Section E: The Assessment of students on courses of study

 

E.1: General principles

 

E1.1: Course outcomes

The purpose of assessment is to enable students to demonstrate that they have addressed the learning outcomes of the course of study and achieved the standard required for the award they seek.  All courses of study are subject to regulations which relate the assessment requirements of the course to its learning outcomes, and it is within these assessment regulations that examiners make their judgements on student performance.

 

E1.2: Grading scales

The following module grading scales and award classification bands shall apply in connection with the grading of modules and the determination of award classifications:

 

 

Undergraduate modules

Postgraduate modules

 

Honours awards

Non-Honours awards

Pre-2016 course entry

Post-2016 course entry

Pass

 

40%

 

40%

 

40%

 

50%

Refer

 

0-39%

 

0-39%

 

30-39%

 

35-49%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Module Grading Bands

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A

70% +

A

70% +

A

70% +

A

70% +

 

B

60-69%

B

60-69%

B

60-69%

B

60-69%

 

C

50-59%

C

50-59%

C

50-59%

C

50-59%

 

D

40-49%

D

40-49%

D

40-49%

R***

35-49%

 

R/F*

0-39%

R/F*

0-39%

R/F**

30-39%

F***

0-49%

 

 

 

 

 

F**

0-39%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Award Classification Bands

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

69.5%

Distinction

69.5%

Distinction

69.5%

Distinction

69.5%

 

2:1

59.5%

Merit

59.5%

Merit

59.5%

Merit

59.5%

 

2:2

49.5%

Pass

40%

Pass

40%

Pass

50%

 

3

40%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Initial CAB consideration allows referral between 0% and 39%

CAB consideration following referral will conclude fail between 0 and 39%

 

** Initial CAB consideration allows referral between 30% and 39%

CAB consideration following referral will conclude fail between 0 and 39%

 

*** Initial CAB consideration allows referral between 35% and 49%

CAB consideration following referral will conclude fail between 0 and 49%

 

E1.3: Confirmation of standard

Assessment must reflect the achievement of the individual student in addressing course learning outcomes, and at the same time relate that achievement to a consistent national standard of awards.  It must therefore be carried out by competent and impartial examiners, and by methods which enable them to assess students fairly.  In order to achieve this end, External Examiners must be associated with all assessments which may count towards an award; their particular role is to ensure that the standard of awards is maintained.

 

E1.4: Examiners’ judgement

Assessment is a matter of judgement, not simply of computation.  Marks, grades and percentages are not absolute values but symbols used by examiners to communicate their judgement of different aspects of a student’s work, in order to provide information on which the final decision on a student’s fulfilment of course learning outcomes may be based.  It is particularly important for students to understand the nature of examiners’ discretion and judgement when details of individual marks are available to them.

 

Within the constraints imposed by the requirements of Section E1 and subject to guidance issued by the Senate, examiners have discretion in reaching decisions on the awards to be recommended for individual candidates.  They are responsible for interpreting the assessment regulations for the course if any difficulties arise, and their academic judgements cannot, in themselves, be questioned or overturned.

 

E1.5: Moderation and marking

The University believes that second or blind double marking is an example of best practice, but recognises that, for practical reasons, the single marking or the team marking of a piece of assessment will be the norm for the majority of scripts unless there are reasonable grounds, in the opinion of the course leader, for either second or blind double marking to take place. 

Where possible, the set of marks for modules will be scrutinised prior to CABs to ensure that there is no unaccountable variance of grades that would unfairly disadvantage students, in

  1. Distribution of marks across grades within a component or module
  2. Distributions of marks across grades between modules.

 In cases where a module of 40 credits or more is assessed by a single piece of assessment, unless the process has involved a model of collaborative marking, it is considered good practice to apply either second or blind double marking.

Internal Moderation should take place such that the assessment processes for the work of a minimum of 15% of the student cohort or 10 students (whichever is the greater but normally not more than 30 students) normally covering high, medium, low attainment and failed assessments should be made available to the Internal Moderator and subsequently the External Examiner who will undertake duties as prescribed by External Moderation. It is expected that where multiple markers have been used across a cohort of submissions that the sample size normally includes assessments marked by all markers who contributed.

A pro-forma for this moderation should be used and kept as evidence for the process having been undertaken. 

 

E1.5.1: Internal moderation

For each delivery of a module, the module leader is required to ensure that it can be demonstrated that the assessment for that cohort has been subject to the appropriate moderation.  This must include evidence that those responsible for internal moderation have confirmed their satisfaction with the standards and processes applied to the assessment of that delivery.

It is an activity which allows an academic not involved in the initial assessment to confirm that:

  1. the marking has been undertaken appropriately against the assessment criteria
  2. the marking was fair, valid and reliable
  3. appropriate feedback has been provided
  4. standards have been consistently and appropriately applied for the level of study being assessed.

It is not a further mark of the piece of work in question.

Disagreements with the standard applied are referred back to the initial marker for review.  If the matter cannot be reconciled between the two, a separate sample is identified for moderation by a third member of academic staff or External Examiner.

 

E1.5.2: Single marking

Single Marking is an activity where a piece of assessment is marked in its entirety for the whole cohort by a single member of academic staff.

Work which has been single marked will still be subject to the Internal Moderation process.

 

E1.5.3: Team marking

Team Marking is an activity where a piece of assessment is marked by a team of markers amongst whom responsibility for the marking of the assessment has been distributed.  Team marking may refer to distribution by groupings of students (so that a member of academic staff marks the entire assessment for an identified subgroup of students) or by elements of the assessment (for example tutor A marks all of question 1 for all students while Tutor B marks all of question 2 for all students) – or a combination of the two.

Work which has been team marked will still be subject to the Internal Moderation process.

 

E1.5.4: Blind double marking

Blind Double Marking is an activity where two markers mark independently with no knowledge of the other’s marks or comments.  Discrepancies in the mark allocated are reconciled between the two markers after the initial marking is complete.

Work which has been double marked will still be subject to the Internal Moderation process.

 

E1.5.5: Second marking

Second Marking is an activity where the second marker marks the work in full with sight of the first marker’s marks/comments.  Discrepancies in the mark allocated are reconciled between the two markers after the initial marking is complete.

Work which has been second marked will still be subject to the Internal Moderation process.

 

E1.5.6: Collaborative marking

Collaborative Marking is an activity where an initial unconfirmed mark for a piece of assessment is reached through discussion between two or more markers.

Work which has been collaboratively marked will still be subject to the Internal Moderation process.

 

E1.5.7: Standardisation

Standardisation is an activity to ensure that the assessment criteria for a programme, module, or module component, are applied consistently by tutors and assessors.

Subject and discipline areas may need to apply different strategies in order to achieve standardisation. School Teaching and Learning Committees will develop standardisation policies and processes to suit their diets of assessment.  These policies should include appropriate recording of standardisation events and outcomes, particularly for modules and components which are marked by more than one tutor.

Work which has marked through standardisation will still be subject to the Internal Moderation process.

 

E1.5.8: External moderation

A sampling of the assessment process of 15% or 10 students (whichever is the greater but normally not more than 30 students) normally covering high, medium and low attainment and failed assessments should be made available to the External Examiner.

A pro-forma for this moderation should be used and kept as evidence for the process having been undertaken.  This applies irrespective of whether second or double marking has taken place. 

For each delivery of a module at post-Foundation level, the module leader is required to ensure that it can be demonstrated that the assessment process for that cohort has been subject to appropriate scrutiny by an External Examiner.  The purpose of engagement with the External Examiner is to allow them the appropriate opportunity to confirm satisfaction with the standards and processes applied to the overall assessment of that delivery.

Work presented for sight by the External Examiner must have been part of the internal moderation sample.  The role of the External Examiner is not to mark or adjudicate on individual pierces of assessment; it is to confirm independently that processes have been followed with consistent application of standards that are typical of the sector as a whole.

 

E1.6: Information for students

The University will ensure that the assessment requirements for courses of study are made known to students.  The assessment scheme of an individual course of study is subject to both institution-wide regulations and regulations specific to that course, and students will be made aware of the detailed requirements of both sets of regulations.

The University will make available to students information about the grounds on which they may request that Course Assessment Boards be asked to review their decisions and about the arrangements for dealing with any such requests.

 

E1.7: Responsibilities of students

It is the responsibility of students to attend examinations and submit work for assessment by the agreed submission date and to provide the examiners in advance of their meeting with any relevant information on personal circumstances which may have affected performance and which they wish the examiners to take into account.  By attending the examination, a student is confirming that they are fit to undertake that examination.

If a student fails to attend examinations or submit work for assessment without good cause, the examiners have authority to deem the student to have failed the assessments concerned.  .  In cases of dispute over submission, claims by students to have submitted work will only be considered in cases where the student provides a copy of the receipt to demonstrate submission.

Assessed work which is submitted late but within five working days of the agreed submission date will be accepted and the maximum mark available for that piece of assessment will be the standard pass mark for that piece of assessment. This facility does not apply to the submission of assessed work relating to Tutor Reassessment, referral or deferral requirements but does apply to previously agreed extended or renegotiated deadlines.

If a student fails, without good cause, to provide the examiners in advance of their meeting with information about any personal circumstances that may have affected performance in assessments, the Senate or other body authorised by it to consider appeals against an examiner's decision has authority to reject the appeal on those grounds.

If a student is found to have cheated or acted in a way which may have resulted in an unfair advantage, the Academic Misconduct Officer and/or the Academic Misconduct Committee have authority to deem the student to have failed part or all of the assessments and the authority to determine whether or not the student shall be permitted to be reassessed.

 

E1.8: Extenuating circumstances

Where a student has failed to secure a pass mark for the module(s) concerned, remedial action is to permit another attempt at the assessment(s) for which an EC claim has been approved.  The results of this reassessment will be considered at the next scheduled Course Assessment Board. 

Where the student has secured a pass in the module(s) concerned but has not submitted work for one or more element(s) of assessment (as defined in the module specification) for which an EC claim has been approved, remedial action for this/these element(s) of assessment is to permit another attempt at the assessment(s) concerned.  The results of this reassessment will be considered at the next scheduled Course Assessment Board.  If the student opts not to re-submit the work then the remedial action for these/these elements(s) of assessment will be for the Course Assessment Board to take the approved EC claim into account when deciding a candidate’s classification in accordance with University guidelines.

Where the student has secured a pass in the module(s) concerned and has submitted work for one or more element(s) of assessment (as defined in the module specification) for which an EC claim has been approved, remedial action for this/these element(s) of assessment will be for the Course Assessment Board to take the approved EC claim into account when deciding a candidate’s classification in accordance with University guidelines.  Submission against an element of assessment includes either partial or full submission.  No further attempts at this/these element(s) of assessment will be granted. 

If a student suffers from a short-term illness or experiences serious personal difficulties which warrant a request for an extension of course work submission dates, the student must submit a  request for such an extension as soon as possible and not after the agreed submission date (other than in exceptional circumstances agreed by the Course Assessment Board).  Extensions cannot be applied to deadlines set for Tutor Reassessment or work that has been formally referred or deferred by a Course Assessment Board.

Students who wish to claim that either

  1. failure to attend an examination, or
  2. failure to submit work by the agreed submission or extension date, or
  3. poor performance in any element of the coursework assessment

was due to illness or other extenuating circumstances must make such a claim within five working days of the submission or examination dateThe claim must be submitted to the appropriate email mailbox of the School responsible for the course. 

E2: Regulations governing assessment in the credit accumulation and transfer scheme (CATS)

 

E2.1: The award of credit

Candidates are awarded credit at an appropriate Course Assessment Board for each module that they pass, including a condoned pass.  Where a student is an associate student and is not linked to a named course, Schools must make arrangements to assign responsibility for the award of credit to such students to an appropriate Course Assessment Board. 

Candidates are not permitted to retake a module or component of assessment which they have passed with a view to obtaining a higher mark.

 

E2.2: Graded and non-graded modules

Each module must have the status either of being graded or of being non-graded.

All Honours level modules contributing to a classified award must be graded.  A maximum of 40 Intermediate level credits may be ungraded.  An exception to this rule will be permitted in the case of existing ungraded placement Intermediate level modules. 

Candidates who obtain the minimum pass mark or more on a graded module will be deemed to have passed that module, unless additional criteria have been explicitly approved as part of the validated module specification. 

Candidates studying health or social work related modules with a professional practice component, and for which Professional and Statutory Bodies have set a requirement that these be passed the following rule will apply:

  1. Where the theory and practice components reach the minimum pass mark or above and the practice element has been passed, the credit will be awarded with the appropriate full mark and grade;
  2. Where the theory component reaches the minimum pass mark or above and the practice component has been referred the credit will not be awarded until the practice component has been passed and the full theory mark and grade will be awarded.
  3. Where the theory component is referred and the practice component has been passed the credit will not be awarded until the theory component has been passed, and the mark and grade will be capped at the minimum pass mark.
  4. Where either the practice and/or theory component is failed after referral the standard University regulations for retaking modules will apply or the mark and grade will be capped at the minimum pass mark.

 

E2.3: Tutor re-assessment, condonement, referral, and failure

The decision as to whether the result should be declared as deferred, referred, condoned or failed lies with the Course Assessment Board.  These decisions apply to graded and ungraded modules.  The nature of the assessment to retrieve a referred or deferred module is at the discretion of the Course Assessment Board and may reflect whether or not the student submitted the original attempt.  The maximum mark available for a graded module following referral is the minimum pass mark.

Subject to the provisions of Section E1.7, if a student fails to attend an examination or to submit assessed work by the agreed submission date (after allowing for any extension that might have been granted) the Course Assessment Board will record a mark of zero, leading to failure in that examination or assessed work, unless it is satisfied that there are good grounds for treating the student differently formally provided through an approved EC.

In calculating the mark for a module following a referral or deferral, the higher of the marks achieved for each element of assessment will be the mark used in the calculation of the overall mark. 

Assessments other than formal examinations and end assessments as identified in the Assessment and Feedback Strategy should be marked and made available for return to candidates within three term-time weeks of the submission date – in cases of extensions or renegotiated deadlines, the return date should be within three term-time weeks of the revised submission date.

Other than in the case of a Tutor Re-assessment, deferred or referred work can only be considered after the initial result has been formally published as a deferral or referral by a Course Assessment Board.  Assessment of deferred or referred modules must be completed by a standard time as specified in the University’s assessment timetable published by the Director of Registry.  Where a candidate is deferred or referred in a pre-requisite module the work should normally be assessed before the candidate starts the post-requisite module.  Where a piece of work submitted for Tutor Re-assessment attains a mark less than the minimum pass mark and the candidate’s overall mark for the module is less than the minimum pass mark, the Course Assessment Board will follow the regulations set out in Section E2.3.

 

E2.3.1: Tutor reassessment

Tutor Re-assessment is where a candidate is given the opportunity to resubmit a piece of work in-year and for it to be re-marked prior to the meeting of the Course Assessment Board at which the module is to be considered.  In calculating the mark for a module following a Tutor Re-assessment, the higher of the marks achieved for the assessment will be the mark used in the calculation of the overall module mark. Tutor Reassessment is not available for formal examinations but may be available for in-class tests.

A Tutor Re-assessment may only be applied when:

  1. A candidate achieves a mark within the specified referral range in an assessment which is conducted under coursework protocols;
  2. It is possible for the candidate to complete the work and for it to be marked and moderated before the Course Assessment Board meets.

A Tutor Re-assessment will not normally be offered to a candidate who fails to submit a piece of work for the original assessment.

The maximum mark for a successful Tutor Re-assessment will be the minimum pass mark.  An EC claim cannot be submitted for an assessment that has been offered as a Tutor Reassessment.

 

E2.3.2: Condonement of a module

Condonement is not permitted on ungraded modules or pre-foundation modules or awards.

In all cases where a module has been condoned, the credit for the module will be awarded, and the actual mark achieved will be recorded.

Where a module has been condoned, the module will be accepted as a prerequisite for subsequent relevant modules.

Candidates on undergraduate awards who at any point in their studies fail to achieve a pass in a single 20 or 30 credit module or in two 10 credit modules but who have passed all other modules in that level of award (i.e. Foundation, Intermediate or Honours level) will be awarded a condoned pass in the module(s) in question provided that:

  1. the mark achieved in the module(s) in question is in the range of 30% to 39%
  2. the module has not been identified as compulsory for that course
  3. the candidate has achieved the learning outcomes, educational aims and all other modules of the level as a whole
  4. the student would otherwise have been referred, remained referred (through deferral) or failed the module in question
  5. the overall average achieved by the candidate for all modules at that level exceeds 40%
  6. the module is not currently subject to a proven allegation of academic misconduct
  7. the total condoned credits for the candidate do not exceed 60 credits across a 360 credit honours award (pro rata for awards of fewer credits)

Candidates on postgraduate awards who at any point in their studies fail to achieve a pass in a single module, which does not exceed 30-credits or two 15-credit modules, but who have passed all other modules will be awarded a condoned pass in the module/s  in question provided that:the overall mark achieved in the module(s) in question is in the range of 45% to 49%

  1. the module has not been identified as compulsory for that course
  2. the candidate has achieved the learning outcomes and educational aims
  3. the student would otherwise have been referred, remained referred (through deferral) or failed the module in question
  4. the overall average achieved by the candidate for all modules at that level exceeds 50%
  5. the module is not currently subject to a proven allegation of academic misconduct
  6. the module does not form part of a ‘top-up’ stage
  7. the module does not incorporate the major project or dissertation
  8. there are not any professional body requirements preventing condonement

Condoned modules should not be used as APL. 

Note: Core modules are modules available for condonement. Compulsory modules cannot be condoned.

 

E2.3.3: Referral in a module

Candidates who achieve an overall mark within the specified referral range in a graded module or who fail to secure a pass in an ungraded module will normally be referred by the Course Assessment Board in the first instance, unless the module has satisfied the condonement criteria in section E2.3.2.  The maximum mark available for a graded module following referral will be the minimum pass mark. 

 

E2.3.4: Approved referral

Subject to the provisions of Section E2.3, candidates on a postgraduate module who achieve an overall mark below the specified referral range will normally be failed by the Course Assessment Board.  In the light of a candidate’s good overall performance, a Course Assessment Board may require that a candidate who has achieved a mark below the specified referral range in the first instance should be referred provided that:

  1. the module in question has not been identified as ‘not open for Approved Referral’
  2. the module in question carries a value of 30 credits or below
  3. the profile of Approved Referral for an individual student does not exceed a total of 30 credits across the 180 of a full MA/MSc (pro rata for PGDip or PGCert or other), or 30 credits across the 120 M level credits within the M level stage of an integrated masters award
  4. the student’s profile to date does not include a proven allegation of academic misconduct at M-level
  5. all other modules taken to date on the course have been passed at a minimum of the specified pass mark plus 10%

This should be recorded as an Approved Referral.  The nature of the re-assessment is at the discretion of the Course Assessment Board.  The maximum mark available for the module following approved referral is the minimum pass mark.

 

E2.3.5: Failure in a module

Subject to the provisions of Section E1.7, candidates who fail to achieve the specified pass mark in a graded module or who fail to secure a pass in an ungraded module will normally be failed by the Course Assessment Board in the second instance, unless the module has satisfied the condonement criteria in section E2.3.2.

 

E2.4: Nature of reassessment following an initial failure in a module

Subject to the provisions of Section E2.3.3, where a candidate fails an undergraduate module, the nature of the assessment to retrieve a failed module is normally a full repeat of the module and the re-submission in the subsequent academic session of the component(s) of assessment in which the candidate has failed to secure a pass.  The maximum mark available for a graded module taken for the second time is the minimum pass mark.

Subject to the provisions of Section E2.2, where a candidate fails a postgraduate module the candidate will have to undertake a new and different full set of assessment activities, normally when the module is next offered in a subsequent academic session.  The maximum mark available for a graded module taken for the second time is the minimum pass mark.

Exceptionally and for postgraduate dissertation or postgraduate project modules only, a Course Assessment Board may require a candidate who has failed a dissertation or project module to rework the original assessment rather than undertake a new and different assessment.  The maximum mark available for a module taken for a second time is the minimum pass mark.

 

E2.5: Progression

 

E2.5.1: Full-time undergraduate awards

At all times, progression shall be subject to the provision that it is still possible for the candidate to complete the course within the maximum specified period.

Candidates at the point of initial consideration by the Course Assessment Board shall have the right to be referred in any module where credit has not been awarded. 

Candidates at the point of initial consideration by the Course Assessment Board who have been awarded a total of 120 credits for the current stage of assessment may progress. 

Progression decisions for all other candidates at the point of initial consideration by the Course Assessment Board will be deferred pending the outcome of referral or deferral assessments.

Candidates at the point of second consideration or subsequent by the Course Assessment Board who have been awarded a total of 120 credits for the current stage of assessment may progress. 

Candidates at the point of second consideration or subsequent by the Course Assessment Board who have been awarded a minimum total of 90 credits for the current stage of assessment may progress with any failed modules to be trailed retrieved in the subsequent session unless there are prohibitions on this nature of progression stipulated in the validated programme documents. 

Candidates at the point of second or subsequent consideration by the Course Assessment Board who have been awarded a total of 80 credits for the current stage of assessment may progress with a failed module to be retrieved in the subsequent session provided that the failed 40 credits is a single module in which the candidate has achieved a minimum overall mark of 30%. 

Candidates at the point of second or subsequent consideration by the Course Assessment Board who have been awarded a total of 80 credits for the current stage of assessment may progress with incomplete modules to be retrieved in the subsequent session provided that the profile of incomplete modules includes a decision of deferral (from either the first or second instance of consideration by the Course Assessment Board). 

Candidates at the point of second or subsequent consideration by the Assessment Board who have been awarded at least 50 credits for the current stage of assessment but who do not fall into one of the categories outlined in the three points above may not progress but will be permitted to return in the subsequent session to retrieve failed modules. The repeat of any outstanding modules will normally be completed with full attendance, unless an exception has been approved via the Director of Registry.  

Candidates at the point of second consideration or subsequent by the Assessment Board who have been awarded 40 or fewer credits for the current stage of assessment shall be deemed to have failed the course and lose any opportunity for further reassessment. 

 

E2.5.2: Part-time undergraduate

Candidates shall be subject to the same progression principles outlined above, taking account of the maximum number of credits permitted for registration by a part-time candidate.

 

E2.5.3: All awards 

Subject to relevant progression regulations, candidates at whatever point in their course of study shall have the right, following a first failure, to repeat and be reassessed once only (including, where appropriate, Tutor Reassessment and referral) in the failed module, provided that it is still possible to complete the course within the maximum specified period.

Candidates may, following a first failure in an optional module (and in accordance with the appropriate course regulations), choose to substitute a different optional module in preference to exercising their entitlement to reassessment.  For the purpose of these regulations, such modules will be termed substituted modules.  Candidates who elect to study substituted modules will not be capped at the minimum pass mark upon successful completion of the substituted module but will, in so doing, sacrifice their entitlement to a second attempt in their failed module(s).

Candidates are not permitted to substitute an optional module that has a proven allegation of academic misconduct against it.  

 

Timing of initial reassessments of failed modules

A second attempt at a failed module will normally take place in the subsequent session or in the case of postgraduate awards, when the module is next offered.

Subject to the provisions of Section E2.2, in graded modules, the grade awarded for the module on reassessment should be no higher than the minimum pass mark regardless of the actual grade achieved.  The candidate’s transcript will record the grade awarded on the second attempt of the module.

 

Failure to achieve an award

  1. Candidates who, after exercising their entitlement to a second attempt at a failed module, fail to achieve a pass in undergraduate modules totalling 60 credit points at any level or combination of levels, shall normally lose their right to count their existing credits towards any award on which they are enrolled and for which they have not yet become eligible.
  2. Candidates who, after exercising their entitlement to a second attempt at a failed module, fail to achieve a pass in modules totalling 30 credit points at postgraduate level, shall normally lose their right to count their existing credits towards any award on which they are enrolled and for which they have not yet become eligible.
  3. A candidate’s registration for an award of the University will be terminated if two academic years (including standard resit periods) elapse without the award of credit. The Assessment Board will confer any interim award to which the student is entitled.

 

E2.6: Subsequent reassessment of modules following a second failure in a module

Exceptionally and with the approval of the relevant Course Assessment Board, a candidate may be permitted, following failure in a second attempt at a failed module, to undertake a third attempt at the module in question.  This does not apply to modules on some professional courses.

Where a candidate has failed a second attempt at a core or compulsory module, the relevant Course Assessment Board may refuse an application for a third attempt even though the candidate has not yet reached the limits of failure laid down in Section E2.5.3.

 

E2.7: Changed modules

 

E2.7.1: Undergraduate awards

Module assessment requirements may change from year to year.  An undergraduate candidate who is undertaking a module for a second time should normally expect to be assessed using the same evidence and criteria which were current at the point of assessment on the first attempt.  In cases where it is not practicable for candidates to be reassessed using the same assessment requirements as at the first attempt, the course assessment board may, at its discretion, make such special arrangement as it deems appropriate.

 

E2.7.2: Postgraduate awards

A candidate who is undertaking a module for a second time may not demand reassessment using evidence and criteria which are no longer current in the module.  The appropriate course assessment board may, at its discretion, make such special arrangement as it deems appropriate in cases where it is not practicable for candidates to be reassessed using the same assessment requirements as at the first attempt.

 

E2.8: Registration for modules

Full-time undergraduate students will normally register for tuition in no more than 120 credit points each year.  Full-time postgraduate students will normally register for tuition in no more than 180 credits.

Full-time students shall be progressed from one stage to the next provided 90 credit points have been recorded in the earlier stage.

In exceptional circumstances, at the discretion of the Course Assessment Board, an undergraduate student may be registered for tuition in 160 credit points.

Part-time undergraduate students will normally register for tuition in no more than 80 credit points per academic session except at the explicit and recorded discretion of the Course Assessment Board.  Part-time postgraduate students will normally register for tuition in no more than 90 credit points per academic session.

The responsibility for ensuring that module choices have been made and correctly recorded rests with the student.

The Director of Registry will publish an annual timetable by which continuing and new students must record their modules for the academic session.

Students do not have the right to change their module choices.  Exceptionally, a student may be allowed to change up to the end of the third week of the academic session.  However, to make such exceptional module changes, the student will need to obtain the express permission of the course leader and to complete all the necessary paperwork.  Students must note that any agreed change(s) can only be accommodated within the timetable slot(s) as originally allocated.

A student is entitled to be assessed only in those modules on which they are formally enrolled.  If a student changes modules without seeking approval and/or without changing registration, any work in connection with such module(s) will not be formally assessed.

If a student fails to confirm their recorded module choices, the student will only be assessed in those modules which have been registered.

If a student enrols for a module which is subsequently not taken, the Course Assessment Board will record a fail in that module.

 

E2.9: Registration for awards

Any specific credit accumulated by a candidate shall normally be deemed to be general credit if the candidate has not converted that specific credit into an award of the University within a period of six years following the award of the specific credit.

 

E2.10: The classification of Bachelor’s degrees awarded with honours

In a course leading to the award of a Bachelor’s degree with honours, classification will be based on a weighted numerical average of marks awarded in graded I and H level credits undertaken in a student’s course of study, with the best marks totalling 100 credits at each level being included in the calculation. 

Subject to the provisions of Section E2.4, candidates must have achieved a pass mark in all modules leading to the award before being eligible for an honours degree. 

For candidates returning to complete an honours degree having previously accepted an interim award, classification will include those intermediate and honours level modules which formed part of the interim award.

In calculating the weighted numerical average for the Bachelor’s degree with honours, the calculation shall be conducted on a pro rata basis with H level credits counting to the calculation carrying a weighting of two and graded I level credits counting to the calculation carrying a weighting of one (subject to the provisions of Section E2.2).

The Integrated Master’s Degree comprises a first and second cycle award.  In calculating the numerical average for the classified first cycle award of Bachelor’s degree with honours, all H level credits counting to the calculation will carry a weighting of two and all graded I level credits counting to the calculation will carry a weighting of one (subject to the provisions of Section E2.2).  Confirmation of the first cycle award is recorded by the Course Assessment Board on the completion of H level modules but its conferment is deferred until the conclusion of the student’s registration for the course or the conferment of the second cycle award.

In the case of a designated sandwich course, weighted marks attached to S level credits may also play a part in determining the classification of a degree with honours.  Such S level credits will be weighted at one.

In a course leading to the award of a Bachelor’s degree with honours where the student has received accreditation for prior learning, the classification will be based on a numerical average of marks awarded in up to 100 graded I and 100 H level credits undertaken in the student’s course of study as a registered student of the University.  Subject to the provisions of Section E2.4, candidates must have achieved a pass mark in all modules.

 

E2.11: The classification of foundation degrees

In a course leading to the award of foundation degree, classification will be based on a numerical average of the overall marks awarded at intermediate level, with the best marks totalling 100 credits at intermediate level being included in the calculation.  Subject to the provisions of Section E2.4, candidates must have achieved a pass mark in all modules.

 

E2.12: The classification of non-honours qualifications

In a course leading to an award other than an honours qualification or a foundation degree, classification will be based on a numerical average of the overall marks awarded. 

When calculating the classification average for merit or distinction for an interim award, the average to be used must be drawn from the marks achieved for the required modules at the level of study of the award.

 

E2.13: The classification discretion band

Course Assessment Boards must be guided by the relevant classification bands in assigning classifications.  Within a 0.5% discretion band below a higher classification banding and subject to the published criteria, a Course Assessment Board may exercise academic judgement (including that relating to poor performance due to recognised extenuating circumstances) in determining classifications, and may also take account of a profile of the marks that have contributed to the overall numerical average.  In cases where a student profile includes a module with an unretrieved approved extenuating circumstance, a 1.5% discretion band will apply provided that at least one other criterion is satisfied. 

 

E2.14: Failure to meet the requirements for an Integrated Master’s Degree

Where a candidate fails to meet the requirements for an Integrated Master’s Degree, the candidate will be considered for the award of a bachelor’s degree with honours.  This award will be subject to the provisions of Section E2.10 and will exclude marks awarded in modules taken in the final year of the Integrated Master’s Degree course.

 

E2.15: Managing assessments in a period of major disruption: Emergency Regulations for Course Assessment Boards

Introduction and principles

The University of Huddersfield, through the oversight of Senate, is committed to upholding the highest academic standards in all circumstances. However, during a period of major disruption like a pandemic or industrial action, it is recognised that it may be necessary to vary the normal protocols on an exceptional basis.

In all cases, the objective is to ensure students are not disadvantaged by circumstances beyond their control or that of the University, whilst ensuring quality assurance and consistency in progression and awards decisions.

Course Assessment Boards (CABs) are expected to operate in adherence to these underlying principles:

  1. Wherever possible normal assessment regulations, deadlines and timescales should be followed.
  2. Adjustments to assessment protocols will be carefully considered; they will enable the University to uphold rigorous academic standards whilst taking into account any serious, unforeseen or unavoidable circumstances having a wide impact across a cohort, course, school or at University level.
  3. Wherever possible, students should be able to graduate or progress from one stage of their degree programme to the next.
  4. Where there is no doubt about a student’s level of attainment (all or sufficient marks exist for sound academic judgment to be made about the student’s overall level of attainment), the normal regulations should be applied and results determined accordingly.
  5. Where marks are missing, and adjustments are considered essential, the regulations will be applied consistently and fairly to all students affected.
  6. These alternative regulations cannot be implemented without the permission of Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs), where applicable.

The emergency regulations will only be introduced where it is likely that not to do so would cause protracted delay and severe disadvantage.

These regulations will only come into force following consultation with students through their elected representatives. The decision to implement will be approved by UTLC and Senate (by virtual meeting or by Chair’s action as necessary) and will be lifted under the same authority.

 

Extenuating Circumstances and CAB discretion

Where a group of students’ performance is affected by adverse circumstances which are not personal to them but as a result of a wider issue (for example technical, social, political or public health problems), the University, through its Registry, will issue guidance to CABs on how to consider students’ performance under these circumstances.

CAB decisions must be taken in the context of: available information; the programme intended learning outcomes; the discipline and level; the time of year; University regulations; any professional requirements. Decisions may depend on whether the student is/is not at the final stage of the programme.  The External Examiner should be consulted in all cases, although it may not be possible for them to be present (physically or virtually) at the board. All decisions reached should be clearly documented within the minutes record.

The Extenuating Circumstances process should be followed in all cases before the CAB can exercise discretion. A student or staff member (with the student’s permission) should submit an EC claim noting that the adverse impact was directly related to the major disruption.  If other factors contributed as well, these should also be noted. The CAB will keep a record of all cases where the major disruption is accepted as an extenuating circumstance.

Where the impact of the major disruption causes postponement of the usual CAB schedule, additional assessment opportunities and extra Course Assessment Boards for students may be introduced in order to minimise the delay to progression and award decisions. 

An interruption of study may be preferable to some students. If this is agreed, there will be an expectation that the student returns at the same point in the following academic year to recommence studies.  The fees for both the year of the disruption and the following year will be charged pro rata.

 

Progression

If the student’s profile of marks is incomplete due to disruption-related extenuating circumstances, progression will be permitted under one of the following mechanisms:

  • Where assessments have been taken but marks are not available, students will normally be permitted to progress, with post-emergency recovery action required as soon as marks are available.
  • Where missing results relate to core, pre-requisite or PSRB requirements, the CAB may exceptionally delay a progression decision, with post-emergency recovery action required as soon as marks are available.
  • Where the regulations allow alternative assessment or incomplete assessment as detailed below.

Award

If the student’s profile of marks is incomplete due to disruption-related extenuating circumstances, the CAB may consider an award as follows:

  • By determining an overall module mark based on partial completion of the module assessment if the learning outcomes have been met.
  • Exceptionally, where there is no reasonable expectation that an assessment opportunity can be made available, the CAB may record a pass mark for the module, if it is otherwise assured that the student has completed the module to a satisfactory standard. This will be noted on the transcript.
  • Confirm the award, subject to later confirmation of the classification.

Alternative assessment

Wherever possible, alternative assessments will be provided and marks will be made available to the CAB.  However, some components of assessment may be disregarded as follows.

In the Foundation year (year 1) or Pre-foundation year (year 0) of the course:

  • Where 50% or more of the module mark is already accounted for through previous assessed components, other components of assessment may be discounted and the overall module mark based on the mark(s) already achieved
  • Where less than 50% of the module mark is accounted for, an alternative assessment will be put in place wherever possible
  • Where alternative assessments cannot reasonably be set, progression may be determined on a pass/fail basis for each of the module(s) affected. The transcript will record the reason for this.

In the Intermediate year (year 2) of the course:

  • Where 60% or more of the module mark is already accounted for through previous assessed components, other components of assessment may be discounted and the overall module mark based on the mark(s) already achieved
  • Where less than 60% of the module mark is accounted for, an alternative assessment will be put in place wherever possible
  • Where alternative assessments cannot reasonably be set, progression may be permitted with outstanding assessments trailed into the following year.

In the Honours year (year 3 or 4) and Final year of Integrated Masters:

  • An alternative assessment will be put in place for all missing components of assessment
  • Where an alternative assessment is not readily available, the CAB will defer its decision until such time as an appropriate assessment can be set and a module mark provided.

In all cases where these regulations are brought into force, students will be informed how the CAB will proceed and on what basis it will make its decisions.

 

Complaints and Appeals

The University’s accelerated procedure in the event of a major disruption will be followed.

 

Post-emergency recovery actions

When the Vice-Chancellor or PVC Teaching and Learning determines the emergency over, and this has been approved by UTLC and Senate (by Chair’s action if necessary), action will be taken to recover any missing marks, if extant, or to put in place any additional assessment required to allow students to demonstrate that the learning outcomes have been met.

For taught provision, once any outstanding marks are recorded on ASIS, CABs will re-consider the entire marks profile by means of Chair’s Action. 

The University reserves the right to correct errors made during an emergency, particularly if these affect licence to practice. Ordinarily however:

  • Where this results in a higher module mark/higher classification, the higher mark/class will be awarded.
  • Where the marks generate a lower module mark/class, the student will have the right to retain the higher mark/class previously awarded.
  • Where the incorporation of missing marks generates a fail in a module which has been previously entered as a pass under this guidance the student will be offered the opportunity to resit but will not be required to do so unless required by a PSRB.
  • Where the incorporation of missing marks identifies students who have been recommended for progression under these procedures where they would otherwise have failed, the progression decision will stand and the student will be offered the following options:
  • Repeating the previous year
  • Trail the failed module(s) whilst continuing at the current level of study
  • Substitute the module at the lower level and trail it
  • Transfer course
  • Exceptionally, where no alternative assessment is possible and/or as stipulated by the PSRB, the student may be required to withdraw from the course

 

Impact of Covid-19 on degree classifications in 2019/20, 2020/21 and 2021/22

Addendum to Regulations for Assessments in Periods of Emergency

Principles:

  • The global pandemic is unprecedented; its disruption significant and wide-ranging
  • The impact on potential degree outcomes will affect all PGT and final year UG students in 2019/20 and all current second year students in 2020/21. It may also affect integrated Masters students in 2021/22
  • The University will put in place a safety net to ensure no student is disadvantaged by these circumstances
  • Academic quality and standards will be maintained in line with OfS expectations and PSRB requirements

Expectations:

  • All students will attempt all assessments set
  • A second assessment opportunity will be available to all candidates using the same method as the original assessment
  • All confirmed module marks for summative assessment will appear on transcripts
  • Where a graduating student passes/is condoned in all assessments, they will receive a final award classification which is at least equal to their second year classification

Unless PSRB requirements are otherwise, Course Assessment Boards (CABs) are required to note and apply the following adjustments to the degree algorithms when making relevant decisions during the following academic years:

 

Undergraduate Programmes

  1. In 2019/20, candidates on undergraduate awards who have achieved 100 credits at level 6, with the remaining 20 credits in the range for condonement, shall be awarded a degree classification which is at least equal to that attained at level 5
  2. In 2020/21 or 2021/22, candidates on undergraduate awards achieving level 5 credit in 2019/20 shall have their profiles considered using two algorithms:
    1. Classification taking into account both level 5 and 6 credit
    2. Classification taking into account level 6 credit only
    3. The better outcome will apply
  3. Where sandwich students are on placement in 2019/20, this will not normally impact on classification, except potentially in the case of a designated sandwich course. If S level credits achieved in 2019/20 contribute to classification, candidates shall have their profiles considered using both the standard algorithm and by excluding S level credits. The better outcome will apply.

 

Integrated Masters Programmes

  1. In 2019/20, candidates on single awards who have achieved 100 credits at level 7, with the remaining 20 credits in the range for condonement, shall be awarded a degree classification which is at least equal to that attained at level 6
  2. In 2019/20, where a candidate intends to graduate after their third year, regulation 1 above will apply.
  3. In 2020/21, level 7 candidates achieving level 6 credit in 2019/20 shall have their profiles considered using both the standard algorithm and by excluding level 6 credit. The better outcome will apply.
  4. In 2021/22, level 6 candidates achieving level 5 credit in 2019/20 shall have their profiles considered using both the standard algorithm and by excluding level 5 credit. The better outcome will apply.

 

Postgraduate Taught Programmes

  1. In 2019/20, candidates will receive a classification based on the approved alternative assessments
  1. In 2019/20, final year candidates for an award over a two-year programme shall be awarded a classification which is at least equal to that attained in their first year of study
  2. In 2020/21, final year candidates for an award over a two-year programme shall have their profiles considered using both the standard algorithm and by excluding first year credits. The better outcome will apply.

 

Non-standard Programmes

For any other courses with a delivery pattern which differs from the above, the same principles will apply.  At the point of determining the award, candidates’ profiles will be considered using both the standard algorithm and by excluding credit achieved in 2019/20. The better outcome will apply.