Assessment Policy

1. Assessment Policy http://www.uel.ac.uk/qa/AssessmentPolicy.htm

2. Overview • Assessment challenges • Setting assessment tasks and moderation • Internal moderation + second marking • External moderation • Timing of assessment + reasonable adjustments • Examinations • Feedback • Assessment Tariff • Module reporting

3. Assessment Challenges • Creating assessment that develops learning and measures performance (Boud, 2000) • Balancing efficiency with effectiveness (Ross, 2003) • Using a creative + balanced range of approaches • Growing sector context of massification (Land, 2004)… plagiarism proofing… offering learner autonomy + choice…

4. Constructive Alignment ‘Constructive Alignment (Biggs, 1999) is one of the most influential ideas in higher education. It is the underpinning concept behind the current requirements for programme specification, declarations of Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs) and assessment criteria, and the use of criterion based assessment.’ (Houghton 2004)

5. Constructive Alignment ‘There are two parts to constructive alignment: • Students construct meaning from what they do to learn. • The teacher aligns the planned learning activities with the learning outcomes. The basic premise of the whole system is that the curriculum is designed so that the learning activities and assessment tasks are aligned with the learning outcomes that are intended in the course. This means that the system is consistent. (Houghton 2004)

6. Setting assessment tasks • Assessment task plus • marking criteria and the grading criteria • indicative answers • Meet module specifications • Assess the learning outcomes • Be set at the correct level • Draft assessment and reassessment tasks set at the same time

7. Moderation process • Tutor sets assessment task • AKMI undertakes a process of internal moderation • UEL staff moderate tasks • Sent to external examiner

8. Purpose of moderation • tasks provide the students with the opportunity to perform at a comparable standard • tasks enable students to meet the intended learning outcomes, and appropriate to the curriculum content • clarity of assessment task

9. Marking • Anonymous marking wherever the method of assessment allows • Observation assessment tasks observed by a minimum of two examiners or recorded for second marking  

10. 2nd marking as ‘sampling or moderation’ • 3.4.1. • …the preferred method at UEL is“second marking as sampling or moderation”for both written and practical assessments.

11. INTERNAL MODERATION2nd marking as ‘sampling or moderation’ • “2nd marker samples work already 1st marked, with annotations + marks attached, in order to check overall standards... adding relevant comments and indicating their agreement on the script or on a separate marking sheet…”(Appdx 2)

12. Internal Moderation- % 2nd marking • 3.4.3 • At least15% or 10 individual piecesof each assessment task (which ever is the greater) should be second marked. • The sample should be taken from the full range of student performance.

13. Internal Moderation- % 2nd marking • 3.4.3 Where the 1st marking of any module is undertaken by more than one marker, the sample should include a minimum of20% of the work marked by each individual marker, again relating to the range of performance • 3.4.6 Calculations should always be checked by a 2nd marker (to avoid arithmetic errors)

14. Resolving differences • 3.4.5 Resolving differences between markers within modular assessment tasks: • Nosignificant differences- 1st mark stands • Significant differences= discuss/ negotiate • but • Where agreement (ie the 1st mark stands) cannot be reached: • - resort to a 3rd marker must take place, • where marks need to be changed, all work marked by the first marker should be 2nd marked.

15. EXTERNAL MODERATION – materials to external • 3.5.2 • All1st + 2ndopportunity assessment / reassessment tasks for each academic year should be submitted to the relevant external examinerat least 4 working weeks prior to the 1st opportunity assessment” • - in order to achieve consistency across assessment opportunities

16. Timing of Assessment • 4.1.1 • Exams - at least 5 weeks notice • Coursework- at least3 weeksnotice • (NB wouldn’t normally include any material taught in 2 weeks prior to submission date)

17. Timing of Assessment • Reasonable adjustments must be embedded in all coursework submission times • 4.1.3 • All time-frames set for coursework submission should have reasonable adjustments embedded within the assessment process. • This ensures that students with disabilities/ specific learning difficulties do not require specific additional time to complete the assignment since extra time (normally 25%) is already built-in. • E.g. coursework that would normally be given 4 weeks in advance of submission date will be given 5 weeks for all students, therefore achieving an inclusive approach to the assessment of all students (see Section 7).

18. Examinations • 4.2 Integrity of Examinations • 4.2.1 All examinations must be conducted in a fair, proper and secure manner. This requires specification of at least one identified member of staff within the School with responsibility for: • the maintenance of examination papers throughout the development process • the coordination of the invigilation process, in association with the Unit responsible for managing that process • 4.3 Invigilation 4.3.1 Guidelines for good practice in invigilation are produced by the Assessment Unit.

19. Feedback - coursework • May be Individual or Generic (5.1.1) • Feedback on Coursework: (5.2.1) • - formative assessment–in time to usefor summative tasks • - summative assessment- should be givenwithin 4 working weeks of submission date

20. Feedback - exams • 5.3.1 Feedback on examinations should be given within 5 weeks of the conclusion of the examination period. • 5.3.2 Clear guidance should be given regarding the type of feedback that will be given following examination i.e.individual or generic. • 5.3.1Guidance should be given onwhether feedback will include the return of examination scripts and/or work, or not.

21. Assessment Tariffs and Equivalences • to bringUEL in line with HE sector • toreduce over-assessment • to achievecomparability + consistencyacross Schools • identifiesmaximumword counts + exam duration forsummative assessment, other modes of assessment will need defined equivalences eg performance, web sites, annotated bibliog etc etc

22. Assessment Tariffs and Equivalences (cont’d) • ALL modulesare required to meet the Tarrif(Appdendix 7) • Tariff applies toSummative Assessmentonly • Tariff does not indicate component weighting

23. Assessment Tariff

24. Module reporting • Brief report from the Module Leader: • Module delivery and management: successes and problems • Student module performance and outcomes: data plus comments on the outcomes of the assessment process (e.g. trends in questions answered by candidates, common errors, questions generally answered well/poorly) • Student feedback and responses to feedback • Action plan for next year

25. Bibliography Biggs, J. (1999) Teaching for Quality Learning at University, Buckingham: OUP. Houghton, W. (2004) Engineering Subject Centre Guide: Learning and Teaching Theory for Engineering Academics. Loughborough: HEA Engineering Subject Centre [online] Available from: http://www.engsc.ac.uk/er/theory/constructive_alignment.asp [13 February 2010]