Web viewFeedback from Assessment Framework Consultation and ARQASC Responses. During 2015-16, the...

Feedback from Assessment Framework Consultation and ARQASC ResponsesDuring 2015-16, the Academic Regulations and Quality Assurance Sub Committee of Education Committee carried out a full review of the Assessment Framework for Taught Programmes. ARQASC was keen to ensure that the review was a truly consultative and collaborative process. Staff, students and External Examiners were invited to take part in a number of ways, including an online survey, a UCL-wide town hall meeting, separate Faculty round table discussion events and Faculty Teaching Committees. The proposals were also discussed with students at two focus groups and a UCLU Education Conference workshop. Over 600 people attended a town hall, focus group, round table or FTC meeting. The survey generated 129 responses and 33 email submissions resulting in over 1,000 separate items of feedback.

This paper summarises the feedback received from the survey and at the meeting. It does not attempt to include all of the comments made but to represent the major themes which were raised. It is divided into the main consultation questions from the ‘Assessment Framework Discussion Paper’ which was circulated across UCL during the spring term 2016. Each section includes ARQASC’s response to the feedback raised.

1

1. Separating progression and award requirements from programme structures and allowing programmes to include larger modules.

Initial Proposals: i. A standard programme structure would be retained with modules in multiples of 15 and 30 credits,

but programmes would be able to include modules of 45, 60 or 90 credits, or operate a non-modular system, where it is academically appropriate.

ii. The number of assessment points across a programme can be reduced, and modules can be merged, helping to address problems of over-assessment for both students and staff.

2. Allowing programmes to include credit-bearing ‘synoptic’ modules which span more than one year.

2

Feedback Summary:

There was general agreement with this proposal, and positive feedback about the flexibility that this would allow in terms of programme design.

Selection of comments from UCL Staff:

How would condonement operate on larger modules above the proposed 30-credit limit? What kind of impact will this have on students taking modules from different departments? In some areas of UCL, this is already occurring, for example, a 45 credit final year project in one

department

Selection of comments from UCL External Examiners:

Greater flexibility in programme design is necessary in my opinion Good idea to reduce assessment burden on both students and staff and this proposal seems to lead to

greater agility. Generally, this sounds like a good option. However, it could diminish students' possibilities for

succeeding in cases of not passing/marginally failing 30+ credit modules. Merging modules or creating larger ones can be useful but care has to be taken as to how this affects

condonement practices and compensation arrangements. In the limit a single 120 credit module could not work.

ARQASC Response and Decision for 2016-17:Due to the postponement of late summer resits, there will be no changes for the 2016-17 academic session.

Proposal for 2017-18: References to the ‘course unit’ system will be removed. The regulations will allow for modules with credit values in multiples of 15, or a non-modular system if

appropriate.

Initial Proposals:

i. Programmes could include vertical, thematic modules, which connect a student’s learning throughout their programme, helping to facilitate initiatives such as the Connected Curriculum and creating greater flexibility in programme design.

ii. The credit and mark would be assigned to the year in which the vertical module is completed (e.g. if a module runs across years 1, 2 and 3, the student would be awarded the credits and a mark in year 3).

3

Feedback Summary:

There was general agreement with this proposal, although with some concerns regarding administration.


This would be an excellent idea This could be difficult to administer, especially for visiting students How does this align with the requirement to pass 120 credits in a year? Some departments are already doing this There would need to be greater investments in systems to cope with the administration and tracking of

these modules


Prolonged in depth study should always be encouraged. It is the basis of research. I am concerned that if assessment and credit allocation will only take place in the final year of the

vertical module, student engagement might suffer This approach would allow greater connectivity of ideas and enable students to develop knowledge and

understanding over time. Do we have the systems to deal with the progression monitoring and will it impact the count of notional

working hours synchronising with credit count? I think this should be an option but programmes must have a good rationale for adopting it. This should

be tested at validation to include the progression rates on the programme, and students who enter the programme part the way through using credit transfer (who would also be potentially disadvantaged).

ARQASC Response and Decision for 2016-17:

The ability to create credit-bearing synoptic modules will not be included in the new draft chapter at present. Instead UCL welcomes any real-world proposals for such modules so that appropriate regulations around these can be developed.

3. Simplifying the module component regulations to require a pass for the module overall and a pass in any mandatory component.

Initial Proposal: Programmes can designate some or all components as ‘mandatory’, requiring students to achieve a mark of 40% (50% for level 7) for each mandatory component, and a weighted average module mark of at least 40% (50%).

4

Feedback Summary:

There was general agreement for this proposal, though some staff questioned if it was really a simplification compared with the present model.


Yes to aggregated pass. I suppose that this is a good idea in principle (for the same reasons why it is necessary to allow

programmes to specify modules that cannot be condoned). But this FQ requirement as it is currently known has worked very poorly in practice. It is ill understood, departments have a tendency to build it into modules without really understanding it, then they do not inform their students, then they cannot enforce it... Current experience is that for the most part this is simply not working. (Although that may be the consequence of an ill-designed form that has proven bizarredly resistant to being changed.) It also seems less apparent than at module/programme level why there should be specific assessments within a module that should be so much more important than others that still assess the same module. (Unless perhaps distinct assessments are really designed to assess distinct sets of skills and knowledge of considerably differing importance.)


This seems in line with good practice in comparable institutions. This seems sensible. The ease with which the system can be explained in print and to students is

important. This appears straightforward. It is often irrelevant to distinguish between the different elements of assessment Clarity and simplicity


Programmes can designate some or all components as ‘mandatory’, requiring students to achieve a mark of 40% (50% for level 7) for each mandatory component, and a weighted average module mark of at least 40% (50%).

Students must achieve a pass for the module overall and a pass in any mandatory component. UG pass and completion requirements remain for 2016-17 due to the postponement of late summer

resits – further development planned for 2017-18.

4. Replacing the current undergraduate progression and award rules

Initial Proposals:

i. Allowing students to progress from one year to the next with a maximum of 30 credits of marginal failure (marks of 30-39%), as long as they achieve a weighted average for the year of 40% (50% for level 7), where professional bodies permit.

ii. Programmes subject to Professional Body requirements would be able to opt out of condonement for one, some or all modules.

iii. Any programme would be able to designate a module as non-condonable if the learning was considered essential to achievement of the degree.

5

Feedback Summary:

While there was general agreement with the principle of condonement, there was significant debate and differing points of view on several issues:

Selection of comments from UCL Students:

Agreed with the principle of condonement. No clear consensus on range, majority in the 35-39 range, some also suggested 39% only. In terms of volume of condonement, no clear consensus, majority of responses 0-25% of total degree.


Condonable range: feedback varied from 0-39, 30-39 and 35-39. Some staff also felt any amount of failure should not be condoned.

Amount of failure: significant proportion felt 25% of programme was too high. Some staff believe that 25% is acceptable (if programmes can set stricter limits themselves).

Year average: general agreement that this should be set at 40% though some staff felt it should be higher.

Opt out: most staff agreed with the ability for programmes to set modules as non-condonable, though some felt the same regulations should apply to all students.

Students currently do progress with a small amount of failure and we certainly don't want to make progression harder by disallowing this.

Will condonement be applied automatically or will the student have a choice either to accept it or to resit?

All students with a mark either inside or outside the condonable range should have the opportunity to resit if they so choose.

The term “marginal fail” should not be used as it is not a sound descriptor. A failure below the condonable range creates a problem with the Modern Foreign Language

requirement. Using the proposed condonement approach, “pass 120 credits per year” should be represented as

“pass 90 credits with a >=40% average”. Will departments be able to set their own condonement ranges over and above the UCL defined

range?


Due to the postponement of late summer resits there will be no changes for the 2016-17 academic session.

Proposal for 2017-18:

Students must pass 120 credits in a single year to progress to the next. It was decided (based on a suggestion from UCLU) to apply condonement to marks between 30-39 on

the first attempt and to marks between 0-39 on the second attempt, to a maximum of 30 credits per year, for a maximum of 60 credits over the whole programme.


Condonable range: feedback varied from 0-39, 30-39 and 35-39. Amount of failure: significant proportion felt 25% of programme was too high. Some suggested 15

credits per year, or an overall ‘programme cap’. Year average: general agreement that this should be set at 40% though some felt it should be higher. Opt out: A mixture of responses – some felt programmes should be able to specify non-condonable

modules, others felt it was unfair to have different rules for different students. A sizeable group felt non-condonement could be specified but only where professional bodies require it.

[Condonement] Absolutely not for professional programmes such as Medicine [Condonement] I think this is acceptable for level 4 but that all should be passed at level 5 & 6 [Condonement] System works well enough at other institutions 30 credits of condoned failure per year is too high I would suggest a maximum (but not a minimum) number of condonable credits. In that case, 30

credits (two standard courses) seems a sensible maximum. If condonement is to be practiced this should be compensated by above average performance overall The proposed band is too wide -- 30% is not a narrow failure. [30%] This is a sensible band (and narrower than the 25% in my institution).

5. Applying PGT condonement regulations before reassessment regulations.

Initial Proposal:

i. A student achieving a mark of 40-49% in up to 25% of taught modules at the first attempt would be awarded a condoned pass and would not be required to resit.

7

Feedback Summary:

There was a mixed response to this proposal, seemingly related to the issue of condonement itself and if the student had a choice to either accept condonement or resit.


Students should be given the option to either condone or resit the exam Condonement is generally the de facto option anyway, so why wait for the Exam Board to ratify? Yes but only if re-sit marks are capped at pass. The logistics of organising resits and setting resit papers can involve a huge amount of work for academic

and professional services staff; and, from a student perspective, the workload involved in preparing for resits while at the same time finishing a dissertation is likely to be extremely stressful. It isn't clear what would be the academic benefit of allowing resits for such a student in any case.


This fits with comparator institutions, and reduces pressure on both students and exam administrators One question arising (also for UG programmes) would be if students could choose to resit if they want to? This seems to be consistent with the desire to introduce condonement. In addition, students should not be permitted to resit in these circumstances.


Condonement can only be considered and applied by the Programme Board of Examiners at the end of the taught modules, when the full extent of any failure is known.

Once a mark is formally condoned by the Board of Examiners, the student will not be required or permitted to resit.

For 2017-18: New condonement regulations to be agreed in tandem with the undergraduate regulations.

6. Allowing PGT programmes to specify which modules are non-condonable.

Initial Proposals:

i. Programmes subject to Professional Body requirements would be able to opt out of condonement for one, some or all modules.

ii. Any programme would be able to designate a module as non-condonable if the learning was considered essential to achievement of the degree.

8

Feedback Summary:

There was general agreement with this proposal, though some staff voiced an opinion that condonement should not operate at PGT level (mostly from IoE staff where this practice does not current operate).


Departments are best placed to determine which modules are central/critical to their degree programmes. They should therefore have the flexibility to set the condonement threshold anywhere between 0 and 40 for individual modules.

I think condonement should be seriously controlled under all circumstances The Department strongly supports the ability to designate key modules as non-condonable and finds this

essential for protecting the brand / reputation of programmes.


The academic standing of the programmes would be somewhat deleted if condonability was extended. I think for clinical qualifications it is reasonable to have some modules that must be passed to

demonstrate core skills. The professional bodies are likely to insist on this. I believe that there are some elements which are essential in postgraduate taught degrees, particularly

when these are linked to professional qualifications.


PGT programmes can specify modules as non-condonable, subject to UCL approval. Due to the postponement of late summer resits, the IOE will continue to hold a derogation from PGT

condonement for 2016-17.

For 2017-18:

New Condonement regulations to be developed for all programmes.

7. Including standard interim qualifications on all undergraduate programmes

Initial Proposals:

i. All Honours Degree students would be eligible for a Certificate of Higher Education, Diploma of Higher Education and Ordinary Degree, plus the Bachelors exit award for Integrated Masters programmes and the possibility of an Honours Degree with a different field of study.

ii. Any student failing to meet the full requirements of a UCL qualification would be given the same opportunities to receive an interim award, regardless of which programme they were studying. Aegrotat provisions would be limited to only those students who can never complete the programme.

9

Feedback Summary:

There was a mixed response to this proposal, with some staff suggesting it was a good option, and others questioning the value of the interim qualifications.


I have been requesting this for some time, urged by my external examiners, so I am very pleased by this change of attitude.

I am a little unenthusiastic as I am just not sure that they are actually worth much. But they would seem to align us with the sector and they would improve on UCL's current usage of Aegrotat degrees. The latter at least is attractive.

This is a good option for students but adds considerable complexity to programmes, which should be accounted for. Also, I think, offering interim qualifications should be at discrection of department; it should not be made compulsory to all programmes.

Unnecessary, and could have adverse affects. Faculties should be able to opt in/out.


Would the ready access to interim qualifications promote failure? While it's nice to reward the results of partial study, does it provide an incentive not to finish for those for whom working hard is a struggle?

This gives students more options and is a sensible proposal. Simply stating on the Honours degree certificate that the student has exceeded the criteria for a

Certificate of Higher Education, Diploma of Higher Education, Ordinary Degree and Aegrotat degree. It just seems silly to give them all of these minor awards as well.


Standard Interim Qualification Learning Outcomes have been developed for each qualification. Programmes may adapt these. Boards of Examiners must refer to the standard or programme-specific outcomes when considering the award of an interim qualification.

All undergraduate programmes will have Cert HE, Dip HE and Ordinary Degree interim awards as standard, with Bachelors exit points on Integrated Masters programmes, and degrees with a different field of study being retained.

The Special and Aegrotat Provisions will be removed for new students. Aegrotat Degrees will only be awarded where there is little or no chance of the student being reassessed. Continuing students will continue to be eligible for a Classified Degree and an (old) Aegrotat Degree in addition to the new interim qualifications.

8. Standardising interim qualifications on PGT programmes to include unclassified Postgraduate Certificates and Postgraduate Diplomas

Initial Proposals:

i. Any student failing to meet the full requirements of a UCL qualification would be given the same opportunities to receive an interim award, regardless of which programme they were studying.

ii. Interim qualifications would be ineligible for a Merit or Distinction classification.iii. Credits accrued form the dissertation can be used towards an interim qualification.

10

Feedback Summary:

There was a mixed response to this proposal. Some questioned the value of the qualification; others had concerns about the project credits being included.


Exit awards should include project credits Happy that they should receive the interim award but do not see why they should be ineligible for a

Merit or Distinction. I am broadly in favour of this suggestion, but students who apply initially for a Diploma SHOULD be

permitted to achieve Merit or Distinction classification, and the cap should only apply to students awarded the Certificate or Diploma through failing to meet the full degree requirements.

Provisionally yes, provided the interim qualifications are awarded with generic titles rather than full programme titles (e.g. Political Studies rather than International Public Policy) in order to protect the reputation of degree programmes. Guidance on whether designated non-condonable modules can be specified on these awards would be required.


Academically, students may have completed the required modules. It would be very important to differentiate the qualifications so that confusion does not arise in terms of employers etc.

I'm not clear that these have any real value to the student. I'd advise against allowing dissertation credits to be used: could end up with a PGCert for a dissertation,

even where all taught modules have been failed. but then, insisting on PGDip possibility may have effect, on module sizes and dissertation size.

Both proposals seem in line with good practice in other comparable institutions

ARQASC Response and Decision for 2016-17: Standard Interim Qualification Learning Outcomes have been developed for each qualification.

Programmes may adapt these. Boards of Examiners must refer to the standard or programme-specific outcomes when considering the award of an interim qualification.

Where the interim qualification is an advertised outcome from a programme of study, the programme must include positively-defined learning outcomes and a Scheme of Award for each of the advertised outcomes. Such students are eligible for a classification, where they meet the criteria.

Where the interim qualification is not an advertised outcome of the programme, the Programme Board of Examiners must assess the student’s eligibility for the interim qualification against the standard or programme-defined qualification learning outcomes and credit requirements. Such students are not eligible for a classification.

Dissertation/ research project credits may be used towards a PG Cert or PG Dip if the student meets the standard or programme-defined interim qualification learning outcomes.

9. Excluding Study Abroad and placement years from the classification

Initial Proposals:

Student engagement would be retained by requiring students to complete and pass 120 credits for the Study Abroad or placement year, but complex issues of grade translation would be removed. Students failing the Study Abroad/ placement year would be able to transfer to a 3 year Honours degree without the ‘with Study Abroad/ Placement Year’ suffix, avoiding the complexities of resitting the year. Students would no longer be required to take an additional ‘fifth’ course unit.

11

Feedback Summary:

There was a mixed response to this proposal. Some staff would appreciate the removal of administrative issues with mark importing and translation, others cite their students want the work in the year abroad recognised.

There was some confusion regarding under what circumstances this would take place. To clarify, where a year abroad is taken in addition to the programme (i.e. a fourth year for a three-year BSc), the proposal is not to include marks in the classification. For a year abroad (or in industry) which takes place instead of a programme year (i.e. year 2 or 3 of a total of three years), the marks would be included in the classification.

Selection of comments from UCL Staff: It would remove a difficult problem concerning mark/grade translation Administratively, the current system is a nightmare with no real benefits in terms of useful assessment. If this is to be the case, there should be some thought given to how the activities (grade achieved,

courses taken) are recognised in another way - perhaps the HEAR? Work could be done to collect and publish details of these courses via Portico in order that particularly good grades are not devalued.

All our students want the work that they do in their year abroad recognised. Students work hard on their year abroad and for it not to be included in their final degree classification undermines the point of doing the year abroad.

I am concerned that the absence of classification will reduce students' motivation to perform well in the year abroad.

Selection of comments from UCL External Examiners: This is a very knotty problem we struggle with at our institutions too. I think that excluding the YA does

not send out the right signals, especially not to our Erasmus partners Students could be asked prior to their year abroad if they wish to count their marks or not as part of

their degree classification. It seems sensible to give credits but not classification affecting grades for learning that is not under the

direct control of the university but I am not sure that the logic is sound. […] requiring students to pass only can help to relieve some of the pressure during the year abroad,

enabling students to have more time to immerse themselves in a different culture.

ARQASC Response and Decision for 2016-17: Extra-mural Study Abroad and Placement Years (i.e. those taken in addition to the standard programme

credits) will be excluded from the classification. Students will be required to complete and pass (according to local requirements) 120 credits (4 course

units). The project module option will be removed – any project work should be included in the assessment of

the 120 credits. Where the Study Abroad or Placement falls within the standard programme credits, marks will still be

included in the classification.

10. Allowing UG and PGT qualifications to be awarded on a pass/ fail basis (i.e. no classification).

Initial Proposal: Programmes in clinical contexts, where the grading of professional ability would be undesirable, are not required to award classifications, reducing the need for derogations.

12

There was a mixed response to this proposal. Many staff were unsure as it was not appropriate for any disciplines that they were involved with.


While my own instinct would be to oppose this, I take the point about the professional requirements. Personally I actually think that grading professional ability in a clinical context would be very desirable. But if that is the way it is, then better a regulation than a derogation.

This option should be extended to non-clinical departments as well. If possible, we would be keen to investigate a return to the previous classification system at master's level which is graded pass/fail, but with the option for discretionary distinctions to be awarded.

We have not discussed this item in detail in the Department but student feedback from the years pre-dating the introduction of the Merit award at PG level would indicate that students do not wish to graduate with a simple pass award. However, for some professional qualifications pass/fail awards may be appropriate and I do not feel qualified to comment on this item.

The rest of us have no good reason for stopping clinical departments from doing something that makes perfect sense in their context.

We have not discussed this item in detail in the Department but based on student feedback before the introduction of the Merit award it was clear that students do not wish to graduate simply with a pass. However, it may be appropriate for certain professional qualification programmes to simply award pass/fail and I do not feel qualified to comment on this item.


The clinical context seems to provide a good justification for allowing this. Not having a classification may disadvantage UCL postgraduates in future employment if other institutions

continue to award Merits and Distinctions. Students would have little incentive to do more than the minimum required for a pass.

I think there should be a good argument for this. A compromise could be that academic components are marked and clinical components are pass/fail.

This makes sense for some programmes closely aligned with professional practice. It is contrary to the traditions of university education. If a degree candidate obtains marks that lead to a

third class degree, this says a lot about the person's expertise and diligence in the subject. To have such a candidate emerge simply with a "pass" that was indistinguishable from a first class performance would rob future employers of the information that they need to make rational decisions.

I think this can be appropriate in the professional context and therefore there should be the flexibility for this to be adopted when there are good pedagogical grounds to do so. It can also be handy for skills based modules - e.g. this is how we assess the mooting module at Oxford.

ARQASC Response and Decision 2016-17:

UG and PGT qualifications can be awarded on a pass/fail basis, subject to UCL approval. On all other programmes, formative assessments can be marked on a pass/fail basis but summative

assessments must be given a mark to enable classification.

11. Removing the PGT classification penalties for students with condoned passes or passing at the second attempt.

Initial Proposals:

i. Students passing at the second attempt would be eligible for a Merit or Distinction classification.ii. The marks for components passed at the second attempt would be capped at a pass but no further penalty

would be applied.iii. The condoned pass is treated as a passed module in all subsequent conditions i.e. a student would be

eligible for a Merit or Distinction classification.

13

Feedback Summary:

There was general agreement for this proposal, though some differing opinions. Some staff felt that having no classification penalty for students passing at the second attempt was too generous.


Support award of a Distinction/Merit where the overall mark warrants this, if one module is condoned (or if it is a resit).

The degree classification is supposed to reflect a student's learning. If assessments are designed appropriately then passing a module should be an indication that they have achieved the required standard of learning, regardless of how long they took to do it. You could argue that it's better to pass first time than to take two attempts; this is true, but the capping of second attempt marks means that these students must perform correspondingly better in their remaining modules to get to the required average for a merit or distinction, so the bar is set higher for them in any case.


Too generous, undermines value of these classifications. Failure first time round is alarming in the context of postgraduate study, and I think this should be

reflected in a cap on classification. If the resits are capped the higher grade means other modules must have been passed with higher scores

- this should be recognised in the classification. If the student has resat, achieved a (capped) pass mark and also achieved an appropriate aggregate it

would be a double penalty to deny Merit or Distinction.

ARQASC Response and Decision 2016-17:

Due to the postponement of late summer resits there will be no change for 2016-17, otherwise there would be no penalty for passing at the second attempt.

For 2017-18:

When late summer resits are introduced, marks will be capped at a pass

12. Offering late summer resits to all UG and PGT students.

14

Feedback Summary:

There was general agreement for this proposal. Many staff agreed that students should have the opportunity to resit in the same year, however many staff were concerned about the impact on both administrative and academic staff.


It is our *strong* view that late summer resits should *not* be run in way that requires academic staff to be physically present at UCL in late August/early September. This is a critical time for research, with many research trips and key conferences taking place at this time of the year. Compromising our academic staff's ability to engage with these could threaten UCL's research standing.

Organising summer resits is a fairer option to students but will increase departmental workload and this should be taken into account by UCL

Without a late summer resit facility we are out of line with comparator institutions. Students should be given the opportunity to set their records straight in the same year.

This would be a huge extra level of effort for staff in maths, sciences and engineering, where setting the exam paper can take several weeks of work. There has to be an alternative created to allow re-use of old questions or a simple pass/fail on the summer exam paper provided a sufficiently high level is achieved. To set two exam papers per year will be an unworkable burden to a significant part of UCL.

UCL's position in the sector is untenable; the OIA has ruled against us; and trailing failure, which perversely overburdens our weakest students with a higher teaching and assessment load is problematic. But the resource and workload considerations need to be worked out very, very carefully: departments are already not at, but beyond breaking point in terms of workload. UCL needs to will not only the the end, but also the means. Administering late summer resits costs money, and not just for Portico.

Issue of financial equity. Lower income family students funding themselves by working over the summer cannot properly plan how to do that

[Late summer resits are] essential – all agree. Agree with re-sitting exams late summer the same year as many of our past MSc students who failed

exam worried about not only visa, travelling, spending more time and money for this but also the fact that they moved on and didn't study for some time after the course finished

How do you resit continuous assessment? E.g. time in labs


Absolutely. Having to wait for a whole year to resit is a very inconvenient oddity. We do this - the work is not popular with staff but the system minimises the delay to the careers of our

students. This approach is adopted elsewhere -- particularly for UG. It is less common at the PG level where the

students are engaged in project work throughout the summer. This would indeed align UCL with comparator institutions, but does introduce a lot of additional work for

the staff. The projected additional workload should definitely be costed. Unacceptable teaching and administration load during summer for research staff My institute has a late summer resit period and it works well in allowing appropriate progression for

students. It also allows students that miss the normal (Spring/early Summer) exam period due to health/well-being issues to take exams in late Summer as a "first attempt" and progress with the rest of their cohort (if they pass).

Consistent with natural justice and most other institutions

15


Late summer resits have been postponed for the 2016-17 academic session to give UCL more time to assess and address the practical and resourcing issues, and to learn from the pilots taking place. A wider pilot will be planned for 2016-17.

For 2017-18:

Late summer resits will be introduced across all programmes.

13. Capping the marks of components passed at the second attempt at a pass (UG 40%, PGT 50%).

Initial Proposal: The impact of capping would be minimised by applying the penalty to only the failed components, rather than the whole module. Deferrals due to extenuating circumstances are considered a first attempt and marks are not capped.

16

Feedback Summary:

There was strong agreement for the proposal, although students who took part in focus groups had differing opinions.


Second attempt marks should be capped. Everyone – regardless of first score, should have the option to resit an exam Resits should be capped but at 50% for UG to give students incentive to try Resits should be uncapped, the fact that transcript will show both marks is penalty enough


This seems to reduce any incentive students might have to 'tactically fail' first attempts (in the hope that, with longer to study/revise, they can do better on their second attempt). It also seems somewhat unfair that a student who receives a 39 (or a 29 if this is the maximum non-condonable mark) should have the chance to dramatically improve their mark, whereas receives a 40 (or a 30 if this is the minimum condonable mark) at the first attempt should not have this chance.

This will retain an element of penalty and prevent student strategic failure.


I thought this was standard - it applied when I was a student and it applies now in my institution. If any mark is available at the second attempt there is an incentive to focus on some papers and then retake the others later. If summer resits are introduced this becomes essential.

Yes - this is fairly common practice and avoids the anomalies cited in the discussion This seems appropriate to me. I do not believe that "failing" students should be able to improve their

mark beyond those of passing students. Students who have passed a module should not be allowed to retake it under any circumstances. Students

who have failed should always be awarded a bare pass (special circumstances aside etc).


Due to the postponement of late summer resits, there will be no change for the 2016-17 academic session.

For 2017-18:

Alongside late summer resits, marks for module components passed on the second attempt will be capped at 40% (50% PGT).

14. Limiting the number of modules which can be taken as a late summer resit to 60 credits per year.

Initial Proposals:

i. UG students failing more than 60 credits in any one year must take a year out to repeat the failed modules with full attendance and fees and marks capped at a pass (40% - 50% for level 7 modules). PGT students failing more than 60 credits must resit after submission of the dissertation.

17

Feedback Summary:

There was general agreement for this proposal, however some staff and external examiners questioned the 60 credit limit. Some felt the limit was too generous, others such as Laws felt it was too stringent. There were also questions as to how this limit would operate with non-modular programmes.


Probably yes. Otherwise it seems that we would be setting students up for failure (and would likely only end up suspending regulations again anyway...) Fails beyond 60 credits are probably difficult to recover without repeat teaching. But there may be a question as to whether that rule needs to sit at UCL level or whether discipline-specific variations can be allowed.

Here it was unclear why the limit should be set at 60 credits, something which would likely cause problems. It would preclude re-sitting / re-submitting a dissertation for example, which is worth more than 60 credits

I think 60 credits is generous, really a maximum. If students fail more than 60 credits, and repeat the year on a fee-paying basis, they should be allowed to take modules of their choice, without having to repeat what they did (and failed) in the previous year.

If late summer resits are introduced at the Slade, this would not be possible as we do not operate a credit-based programme. If a student were to fail the final exam, which counts for at least 80% of the final mark, would UCL consider this to be more than 60 credits of failure? If so, then there would be no way for a student to retake the exam.

Laws have serious concerns about this. It felt it would place students at an excessive disadvantage in that they will be required to pay to repeat their studies and their results will be capped. It would be unfair that they would now be told that if they fail more than 2 modules they would no longer have the option of summer resits and would be are forced to wait for the year.


It is sensible not to allow more than half of a year's work to be subject to resit in the summer. 60 credits is too much - it's half a year This will encourage the student to succeed without overwhelming them. In some circumstances it may be appropriate to allow more.

18


Due to the postponement of late summer resits there will be no change for the 2016-17 academic session.

For 2017-18:

Alongside late summer resits students will UG students failing more than 60 credits in any one year must take a year out to repeat the failed modules with full attendance and fees and marks capped at a pass (40% - 50% for level 7 modules).

PGT students failing more than 60 credits must resit after submission of the dissertation It was agreed that 60 credits was a fair and sensible limit.

15. Reducing the window for late submissions

Initial Proposals:

i. Work submitted up to 2 working days late would receive a deduction of 10 percentage points (but no lower than the pass mark). Work submitted more than 2 working days late would be capped at a pass (40% for UG, 50% for PGT). Penalties for submitting on the same day but after the published time would be included and the cut-off date of the second week of the third term would be removed.

19

Feedback Summary:

There was a mixed response to this proposal, with staff students and external examiners suggesting a variety of approaches. Some felt the proposal was too lenient, others felt it was too harsh.


Students should not be able to submit work past the deadline – unacceptable for staff trying to mark and return feedback.

There should be a penalty for students submitting after the deadline – suggested 2-5 day maximum limit for hand in with penalty 5-10% applied.

Other students suggested a maximum window for submitting an assignment should be no more than 1 week after the deadline.


A 10% penalty if you submit one hour late is too much This proposal creates a problem for Friday deadlines Retain late submission as a fail – penalising according to lateness is confusing and hard to administer 2 working days for 10% penalty for late submission is too long. We are happy with the idea of reducing the window, but are concerned about the idea of setting the limit

at 2 working days, given that this could mean students having 2-4 days before marks are deducted. The key point might be to have rules that are strict but clear, presumably with departments setting the ultimate cut-off date?

The present rules are harsh enough; there's no reason to make them even more draconian. Change the wording from working days to calendar days, otherwise we'd need to move all our deadlines

to Monday and Tuesday. Cap at pass seems reasonable - but they can't have forever to submit late. Can't let them submit (and get

a mark) after feedback/answers provided to other students - assuming that that feedback would help them do the assignment.

The proposed penalties are more severe than existing penalties, which we already feel are too severe. Ideally, we feel that the power to set lateness penalties should be devolved to departments themselves.

From UCL External Examiners:

This seems a sensible way to promote good habits and reward students who meet deadlines. Although, this strikes me a very lenient policy. At many institutions a submission more than 24 hours late

would result in a 0 mark. ld be zero marks for anything after the deadline. The deadline is there for a reason. It is far too

cumbersome for academics to deal with to let students trade off marks for optional lateness.

20


The marks for work submitted up to 2 working days after the submission date and time will receive a deduction of 10 percentage points (but no lower than the pass mark).

The marks for work submitted more than 2 working days but less than 5 working days after the submission date and time, will be capped at a pass (40% for UG, 50% for PGT).

Work submitted more than 5 working days after the submission deadline but before the second week of the third term will receive a mark of zero but will be considered complete.

Penalties must be stated in working days as many students need to submit artefacts and there is no technical support for online submissions outside of working hours. Programmes are expected to avoid setting deadlines for Thursday and Fridays to avoid giving students additional time.

As always, late submission penalties would be suspended for students with valid extenuating circumstances.

16. Removing institutional word count penalties

Initial Proposal: While assessments would still include a word count, this would be a guideline and would not incur a direct penalty. Markers exercise their academic judgement to assess the quality of the work, and whether a student has written too much or too little to successfully respond to the question. Departments or programmes could adopt standard penalties, tailored to the needs of the discipline, but these must be clearly communicated to students in advance.

21

Feedback Summary:

There was a mixed response to this proposal, with some staff agreeing that an institutional policy is too harsh and rigid, and others suggesting that an institutional policy and penalty system has value.


Delegated power seems good but negative impact on department: to justify own policy/decision, to mark many longer/overlength essays

PDF's don't allow us to check word counts - ban PDF submissions Retain institutional position/guidance - otherwise proliferation and confusion Agree with removing institutional word count penalties and module organisers can decide when this is

important! This is an excellent idea. We additionally feel that institutional lateness penalties should be removed and

that the power to set lateness penalties should be devolved to departments. I would prefer to see powers to set word counts devolved and both over- as well as under-length work

subject to penalties if decided. I would prefer to see a 10% +/- margin with greater variation in the penalties applies.

A strong yes, which will make it much easier to manage different requirements for different style assessments


I was abhorred by the word count penalty system. The fully mechanical dishing out of penalties is unacademic and plain embarrassing and an insult to the markers and to the enthusiasm of the students. Please remove this!

I agree that the institutional penalties should be removed but there should be academic discretion to apply a penalty in some courses as long as it is made clear to the students beforehand.

Word count penalties are efficient and encourage concise writing. Removal of these penalties will result in overlong submissions from students.

As with late submissions, one size does not fit all. The proposals are sound. Staying within word count limits is an important skill to learn students should learn to adhere to it


Institutional word count penalties will be removed. Departments or programmes can adopt standard penalties, tailored to the needs of the discipline, but

these must be clearly communicated to students in advance. Local penalties must not exceed a deduction of 10 percentage points, and must not take the mark lower

than the pass mark.

Part D: Full Catalogue of Changes to Chapter 4

Key:Major changes which were included in the consultation process are highlighted in green.Other major changes made as a result of the consultation process are highlighted in yellow.Sections agreed through other channels such as Education Committee are highlighted in orange.Sections which are being postponed to 2017-18 are highlighted in blue.Un-highlighted sections document minor changes and restructuring.

Applicability:The majority of proposed changes will apply to all students from September 2016-17. The table highlights those instances where a regulation will only apply to new students.

2016-17 Section of Academic Manual

Previous section of Academic Manual

Previous regulation (where relevant)

Proposed Change Proposed Applicability

Source

1. Overarching Principles of Assessment1. Overarching Principles of Assessment

- - 1. New section. Outlines core principles at the heart of assessment practices at UCL. Provides key regulatory points for staff and students and a reference point for the interpretation of the regulations. The principles are repeated in each relevant chapter.

All students 2016-17

Developed by ARQASC in consultation with the Connected Curriculum Assessment & Feedback Group

- 1. Assessment Strategy

- 2. Deleted. Relevant regulations inserted in remainder of chapter.


ARQASC April 2016

- 1.3.4 Types of Summative Assessment

- 3. Deleted. Guidance on methods and volume of assessment to be developed in conjunction with CALT.


ARQASC April 2016

- 1.3.4/ 2 Oral Examinations and Oral Presentations

1. For programmes that are assessed by 100% coursework, an oral examination must be

4. Removed. To be added to future guidance on Academic Misconduct.


ARQASC April 2016

22





Source

conducted as part of the summative assessment.

- 3. NB Oral examinations and presentations must be directly examined by two examiners. External Examiners can be invited to attend oral examinations as observers and should not directly examine students.

5. Relocated to Section 7: Marking and Moderation. All students 2016-17

- 1.3.4/ 9 Exhibitions of Student Work

1. Exhibitions must be directly examined by two examiners. An External Examiner can be invited to attend, but in such a case it is expected that all oral examinations for the course unit or module would have an External Examiner present.

6. Relocated to Section 7: Marking and Moderation. All students 2016-17

- 1.3.7 Administration of Assessment

- 7. Deleted. All students 2016-17

- 1.3.7/10 Formative Feedback Overarching Principles

- 8. Relocated to Section 8: Assessment Feedback. All students 2016-17

- Assessment Guiding Principles

- 9. Replaced by new Section 1: Overarching Principles of Assessment.


ARQASC October 2015

2. Assessment Requirements2.2 Assessment Information for Students

1.3.11 Academic Assessment Information Provided to Students

1. On behalf of the Head of Department/Division, Academic staff in UCL Departments/Divisions are responsible for the provision of assessment information to students on behalf of the Head of Department/Division.

10. Revised. List of information that needs to be made available to students. Programme leaders are responsible for providing accurate, up-to-date information.

All programmes 2016-17

Developed in conjunction with the new Core Programme Information requirements approved by EdCom April 2016

11. Revised. Each programme must keep an accurate, up-to-date Programme Scheme of Award which clearly defines the requirements for a student to

All programmes 2016-17

23





Source

progress through the programme and be eligible for a qualification and a classification. Schemes of Award must be approved by the Faculty Board of Examiners.

2.3 Forms of Assessment

12. Minor re-drafting. All students 2016-17

- 3.3 Masters Dissertation Word Counts

- 13. Deleted. Guidance on methods and volume of assessment to be developed in conjunction with CALT.


ARQASC April 2016

2.4 Methods of Assessment

14. Deleted. Guidance to be developed in conjunction with CALT.


Connected Curriculum Assessment and Feedback Group

2.5 Digital Assessment

5.2 Summative E-Assessment; Annex 4.1 Guidelines for Conducting E-Assessment

15. New section. Outlines core regulations. Further guidance is available from the Digital Education team.


Digital Education Team

2.7 Language of Assessment

2.3, 3.5 a) The purpose of the assessment is to test the ability of students in a language other than English.b) In the case of specially approved programmes in UCL which teach modern languages, the programme has been specifically designed, for sound academic reasons, to include the possibility of completing a major part of the assessment in the language of study. c) Where a programme has been specifically designed, for sound academic reasons, to include the possibility of completing a major part of the assessment in the

16. Simplified: “All assessments will be conducted in the English language unless the purpose of the assessment is to test the ability of students in another language”.


24





Source

language of study, at least 25% of the whole assessment of the programme shall be written in the English Language.

2.9 Requirements to Pass a Module

2.7.1, 3.8.2 Completion of any component representing more than 20% of a course unit is required for completion of the course unit as a whole.

17. Revised. Students must pass the module on aggregate, and pass any mandatory components.


Consultation process

2.9 Requirements to Pass a Module

2.7.1, 3.8.2 18. Module pass and completion requirements retained due to the postponement of Late Summer Resits and therefore new progression and award rules.


3. Examinations3. Examinations 19. New section. Draws out the regulatory

requirements of the Examination Guide for Candidates published by Assessment & Student Records.


3.4 Special Examination Arrangements

20. New section. Separates Special Examination Arrangements from Extenuating Circumstances – can be used as a result of ECs or Reasonable Adjustments. Process to be developed further by Student and Registry Services.


4. Progression and Award Requirements- - - 21. Postponed. Separating progression and award

requirements from programme structuresPostponed to 2017-18


22. Postponed. Allowing programmes to include larger modules

Postponed to 2017-18


- - - 23. Postponed. Allowing programmes to include credit-bearing ‘synoptic’ modules which span more than one year

Not included for 2016-17 but any programme team interested in


25





Source

developing such a module should contact Academic Services

4.3 Honours Degree Progression and Award Requirements

2.7, 2.8, 2.9 - 24. Major changes postponed. Section to be revised for 2017-18, including a single set of regulations for all programmes and new requirements for condonement.

25. Shortened and clarified.

Postponed to 2017-18


4.4 Honours Degree Modern Foreign Language Requirements

2.5 5. Options i) to v) are hierarchical. Consequently, option iv) cannot be chosen unless option iii) is not possible, and option v) cannot be chosen unless option iv) is not possible.

26. Revised. Some amendments for 2016-17 in anticipation of a full review by the VP (E&SA)’s office.

27. Hierarchy removed – all options open to all students, avoiding the difficulty of students having to take a credit-bearing module.

28. Changed to graduation requirement instead of a requirement of progression from Year 1 to Year 2.

29. Clarified that only applies to Honours Degree students, not all undergraduate students.

All Honours Degree students 2016-17

ARQASC April 2016

4.6 Taught Postgraduate Progression and Award Requirements

3.8.1, 3.9.6, 3.9.7, 3.15.1

- 30. Shortened and clarified. All students 2016-17

4.6.2 Condoned Passes

3.9.6, 3.15.1 Condoned Passes

- 31. Clarified.32. PGT programmes may specify modules as non-

condonable.



4.7 Interim Qualifications

- - 33. New section. The same interim qualifications will now be available to students on all UG and PGT programmes, including those currently holding derogations

All students 2016-17 including derogations


4.7 Interim Qualifications

- - 34. New set of Standard Interim Qualification Learning Outcomes outlining threshold academic standards required to pass each interim qualification –programmes may also develop their own Learning Outcomes over and above these requirements. When considering an interim qualification, the



26





Source

Board of Examiners must assess the student’s eligibility for the qualification against the standard or programme-defined learning outcomes.

4.7.1 Eligibility 35. A student may be awarded an interim qualification if they meet or surpass defined learning outcomes and credit requirements.

36. An interim qualification may be awarded:37. As an advertised outcome from a programme of

study (e.g. a programme is advertised as leading to a PG Cert, PG Dip or Masters), or

38. By transferring the student to a programme resulting in the lesser qualification, where such a programme exists. The student may choose this route or UCL may recommend that the student takes this route, or

39. As a result of failing to meet the requirements of the programme on which the student originally enrolled, whether due to Extenuating Circumstances or under-performance.

40. Where the interim qualification is an advertised outcome from a programme of study, the programme must include positively-defined learning outcomes and a Scheme of Award for each of the advertised outcomes. Such students are eligible for a classification, where available.

41. Where the interim qualification is not an advertised outcome of the programme the Programme Board of Examiners must assess the student’s eligibility for the interim qualification against the appropriate qualification learning outcomes and credit requirements. The standard UCL Interim Qualification Learning Outcomes below outline the threshold academic standards required to pass each of UCL’s main interim qualifications, in line with the UCL Qualifications and Credit Framework and the UK Framework for Higher Education Qualifications. Programmes may use these, or they may develop their own qualification learning outcomes over and above these requirements.



27





Source

Such students are not eligible for a classification.4.7.2 Degree with an Alternate Field of Study

2.8.3, 2.7.8, 2.17.4 - 42. Shortened and simplified. Applies to all qualifications.


4.7.3 Certificate of Higher Education (Cert HE)

- - 43. New standard interim qualification for all Honours Degree students achieving 120 level 4 credits and meeting or exceeding the learning outcomes for a Cert HE.



4.7.4 Diploma of Higher Education (Dip HE)

- - 44. New standard interim qualification for all Honours Degree students achieving 240 credits, with at least 90 at level 5 and the balance at level 4, and meeting or exceeding the learning outcomes for a Dip HE.



4.7.5 Ordinary Degree (Bachelors without Honours)

2.9 a) Have completed 11 course units for the programmeb) Have a minimum of 10 course unit passesc) Have at least 2 course units passed at advanced level.

45. Ordinary Degree requirements changed in line with standard sector practice - all Honours Degree students achieving 300 credits [i.e. 10 course units instead of 11], with at least 60 at level 6 and the balance at levels 4 and 5, and meeting or exceeding the learning outcomes for an Ordinary Degree.



4.7.6 Bachelors with Honours [exit award]

2.7.6, 2.8, 2.9 - 46. Shortened and simplified.47. New standard Bachelors with Honours Interim

Qualification Learning Outcomes – can be used as is, or adapted by the programme.



4.7.7 Honours Degree without a Study Abroad or Placement Year

2.16.17 48. Shortened and simplified. All students 2016-17 including derogations

4.7.8 Graduate Certificate (Grad Cert)

49. Clarified.50. Where the Grad Cert is an advertised outcome

from a Graduate Diploma, students are eligible for a Merit or Distinction classification if they meet the relevant criteria.

51. Where the Grad Cert is not an advertised outcome from a Graduate Diploma, and is awarded as a result of the student failing to meet the requirements of a Graduate Diploma, the

28





Source

student is not eligible for a classification.4.7.9 Postgraduate Certificate Interim Qualification

- - 52. Credits from a Masters dissertation may be used towards a PG Cert if the student satisfies the standard or programme-specific qualification learning outcomes.

53. Where the PG Cert is an advertised outcome from a Masters or PG Dip, students are eligible for a Merit or Distinction classification if they meet the relevant criteria.

54. Where the PG Cert is not an advertised outcome from a Masters or PG Dip, and is awarded as a result of the student failing to meet the requirements of a Masters or PG Dip, the student is not eligible for a classification.



4.7.10 Postgraduate Diploma Interim Qualification

- - 55. Credits from a Masters dissertation may be used towards a PG Dip if the student satisfies the standard or programme-specific qualification learning outcomes.

56. Where the PG Dip is an advertised outcome from a Masters, students are eligible for a Merit or Distinction classification if they meet the relevant criteria.

57. Where the PG Dip is not an advertised outcome from a Masters, and is awarded as a result of the student failing to meet the requirements of a Masters, the student is not eligible for a classification.



- Chapter 1, Section 4.8.6 Transfer to Equivalent Masters Level Programmes on Academic Grounds

- 58. Section replaced by new Interim Qualifications section.


Feedback

4.7.11 Aegrotat

Degree/ 4.7.12 Special and Aegrotat Provisions

2.11 Undergraduate Special and Aegrotat Provisions; Annex 4.3.1 Special and Aegrotat Provisions - Application Form; Annex 4.3.2 Special

- 59. Special and Aegrotat Provisions removed for new students.

60. Honours Degree interim qualifications include Cert HE, Dip HE, Ordinary Degree, Bachelors Exit, Degree with Difference Field of Study.

61. Classified Degree removed for new students.62. Aegrotat Degree reconfigured for new students in

All new students 2016-17 including derogations

Continuing students will


29





Source

Provisions - Report Form

line with standard sector practice:“Exceptionally, where the Board of Examiners does not have sufficient evidence of the student’s achievement to award a full or interim qualification, and there are good reasons why reassessment is difficult or impossible (such as the death of the student), an Aegrotat Degree can be awarded by the VP (E&SA)

still be eligible for a classified or (old) aegrotat degree in addition to the new interim qualifications

5. Reasonable Adjustments5 Reasonable Adjustments

4, 3.4, 2.2, 1.3.7 63. See separate paper: Brand new section in response to feedback from students and staff outlining UCL’s responsibilities and the procedures which students will need to follow to apply for reasonable adjustments.

All UG, PGT and PGR students 2016-17

EC & RA review process

6. Extenuating Circumstances6 Extenuating Circumstances

7, 2.14, 3.13 64. See separate paper: Section revised following consultation with staff and students.



- 2.14.2 Withdrawal from Assessment on Academic Grounds

1. Students may withdraw their entry to an examination or other format of assessment on academic grounds with the approval of the Departmental/ Divisional and Faculty Tutors, provided the application is made before the deadline of the end of the first week of the term in which they will be assessed, or before the assessment when the assessment is held in the first week of term. 2. Students absenting themselves from an unseen written examination or other form of assessment without

65. Replaced by Extenuating Circumstances Regulations



30





Source

prior approval will be marked as absent and deemed to have made an attempt at the examination.

- 2.14.3 Withdrawal from Assessment on Exceptional Grounds

- 66. Replaced by Extenuating Circumstances Regulations.



- 3.13.2 Withdrawal from Assessment

- 67. Replaced by Extenuating Circumstances Regulations – students can only withdraw without penalty if they have ECs.



- 2.14.4 Late Assessment




- 3.13.3 Deferral of Assessment to the Next Session




- 3.13.2 Withdrawal from Taught Postgraduate Assessment

Taught postgraduate students may withdraw from the entire examination (i.e. all modules) by notifying Assessment and Student Records, via their home department/division, in writing not less than seven days before the date of their first examination. They will not then be regarded as having made an attempt at the examination.

70. Replaced by Extenuating Circumstances Regulations – deferral can only be made on the grounds of ECs. PGT students can no longer withdraw from an assessment for any other reason.



7. Marking and ModerationThroughout 5 Marking - 71. Removal of Faculty/ Departmental Marking

Policies as defined documents. Faculties/ departments still have the authority to define marking policy at local level.


7.2 Responsibilities - 72. New section clarifying responsibilities. All students 2016-17

7.3 Markers (ref Section 8: Boards of Examiners)

- 73. New section based on Boards of Examiners regulations.

74. Explains expectations for Peer Assessment.


EdCom

31





Source

7.4 Anonymity 5.1.2, 2.13, 6.1, 3.12, 1.3.7

A summative element of a component, or a component that does not break down into elements, must be submitted and assessed on an anonymous basis where possible, if it constitutes more than 40% of the module assessment.

75. All summative assessments should be carried out anonymously unless the method of assessment makes this impossible e.g. where coursework assessments include formative submissions, tutorials and/ or in-class feedback; where dissertations and research projects involve close working between the supervisor and the student; for practical assessments such as laboratory work, oral examinations, presentations, exhibitions, marking clinical work with patients, portfolios of work, group work etc.


Feedback

7.5 Marking Criteria 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 1.3.7 - 76. Minor amendments. All students 2016-17

7.6 Second Marking 5.1.3, 5.1.1, 1.3.5 - 77. Reframed as a list of options from which programmes can choose.

78. Addition of requirements for ‘live’ assessments e.g. exhibitions and presentations (previously in Section 1: Assessment Strategy)


Feedback

7.6.2 Parity Meetings

- - 79. Section added on good practice. All students 2016-17

Feedback

7.6.3 Sampling 5.1.6 - 80. New guidance on expanding the sample in the event of disagreement.


Feedback

7.6.4 Reconciliation of Marks

5.1.5 - 81. Section clarified: All marks must be agreed by the markers. Where there is disagreement, the markers must adopt one of the following:

a) For mark differences of 10% or more, or which bracket a class boundary, the marks must be reconciled through discussion of the marking criteria. Mathematical averaging should not be used

b) For mark differences of less than 10%, the mark may be reconciled by discussion of the marking criteria or by mathematical averaging


Feedback

7.6.5 Third Markers 5.1.5 - 82. Minor amendments. All students 2016-17

7.6.6 Documentation of Marking

5.1.4 - 83. Minor amendments. All students 2016-17

32





Source

7.7 Internal Moderation

- - 84. Clarified. All students 2016-17

Feedback

8. Assessment Feedback8.2.1 Service Standards for the Provision of Feedback to Students

- - 85. Shortened and clarified. All students 2016-17

8.3 Formative Feedback

1.3.7 - 86. Section moved from former Assessment Strategy. All students 2016-17

9. Classification

9. Classification 2.9, 2.10, 3.9, 3.10 - 87. No major changes for 2016-17; section to be redeveloped for 2017-18.

2017-18 -

9.3.3 Standard Classification Schemes

2.7.3 - 88. Extra-mural Study Abroad and Placement Years (i.e. those taken in addition to the standard programme credits) will be excluded from the classification.

89. Students will be required to complete and pass (according to local requirements) 120 credits (4 course units).

90. The project module option will be removed – any project work should be included in the assessment of the 120 credits.

91. Where the Study Abroad or Placement falls within the standard programme credits, marks will still be included in the classification.

2017-18 Consultation process

9.2 General Principles

2.7.4, 2.7.7, 2.17.4, 3.9.5

- 92. Sections combined and clarified. All students 2016-17

-

9.2.5 Credit Awarded via the Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL)

2.7.7 1. Credits awarded via the Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) should be counted as part of the qualification requirements but should be

93. Section amended to include marks from UCL RPL credits; credits from other institutions are still excluded from the classification:

1. Credits awarded via the Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) from any institution other than


Feedback

33





Source

excluded from the calculation of the classification.

UCL should be counted as part of the qualification requirements but should be excluded from the calculation of the classification.

2. Credits accrued at UCL and awarded via the Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) should be counted as part of the qualification requirements and included in the calculation of the classification.

3. At the time of admission with RPL, the student should be advised of the number of credits which they are required to pass in order to be eligible for an award, and the algorithm which will be used to calculate their classification.

9.2.7 Pass/ Fail Degrees

- - 94. New - a qualification can be awarded on a pass/ fail basis (i.e. no classification) to reflect current derogations.



9.3 Honours Degree Classification Scheme

2.7.3, 2.8, 2.9.1, original Harmonised Scheme of Award

- 95. Combined and clarified. All students 2016-17

9.3.4 Honours Degree Borderline Criteria

2.10 - 96. Clarified. All students 2016-17

9.3.4 Honours Degree Borderline Criteria

2.10 - 97. Removal of requirement for Borderlines to be reported/ drawn to the attention of the Faculty Board of Examiners.


9.4 Graduate Classification Scheme

- - 98. New section. Students eligible for a Merit or Distinction.


Feedback

9.5 Taught Postgraduate Classification Scheme

3.9.1, 3.9.2, 3.9.3, 3.9.4, 3.9.7, 3.10.1, 3.10.2, 3.10.3

- 99. Combined and clarified. All PGT students 2016-17

9.5 Taught Postgraduate Classification Scheme

3.9.1, 3.9.2, 3.9.3, 3.10.1, 3.10.2, 3.10.3

The award of distinction or merit must be given if […] There are no marks below 50%, no condoned marks, no re-sit marks, and all marks are

100. Postponed: Removal of the cap on classifications for students with a condoned or resit mark. As late summer resits have been postponed, and the capping of marks has therefore been postponed, there would be no penalty for passing at the


34





Source

first attempts. second attempt.9.5 Taught Postgraduate Borderline Criteria

3.9.4, 3.10.1 If the overall weighted average mark is 69% a candidate is in the borderline zone. An award of a Distinction can be made if […] there are no re-sit marks and all the marks for the modules are first attempts.

101. Postponed: Removal of the borderline criteria stipulating no condoned or resit mark.


10. Consequences of Failure10 Consequences of Failure

- - 102. Combined and clarified. Repetition of UG and PGT sections removed.

103. Major changes, including late summer resits and capping, postponed to 2017-18.


10.2 Late Submission Penalties

2.15, 3.14.1 1. Where coursework is not submitted by a published deadline, the following penalties will apply:a) A penalty of 5 percentage marks should be applied to coursework submitted the calendar day after the deadline (calendar day 1).b) A penalty of 15 percentage marks should be applied to coursework submitted on calendar day 2 after the deadline through to calendar day 7.c) A mark of zero should be recorded for coursework submitted on calendar day 8 after the deadline through to the end of the second week of third term. Nevertheless, the assessment will be considered

104. Section replaced:a) The marks for coursework received up to two working days after the published date and time will incur a 10 percentage point deduction in marks (but no lower than the pass mark). b) The marks for coursework received more than two working days but less than five working days after the published date and time will receive no more than the pass mark (40% for UG modules, 50% for PGT modules). c) Work submitted more than five working days after the published date and time but before the second week of the third term will receive a mark of zero but will be considered complete.d) Programme/ module teams must clearly communicate to students whether and when coursework solutions will be published. Submissions will not be accepted or marked after the specified publication date. Students failing to meet this deadline will be required to resubmit the failed component(s).e) In the case of coursework that is submitted over- or under-length and is also late, the greater of any



35





Source

to be complete provided the coursework contains material than can be assessed.

penalties will apply.3. As some submissions are made in hard copy or involve artefacts which cannot be submitted at weekends, and because there is no technical support for online submissions at weekends, penalties are based on the number of working days. As a result, a deadline set for a Thursday will only begin to incur the higher penalties on a Monday, and those set on a Friday will only begin to incur the higher penalties on a Tuesday, or longer in the case of bank holidays or UCL closure days. Deadlines should be set with these restrictions in mind.4. For electronic submissions, programmes should avoid setting deadlines after working hours. It is good practice to set the deadline date and time in hours, minutes and seconds, and to state the time zone.5. Where dual submission is used (i.e. students must submit a hard copy and an electronic copy) the Student Handbook or equivalent must clearly state the deadlines for both modes of submission.

10.3 Word Count Penalties

2.15, 3.14.2 c) For work that exceeds the specified maximum length by less than10% the mark will be reduced by ten percentage marks; but the penalised mark will not be reduced below the pass mark, assuming the work merited a pass.d) For work that exceeds the specified maximum length by 10% or more, a mark of zero will be recorded.

105. Institutional word count penalty removed. Faculties/ Departments/ Programmes may set their own penalties where appropriate to the assessment task. Penalties must not exceed a deduction of 10 percentage points, or go lower than the pass mark.



10.4 Undergraduate Referred Assessment

2.16.3 - 106. Referred assessment will still apply during 2016-17.

All applicable UG students 2016-17

10.5.1 Non-Standard Progression and Award Requirements

107. Added to clarify that reassessment derogations and variations will continue for 2016-17.

Derogations 2016-17

Feedback

36





Source

10.5.3 Number of Permitted Attempts

2.8, 2.16.1, 2.16.2, 2.16.7, 3.15.3


10.5.4 No Attempt or Minimal Attempt at Assessment

2.14, 2.15, 3.13.1 3.14.3 (inc No of permitted attempts and unauthorised absence from assessment)


10.5.5 Timing of Reassessment

2.16.1, 2.16.7, 3.9.3, 3.15.9, 3.15.11, 3.15.2


- 3.9.3 Failure of a Masters Dissertation/ Research Project

1. A student may be required to make specified amendments to their dissertation within one month provided that:a) The amendments are minor and the dissertation is otherwise adequate; andb) The student has satisfied all other requirements for the award of a Masters degree.

111. Separate provisions for minor amendments to a dissertation have been removed as they were felt to be problematic. The normal resit rules should apply to dissertations/ research projects.

All PGT students 2016-17

Feedback

10.5.6 Resit Marks 2.16.2, 3.8.3, 3.15.6 - 112. Combined and clarified.113. Resit marks will not be capped at a pass due to

the postponement of late summer resits. Current derogations from this will continue

2017-18

10.5.7 Format of Reassessment

2.16.5, 3.15.7, 3.15.8 - 114. Combined and clarified. All students 2016-17

10.5.8 Repeating a Passed Module

2.16.4, 3.15.4 - 115. Combined and clarified. All students 2016-17

10.5.9 Substitution of Failed Module(s)

2.16.8, 3.15.10 - 116. Combined and clarified. All students 2016-17

10.5.10 Period of Study for Consideration of a UCL Degree

2.7.5 - 117. Combined and clarified. All students 2016-17

11. Boards of Examiners37





Source

11.2 Programme Boards of Examiners11.2.1 Terms of Reference

8.1.1 Structure, 8.1.2 Reporting Requirements

118. New terms of reference - intended to describe current practice rather than make any major changes.

119. Allows a board to cover more than one programme or a group of modules, replacing some of the more complex regulations around combined studies, multidisciplinary programmes and modules without a defined programme home.

120. Includes delegation of authority to a sub board to implement decisions on the main Board’s behalf e.g. late summer resits and deferrals – minimum requirement for the Chair and the External Examiner to attend.


EdCom April 2016

11.2.2 Constitution and Membership

8.1.3 Voting Rights, 8.4.1 Internal Examiners

2. The minimum number of examiners appointed to each Board of Examiners, provided that the foregoing conditions are fulfilled, is two Internal Examiners in addition to the Chair, the Deputy Chair, and one External Examiner.3. Exceptionally, where the number of students to be examined is three or less, and the subject to be examined is very specialised, the minimum number of examiners appointed will be four: the Chair, the Deputy Chair, one Internal Examiner and one External Examiner.

121. Clarified:“1. The Programme Board of Examiners must include:a. The Chairb. The Deputy Chairc. One Internal Examiner for each main subject area

coveredd. One External Examiner for each main subject area

coverede. A Faculty Representative (as a non-voting

observer)f. A named secretary (as a non-voting attendee)

2. Where the Chair of the Board considers it appropriate, an Internal or External Examiner may be appointed to examine across more than one subject area.3. Other Faculties involved with the delivery and examination of a programme may be represented by an appropriate Faculty Representative.4. The secretary to the Board should be responsible for coordinating all communications between Internal Examiners and External Examiners”.


EdCom April 2016

11.2.3 Quorum 8.1.4 1. The minimum number of examiners permissible at any meeting of a Board of Examiners with power to take

122. Clarified:1. The minimum number of examiners permissible

at a full meeting of a Programme Board of Examiners is either five members or one fifth of


EdCom April 2016

38





Source

decisions affecting the final award, or decisions on end of year results which may affect progression, is either five members, or one fifth of the membership, including (in either case) the Chair (or, in the absence of the Chair, the Deputy Chair) whichever is the higher number.2. Exceptionally, where the number of candidates to be examined is three or less, the minimum number of examiners may be three, including the Chair (or Deputy Chair).3. Meetings at which recommendations for the final award are made will include for each main area covered at least one Internal and one External Examiner, who may in some instances represent more than one subject area examined by the Board.4. If the above minimum number is not met or the Chair (or, in the absence of the Chair, the Deputy Chair) is not present, a Board of Examiners will not have power to take decisions affecting the final award or decisions on end of year results which may affect progression.

the membership, whichever is the higher number, including the Chair or Deputy Chair and at least one External Examiner for each main subject area covered

2. Where authority is delegated to a sub group to consider resit or deferred students, the meeting must include the Chair or Deputy Chair and at least one External Examiner for each main subject area covered

8.1.4 The Board of Examiners takes decisions on results which are part of the basis for deciding

123. Removed – the board should make recommendations for all decisions to Education Committee with the Chair of the Faculty Board


EdCom April 2016

39





Source

on progression. Actual decisions on whether students may progress to the next stage of the programme or not are taken by the Faculty Tutor on departmental/divisional advice.

signing off results as a further check point.

11.2.4 Candidate Anonymity

8.1.5, 2.13 - 124. Section minimised to cover Boards of Examiners only (see also Section 7: Marking and Moderation).


11.2.5 Confidentiality

8.3 - 125. Regulations about releasing provisional marks and exam scripts moved to Section 13: Award of Degrees.


11.2.6 Conflicts of Interest

8.1.6 - 126. Minor amendments. All students 2016-17

11.2.7 Information for Boards of Examiners

8.1.7 - 127. Removal of reference to Special and Aegrotat Provisions.


11.2.8 Virtual Boards of Examiners

8.12 - 128. Guidance moved to annexes. All students 2016-17

11.3.1 Terms of Reference

8.1.1, 8.10.2 - 129. New terms of reference - intended to describe current practice rather than make any major changes.

130. The terms of reference allow faculties to choose whether to have combined or separate UG and PGT Faculty Boards of Examiners.

131. Further guidance section moved to a separate annex.


EdCom April 2016

11.4 Special Case Panels

8.11 - 132. Minor redrafting. All students 2016-17

11.5 Chairs and Deputy Chairs

8.2 - 133. Clarified and simplified. All students 2016-17

11.5.2 Nomination and Appointment

134. Nominations for Chairs and Deputy Chairs should now go to Academic Services and not Assessment & Student Records.


11.6 Faculty Representatives

8.1.3 guidance - 135. Separate section created for clarity136. Additional guidance moved to existing annex:


40





Source

Guidelines for Faculty Representatives at Departmental Boards of Examiners Meetings

11.7 Internal Examiners

8.4.2, 8.4.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4

- 137. Section clarified and simplified138. Section 7: Marking and Moderation now permits

Peer Assessment with oversight from an internal Examiner.


EdCom/ CALT confirmed

11.8 Assistant Internal Examiners

8.5 - 139. Clarified and simplified. All students 2016-17

Annex: Protocols for the Release of Unconfirmed Provisional Marks

8.6 - 140. Moved to annexes. All students 2016-17

Annex: Procedures when Marks are Missing


Annex: Procedures when an External Examiner is unable to attend


Annex: Procedures in the Event of an Emergency Affecting the Work of Boards of Examiners


12. Examination Irregularities and Plagiarism12 Examination Irregularities and Plagiarism

- - 144. No changes. All students 2016-17

13. Award of Degrees13 Award of Degrees

- - 145. UG and PGT sections merged due to extensive repetition.


13.2 Authority to Award a UCL Taught Degree

2.17.1, 3.16.1 - 146. Added for clarity (Programme Board makes recommendations to EdCom).


EdCom

13.3 Date of a 2.17.3, 3.16.3 - 147. Date of a Degree Award amended to the 1st of All students Late Summer Resits 41





Source

Degree Award the month following approval by EdCom to allow for late summer resits and potentially January resits for PGT students.

2016-17 Working Group

13.4 Publication of Results

2.17.2, 3.16.2, 8.3, 1.3.12, Annex 4.6

- 148. Sections merged. All students 2016-17

13.5 Certificates and Transcripts

2.17.2, 2.17.5, 2.17.6, 3.16.2, 3.16.4, 3.16.5,

- 149. Sections merged. All students 2016-17

2.17.7, 3.16.7 Graduation Ceremonies

- 150. Removed as non-regulatory. All students 2016-17

ARQASC

13.10 Material Irregularity

- - 151. New section covering actions open to Faculty Board of Examiners (including via Chair’s Action) in the event of staff identifying a material irregularity in the assessment process.


Feedback

13.11 Suspension of the Regulations

152. New section stating process. All students 2016-17

Feedback

42

Part E: New Assessment Framework for Taught Programmes

See separate attachment.

43

Web viewFeedback from Assessment Framework Consultation and ARQASC Responses. During 2015-16, the...

Documents

Transcript of Web viewFeedback from Assessment Framework Consultation and ARQASC Responses. During 2015-16, the...