Assessment and Feedback Policy 2024-25
1. Purpose and Scope of the Policy
1.1 Purpose
1.1.1 To promote student success and academic achievement through the process of assessment and feedback ensuring clear, accurate and accessible information and guidelines to staff and students. Where references to students are made this definition is inclusive of learners on apprenticeship courses.
1.2 Scope
1.2.1 The Assessment and Feedback Policy applies to all taught courses at undergraduate and postgraduate level, including apprenticeships and the taught element within Professional Doctorate courses.
1.2.2 The Assessment and Feedback Policy will apply to academic partners of UEL unless equivalent alternative arrangements have been specifically agreed between UEL and the partner institution. Where alternative arrangements have been approved, details will be included in the Memorandum of Agreement for the partnership and UEL’s Register of Exemptions.
2. Policy Statement and Principles
2.1 Statement
2.1.1 The University of East London (UEL) has a responsibility to ensure that assessment and feedback is undertaken in a fair and equitable way. This policy does not replace other formal guidance or regulations that apply to the University’s courses and should be read in conjunction with the Manual of General Regulations Part 4: Assessment of Students.
2.1.2 This policy will be implemented in line with the broader framework of expectations arising from sector good practice and external regulatory bodies. This includes:
- The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)
- Office for Students (OfS)
- Professional, Statutory or Regulatory Body (PSRB) requirements
2.1.3 The Assessment and Feedback Policy can be varied for exceptional reasons (e.g., to deal with a public health emergency) as Approved by the University’s Academic Board.
2.2 Key Principles of the Assessment and Feedback Policy
2.2.1 The key principles of the Assessment and Feedback Policy are to provide valid, reliable and fair assessment and feedback. The principles underpinning assessment design are:
Relevant: Assessment is linked to teaching and will clearly be aligned to the course and module learning outcomes, content and discipline. This can be demonstrated through, e.g.:
- use of realistic, well-designed rubrics that are appropriate to each level of study. • integration of skills development.
- case studies linking to knowledge and understanding, theory and practice.
- assessing skills relevant to professional requirements.
Practical: Assessment will be practicable for every stakeholder and authentic (linked to employability) where possible. Assessment should be explained clearly and be timely, well-structured for marking and feedback, and accessible for students, staff and external stakeholders. Use will be made of individual/group assessments as appropriate. Team teaching and marking may be utilised to allow for timely turnaround of marking.
Inclusive: Assessment methods will be accessible for all students as far as possible and designed to allow measurement of performance against the learning outcomes. Resources should be made available for students needing extra support.
Transparent: The marking criteria will be communicated clearly, and assessments will be marked in accordance with the rubric as far as possible. The link between assessment criteria, learning outcomes and tasks should be explicit and easily understood.
Timely: The assessment will be distributed appropriately across each course so that learners and markers are not overloaded. Course assessment frameworks will be provided setting out students’ assessment load, mode and timings.
Varied: Assessment methods should be varied, interesting, challenging and relevant building work-based skills as well as academic skills. Assessment should reflect inclusive and innovative practice where appropriate and be designed at course level, aligning with the appropriate subject cluster or department.
Integrity: Assessments should be designed to enable students to demonstrate their own knowledge and skills, and to minimise opportunity for plagiarism or other practice in breach of University regulations. Any use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in assessment must be strictly in accordance with the University’s principles, policy and guidance. Where relevant, assessments will be designed to meet course specific and/or PSRB academic integrity requirements.
Assessment for Learning: Formative and summative assessment should encourage reflection and development of both academic and work-based competencies (knowledge, skills, values and behaviours).
Developmental Feedback should be specific, clear, constructive, relevant, actionable and forward looking. It should support development at both individual and cohort level and the principles outlined in Winstone et al (2016)’ SAGE model to develop in learners: self-appraisal, assessment literacy, goal setting, self-regulation, engagement and motivation . Feedback should be timely and clear minimum standards of feedback should be identified and communicated. (see Section 3 of this Policy)
Proportionate: The course and module assessment load will be appropriate to the level, subject and topic (20 credits = 200 hours of work in total). Whilst challenging, assessment will not overstretch learners and not assess a learning outcome multiple times. Assessment will be regularly reviewed at course level to ensure that assessment tasks, timing and type across modules and levels are proportionate and non-repetitive.
2.3 Assessment Design
2.3.1 Effective assessment design ensures that assessment tasks enable students to demonstrate the learning outcomes detailed in the module specification.
2.3.2 Learning outcomes will be specific, measurable and proportionate to the credit value of the module and will be based on competencies. As a guide, by 2025/26 at undergraduate Levels 3-6 there should be no more than 4 learning outcomes for a 20 credit module. At postgraduate level 7, there should be no more than 7 learning outcomes for a 30 credit module. Should PSRB requirements vary this will be taken into account during validation.
2.3.3 The assessment used for a module, including its scheduling, volume and type, should be aligned to teaching. It should be appropriate to its purpose and to the module’s learning outcomes.
2.3.4 A variety of assessment methods should be used where possible, and assessment will align with the requirements of professional bodies where applicable.
2.4 Credit Weighting and Assessment Tariffs
2.4.1 UEL’s Academic Regulations state that: Undergraduate Assessment: Undergraduate courses consist of standard modules whose value is 20 credits (equivalent to 200 student study hours), extending over one term. It is possible to approve modules with multiples of the standard size, such as 40 and 60 credits where a rationale is demonstrated and approved at validation. Postgraduate Assessment: Postgraduate courses consist of standard modules whose value is 30 credits (equivalent to 300 student study hours), extending over one term. Modules of up to 60 credits (in multiples of 15 and taught across the whole of one term) may form part of a course structure where a rationale is demonstrated and approved at validation. 60 credit modules, where permitted, could extend over two terms.
2.4.2 UEL has adopted a university-wide tariff for summative assessment to promote:
- comparability and fairness in assessment practice.
- transparency of process for students and academic colleagues.
- a manageable assessment load.
- opportunities for students to demonstrate their ability to perform well on assessment tasks.
2.4.3 UEL’s assessment tariff applies at both undergraduate (levels 3-6) and postgraduate (level 7 and taught modules at level 8). 2.4.4 A 20 or 30 credit module will have a least one and no more than two assessment components as detailed in the Academic Regulations.
2.4.5 The balance of the weighting applied to each component with the tariff will be consistent. For example, for a 20 credit weighting with two components (coursework and written examination) each worth 50% = coursework up to 2000 words, written examination up to 60-70 minutes e.g., each are reduced to achieve the total tariff. The same will apply to equivalent assessment types (refer to Sections 2.4.5 to 2.4.7).
2.4.6 Undergraduate Assessment Tariff
20 Credit Undergraduate Modules
Summative tariff and maximum assessment loads per module (see 2.4.8 for assessment types)
| Assessment type | maximum load |
|---|---|
| Coursework | Up to 4,000 words Up to 30-minute group presentation with up to 2,000-word individual written reflection |
| Written Examination: face-to-face or online | Up to 120-minute examination |
| Practical examination: face-to-face | Up to 60 minutes For production, no set tariff due to discipline specific nature of tasks but must ensure time required to prepare for and complete the task is considered to ensure equity with other assessments on the course. |
| Dissertation | Dissertation up to 15,000 words (for 40 credit module) |
2.4.7 Postgraduate Assessment Tariff
| Assessment type | maximum load |
|---|---|
| Coursework | Up to 6,000 words |
| Written Examination: face-to-face or online | Up to 270 minutes (with no one component exceeding 180 minutes) |
| Practical examination: face-to-face | Up to 90 minutes For production, no set tariff due to discipline specific nature of tasks but must ensure time required to prepare for and complete the task is considered to ensure equity with other assessments on the course. |
| 60 Credit Postgraduate Modules | |
| Dissertation | Independent Research Project / Dissertation up to 20,000 words |
2.5 Assessment Types
2.5.1 An indicative, non-exhaustive list of examples of assessment types is shown below:
| Assessment type | examples |
|---|---|
| Coursework |
|
| Examination |
|
| Practical assessment |
|
2.6 Assessment Approaches
2.6.1 A diverse variety of assessment methods are integral to good assessment practice. Accessibility is core to all approaches and authentic assessments are encouraged to support student learning.
2.6.2 Where online assessment forms part of a module the task must provide students with the opportunity to perform at a comparable standard to other assessment methods and the security of assessment must be assured. Further information can be found in the online Assessment Toolkit and support for staff is available from CELT Academic Developers.
2.6.3 Online assessments can only be delivered using the virtual learning environment (VLE) supported by the institution. Assessment should only be submitted for online assessment via the University’s approved and supported platforms/methods to comply with security, GDPR and data management requirements. The supported lockdown browser tool should be used to detect and avoid academic misconduct.
2.6.4 There will be no written examinations at Level 3 or 4 for all modules, though students may be given assessed tasks (e.g., mock examinations) in preparation for formal examinations at Levels 5 and 6. However, if Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRB) requirements state otherwise, then PSRB requirements will be adhered to.
2.6.5 For all placements (e.g., non-credited placements, year-long placements, module-based placements), there will be an authentic assessment of a reflective piece of work as evidence of engagement in the placement, unless mandated otherwise by a PSRB. This assessment should be proportionate for the placement and the student.
2.6.6 Module teams must consider the task (whether as a word count or equivalent) which should reflect the time that students need to achieve the learning outcomes, acknowledging that sometimes the skill is in the ability to be concise. For example, in a 20-credit module, where 200 hours of time-investment is stipulate, the time allocated to the assessment portion of the module may be in the range of 36-72 hours, once class contact time and related self-directed study is taken into account.
2.6.7 UEL operates a continuous assessment practice to enable students to act directly on feedback in later iterations of their work, reduce workloads at the end of the academic year to avoid undue pressure on students as well as enable the University to make earlier and more effective interventions where necessary. Further details are provided in Section 4.
2.7 Portfolios
2.7.1 Portfolios can include a maximum of three tasks. The tasks can be of varied assessment type (see paragraph 2.4.7) but must assess relevant learning outcomes, and not overload students with multiple assessments. Portfolios can be online or paper based. The portfolio must not have more than one submission date.
2.7.2 The tasks within a portfolio must be included in the assessment section of the module specification. Where portfolios are included, the link between the tasks in a portfolio should be coherent and/or linked and it is usual practice to not include more than one portfolio as part of the module assessment. Written exams cannot be considered as part of a portfolio.
2.7.3 Where professional body or apprenticeship requirements apply, exceptions to paragraphs 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 may be approved through the validation process. Further information can be found in the online Assessment Toolkit (Internal SharePoint link).
2.8 In-class Assessments
2.8.1 Assessments taking place during seminar or lecture periods but not during the standard exam period, are referred to as in-class assessments
2.8.2 In-class assessments tend to be formative, however can include summative assessments. The assessment format is best suited for MCQs, objective tests, oral presentations Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCE) problem sets and group presentations. The assessment timings should be appropriate, and students should be given enough notice. Careful consideration must be given to the scheduling, invigilation and logistics of space, especially for summative assessments. For summative assessment two assessors should be available to assess any group/work presentation, or the assessment must be recorded and stored according to the University’s data storage policies and requirements.
2.8.3 Where possible and where PSRB requirements allow, there should be alternative modes of assessment available to assess the learning outcome (e.g. students should ideally not be required to do oral presentations when a written piece could substitute, and vice versa). The choice of mode of assessment should be standard, rather than only provided on request to support accessibility.
2.8.4 The School is responsible for making arrangements (including room-booking, invigilation and arrangements for students with additional needs).
2.8.5 In-class assessment should not be confused with the in-course retrieval process (which is explained in Section 4)
2.9 Dissertations/Independent Learning Projects
2.9.1 The purpose of a dissertation is to enable students to undertake independent research on an agreed topic related to their programme of study. An academic member of staff will be assigned by the relevant School to each student undertaking a dissertation to agree the topic with the student and to supervise the student whilst they are working on their dissertation. Please refer to the Dissertation Supervision Policy for further details.
2.9.2 All module specifications for dissertations/projects should indicate the number of contact hours that students can expect to be offered for dissertation supervision, identified within the section relating to ‘Contact Hours’. Contact Hours will not be prescribed centrally but identified within individual dissertation modules.
2.9.3 Each School will clarify what is meant by ‘supervision’ in their context (e.g. face-to-face contact, online interaction via MS Teams, email review of transcripts). All module specifications should be updated to include this information, including those at collaborative partners.
2.9.4 The expectations of a Supervisor are to:
- Support the student by providing advice and guidance on how to research, prepare and improve their dissertation.
- Give advice on choosing a suitable topic.
- Support the preparation of a preliminary bibliography.
- Help the student plan primary and secondary research with suitable methods, including obtaining any necessary research ethics approval.
- Work with the student to place a schedule for submission drafts and supervision meetings.
- Provide appropriate feedback on submission drafts via agreed feedback methods.
- Provide at least three meetings prior to the final dissertation submission.
2.9.5 The expectations of a Student are to:
- Initiate contact with their supervisor once allocated.
- Work with their supervisor to agree a schedule for submission drafts and supervision meetings.
- Provide their supervisor with drafts of their work by the published deadlines.
- Secure any necessary research ethics approval with the guidance of their supervisor.
2.9.6 Any concerns a student has about their supervision of their dissertation, should be raised informally at first, if possible, directly with their supervisor. If this is not possible, students may raise concerns with their Module Leader or Course Leader. Student concerns which cannot be resolved within the School via informal means may be raised as a formal complaint under the University’s Complaints Procedure.
2.10 Marking, Moderation and External Examiner Approval
2.10.1 Every component of assessment that contributes to an award, at all levels, is subject to External Examiner a) approval of assessment tasks and b) external moderation of assessed student work.
2.10.2 Once finalised, assessment tasks (both for first-sit and reassessments) will be proof-read and checked for fairness and consistency before being forwarded to the relevant External Examiner for comment and approval prior to being published to students. Any changes required by an External Examiner must be approved by them prior to release to students.
2.10.3 Each School will have effective systems and procedures in place for the internal marking (first and second marking, sample sizes, anonymous marking and how disputes will be resolved) and internal moderation of all methods of assessment for all modules. Schools should ensure that arrangements adhere to the procedures specified in the Assessment Toolkit and guidance is available from CELT Academic Developers (Internal Sharepoint link).
2.10.4 For each module, relevant teaching teams agree a marking plan at the beginning of each academic year. This plan will identify:
- Plan for invigilation for exams.
- First and second (and third, if subsequently needed) markers, and timetables.
- Indicative content of answers to coursework and /or examination questions/tasks.
- Provision in relation to physical and online submission.
- Assessment (marking and grading criteria, which will ensure appropriate use of the full spread of marks through adoption of the categorical marking scheme.
2.10.5 To support transparency and equity, a categorial marking scheme is used (see Appendix 1).
2.10.6 Subject specific rubrics are recommended to support consistent marking alongside the categorical marking scheme. Task-specific marking descriptors should be provided to promote transparency in marking, and drive assessment for learning (AfL). These should be developed in line with level and course-specific rubrics
2.10.7 As part of the external moderation of marking, External Examiners must be provided with the following for each module:
- Module specification.
- Details of assessment task(s).
- Assessment criteria.
- Any assessment guidance.
- Sample of assessed work (10% or 10 individual pieces of each assessment task – whichever is greater – taken from the full range of marks and including some work that has been second marked).
- The record of marks and comments from 1st, 2nd (and 3rd) markers, and the internal moderation process, for all candidates assessed in the module.
- A module development and enhancement plan (MDEP) from the Module Leader commenting on the outcomes, delivery and management of the module.
2.10.8 All marks for summatively assessed work are subject to approval of the relevant Assessment Board. External Examiners will always be asked to provide confirmation that they approve the marks.
2.11 Submissions
2.11.1 Online submission, marking and feedback must be used wherever possible for all single pieces of text-based coursework. Tutors should seek agreement from their head of department if they would like an exception to this for any of their text-based coursework.
2.11.2 Submission dates and times must correspond with days/times when the University is open and technical support is available in case of problems with submission. Specifically, this means that all Turnitin assessment links should be set up during the time of Monday – Thursday 9:30-4:00, and not during any national holidays or university closures.
2.11.3 Students are expected to meet assessment deadlines and requirements of the relevant academic regulations. The Mitigating Circumstances process is in place to support students who experience unforeseen challenges which have had a negative extent on their studies. , please refer to the Mitigating Circumstances Process - Student Policies | University of East London (uel.ac.uk)
3. Feedback
3.1 Feedback to students
3.1.1 Feedback is central to learning and is provided to students to develop their knowledge, understanding and skills and to help promote learning and facilitate improvement It should be available in time for students to reflect on it whilst completing their forthcoming assessments.
Feedback will be:
- Provided within 15 working days of the submission deadline.
- Given in relation to the learning outcomes and assessment criteria.
- Provided for all summative and formative assessments.
- Offered in a range of formats appropriate to the module e.g., face to face, electronically or other e-submission tools where used, audio file, video file or screencast.
3.1.2 Formative feedback can be provided at the time of, or following, the assessment. It can be in written or spoken format and signposted to students.
3.1.3 The nature and extent of feedback the student may expect will be communicated to the student for each assessment task at the time it is set.
3.1.4 When feedback (including marks) is provided to a student before an Assessment Board, all marks will be clearly identified as:
- Being provisional.
- Available for External Examiner scrutiny.
- Subject to change and approval by the Assessment Board.
3.1.5 All students will be actively encouraged to collect feedback, review and consider its recommendations and implications, and seek further advice and guidance from academic staff when required.
3.1.6 Further guidance on using and providing assessment feedback is provided in the Assessment Toolkit and CELT Academic Developer (for staff) and the course/module handbook (for students).
3.2 Modes of Feedback
3.2.1 Feedback may be:
- Individual – personalised for one student’s work.
- Generic – referring to general points about the assessment as a whole, arising from an overview of the work produced by the student group.
- Provided by academic staff, or where relevant, via peer to peer.
4. Continuous Assessment and In-Course Retrieval of Assessments
4.1.1 At UEL, continuous assessment is a flexible framework designed to provide students with the opportunity to act directly on initial feedback to improve subsequent iterations of their work and reduce the workloads at the end of the academic year to avoid undue pressure on students. It will also enable the institution to make earlier and more effective interventions where necessary. It is anticipated that this will occur during teaching and learning however, assessments and re-assessments can be designed to incorporate this more formally.
4.1.2 ‘Formative assessment and feedback’: the use of formative assessment and feedback provides students with the opportunity to learn through practice without impacting on summative assessment. Such assessments should be managed locally by the Module Leader.
4.1.3 For summative assessment, where a student has failed a component at the first sit, they will be permitted to complete their reassessment as part of the continuous assessment practice. This is likely to take one of the following formats:
- ‘Improve and resubmit’: following the failure of an assessment task at the first attempt, students are able to utilise the feedback given to improve the work submitted. The work is then submitted again as a re-assessment opportunity no later than 30 working days after the release of the confirmed marks for the first sit. Work should be submitted via Turnitin where the format allows. Marks will be capped at 40% for undergraduate assessment or 50% for postgraduate students (see Manual of General Regulations Part 3: Academic Regulations for further information on assessment capping). Practically, it is most likely that this form of continuous assessment will be applied to coursework-based assessment tasks.
- ‘In-course retrieval of assessments’: Level 3 and Level 4 students who fail a coursework assessment in Semester A may resubmit the work for reassessment (for a capped mark) within three weeks (15 term-time working days) of when the provisional marks are released on the student record system.
- ‘Improve through reflection and practice’: following failure of an assessment the student will be given feedback that allows them to reflect on their learning and further develop their knowledge and understanding, with a view to this being applied to the subsequent re-assessment during the in-course retrieval process. It is anticipated that a new assessment task may be developed for reassessment. Where this is the case, the new assessment task must be provided to the External Examiner for approval. The re-assessment should take place no later than 30 days from the release of the confirmed marks for the first sit. Marks will be capped at 40% for undergraduate assessments or 50% for postgraduate students (see Manual of General Regulations Part 3: Academic Regulations for further information on assessment capping). In practice it is likely that this form of continuous assessment will be applied to practical and time-based assessment tasks such as exams, practical exams and presentations.
4.1.4 If PSRB requirements state otherwise, then PSRB requirements will be adhered to (see paragraph 2.1.2)
4.1.5 Where implementation of continuous assessment outlined in Section 4 is not possible due to the nature of the assessment, continuous assessment can be achieved through assessment design or learning and teaching methods.
- ‘Improve through continued learning’: The ethos of continuous assessment is providing the student an opportunity to learn through continual assessment and feedback. As such, this could also include providing a portfolio assessment with feedback provided on each element. This would then allow the student to develop their learning as they progress through the assessment. The deadline and submission requirements should be noted in the Module Guide for both first attempt and reassessment. If the student does not pass the first attempt the work is then submitted again via Turnitin as a reassessment opportunity in line with the in-course retrieval process. Marks for the resubmitted work will be capped at 40% for undergraduate assessment or 50% for postgraduate assessment (see Manual of General Regulations, Part 3 for further information on assessment capping).
4.2 Disability
4.2.1 UEL has a Disability Policy which:
- Sets out a framework to ensure students with disabilities can fully participate, where practicable, in all aspects of university life.
- Ensure that the University complies with its legal requirements under the Equality Act 2010.
4.3 Inclusive Approach
4.3.1 UEL aims to practice an inclusive approach in supporting students with disabilities/specific learning differences. This approach focuses on the capacity of the University to understand and respond to the requirements of all students with disabilities and try to use the ‘Social’ rather than the ‘Medical’ model of disability. The ‘Social’ model of disability aims to dismantle the barriers individuals face as a result of environmental and attitudinal factors rather than situating the problem with the individual. This is distinct from the ‘Medical’ model, which suggested that the ‘problem’ of disability resides with the disabled person rather than with society as a whole
4.3.2 Students are assessed when they register with the Disability and Dyslexia Team (DDT) and any recommendation for coursework extensions is recorded on the student’s Teaching and Learning Support Record (TSLR), so there is a record which can enable supportive action and monitoring.
4.3.3 Where necessary, and in consultation between the student and the Disability and Dyslexia Team (DDT), a Teaching and Learning Support Record (TSLR) will be drawn up and shared with Schools (with the express written consent of the student), which will outline any reasonable adjustments that need to be made, e.g. an alternative assessment may be provided, that still meets the learning outcomes; Further information is provided in Appendix B.
4.3.4 The Mitigating Circumstances policy details the support available to students who experience events impacting on their studies and submission of assessments - Student Policies.
4.4 Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs)
4.4.1 Should any module/course not comply with any aspect of this Assessment and Feedback Policy as a result of requirement from a PSRB or partner collaborations, a written request for relevant exemptions(s), together with associated evidence from the PSRB, and written approval from the relevant Director of Education and Experience, will be submitted for endorsement by the University Education and Experience Committee. This exceptional approval must normally be secured before validation.
4.4.2 Quality Assurance and Enhancement (QAE) will maintain a university log of all approved exemptions to promote consistency of decision-making. The log, together with an analysis by QAE of trends and issues will be considered in an annual report to the University Education and Experience Committee.
4.5 Apprenticeship End Point Assessment (EPA)
4.5.1 The design of any EPA at the end of an apprenticeship course must be fully in line with the EPA Plan as defined by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) for the applicable apprenticeship standard. As apprenticeship standards are subject to version updates which may impact the way EPA must be undertaken, the University has a responsibility to monitor any such updates and implement formal course and/or module modifications as necessary before delivering a newer version of an apprenticeship EPA.
4.5.2 The external quality assurance (EQA) provider for all integrated EPA delivered by UEL is the OfS.
4.5.3 For non-integrated degree apprenticeships or apprenticeships which are non-degree qualifications (such as level 4 and 5 apprenticeships), the EQA provider will vary. The register of EQA providers and applicable apprenticeship EPAs they monitor is available on the IfATE website. UEL does not hold responsibility for quality assuring EPA for non-integrated degree apprenticeships or non-degree qualification apprenticeships, of which responsibility falls with third-party EPA organisations (EPAOs).
4.5.4 Depending on the apprenticeship standard and version, all EPA grades are graded as Distinction, Merit, Pass or Fail (note that not all EPAs have the option to be graded as Merit or Distinction). The grading structure of an EPA can be found in the EPA Plan of any given apprenticeship standard, available on the IfATE website.
4.5.5 IfATE defines a resit as scenarios where learners fail EPA and are allowed to re-attempt EPA without any additional training requirements. Conversely, a retake is defined as scenarios where learners fail EPA and must return to their apprenticeship to undertake additional training before re-attempting EPA. EPA grades may be capped at Pass in the event of a resit or retake.
5. Other Institutional Policies and Procedures
5.1 Internal Policies
This Policy/Regulation relates to the following institutional regulations, policies or procedures:
- Manual of General Regulations Part 3: Academic Regulations
- Manual of General Regulations Part 5: Extenuating Circumstances
- Manual of General Regulations Part 7: Academic Integrity and Academic Misconduct Policy
- Manual of General Regulations: Part 10: Complaints
- UEL Equality and Diversity Policy
- Generative AI Principles
- Generative AI Policy
- AI Guidelines
- Mitigating Circumstances Policy
- External Examiner System
- UEL Disability Policy
- Categorical Marking Scheme (Appendix 1 of the Assessment and Feedback Policy)
5.2 Exemptions and Professional Bodies
Exemptions to Academic Regulations
Professional Statutory and Regulatory Bodies
Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE)
6. Definitions
6.1.1 Definitions of acronyms or phrases used within the policy
UEL: University of East London
Assessment: The method(s) used to gather evidence to determine the extent to which a student has achieved the intended learning outcomes of a module and course.
Contact Hours: The amount of time students spend in contact with teaching or associated staff when studying for a particular module.
Feedback: Comments given to students regarding their performance in an assessment to support their learning and academic development.
Manual of General Regulations: The framework that UEL implements to safeguard academic standards and confer awards.
PSRB: A Professional, Statutory or Regulatory Body which recognises, endorses or accredits a course delivered by UEL.
7. Appendix A: Categorical Marking Scheme
This is a marking scheme in all individual assessments are marked out of 100 using the full range of marks, guided by an assessment scale that contains a fixed number of percentage points within each grade mark category, avoiding award of marks on the borderline between categories. A 19-point scale (synthesized from a range of scales used in HE) is shown below. Markers are expected to award the most appropriate mark from the scale that is best aligned to the student’s performance in accordance with the published assessment criteria.
This is with the exception of:
- assessment components that have received approval to be graded on a fail/pass/merit/distinction basis, or
- assessments precluded from categorical marking such as numerical questions,
- multiple choice questions which have a single correct or best answer or
- OSCE assessments
The Categorical Marking Scale
| Category (Class) | SCALE | MARK | DESCRIPTOR |
|---|---|---|---|
| First | Outstanding | 100 | Work of original and outstanding quality meriting special recognition by the award of the highest possible mark |
| Exceptional | 85 | Exceptional work of the highest quality, demonstrating excellent knowledge and understanding, analysis, organisation, accuracy, relevance, presentation and appropriate skills. At final-year level, work may approach a publishable standard. | |
| Good | 78 | Very high-quality work demonstrating excellent knowledge and understanding, analysis, organisation, accuracy, relevance, presentation and appropriate skills that may extend existing debates or interpretations. | |
| Low | 72 | ||
| Upper Second (2.1) | Good | 68 | High quality work showcasing strong knowledge, understanding, analysis, organisation, accuracy, relevance, presentation and appropriate skills. |
| Mid | 65 | ||
| Low | 62 | ||
| Lower Second (2.2) | Good | 58 | Competent work, exhibiting a moderate level of knowledge and understanding, some analysis, organization, accuracy, relevance, presentation, and appropriate skills. |
| Mid | 55 | ||
| Low | 52 | ||
| Third | Good | 48 | Limited quality work, demonstrating such level of relevant knowledge and understanding that meets learning outcomes. |
| Mid | 45 | ||
| Low | 42 | ||
| Fail | Bare Fail | 38 | Insufficient quality work falling short of the standards expected and does not meet the learning outcomes. While work may indicate some grasp of relevant concepts and techniques, notable omissions and errors are present. |
| Fail | 35 | Poor quality work, significantly below the standard required. Poor knowledge, understanding, serious omissions and errors are present such that learning outcomes are unmet. | |
| 32 | |||
| 20 | Very poor quality work, well below the standards expected. Contains significant errors or misconceptions in respect of a core issue covered by the assessment, indicating a serious misunderstanding of the assessment topic. Learning outcomes are unmet | ||
| 12 | Token marks that may be awarded for a submission that has no substance
| ||
| Special circumstance | Zero | 0 | Absent, work not submitted OR penalty in some misconduct cases |
8. Appendix B: Alternative Assessment Provisions
Introduction
It is good practice to design assessments to be as inclusive as possible and minimise the need for alternative assessments. It is good practice to offer more than one mode of assessment, as long as it assesses the learning outcomes, eg a choice of a written or spoken piece. The nature of an alternative assessment might be different to the original assessment task, but it does not have to be. For example, a tutor may choose to adjust requirements for a portfolio if they can establish that learning outcomes can be met by partial completion.
Purpose
These provisions set out the University’s commitment to promoting alternative assessment arrangements for those students who are unable to undertake standard assessments, due to the following criteria: Disabled students – This definition covers (but is not limited to) students with mobility impairments, sensory impairments, mental illness or mental health difficulties, Asperger’s Syndrome or other autistic spectrum conditions, dyslexia and other specific learning differences, medical conditions such as epilepsy or diabetes and other long-term medical conditions. Short term medical conditions – where unforeseen circumstances arise before or during examinations. Pregnancy – where complications arise which would prohibit a student completing the standard assessment or a student’s due date falls within an examination period. Personal circumstances – that fall outside the categories above but would affect a student’s ability to complete a scheduled standard assessment task.
Scope
These provisions will apply to direct applicants to the University of East London and to those students who were enrolled directly with the University of East London and who were either studying with attendance, or through a distance learning programme. Institutions enrolling students on University of East London programmes through a collaborative partnership will be expected to have their own local policy and procedure. These provisions apply to all staff of the University, and particularly to staff who teach and/or provide learning support for students; it is a professional and legal responsibility for staff to ensure practice is inclusive.
These provisions have been drawn up with reference to good practice available within the sector, including that available from the Equality and Human Rights Commission and AdvanceHE.
Alternative Assessment Provisions - Key Principles
In keeping with legislation and associated guidance with regards to assessment, higher education providers are required to take reasonable steps to:
Mitigate against substantial disadvantage where a provision, criterion or practice may create barriers for the involvement and educational attainment of those groups highlighted in section 1.
Consider adjustments to assessments or the provision of alternative arrangements for assessments, being mindful of the specific learning requirements of these groups.
All students of the University can expect a learning and assessment experience that is consistent with the Equality Act 2010 and underpinned by the values and practices of inclusion.
When formulating an alternative assessment, the following criteria should be included: The alternative assessment must assess the same learning outcomes as the original assessment.
The alternative assessment should be of an equivalent level and standard to the original assessment.
The external examiner must approve the assessment task. If the alternative assessment is provided as a reasonable adjustment for a student with a long-term medical condition or disability, then it must be appropriate for that student’s condition.
Alternative assessment will only be considered, where existing assessment options, even with reasonable adjustments, continue to present barriers.
Requesting and Approving
Students requesting alternative assessment arrangements should first discuss their needs with a Disability Adviser in the Disability and Dyslexia Team. Documentary evidence (medical or specialist) will normally be expected to support the request. This evidence should normally be no more than two years old at the time of the student making an initial application for alternative assessment arrangements. Disability Advisers can advise on the need for evidence, and what is acceptable.
Students must normally apply for alternative assessment arrangements at least four weeks before the date of the assessment. Late applications will not normally be considered unless directly related to the individual’s condition, although due consideration will be given to individual circumstances.
Students should discuss their alternative assessment needs with their course and/or module leader(s), who may consult with the Disability and Dyslexia Team. Requests for alternative assessment arrangements will normally be jointly agreed between the student, the disability adviser and the course or module leader.
In the event that appropriate reasonable adjustments or alternative arrangements cannot be agreed between the student, disability advisor and the module or course leader, the matter will be referred to the head of department and the disability and dyslexia team manager who will reach a decision having taken appropriate advice as necessary.
Further information
Reasons for not offering an alternative assessment - There are very few circumstances when it would not be possible to offer an alternative assessment. Professionally accredited or regulated programmes may have prescribed assessment types. In these cases, the programme leader should contact the PSRB to establish whether an alternative is permitted. In addition, alternatives can be rejected if they are deemed impractical or unnecessarily expensive.
Students with a Teaching and Learning Support Record (TLSR) - the Disability and Dyslexia team (or its equivalent in a Partner College) can offer advice regarding suitable alternatives. However, students with a TLSR plan that specifies the type of reasonable adjustments relating to alternative assessment should be offered these where practicable.
Policy Owner: Head of Quality Assurance and Enhancement
| version | effective from | amendments | stakeholder consultation |
|---|---|---|---|
| V1.1 | 21/07/2023 |
| |
| V1.2 | Updates to terminology and sequencing of paragraphs
New Appendix A: Categorical Marking Scheme. |
|