrity and fairness to all students. A majority of the board should support the proposal. The simplest option would be to apply the institutional guideline and have all those above 59% awarded an upper second. In practice boards often consider each borderline student individually rather than as a collective cohort of borderlines.

2. In your report request the institution to review its policy on the discretionary powers of exam boards in borderline cases and ask for a response.

3. Ask the department to review its assessment strategy to see if it can identify reasons for the severe bunching of candidates around the lower second/upper second boundary.

Case study four

In your first annual report on a foundation degree run by a partner college you point out a serious weakness in the assessment of a particular module. Exam results are poor and assignment briefs are poorly structured and vague.

You recommend urgent action and review of the module. At the next end-of-year examination board you see the same problems with the module and that no action has been taken. You raise this at the board and the module leader says that this is the first he has heard of your comments. In a rambling discussion that follows it seems that your first annual report, sent to the awarding institution, took a long time to reach the partner institution and missed the annual programme review meeting. The module leader also maintains he did not attend a subsequent committee meeting when the report was discussed and no one informed him that there was a problem.


1. Poor communication between awarding institution and partner institution and no mechanism in place to check timely arrival of external examiner’s annual report.

2. The value of the partner institution conducting an annual review meeting without the external examiner’s annual report.

3. Poor communication within the partner institution with the chance that some academic staff may not see the external examiner’s report.


1. Ask the exam board to review all the marks there and then for students on the current run of the module making comparisons with mark patterns on similar modules and making adjustments to the marks of all students if appropriate.

2. Request that a review of the module be carried out with a report to you before you write your annual report.

3. Refer to the lack of action in your report and write to the Head of the awarding institution pointing out the risk to standards raised by poor communication with the partner institution.

Be firm with the board pointing out that it is in the best interest of all (awarding institution, staff at the partner institution, students) to have a rapid resolution to the issue.

26

The Examiner’s Annual Report

Once per academic session, normally after the final Progression and Award Board has met, the University requires all its examiners to submit a formal report to the Institutional contacts. The report, which triggers payment of your annual fee, is circulated to staff that are responsible for considering the points raised in the report. (Pro Vice-Chancellors, Heads of Department, Directors of Learning and Teaching, Greenwich Learning and Teaching Quality Leads and Quality Officers, key staff in Partner institutions.

The report is designed to allow the University to judge whether its programmes of study are meeting stated learning outcomes and to ensure that any necessary improvements are made, either immediately or at the next review, as appropriate. The report also allows the University to identify issues that require redress both at local Faculty or Departmental level and, where indicated, at institutional level. Please bear in mind when writing your report that this document will be in the public domain.

Content

The following topics are covered:

the structure, organisation, design and marking of assessments (which may include commentary upon the lessons to be learnt from the assessments for the curriculum, syllabus, teaching methods, resources and the way academic standards are being monitored)

the appropriateness of the standards of the award being examined

the overall performance of the students in relation to their peers taking comparable programmes of study/studying comparable subjects at the same level in other institutions; include a commentary upon the strengths and weaknesses of the student group (but not named individuals) and the quality of knowledge and skills, both general and subject specific, demonstrated by the students under consideration. In order to fulfil this, specific commentary is required in the report on individual teaching centres that the provision covers.

commentary upon perceived good practice and innovation

action points and recommendations for the Faculty and the University at large.

27

Deadlines for submission

Your completed report in ‘Word’ format should be uploaded to the University of Greenwich External Examiners Moodle (include a link if possible).

submitted by email and to the generic email address below:

[email protected]

A copy of the form is included as an appendix to this document.

All Undergraduate reports following June Progression & Award Boards to be submitted no later than 31st July.

Postgraduate Awards may be later if the awarding Board is September/October or November for the cohorts that commenced in September of the preceding academic year. In this event we would ask that your report is submitted within four weeks of the Progression and Awards Boards you attend.

Principles for completing your report

There are six sections in the online report, each requiring you to “Submit and Continue” before going on to the next section. Please note that once you have clicked to “Submit” you cannot then go back and edit the submitted section but will need to contact the GLT with details of amendments you may require.

Section summary:

Section 1: What have you seen and attended at the University?

Section 2: Are our assessment processes effective?

Section 3: Are the standards of our curricula and modules appropriate to the award(s) in question?

Section 4: Is our student work at module and programme level comparable with other institutions?

Section 5: Does the course meet professionally required standards?

Section 6: What do we do well and what should we improve?

Always provide additional detail if you disagree or strongly disagree with statements in forced choice questions or have strong recommendations to make for change. We need to know why you express this view so we can put in place actions to address any shortcomings you have identified.

28

mailto:[email protected]

In your report please do not name individual students or staff members in your annual report. If you do so they will be blanked in order to conform to the Data Protection Act.

If you examine work from the University and its Partners please ensure you provided commentary in ALL sections where appropriate on how the Partner(s) are also performing and name them. If you review work at many centres where this might not be advisable please report by exception. The University needs to ensure it is capable of identifying both excellent practices in our Partnerships as well as areas for immediate attention to improve.

Each section contains either a series of forced choice questions or free text fields. If you do not wish to add anything in the free text fields please state “Not applicable” or “No comment this session” or similar.

To help the University assess its Partnerships we request that you provide detailed comment on our ALL our Partners where this is pertinent to your role and where you have seen work from a variety of institutions.

29

Consideration of your report by the University

Your annual report is distributed to key staff in your Faculty and in GLT once submitted. These staff are:

Pro Vice-Chancellor of Faculty Head of Department/School Faculty Director of Learning and Teaching GLT Quality Lead

The Department is responsible for responding to you in relation to any recommendations and commendations that you make in respect of the academic provision. This response may take the form of a section and action plan in the relevant Annual Programme Review Report (APR) and timed as part of the University’s annual monitoring cycle or, at the present time At the present time the APR is completed at the end of July, and therefore you can expect a response to your report to be made available to you at this time if you are an examiner for undergraduate students, later in the session if you examine postgraduate work and the final exam Boards are not until much later than those for our undergraduates.

The University is committed to putting in place opportunities for all students registered on the programmes for which you are responsible to see your report. This approach is aimed to meet the requirements of the UK Quality Code. Your report will be made available to any student registered on the programmes which are covered by your report upon written request, and a statement to this effect will be placed in essential information (handbooks) to students. In view of the scale of external examining, reports will not be made available to all individual students except upon request.

Issues that you raise in your report that have a wider impact than at the subject level will normally be taken forward by Greenwich Learning and Teaching with the Faculty or other appropriate support Departments where this is necessary. Greenwich Learning and Teaching reviews all examiner reports each academic session and provides the University’s Learning, Quality & Standards and Quality Committee with a summary of outcomes each academic session.

30

Reporting ongoing concerns

If you have reported serious concerns regarding the standards and quality of our courses and assessment processes it is expected that the Pro Vice-Chancellor and Director of Learning and Teaching in the Faculty responsible will both investigate and action your recommendations and find solutions to any failure in standards. These will in the normal course of events be reported back to you via the online report system and you have the opportunity to comment upon how well the Faculty has tackled these issues in your next report.

However, in extremely rare cases where there may be a persistent lack of action taken to serious issues and the issues themselves continue to represent a threat to the University’s standards you have the following courses of action open to you as an examiner:

1. Report your concerns directly to the central University

Professor Karen BryanDeputy Vice Chancellor (Academic)Queen Anne Court10 Park RowLondonSE10 9LS

There is no pro-forma for this. We would ask that you provide written details of the concerns you have raised, referencing your reports where appropriate.

The Vice-Chancellor will ensure that appropriate Faculty/Partner and central staff meet to agree an action plan and report back to you PRIOR to the next block of academic teaching taking place.

*If there are instances where you feel unable to endorse the awards made by a Progression and Award Board, you should also utilise the above procedure. Until your endorsement is resolved all marks and awards will remain provisional. *

2. Report your concerns to the Office for Students

If, having written to the University’s Vice-Chancellor and there is still no agreed course of action reported back to you to address the issues within a timescale as agreed you have the opportunity to take this further and utilise the Office for Students Unsatisfactory Quality Scheme by sending a ‘Complaint’ or ‘notification’ to: [email protected]

31

mailto:[email protected]

Claiming Fees and Expenses

Responsibility for the payment of your annual fee, setting its annual level and payment of expenses incurred as part of your duties as an examiner is the responsibility of the Faculty to which you have been appointed.

Travel expenses can be paid only for standard (not first class) fares. You can claim your expenses as and when they occur within the academic session by completion of a claim form. Original receipts must be provided. This should be returned to the relevant Faculty representative. The form itself can be found at

https://docs.gre.ac.uk/rep/academic-quality-unit/expenses-claim-form

In the normal course of events you should not need to claim for your fee, provided that you have submitted your bank details on your appointment. Submission of your annual report should trigger payment by the Faculty. Some Faculties, however, do request that you claim your fee so please check what you need to do with your Greenwich Learning and Teaching Quality Officer.

32

https://docs.gre.ac.uk/rep/academic-quality-unit/expenses-claim-form

Termination of Appointment

Resignation

If you are unable to continue to the end of your period of appointment, you should, normally, give the University reasonable notice of your intention to resign so that a replacement can be found and appointed in good time. At least one term’s notice of termination of appointment is preferred by the University in order to protect the quality assurance arrangements for the course/programme.

If you are likely to be unavailable for an extended period of time during the period of appointment the Head of Department/School should be informed as soon as possible. This will ensure that alternative external examiner arrangements can be put into place.

Letters of resignation should be addressed to the Head of Department/School and/or the PVC of Faculty and copied to the Greenwich Learning and Teaching Unit.

Early termination of appointment

Exceptionally, the University Learning, Quality and Standards Committee may terminate the appointment of an external examiner before the completion of his/her period of appointment. The following are circumstances under which the appointment of an external examiner may be terminated early:

i. failure to comply with the regulations relevant to their appointment as set out in the University’s Academic Regulations and where the appropriate Head of Department or Pro Vice-Chancellor of Faculty is unable to resolve the matter with the external examiner;

ii. failure to attend Progression & Award Board or other Faculty based meetings without good cause and without the prior agreement of the Chair of the Board;

iii. failure to submit an annual report in accordance with the guidelines provided in the external examiner’s handbook, and within the specified time;

iv. where there has been a significant change in the circumstances of the external examiner in relation to their appointment;

v. where there has been a significant change in the circumstances related to the course to which the external examiner has been appointed e.g. discontinuation of the course(s) or programme(s) for which the external examiner was appointed.

In cases where consideration of early termination of appointment is required, the Pro Vice-Chancellor of Faculty must place the request, together with details of the reason for the request, to Greenwich Learning and Teaching (GLT). GLT will write to the examiner confirming that such a request has been made and present the case to the University’s Learning, Quality and Standards Committee or, if appropriate, the Chair of the Committee,

33

for immediate action. The formally confirmed outcome will be communicated to the examiner in writing at the earliest opportunity.

Whistle-blowing

Neither the raising of well-founded concerns about academic standards, nor the submission of a confidential report to the Provost are valid grounds for termination of contract.

34

Getting to your campus

Greenwich Campus

University of GreenwichOld Royal Naval CollegePark RowGreenwichLondon SE10 9LS

To contact the East Gate Security Lodge call: 020 8331 7616

By road: please note, that traffic is heavy in Greenwich, parking around the university is limited and the regulations are strict, so we advise visitors to use public transport whenever possible. From the M25 take the A2 turn-off to London and join the A2. Continue straight ahead on to the A102. Take the turn-off signposted Greenwich (A206). At the roundabout take the first exit to Greenwich. Continue along the A206 for approximately 1 mile. Turn right at the traffic lights into Park Row. The campus is on your left and a public car park is on your right. If driving from the Blackwall Tunnel, exit on to the slip road for the A206 Greenwich. For more information on driving to the campus, log on to www.gre.ac.uk/about/travel.

By train: there are trains to London Bridge, Cannon Street or Charing Cross to Greenwich station, or to Maze Hill on the same line if travelling from Kent.

By Tube: the nearest Underground station is North Greenwich on the Jubilee Line. Then take a 188 bus to the campus.

By Docklands Light Railway (DLR): Cutty Sark station is close to the campus and is on the line to Lewisham. If travelling from London on the Tube, change for the DLR at Bank or Tower Gateway. You can also alight at Canary Wharf on the Jubilee Line and catch the DLR from nearby Heron Quays.

By bus: log on to www.tfl.gov.uk/buses for information.

35

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/buses

http://www.gre.ac.uk/about/travel

Medway Campus

University of GreenwichCentral AvenueChatham MaritimeKent ME4 4TB

To contact the Gatehouse telephone: 01634 883138

By road: from London/the M25 take the A2 towards Dover. Just before the A2 becomes the M2 move into the left-hand lane to join the A289 to Gillingham. Follow signs to Gillingham. As you leave the Medway Tunnel, branch left and at the roundabout take the last exit marked “universities”. Then follow signs to the campus. From east Kent take the A2/M2 towards London. Exit at Junction 4 and take the A278 towards Gillingham (or follow anchor signs). Follow signs to Chatham Maritime/Medway Tunnel. Then follow signs to the campus. To park on campus, visitors must obtain a temporary permit from the Gate House. For further information, log on to www.gre.ac.uk/about/travel.

By train: there are frequent services to Chatham and Gillingham from Charing Cross, London Bridge, Cannon Street and Victoria stations. There are also services from Ramsgate and Dover.

By bus: there are a number of bus companies operating services in Medway. You can find a list of these or links to their websites at

http://www.medway.gov.uk/parkingandtransport/buspassesandtimetables.aspx

36

http://www.medway.gov.uk/parkingandtransport/buspassesandtimetables.aspx


Avery Hill Campus

Southwood SiteAvery Hill RoadElthamLondon SE9 2UG

To contact the Security Gatehouse call: 020 8331 9101

Mansion SiteBexley RoadElthamLondon SE9 2PQ

To contact Security at Mansion Reception call: 020 8331 9484

By road: at Junction 2 of the M25 take the A2 towards London or, if coming from London, take the A2 towards Dover. Exit the A2 at the Danson Interchange for Sidcup, Welling and Bexleyheath (A221). Drive through Blackfen on the A210 to the junction with Avery Hill Road, and at the traffic lights with the petrol station opposite, take the left filter lane into Avery Hill Road (B2214). For Southwood Site, continue forward along Avery Hill Road. Southwood Site is on the right after the park. For Mansion Site, turn right on to Reinickendorf Avenue; take the last turning on the left for parking. For further information, log on to www.gre.ac.uk/about/travel. Please note that parking charges apply to the Avery Hill Campus. For further information, please visit www.gre.ac.uk/about/travel.

By train: services to Eltham, Falconwood and New Eltham from Charing Cross, Waterloo East and London Bridge.

By bus: Log on to www.tfl.gov.uk/buses for the latest information.A

37

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/buses



APPENDICES

External Examiner Report Form……………………...………………42Academic and Student Experience Strategy……………………45Assessment & Feedback Policy………………………………….……53

38

External Examiner report proforma

External Examiner Report for 20--/-- Academic Year

External ExaminerAwardsProgrammesFacultyAcademic Session

20--/--

JACS Code

SECTION 1:Examiner's attendance and portfolio of work

Please specify which meetings you have attended this session (YES or NO)Semester 1 Subject Assessment PanelSemester 2 Subject Assessment PanelProgression and Award Board(s)Partner College(s)Teaching Practice(s)Clinical Assessment(s)Viva Voce ExaminationComments on the portfolio of courses and/or programmes you have examined this session

Please complete this section with more detailed comments on the portfolio of courses and/or programmes you have examined this session. Core questions the University ask you to consider and comment upon are

What courses and/or programme assessments and student work did you review? Confirm from which Partner institution you were able to review assessments and

student work. Did the sample of student work sent to you enable you to complete your examiner

role?

Can any procedural aspects of moderation/review be improved?

SECTION 2Process of Assessment and Determination of Award

Strongly Agree (SA) Agree (A) Disagree (DA) Strongly (DA)

Assessment processes were appropriate to examining learning outcomesAssessments contained clear feedback to students (where applicable)Assessments were marked consistently to an appropriate standardAssessments evidenced second marking to an appropriate standardAssessment level was appropriateAwards conferred were appropriate to the level of achievementThe decision of the PAB was fair, equitable and consistent

Additional Commentary

Please provide further detail on your responses to the above forced choice question. The University requests that you ALWAYS provide a rationale and details of the reasons in cases where you disagree or strongly disagree with any of the statements above so that they may be considered at the appropriate internal monitoring forum. Where appropriate to your appointment please make specific reference to all the above in respect of all Partner College programmes of study to enable the University to assess comparability across its network.

SECTION 3

The Appropriateness of Standards…………………………………………………………………………Y or N

Standards set for the award(s) are appropriate for qualifications at this level in this subjectAdditional commentaryPlease provide your views on the currency of the academic awards which you examine. Core questions the University ask you to consider are

Is the curriculum appropriate to the award? Are there ways in which it could be improved?

How does the programme/course team develop and offer relevant student learning opportunities?

Do resources appear supportive of the aims of the assessment and learning opportunities for students?

In what ways do the programmes/courses make use of subject benchmark statements and the national qualifications framework?

What is your view of the overall academic structure of the programmes/courses?

SECTION 4

The Comparability of Student Performance…………………………………………………………..Y or N

The standards of student performance are comparable with similar programmes or subjects in other UK institutions with which I am familiarModule Examiners

If you review modules only and/or attend Subject Assessment Panels (SAP) please use this section to comment upon the strengths and weaknesses of the student group(s) and the quality of knowledge and skills demonstrated by the group(s) in the modules that they have taken. Where the review process has engaged you in looking at the work by students from more than one identifiable Partner institution (as well as any University cohort), please indicate your view of the standard of the work from EACH Partner.

Programme Examiners

If you review modules and/or also act as a Programme External through attending the Progress and Award Board (PAB), please provide your views on courses as above and in addition commentary on the comparability of student progression and achievement in their overall programme of study. You should make particular reference to the level of student progression and completion/degree classification across all Partners and programmes for which you are responsible, and which are listed at the beginning of this report.

SECTION 5 - Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRB)

Please utilise this section to comment upon the extent to which and how effectively the programme(s) or course(s) address or incorporate the requirements made by any Professional, Statutory or Regulatory Body (PSRB) where this is applicable. Please state N/A where it is not applicable

SECTION 6 - Action Points and Recommendations

Last Session's Report Commentary

Please comment upon how and to what extent the University has addressed the issues raised in your last report

Good Practice and Innovation

Recommendations for Action

1

Vision

Academic and Student Experience Strategy 2018-2022

For all Greenwich students to excel in their chosen field and to be confident, resilient professionals. For the Greenwich Experience to transform lives, enabling our students to be ambitious and successful, whatever their chosen path. To combine the development of intellectual curiosity with vocational skills, work experience, and global citizenship. For Greenwich students to receive an equitable and consistent learning experience across the whole university.

Academic and Student Experience ObjectivesA.Excellent, innovative and sustainable programmes and curricula

1) Our programmes will maximise effective student learning through cohesive curricula and programme design.2) Through excellent peer support and professional development opportunities, our teaching staff will achieve the highest standards of professional aptitude and commitment to our

students.3) Our teaching and learning environment will be fit for the 21st century, utilising excellent physical and digital infrastructure.4) Our programmes will have successful employment outcomes at their heart, by developing the Greenwich Graduate attributes and including opportunities for work-based learning

and enterprise for all students.

B.Assessment for success and development1) We will implement a coherent and coordinated approach to assessment on all of our programmes.2) We will enable students to maximise their potential through assessment accompanied by high quality, timely and forward-looking feedback.

C. Personalised learning, support and enrichment1) We will create a seamless supportive environment for our students through integrated academic and pastoral support, learner analytics, and opportunities for peer support.2) Students will be partners in their learning and will be actively involved in shaping their academic and student experience, through feedback and representation at all levels.

D. A welcome, inclusive, and engaging community1) We will develop an active student-led community of social and extra-curricular activities on all our campuses.2) We will develop an inclusive cross-cultural environment where everyone can succeed.3) We will offer all students the opportunity to undertake an international experience.

The Greenwich Experience Three distinctive village communities in London and Medway, on three historic campuses, equipped for modern learning. A diverse community of students, staff, alumni and partners who work together to achieve success. Opportunities for professional accreditation and additional awards wherever possible. Development of confident, professional, and world-ready citizens.

The Greenwich GraduateConfident, distinctive graduates with a global outlook who are always learning and always developing.

Scholarship and autonomyOur graduates are independent thinkers who aim to better understand the link between their academic discipline in the classroom and the post-study world.

Creativity and EnterpriseOur graduates are clear communicators who encounter unfamiliar situations openly.Cross Cultural and International awarenessOur graduates have the self-confidence to comfortably work in diverse groups and embrace diverse cultures.

These graduate attributes will be mapped onto the Greenwich employability skills.

Greenwich valuesWe are inclusive, we strive for excellence, are determined to succeed, are relentlessly ambitious and we use our creativity.

Key Performance Indicators for 2022 75% of students graduating with a first or an upper second degree. All of our subjects achieving TEF Gold or Silver, and the university exceeding each of its TEF metric benchmarks by 2022. Reduction in the BAME attainment gap by 2022. 90% of academic staff with an accredited teaching qualification.

University of Greenwich Assessment and Feedback Policy

June 2019

University of GreenwichAssessment and Feedback Policy – 2019

Introduction and Aims1. The University of Greenwich’s Academic and Student Experience Strategy states that the

university “will implement a coherent and coordinated approach to assessment on all our programmes” and “enable students to maximise their potential through assessment accompanied by high quality, timely, and forward-looking feedback”.

2. The aims of the policy on assessment and feedback are to provide a framework for:a. Designing, writing and reviewing assessment, and to ensure a common understanding of

the purposes of assessment and feedback.b. Ensuring consistent and equitable arrangements for the submission and recording of

summative assessment.c. Ensuring the provision of effective and timely feedback on assessed work.d. Ensuring the timely and efficient disclosure of marks and retention of all assessed work.e. Ensuring inclusive practice in assessment and feedback, ensuring all Greenwich students

are given the opportunity to succeed.

3. The University of Greenwich is committed to continued enhancement in assessment and feedback practice, grounded in evidence and research into pedagogical effectiveness. The university will provide support and development opportunities for all teaching staff to improve and enhance assessment and feedback.

4. This policy was developed and approved in the 2018-19 academic year.

Scope5. This policy applies to all assessed work which contributes to an undergraduate or

postgraduate taught programme of study. Exemptions from the policy may only be granted by faculty Learning, Quality and Standards Committees. Exemptions will normally relate to specific and required professional, statutory, and regulatory body (PSRB) requirements and must be evidenced in writing. The principles underpinning this policy will apply to online- distance programmes where possible.

RequirementsPURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT

6. Assessment at the University of Greenwich will have the following purpose:a. To enable students to excel in their chosen discipline and contribute to their learning

and development.b. To develop students’ knowledge and skills and readiness for the world of employment

and contribute towards achieving the Greenwich Graduate Attributes.c. To enable students to demonstrate that they have fulfilled the objectives of their

programme of study and have achieved the standard required for the award.

STRUCTURE OF ASSESSMENT

7. Assessment will be planned and coordinated across the duration of a programme and tested and interrogated to ensure that each piece of assessment adds value to student learning. For combined honours programmes, and programmes with assessment across multiple schools/departments, particular attention should be paid by programme leaders and link tutors to ensuring coordination and coherence of assessments.

8. The programme approval and Annual Programme Review (APR) process shall ensure that programme assessment is compliant with this policy. Programmes shall evaluate their alignment with this policy and good practice in assessment on an annual basis.

9. Programmes will ensure that a variety of assessment methods are used and that assessments are authentic,1 relevant to the desired learning and graduate outcomes, and assessing skills and knowledge that are worthwhile and meaningful.

10. Assessment shall be part of the university’s efforts to create an inclusive and diverse curriculum. Staff shall aim to ensure that assessment outcomes are equitable, utilising the university’s inclusive curriculum project, and review the structure and content of assessment where outcomes and attainment are unequal.

11. Modules shall adhere to the requirements on minimum and maximum quantities of summative assessment, as outlined in Appendix 2 of this policy. To manage workload for both students and staff, further ‘splitting’ of assessments into parts will not be permitted under any circumstances.

12. All summative assessment types will be preceded at some point within a programme by a formative exercise, which has a significantly lower demand than the summative work, but which is an enabler for the summative work, and which is followed by detailed feedback.

Formative activities which engage students in learning and which support preparation for the assessment task(s) will be included for each module.

13. Feedback will be of sufficient quality and quantity to facilitate student learning and will signpost feed forward to the next assessment. Feedback should include, but not be limited to, the categories laid out in the table in appendix 4 of this policy.

14. Group assessments can be used as effective practice, but summative grades must be individual in all assessments in the final year of a programme.

15. Normally, all uploaded coursework will be submitted by 11.30pm on a working day via Turnitin. Work that cannot be submitted digitally will be submitted by 3pm on a working day to the relevant faculty office. Work handed in physically should be accompanied by a header sheet. Header sheets will be created by module leaders and the relevant header sheet number will be available on Moodle.

16.Where appropriate, a student inclusion plan will indicate where reasonable adjustments can be made to assessment. Academic staff must comply with the requirements of a student’s inclusion plan.

17. In the case of rare or unavoidable exceptions to the requirements specified in appendix 2, module handbooks will provide clear and transparent information on the respectiveweightings of assessment components and their contribution towards a student’s finalmodule grade.

MARKING ASSESSMENT

18. All coursework marking shall be informed by clear criteria and a specific grade descriptor produced for each piece of assessment, based upon the rubric provided in Appendix 3. The customised assessment rubric should be available to students when the assessment is set. No other rubrics should be used, in order to ensure consistency for students across the university.

19. Assessments must be marked anonymously, with the exception of assessments involving a necessary process of face-to-face involvement and feedback where anonymity is not practicable or appropriate (for example, where design portfolios, films, models evaluated in ‘crits’, artefacts, staging or clinical practice are involved). Programme awarding bodies must consider students’ final awards anonymously.

20. All criteria-based coursework assessments with continuous grading scales shall use the step- marking system outlined in Appendix 3. This does not apply to assessments with discrete numerical marking scales (e.g. maths problems).

21. All marking standards and moderation of marking shall be conducted in accordance with the university’s Academic Regulations for Taught Awards. Summative assessments must be subject to moderation as outlined in Appendix 5.

22. Double marking must be undertaken on dissertations, projects, and on a sample of crits, practical skills tests, poster presentations, artwork and artefacts, and live assessments (e.g. verbal presentations). It is normal for the marking of dissertations and final projects to be undertaken in blind double marking mode.

REFERENCING POLICY

23. Disciplinary areas will have a diversity of approaches to referencing and bibliographies, however, programme leaders will ensure that a consistent approach to referencing and its relative weighting in grading is taken across a programme. This should also apply consistently to joint and combined honours programmes.

24. Normally, referencing will be conducted in the Harvard style, and should count for no more than approximately 5% of a grade on any single piece of work.

FEEDBACK ON ASSESSMENT

25. Feedback on non-examination assessments will be provided in a timely manner to assist learning and performance in future assessment. At a maximum, feedback will be provided within 15 working days of submission by a specified date stated in the module handbook for digitally submitted work. For work submitted digitally, feedback will be provided via the Feedback Summary in the appropriate VLE platform.

26. Staff must use the feedback pro-forma in appendix 4 as a basis for providing constructive written feedback. This pro-forma must be used and may be supplemented by additional feedback should staff wish.

27. Students will therefore receive both a feedback pro-forma (appendix 4) and copy of the specific marking rubric referenced in paragraph 23 (Appendix 3).

Implementation28. The University of Greenwich will seek to utilise the latest learning technologies and internet

systems to facilitate consistent, smooth and user-friendly submission, marking and feedback on assessment.

June 27th, 2019

Appendix 1 – Related documents and policies

ACADEMIC REGULATIONS FOR TAUGHT AWARDShttps://docs.gre.ac.uk/rep/sas/academic-regs

UNIVERSITY OF GREENWICH ASSESSMENT HUBhttps://www.gre.ac.uk/about-us/faculty/eddev/assessment

ACADEMIC AND STUDENT EXPERIENCE STRATEGY 2018-2022https://docs.gre.ac.uk/rep/vco/academic-and-student-experience-strategy

INCLUSIVE CURRICULUM FRAMEWORKhttps://www.gre.ac.uk/articles/planning-and-statistics/about-the-inclusive-curriculum-framework

https://www.gre.ac.uk/articles/planning-and-statistics/about-the-inclusive-curriculum-framework

https://docs.gre.ac.uk/rep/vco/academic-and-student-experience-strategy

https://www.gre.ac.uk/about-us/faculty/eddev/assessment

https://docs.gre.ac.uk/rep/sas/academic-regs

Appendix 2 – Greenwich Requirements regarding quantity of assessment

Adhering to both the minimum and maximum quantity of assessment specified below will enable effective student learning, maintenance of academic standards, timely feedback on assessment, and a reasonable workload for both students and staff.

The university wishes to ensure a sufficient quantity of assessment to maintain standards and facilitate student learning, without overburdening students and academic staff with over- assessment. Normally, the following shall be considered the minimum and maximum number of summative assessments per module:

Minimum Maximum10 credit module One summative assessment One summative assessment15 credit module One summative assessment Two summative assessments (both

weighted at least 20%)20 credit module One summative assessment Two summative assessments (both

weighted at least 20%)30 credit module Two summative assessments

(both weighted at least 20%)Three summative assessments (all weightedat least 20% and no more than 50%)

40 credit module Two summative assessments(both weighted at least 20%)

Three summative assessments (all weightedat least 20% and no more than 50%)

The requirements in this appendix may not be applicable in cases of, dissertations, portfolio assessments, lab books, final-year projects and other cases. The quantity and size of these assessments should be fixed and agreed with faculty Directors of Learning and Teaching during programme and module approvals.

The below tables outline the maximum length of essays and examinations (including open-book and seen exams) that should be used for varying suites of assessment on 10, 15, 20, 30 and 40 credit modules. These should be considered maximum lengths only and not a minimum requirement for assessment length or size. Additional ‘critical thinking time’ is permitted for examinations.

Where there are professional body requirements then these can be used as exemptions to this framework.

TABLE 1 - 10 CREDIT MODULESAssessment Coursework

(essay/report) - Maximum length

Exam – maximum time Other assessment type (e.g. PAD; presentation; poster; performance; in- class test; artefact etc.)

Coursework 3,000 words - -Exam - 2 hours -Other - - 1 assessment

Table 2 - 15 credit ModulesNo assessment item to be weighted <20% (but pass/fail might be acceptable for some ‘Other’assessment types; e.g. PADs)

Assessment Coursework (essay/report) - Maximum length

Exam – maximum time Other assessment type (e.g. PAD; presentation; poster; performance; in-class test; artefact etc.)

Coursework only 3,000 words - -Coursework + Other equally weighted

2,000 words - 1 item of assessment

Coursework and Exam where exam weighted<30%

2,000 words 1 hour -

Exam + Other where exam weighted <50%

- 1 hour 1 item of assessment

Coursework and Exam equally weighted

1,500 words 1.5 hours -

Exam + other equally weighted

- 1.5 hours 1 item of assessment

Exam only - 2 hours -

TABLE 3 - 20 CREDIT MODULESNo assessment item to be weighted <20% (but pass/fail might be acceptable for some ‘Other’assessment types; e.g. PADs)


Exam – maximum time Other assessment type (e.g. PAD; presentation; poster; performance; in-class test; artefact etc.)

Coursework only 4,500 words - -Coursework + Otherequally weighted

3,000 words - 1 item of assessment

Coursework and Exam where exam weighted<30%

3,000 words 1.5 hour -


- 1.5 hour 1 item of assessment

Coursework and Examequally weighted

2,000 words 2 hours -

Exam + other equally weighted

- 2 hours 1 item of assessment

Exam only - 2.5 hours -



Exam – maximum time Other assessment type (e.g. presentation; poster; performance; in- class test; artefact etc.)

Coursework only 6,000 words total (2pieces)

- -

Coursework + Other 4,000 words - 1 item of assessmentCoursework + Other 2,000 words - 2 items of assessmentCoursework and Exam where exam weighted<30%


Coursework + Exam + Other where examweighted <50%

3,000 words 1.5 hour 1 item of assessment

Exam + Other whereexam weighted <50%

- 1.5 hour 2 items of assessment

Coursework and Exam where exam weighted 50%


Coursework + Exam + Other where examweighted 50%

3,000 words 2 hours 1 item of assessment

Exam + Other where exam weighted 50%

- 2 hours 2 items of assessment

Coursework + Exam where examweighted>50%


Coursework + Exam + Other where examweighted >50%


Exam + Other where exam weighted >50%




Exam – maximum time Other assessment type (e.g. presentation; poster; performance; in-class test; artefact etc.)

Coursework only 7,500 words total (2 pieces)

- -

Coursework + Other 4,500 words - 1 item of assessmentCoursework + Other 3,000 words - 2 items of assessmentCoursework and Exam where exam weighted<30%


Coursework + Exam + Other where examweighted <50%

3,500 words 1.5 hour 1 item of assessment



Coursework and Exam where exam weighted50%


Coursework + Exam + Other where exam weighted 50%


Exam + Other whereexam weighted 50%


Coursework + Exam where exam weighted>50%


Coursework + Exam + Other where examweighted >50%


Exam + Other where exam weighted >50%


POSTGRADUATE DISSERTATIONSPostgraduate dissertations should be the following lengths, depending on the size of the module:

30 credits - normally between 8,000-10,000 words or equivalent 40/45 credits - normally between 10,000 - 12,000 words or equivalent 60 credits - normally between 12,000 - 15,000 words or equivalent

Note regarding creditsAny modules valued at credits not covered by Tables 1-5 should be at a length appropriate to their size and comparable to the sizes presented here. Further guidance should be sought from the appropriate Faculty Director of Learning and Teaching.Adhering to both the minimum and maximum quantity of assessment specified below will enable effective student learning, maintenance of academic standards, timely feedback on assessment, and a reasonable workload for both students and staff.

Appendix 3– Greenwich Template marking rubric

Tutors should use the domains suggested below to formulate their own rubric with specific criteria for each assignment – the generic rubric below is therefore for tutor use not student use. Not all statements below will be relevant, but you will be able to read the relevant AD and Level and make your own professional judgements.

The rubric supports adherence to the QAA and FHEQ descriptors, particularly in terms of language and consistency of approach across diverse discipline areas. The rubric should remind tutors of areas/domains of assessment which they are likely to want to assess and aid feedback to students. Exemplar rubrics for common forms of assessment will be made available on the university assessment and feedback hub. A template rubric will be attached to every module page in Moodle. Regarding Stepped Marking, where a rubric is set to automatically calculate the percentage grading, tutors should look at the assessment holistically after the calculation

has been completed, with a view to increasing the grade to the next Step Mark. Where a module has more than one assessment attached, each assessment should be individually Step Marked, although it is understood that when averaged, the final

grade may not fall on a Step Mark. Where your assessment is graded numerically in very specific ways e.g. individual marks for each correct answer on a maths paper, as an exception you may seek

permission for those assessments to fall outside Step Marking. This will need to be done on a case by case basis.

Generic Template RubricAssessment DomainsADs may not all be relevant to every assessment, but you should consider each AD as you formulate your specific criteria for assessment and complete your specific rubric

80-100Exceptional

70-79Excellent

60-69Very Good

50-59Good

40-49Satisfactory

30-39Fail

0-29Fail

Stepped Marking:When marking assessments, percentage grades must end in either 0, 2, 5 or 8, for example 60% 62% 65% or 68%.Please use the above wording and delineation for a consistent university wide approach.

Assessment Domain 1: Content, Knowledge and Understanding

Level 3: A developing factual and conceptual knowledge base, with some appreciation of the breadth of the field of study and the relevant terminology. Increasing knowledge and understanding of main concepts and theories. A good grasp of the skills and knowledge covered. Understand that knowledge is open to on-going debate.

Level 4: Knowledge of the underlying concepts and principles associated with their area(s) of study, and an ability to evaluate and interpret these within the context of that area of study. Comprehensive coverage of assessment specifications alongside accurate consistent knowledge and understanding of main concepts and theories. Beginning to show awareness of the limitations of the knowledge base, its terminology and discourse. Understand that knowledge is open to on-going debate.

Level 5: Knowledge and critical understanding of the well-established principles, theories and concepts of their area(s) of study, and of the way in which those principles have developed. Comprehensive coverage of assessment criteria, accurate knowledge and comprehensive understanding of the subject matter.Demonstrate an awareness of different ideas, contexts and frameworks, and recognise those areas where the knowledge base is most or least secure.

Level 6: Systematic understanding of key aspects of their field of study, including acquisition of coherent and detailed knowledge, at least some of which is at, or informed by, the forefront of defined aspects of a discipline understanding of the material covered in this module, and of the way in which key concepts relate to oneanother. Detailed appreciation of the way in which some aspects of the material covered are uncertain or contradictory.

Level 7: Sophisticated and comprehensive knowledge of the subject area. Systematic understanding of knowledge, and a critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights, much of which is at, or informed by, the forefront of their academic discipline, field of study or area of professional practice. Ability in the appropriate use of the relevant literature, theory, methodologies, practices or tools to analyse and synthesise at Masters level.

Assessment Domain 2: Range and Relevance of Research InformedEvidence

Level 3: Within a defined context, manage information and collect data from a range of straightforward sources. An ability to apply the skills of analysis, synthesis, evaluation independently in relatively simple and familiar contexts, or with guidance or structure when working with greater complexity. Able to collate and categorise ideas and information. Good reference to and application of research informed evidence. Developing ability to analyse.

Level 4: An ability to present, evaluate and interpret qualitative and quantitative data, in order to develop lines of argument and make sound judgements inaccordance with basic theories and concepts of their subject(s) of study. Comprehensive range of evidence which is interpreted with insight in its application of context. Some perception and persuasion demonstrated. Explicit understanding of other stances. Range of evidence and critical engagement embedded in work. Can collect and interpret appropriate data and successfully undertake research with a degree of autonomy.

Level 5: Ability to apply underlying concepts and principles outside the context in which they were first studied, including, where appropriate, the application of those principles in an employment context. Knowledge of the main methods of enquiry in this assessment, and some evidence of the ability to evaluate critically the appropriateness of different approaches to solving problems in the field of study. Consistently effective in analysing key concepts that have been studied and draws on a comprehensive range of evidence, reflection and reasoned argument.

Level 6: An ability to deploy accurately established techniques of analysis and enquiry within a discipline. The ability to describe and comment upon particular aspects of current research, or equivalent advanced scholarship, in the discipline. The ability to manage their own learning, and to make use of scholarly reviews and primary sources (for example, refereed research articles and/or original materials appropriate to the discipline).

Level 7: A comprehensive understanding of techniques applicable to their own research or advanced scholarship. Originality in the application of knowledge, together with a practical understanding of how established techniques of research and enquiry are used to create and interpret knowledge in the discipline. Conceptual understanding that enables the student to evaluate critically current research and advanced scholarship in the discipline, as well as to evaluate methodologies anddevelop critiques of them.

Assessment Domain 3: Cognitive/Intellectual Skills

Level 3: A developing ability to analyse key concepts and apply given tools/methods to a well-defined problem and show emerging recognition of the complexity of associated issues. An increasing ability to apply knowledge and skills within a defined context and evaluate own strengths and weaknesses within criteria largely set by others. Capable of developing a sustain argument. Can generate a range of appropriate responses to given problems.

Level 4: Evaluate the appropriateness of different approaches to solving problems related to their area(s) of study and/or work. Information /data is organised using appropriate structures to construct emergent knowledge which address the question. Coherent and well balanced – comparative reasoning with some analytical arguments beginning. Conclusions are a cogent integration of theories, evidence, concepts and academic arguments. A focus on: Interpretation; Conceptualisation; Evaluation; Argument and Judgement

Level 5: Use a range of established techniques to initiate and undertake critical analysis of information, and to propose solutions to problems arising from that analysis. An understanding of the limits of their knowledge, and how this influences analyses and interpretations based on that knowledge. A focus on: Systematic Thinking, Critical Evaluation of Arguments, Make Judgements, Critical Analysis and Enquiry, Application (including employment context where appropriate), Identification of Solutions

Level 6: Apply the methods and techniques that they have learned to review and consolidate. Extend and apply their knowledge and understanding and initiate and carry out projects. Devise and sustain arguments, and/or to solve problems, using ideas and techniques, some of which are at the forefront of a discipline. An appreciation of the uncertainty, ambiguity and limits of knowledge mature and independent approach to problem-solving. Create appropriate hypotheses and have used well-justified, imaginative and innovative approaches to explore them. A focus on: Critical Thinking and Enquiry, Critical Evaluation, Critical Analysis and Interpretation, Application (including employment context where appropriate)

Level 7: Deal with complex issues both systematically and creatively, make sound judgements in the absence of complete data, and communicate their conclusions clearly to specialist and non-specialist audiences; where appropriate. Draw upon critical evaluation of current knowledge in the field to propose new hypotheses Critical Thinking and Enquiry, Critical Evaluation, Critical Analysis and Interpretation, Application (including employment context where appropriate), Originality andContribution to the Discipline.

Assessment Domain 4: Communication, Organisation and Presentation

Graduate Employability and Application of Skills

Communication, Organisation and Presentation: Express ideas effectively and fluently. Is able to communicate information appropriately and accurately using a range of media structure and style; organisation and coherence through a range of assessments, including essay; presentation; artefact; film; poster, professional report etc.

Graduate Employability Skills: Ability to relate theory to professional practice. Skills of communication, teamwork, negotiation, problem solving, leadership, resilience and motivation. Ability to respect and recognise different perspectives and ways of working and demonstrate a high degree of professionalism e.g. for ‘Presentations’ the ability to share workload, engage in respectful, professional debate, recognise and value each person and their contribution, engage an audience etc.Demonstrate initiative, creativity, imagination, motivation and self-management. Articulate an awareness of the social and community contexts within their disciplinary field.

Level 3: Produce a coherent and well-structured assessment; organise ideas fluently and undertake accurate proof reading to eliminate errors in academic presentation. Present arguments and findings concisely. Highly professional approaches and transferable skills to enable them to operate in predictable, defined contexts that require use of a specified range of standard techniques. Use of clear, accurate English, well organised, with flow and progression, well- structured argument. Syntax and grammar indicates appropriate level of maturity. Demonstrates transferable skills required for employment.

Level 4: Communicate the results of their study/work accurately and reliably, and with structured and coherent arguments which are fluent and appropriately structured, as well as systematic and logical. Demonstrates the qualities and transferable skills necessary for employment requiring the exercise of some personal responsibility. Act with a limited amount of personal autonomy, under direction, within defined guidelines. Insight and autonomy when evaluation own strengths and areas for development in relation to professional and practical skills. Use of clear, accurate English, well organised, with flow and progression.

Level 5: Produce a coherent and well-structured assessment which effectively communicates information, arguments and analysis in a variety of forms to specialist and non-specialist audiences, and deploy key techniques of the discipline effectively. The qualities and transferable skills necessary for employment requiring the exercise of personal responsibility and decision-making, alongside evidence of innovation and/or well-judged experimentation and risk-taking. Use of clear, accurate English, well organised, with flow and progression.

Level 6: Produce a cohesive and well-structured assessment which makes judgements and frames appropriate questions to achieve a solution - or identifies a range of solutions to a problem. Where appropriate the assessment demonstrates the qualities and transferable skills necessary for employment requiring: the exercise of initiative and personal responsibility, decision-making in complex and unpredictable contexts, the learning ability needed to undertake appropriate further training of a professional or equivalent nature. Evidence of innovation and/or well-judged experimentation and risk-taking. Use of clear, accurate English, well organised and well presented, with flow and progression.

Level 7: Demonstrates self-direction and originality in tackling and solving problems, and act autonomously in planning and implementing tasks at a professional or equivalent level. High level qualities and transferable skills necessary for employment requiring: the exercise of initiative and personal responsibility decision-making in complex and unpredictable situations. The independent learning ability required for continuing professional development evidence of innovation and/or well-judged experimentation and risk-taking. Use of clear, accurate English, well organised, with flow and progression.

Assessment Domain 5: Referencing, sourcing, acknowledging and coverage

Level 3: Sources used are acknowledged in the text and reference list/bibliography using correct academic citation – including online sources.Referencing is consistently accurate. Work has followed the academic practice required for the module in terms of citation and referencing. Reading list is adequate in terms of number of sources. There may be many secondary sources.

Level 4: All literature is correctly and consistently referenced both within the text and reference list/bibliography. Reading list demonstrate wide reading and assignment includes many primary sources. All sources are referenced appropriately, all references written in the correct format – including online sources.

Level 5: Sources used are all acknowledged in the text and reference list/bibliography using correct academic citation – including online sources.Bibliography is wide and extensive and sources cited in text are predominately primary sources. Evidence of broad, independent reading from appropriate sources.

Level 6: Sources used are all acknowledged in the text and reference list/bibliography, using correct academic citation – including online sources. Referencing is consistent throughout. Follows a professional approach to academic practice. Bibliography is outstanding in its breadth and depth and all sources are primary sources.

Level 7: Sources used are all acknowledged in the text and reference list/bibliography using correct academic citation – including online sources. Referencing is consistent throughout. Follows a professional approach to academic practice. Bibliography is outstanding in its breadth and depth and all sources are primary sources. Comprehensive range of evidence used.

With reference to documentation from: Sheffield Hallam; Surrey; Canterbury; UoG Psychology, Social work and Counselling; UoG Teacher Education; QAA and FHEQ; Manchester Met, Kingston, Kent.

Exemplar rubric from BA Primary Education (provided as an example for real-world rubric use)

Multimedia Assessment: Choice of Essay, Poster, Pamphlet, Power Point etc. to demonstrate criteria (see module guide) Year 3 BA Level 6

Criteria for Assessment

80-100Exceptional

70-79Excellent

60-69Very Good

50-59Good

40-49Satisfactory

30-39Fail

0-29Fail

Analyse routes to become a Primary Maths Specialist and consider this role, focussing upon Deep Subject Knowledge, Subject Specific Pedagogy (within a Mastery curriculum) and Whole School Impact

ASSESSMENT DOMAIN 1

Demonstrates exceptional systematic understanding when discussing routes to becoming a Specialist Teacher. Exceptional acquisition of coherent and detailed knowledge through which you critically analyse the role of the Maths Specialist Teacher.There is exceptional evidence of engagement with all key elements.

Demonstrates excellent systematic understanding of routes to becoming a Specialist Teacher. Excellent acquisition of coherent and detailed knowledge through which you critically analyse the role of the Maths Specialist Teacher. There is excellent evidence of engagement with all key elements.

Has researched into the routes to becoming a Specialist and demonstrates a very good systematic understanding.Coherent and detailed knowledge is presented at a very good level and you are able to provide very good critical analysis of the role of the Maths Specialist Teacher. There is also very good evidence of engagement with all key elements.

Has researched into the routes to becoming a Specialist and demonstrates good systematic understanding. Detailed knowledge is presented at fairly good level and you are able to provide some good critical analysis of the role of the Maths Specialist Teacher. There is also good evidence of engagement with all key elements, with some omissions indetail.

Routes are discussed with limited accuracy and several omissions. You demonstrate a satisfactory level of understanding but it is less systematic and provides a description rather than an analysis of the role and lacks criticality. There is limited evidence of engagement with all key elements. Overall a satisfactory attempt at these criteria.

Confusion about routes to this role and several omissions.Provides little evidence of analysis of the role of the Maths Specialist Teacher.There is insufficient evidence of engagement with each key element. There is a clear lack of criticality needed at level 6.

Very Confused about routes with many omissions. Unacceptable lack of evidence of any analysis of the role of the Maths Specialist.Key elements omitted or discussed too briefly. There is no evidence of criticality needed at level 6.

Evaluate the importance and impact of positive attitudes towards mathematics in this role

ASSESSMENT DOMAIN 1

The assignment provides exceptionally strong and consistent evidence of critical evaluation when considering the importance and impact of positive attitudes, and an exceptional understanding of the way key concepts presented relate to one another. You demonstrate exceptional critical understanding of thematerials covered in

The assignment provides excellent evidence of critical evaluation when considering the importance and impact of positive attitudes, and an excellent understanding of the way key concepts presented relate to one another. You demonstrate excellent critical understanding of thematerials covered in

The assignment provides very good evidence of critical evaluation when considering the importance and impact of positive attitudes, and a very good understanding of the way key concepts presented relate to one another, with some omissions. You demonstrate very good critical understanding of the materialscovered in the module

The assignment provides some good evidence of evaluation when considering the importance and impact of positive attitudes – some of which is demonstrates criticality. You have a good understanding of the way concepts presented relate to one another – although there are several omissions. You also demonstrate a fairlygood understanding of

The assignment begins to consider the importance of positive attitudes towards maths and demonstrates a satisfactory level of understanding. There is some evidence of evaluation when considering the importance and impact of positive attitudes, although this is more descriptive. Satisfactory understanding of theway concepts

The assignment provides little evidenceof evaluation when considering the importance of positive attitudes There is little evidence of your understanding around the issues of positivity. The work is descriptive rather than analytical and does not demonstrateunderstanding of the

The assignment lacks any evidence of understanding the importance of positive attitudes There is no evidence of critical analysis needed at level 6.There is little or no understanding of the way concepts presented relate to one another and many omissions – some of which were covered directly inthe module sessions

the module which relate to this criteria

the module which relate to this criteria.

which relate to this criteria.

the materials covered in the module.

presented are related– with clear omissions.

way concepts presented relate to one another.

Demonstrate that you have drawn upon a range of relevant reading and research into the role of the Primary Maths Specialist and the impact of positive attitudes when teaching mathematics.

ASSESSMENT DOMAIN 2

An extensively wide range of current and appropriateliterature is presented to support your strong arguments and different perspectives, and you provide exceptional commentary and advanced scholarship into the role of the Maths Specialist Teacher. An exceptional ability to deploy established techniques of analysis and enquiry when researching into the role of the Primary Maths SpecialistTeacher

You provide an extensive range of current and appropriate literature to support your strong arguments and different perspectives, and you provide excellent commentary and strong scholarship into the role of the Maths Specialist.An excellent ability to deploy established techniques of analysis and enquiry when researching into the role of the Primary Maths SpecialistTeacher

A very good range of appropriate literature is used. Views are discussed and arguments presented with reference to this literature, and there is evidence of very good deployment of established techniques of analysis and enquiry when researching into the role of the Maths Specialist. There is also evidence of very good commentary on aspects of current research and scholarship into the role of the Primary Maths Specialist.

Some good relevant reading is evident and demonstrates good understanding of the issues. There is evidence of some use of established techniques of analysis and enquiry when researching into the role of the Maths Specialist. There is also some evidence of good commentary on aspects that include are mostly current research and scholarship into the role of the Primary Maths Specialist.

Satisfactory reference is made to background reading but it is limited in nature and draws on a restricted number of authors. There is some limited evidence of techniques of enquiry. There is some evidence that the literature has helped to inform your thinking and satisfactory evidence of use of some techniques of analysis when researching into the Primary Maths Specialist.

There is a failure to engage with enough relevant literature and, where background reading is referred to there is little evidence that it has been understood. You have little understanding of the techniques needed for analysis or enquiry into the research around the role of the Maths Specialist. You need to read much more widely and improve your understanding into this role and the research thatsupports it.

There is almost no evidence of engagement in relevant background reading. There is no real understanding of the techniques needed for analysis or enquiry into the research around the role of the Maths Specialist. You need to spend time researching and engaging with module materials to develop an understanding into this role and the research that supports it.

Evidence that you have used this research into the role of the Primary Maths Specialist Teacher and the impact of positive attitudes, to make critical judgements and interpretations, and to provide a persuasive argument which demonstrates intellectual clarity

ASSESSMENT DOMAIN 3

An exceptional ability to devise and sustain a comprehensive argument. An exceptional understanding of both the limits and the gaps in the knowledge available around the Primary Specialist Role. Very strong hypothesis presented and well- justified approaches to exploring this. You critically evaluate the research you have undertaken in the field of the Primary Maths Specialist Teacher and its impact in the Primary setting.

An excellent ability to devise and sustain a comprehensive argument. Excellent understanding of both the limits and the gaps in the knowledge available around the Primary Specialist Role. Strong hypothesis presented and well-justified approaches to exploring this. You critically evaluate the research you have undertaken in the field of Primary Maths Specialist Teachers and its impact in the Primary setting.

You demonstrate a very good ability to devise and sustain a clear argument. Very good understanding of some of the limits in the knowledge available around the Primary Specialist Role. Very good hypothesis presented and a justified approaches to exploring this. In places you do a very good job of critically evaluating much of the research you have undertaken in the field of Primary Maths Specialist Teachers and its impact in the Primary setting.

You demonstrate a good ability to devise and present a mostly clear argument using your understanding of the knowledge you have gained around the Primary Specialist Role. You present evidence of a clear hypothesis and at times you justify your approaches to exploring this. There is some good evidence of critical commentary in places on aspects of current research and scholarship into Maths Specialist, although it can be descriptive in places.

A satisfactory ability to present some elements of an argument using your understanding of the knowledge you have researched around the Primary Specialist Role. You present some evidence of a hypothesis and some exploration of this. There is satisfactory evidence of some critical commentary in places on aspects of your research into Maths Specialist and attitudes, although it is too descriptive.

Little in the way of argument is provided to demonstrate your understanding of knowledge available on the role of the Primary Specialist.You present no real hypothesis and explore very little literature around this. There is very little (if any) critical commentary presented and research is described rather than evaluated.

No argument is provided to demonstrate your understanding of knowledge available on the role of the Primary Specialist. You present no evidence of a hypothesis and no real exploration of any literature. Any commentary is descriptive and does not demonstrate level 6 criticality.

Assignment is written in coherent Standard English, is well structured and well presented in an appropriate academic style.

ASSESSMENT DOMAIN 4

This assessment is exceptionally well structured and organised. The written English is of an extremely high standard and observes all academic conventions in style and content. The assessment flows exceptionally well and is a pleasure to read.

Excellent structure and very well organised ides. The written English is of a very high standard and the work observes all academic conventions in style and content.Excellent flow and style and a pleasure to read.

A very good structure – with clear presentation and organisation of ideas. The work observes almost all academic conventions in style, content and is presented well, mostly using Standard English throughout. The majority of this work uses a style which flows well.

A good structure for the most part. The work observes many academic conventions in style and content and is mostly presented in Standard English, with some errors and omissions. Some sentence structure also needs revision and this can affect the flow of your work in places.

The structure is satisfactory overall but does need improvement. Many errors appear in the use of Standard English (possibly due to poor proof reading). The work does not flow well in several places and this affects clarity.

Little structure and the work is hampered by errors in Standard English. It lacks academic style and does not flow well. Further proofreading clearly needed and additional support for academic writing.

The student should refer themselves to student services for additional supportin their writing.

No structure presented and the assessment includes a significant number of errors in Standard English. It lacks academic style and this impedes flow.Further proof reading clearly needed and additional support for academic writing.

The student should refer themselves to student services for additional support intheir writing.

Assignment referencing and sourcing is correct

ASSESSMENT DOMAIN 5

Sources used are, without exception, acknowledged in the text and the reference list/bibliography, using correct citation – including online sources. Follows an exceptionally strongly professional approach to academic practice. Bibliography is also exceptional in its breadth and depth and all sources are primarysources.

Sources used are all acknowledged in the text and the reference list/bibliography, using correct citation– including online sources. Follows an excellent, professional approach to academic practice. Bibliography is also excellent in its breadth and depth and all sources areprimary sources.

Sources used are almost all acknowledged in the text and the reference list/bibliography, mostly using correct citation – including most online sources. A very good approach to academic practice.Bibliography is very good in its breadth and depth and most sources are primary sources.

Literature is not always correctly referenced within the text and/or reference list/bibliography.Almost all texts are included in bibliography. Reading list is good in terms of number of sources but there are several secondary sources.

The assignment includes citations within the main body and has a reference list/bibliography. However, this referencing is often inaccurate and/or there are several omissions. Reading list is short and limited. An over reliance on secondary sources.

The reference list/bibliography has many errors in its layout. Many references in the main text are incomplete or incorrect, and may be missing from the bibliography. You need further support with this.

The assignment lacks a reference list/ bibliography or it is incorrectly laid out. Referencing system within the assignment (i.e. Harvard) has not been followed and you need further support with this.

Appendix 4 – Greenwich Feedback pro-forma

The below template should form the basis of written feedback on assessed work. It should be provided to students within 15 working days of the assignment deadline, ideally in advance of the next comparable piece of assessment. A copy of this template will be made available on Moodle.

Feedback and Feedforward for next assignment

What you did well in this assignment:

What you could improve in this assignment:

What you can take forward to your next assignment:

Marker:

Moderator (where relevant): Comment:

APPENDIX 5: Marking and Moderation Requirements

ALL MARKING AND MODERATION MUST BE COMPLETED BEFORE RELEASE OF MARKS TO STUDENTS.Any actions through moderation and double marking should take place before the release of grades and within the time frame expected as set out in the Assessment and Feedback Policy. Any unresolved issues should be negotiated by the Head of School/Department. The external examiner’s role does not extend to undertaking marking or negotiating compromises. The information below is the minimum expectation for moderation; a risk-based approach should be adopted.

MARKING

DOUBLE

MARKING1. Double marking involves two markers each giving marks for the assessments submitted. The two

markers then agree a final mark, with the student receiving ONLY the agreed mark. Doublemarking can be completed in “blind” mode or “open” mode, depending on the assessment.

a. In ‘blind’ double marking mode, each marker must arrive at their initial mark independently. After initial marking is completed, the two markers then compare notes to arrive at a jointly agreed mark.

b. In ‘open’ double marking mode, the markers may arrive at their mark in awareness of the grade awarded by the other marker.

2. The marker(s) provide only either agreed comments or individual comments that reflect the agreed mark.

3. Where an assessment item is marked by a range of staff involved in blind double marking, a principal marker must be identified. The principal marker will check the feedback and distribution patterns and complete a “Marking Overview Form”. Another colleague, who has not contributed to the marking set, will then act as the moderator in reviewing the sample.

MARKING OF EXAM PAPERS AND PAPER-BASED TIME CONSTRAINED ASSESSMENTS4. In respect of examination scripts, the marker is to ensure:

a. All marking should be done consistently, and a similar method should be used by multiple markers on the same assessment (i.e. one colour pen used e.g. red).

b. Sub marks for each part of each question are written in the margin (e.g. 6/8).c. A total mark for each question is written in a circle, in the margin, and on the script

cover.d. Calculation of the final percentage for the script is written on the front cover.

5. In respect of examination scripts, the moderator is to ensure:a. All marking should be done in another colour different from first assessor (e.g. in

green).b. The sample of scripts reviewed demonstrates that:

i. there is agreement with the first marker/s over the marking of all of the questions on the paper.

ii. all pages have been first marked (preferably initialling at the foot of the page).

iii. that the totals are correct and transcribed correctly to the front of the scripts and the total percentage calculated is correct.

MARKING “LIVE” ASSESSMENTS6. For live assessments, such as presentations or demonstrations, the marking procedures depend

upon the nature of what is being assessed:a. Where the live assessment is substantially of oral capability, or physical skills

thresholds, or debating/position defence: in these instances, marking will usuallyinvolve two markers. All of the work must be double marked either ‘live’ or may be singly marked but simultaneously recorded (e.g. audio recording for vivas or video recording for presentations/performances).

b. The standard moderation process (see below headed “Moderation”) and external examining can be used; however, where the Faculty has permitted the attendance of an external, this is solely for the purpose of providing commentary on the quality oversight of the module, unless there is an additional PSRB requirement.

c. Where recordings are undertaken:i. students should be asked for their written permission to record them. If a

student refuses permission the second marker(s) must attend and the external will be provided with the notes in lieu of recordings.

ii. where live assessment is predominantly centred upon marking an associated artefact, or model, or research task, etc. and this is in evidence to the markers, and where the presentation is a means to convey this in an interactive synopsis form: the marking of the assessment may be undertaken singularly. The standard sampling process may be used in these situations.

ONLINE ASSESSMENTS7. Module Leaders should demonstrate that they have properly checked and moderated online tests

that are marked by the system, to ensure that there have been no issues arising, by checking for errors in the system.

MODERATION8. Moderation is the most common practice used on modules to demonstrate peer evaluation and

oversight. This requires the moderator(s) to scrutinise the marking by sampling the cohort and evaluating the distribution of the marking and the quality of the feedback. Each marker, within the marking team, must be subject to the moderation process.

9. If the quality of the feedback and distribution of marks are deemed suitable, moderators may endorse the initial marks awarded. However, if the moderator:

a. considers the feedback in the sample is not based on good practice set out in the Assessment and Feedback Policy; or

b. considers the marking is not at an appropriate level or in line with the marking criteria; orc. believes that the indicated grades are appropriately ranged but the distribution requires

adjustment1,

then the marker(s) and moderator(s) must enter into discussions and take any required actions.

See Section 5 above in respect of exam marking for additional steps relating to that type of assessment.

1 Normally it is not expected that individual grades be adjusted

SAMPLING FOR INTERNAL MODERATION

10.The moderator(s) should identify the sample of work for review (the moderated sample) from the full set of marked work.

11.The Module Leader (or nominee) will provide the sample to the appointed External Examiner - where required. The Module Leader (or nominee) will also prepare a “Marking OverviewForm”, which will include records of the marking and moderation processes for the external examiner’s quality oversight purposes.

12.A representative sample of at least 10% of the cohort or up to 5 pieces of work (whichever is greatest) of all assessment will be moderated. In addition, all fails must be moderated. The upper limits of the sample size should be a maximum of 20 items, covering the full range of marks.

13.All samples should be stored according to the Faculty’s standard procedures and available for the external examiner in a timely manner to facilitate their workloads.

SAMPLING FOR EXTERNAL EXAMINING

14.A representative sample of at least 10% of the cohort or up to 5 pieces of work (whichever is greatest) of all assessment will be provided to the external examiner (for the levels required). The upper limits of the sample size should be a maximum of 20 items, covering the full range of marks.

23

Appendix 6: Implementing the policy for Portfolio assessment

Introduction and AimsThe aims of this note are to provide a framework for:

a. Designing, writing and reviewing portfolio assessments, and ensuring a common understanding of the purposes of portfolio based assessment and feedback.

b. Ensuring the provision of effective and timely feedback on portfolio assessed work.c. Ensuring inclusive practice in portfolio assessment and feedback, ensuring all Greenwich

students are given the opportunity to succeed.

ScopeThis note applies to all assessed portfolio assessment which contributes to an undergraduate or postgraduate taught programme of study. Any requests for an exemption from the policy may only be granted by the respective faculty Learning, Quality and Standards Committee. Exemptions will normally relate to specific professional, statutory, and regulatory body (PSRB) requirements and must be evidenced in writing at the time of the request being made.

RequirementsPortfolios at the University of Greenwich have the following purpose:

To enable students to excel in their chosen discipline and contribute to their learning and development.

To develop students’ knowledge and skills and readiness for the world of employment and contribute towards achieving the Greenwich Graduate Attributes.

To enable students to demonstrate that they have fulfilled the objectives of their programme of study and have achieved the standard required for the award.

A portfolio assessment should have a coherence of purpose and will be planned, tested and interrogated to ensure that each item within the individual portfolio adds value to student learning. All portfolio assessments must be authentic, relevant to desired learning and graduate outcomes, and assess skills and knowledge that are worthwhile and meaningful.

A portfolio will be recognised as one summative assessment within the overall context of the module assessment workload. Where it is appropriate, the word count limit for a portfolio assessment should be aligned to an equivalent coursework assignment as specified in Appendix 2. The portfolio assessment will have a weighting that reflects the number of individual items and the expected hours of application required by the student for each item. The individual items should each have clearly specified weightings to reflect their contribution to the overall assessment. These details must be clearly articulated in the assessment specification. The quantity and size of portfolio assessments should be fixed and agreed with the faculty Director of Learning and Teaching during programme and module approval and review.

A summative portfolio assessment will be preceded by one relevant formative element to support the development of one or more of the summative portfolio items. The feedback from the formative element will also be an enabler for the summative work.Items contributing to a portfolio assessment may include a group element as effective practice, but summative grades must be individual in all portfolio assessments in the final year of a programme.

All portfolio items will be submitted as a single collection by the assessment deadline. This will be either as an online submission or as a physical artefact with the appropriate header sheet adhering to the hand-in times stated in the policy.

24

Appendix 7: Implementation for Laboratory Books or Reports

Introduction and Aims

This note must be read alongside the University Assessment and Feedback Policy of which it forms a part.

The aims of this note are to provide a framework for:

d. Designing, writing and reviewing laboratory assessments, and ensuring a common understanding of the purposes of laboratory based assessment and feedback.

e. Ensuring the provision of effective and timely feedback on laboratory assessed work.f. Ensuring the timely and efficient disclosure of marks and retention of all laboratory

assessed work.g. Ensuring inclusive practice in laboratory assessment and feedback, ensuring all

Greenwich students are given the opportunity to succeed.

Scope

This note applies to all assessed laboratory books or reports which contribute to an undergraduate or postgraduate taught programme of study. Exemptions from the policy may only be granted by faculty Learning, Quality and Standards Committees. Exemptions will normally relate to specific and required professional, statutory, and regulatory body (PSRB) requirements and must be evidenced in writing.

Requirements

Laboratory Books or reports at the University of Greenwich have the following purpose:

To enable students to excel in their chosen discipline and contribute to their learning and development.

To develop students’ knowledge and skills and readiness for the world of employment andcontribute towards achieving the Greenwich Graduate Attributes.

To enable students to demonstrate that they have fulfilled the objectives of their programme of study and have achieved the standard required for the award.

Laboratory assessments will be planned and coordinated across the duration of a programme and tested and interrogated to ensure that each piece of assessment adds value to student learning.All laboratory assessments must be authentic, relevant to desired learning and graduate outcomes, and assess skills and knowledge that are worthwhile and meaningful.Laboratory books and reports will be recognised as one summative assessment within the overall context of the module assessment workload in accordance with the university’s assessment and feedback policy and will therefore usually have a weighting of between 20% and 50%. The exactweightings must be clear in the module handbook. The quantity and size of laboratory assessments should be fixed and agreed with faculty Directors of Learning and Teaching during programme and module approvals.

The work involved in completing the laboratory books should be of the same order as other summative assessments (i.e. not more than 3000 words or 1.5 hours)

WHERE THERE ARE SPECIFIC PROFESSIONAL BODY REQUIREMENTS, THESE CAN BE USED AS EXEMPTIONS TO THIS FRAMEWORK BUT THESE MUST BE EVIDENCED AND AGREED WITH THE FACULTY DIRECTORS OF LEARNING AND TEACHING.

25

Each type of summative laboratory assessments will be proceeded by a formative exercise, the feedback for which will be an enabler for the summative work. Where additional ‘exercises’ are used to engage students with formative feedback, it should be made clear to students that this constitutes formative feedback.Group laboratory assessments can be used as effective practice, but summative grades must be individual in all laboratory assessments in the final year of a programme.

All laboratory books will be submitted immediately after completion of the experiment via a hardcopy lab book or online submission.Hard copy laboratory books must include space for the student’s name, programme and Bannernumber on the front cover and include the standard disclaimer on header sheets. Laboratory activities will recognise student inclusion plans.

MarkingAll laboratory assessment marking shall be informed by clear criteria and a specific grade descriptor produced for each piece of assessment. If at all possible, this should be based upon the rubrics in the University’s Assessment and Feedback policy.

Although laboratory assessments cannot be marked strictly anonymously, assessors should aim to mark without reference to the details on the front cover (perhaps by stacking the books face down).

Laboratory assessments shall use the step-marking system outlined in appendix 3 of the policy. All marking standards and moderation of marking shall be conducted in accordance with the university’s academic regulations for taught awards.

Referencing will not usually be required in laboratory assessments but, where it is, it should be in the Harvard style, and count for no more than 5% of a grade on any single piece of work.

Template marking rubricTutors should use the template marking rubric contained within the overarching Assessment and Feedback policy, if possible.

FeedbackFeedback on laboratory books will be of sufficient quality and quantity to facilitate student learning and will signpost feed forward to the next assessmentWritten feedback on assessed laboratory books will include the following elements

What you did well in this assignment: What you could improve in this assignment: What you can take forward to your next assignment:

Feedback on laboratory based assessment will be provided in a timely manner to assist learning and performance in future assessments. At a maximum, feedback will be provided within 15 working days of submission, or before the next laboratory assessment if that is earlier.

Appendix 8 – Further reading on good practice in assessment and feedback

ADVANCE HE (HIGHER EDUCATION ACADEMY) – ‘A MARKED IMPROVEMENT’ ASSESSMENT TOOLKIThttps://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/marked-improvement

NATIONAL UNION OF STUDENTS – ASSESSMENT AND FEEDBACK BENCHMARKING TOOLhttps://www.nusconnect.org.uk/resources/assessment-and-feedback-benchmarking-tool

GRAHAM GIBBS - '53 POWERFUL IDEAS': NUMBERS 27 (MAKING FEEDBACK WORK: ASSESSMENT) AND 28 (MAKING FEEDBACK WORK: STUDENTS)https://www.seda.ac.uk/53-powerful-ideas

Graham Gibbs – Using assessment to support student learning https://portal.uea.ac.uk/documents/6207125/8588523/using-assessment-to-support-student- learning.pdf

GRAHAM GIBBS - IMPROVING STUDENT LEARNING THROUGH ASSESSMENT AND FEEDBACK (VIDEO LECTURE)https://blogs.city.ac.uk/learningatcity/2014/12/11/revisiting-graham-gibbs/#.XK21_aBKh9M

ADVANCE HE (HIGHER EDUCATION ACADEMY) – RE-ASSESSING INNOVATIVE ASSESSMENT

https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/blog/re-assessing-innovative-assessment

26

https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/blog/re-assessing-innovative-assessment

https://blogs.city.ac.uk/learningatcity/2014/12/11/revisiting-graham-gibbs/#.XK21_aBKh9M

https://portal.uea.ac.uk/documents/6207125/8588523/using-assessment-to-support-student-learning.pdf



https://www.seda.ac.uk/53-powerful-ideas

https://www.nusconnect.org.uk/resources/assessment-and-feedback-benchmarking-tool

https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/marked-improvement

Date post:	29-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

University of Greenwich External Examiners’ Handbook€¦ · Web viewYour completed report in...

Documents