Skip navigation

Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education

Section 6: Assessment of students

Draft for consultation - January 2006

Foreword

1 This document is the second edition of a code of practice for assessment of students in UK higher education institutions. It is one of a suite of inter-related documents which forms an overall Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (the Code of practice) for the guidance of higher education institutions subscribing to the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA).

2 The overall Code of practice and its 10 constituent sections were originally prepared by QAA between 1998 and 2001 in response to the reports of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education and its Scottish Committee (the Dearing and Garrick Reports). The Code of practice supports the national arrangements within the UK for quality assurance in higher education. The Code of practice identifies a comprehensive series of system-wide principles (precepts) covering matters relating to the management of academic quality and standards in higher education. It provides an authoritative reference point for institutions as they consciously, actively and systematically assure the academic quality and standards of their programmes, awards and qualifications.

3 The Code of practice assumes that, taking into account principles and practices agreed UK-wide, each institution has its own systems for independent verification both of its quality and standards and of the effectiveness of its quality assurance systems. In developing the Code of practice, extensive advice has been sought from a range of knowledgeable practitioners.

4 The Code of practice does not incorporate statutory requirements relating to relevant legislation, for example, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. It assumes that institutions have an overriding obligation in all such cases to ensure that they meet the requirements of legislation. However, where a section of the Code of practice is related to legislative or similar obligations, efforts have been made to ensure compatibility between them.

5 Since 2001 a number of developments in UK higher education have encouraged QAA to begin a revision of individual sections of the Code of practice. In undertaking this task QAA has also decided to review the structure of the sections and, in particular, to replace the original 'precepts and guidance' format with a 'precepts and explanation' approach, using the explanations to make clear why the precepts are considered important and reducing opportunities for a 'checklist' approach to the Code of practice. In doing so QAA has sought to meet Recommendation 4 (part 4) of the Better Regulation Task Force in its report Higher Education: Easing the Burden, July 2002.

6 Revised sections of the Code of practice are therefore now structured into a series of precepts and accompanying explanations. The precepts express key matters of principle that the higher education community has identified as important for the assurance of quality and academic standards. Individual institutions should be able to demonstrate they are addressing the matters tackled by the precepts effectively, through their own management and organisational processes, taking account of institutional needs, traditions, culture and decision-making. The accompanying explanations show why the precepts are important.

7 The Code of practice is a statement of good practice that has been endorsed by the higher education community. As such it is useful in QAA's audit and review processes that consider the extent to which an institution, in developing and implementing its own policies, has taken account of the Code of practice and its precepts.

8 Institutions may find the explanations useful for developing their own policy and for allowing some flexibility of practice at subject level, depending on local needs. It is important to emphasise that the explanations do not form part of QAA's expectations of institutional practice when QAA teams are conducting audits and reviews.

9 Academic staff in departments and schools do not necessarily need to be aware of the detail of the various sections of the Code of practice, although they might well be expected to be familiar with the institutional policies it informs and any parts which are particularly relevant to their own responsibilities.

10 To assist users, the precepts are listed, without the accompanying explanations, in Appendix 1 of this section of the Code of practice.

11 The first version of this section of the Code of practice was published in May 2000. The publication of this second version follows consultation with staff in institutions, who have helped to update the Code of practice to take account of institutions' practical experience of using the guidance contained in its predecessor.

Introduction

12    In higher education, ‘assessment’ describes any processes that measure an individual’s knowledge, understanding or skills.

13 There are many different forms of assessment, serving a variety of purposes. These include:

  • promoting student learning by providing the student with feedback, normally to help improve his/her performance
  • measuring student knowledge, understanding or skills
  • providing a mark or grade that enables a student’s performance to be established. The mark or grade may also be used to make progress decisions
  • enabling the public (including employers), and higher education providers, to know that an individual has attained an appropriate level of achievement that reflects the academic standards set by the awarding institution and agreed UK norms, including the frameworks for higher education qualifications. This may include demonstrating fitness to practise or meeting other professional requirements.

14 The way in which students are assessed fundamentally affects their learning. Good assessment practice is designed to ensure that, in order to pass the module or programme, students have to demonstrate they have achieved the intended learning outcomes.

15 Within each programme, use of a range of assessment types enables students to demonstrate their capabilities and achievements in meeting different intended learning outcomes. Diversity of assessment practice between different subjects is to be expected and welcomed, to test a wide range of outcomes.

16 Students need to be aware of the purposes and implications of different assessment tasks, especially the opportunities provided for them to show they have achieved or exceeded the intended learning outcomes of a module or programme[1].

17 Assessment is usually construed as being diagnostic, formative or summative.

18 In this document, these terms are used to mean the following.

Diagnostic assessment is used to show a learner’s preparedness for a module or programme and identifies, for the learner and the teacher, any strengths and potential gaps in knowledge, understanding and skills expected at the start of the programme, or other possible problems. Particular strengths may lead to a formal consideration of accreditation of prior learning.

Formative assessment has a developmental purpose and is designed to help learners learn more effectively by giving them feedback on their performance and on how it can be improved and/or maintained.

Summative assessment is used to indicate the extent of a learner’s success in meeting the assessment criteria used to gauge the intended learning outcomes of a module or programme.

19 An assessment process can, and often does, involve more than one of these assessment purposes. For example, an assessment component submitted during a module may result in formative feedback designed to help students to improve their performance. An end-of-module or end-of-programme examination or other assessment normally results in a summative judgement being made about the level the student has attained, but any feedback on it may also have an intended formative purpose that can help students in assessment later in their programme, or on a subsequent programme.

20 This section of the Code of practice assumes that the above statements about the nature and purpose of assessment are broadly accepted. It is not QAA’s intention to prescribe how higher education providers will implement the precepts set out below, which are intended to assure good assessment practice. The accompanying explanations provide a rationale and, in some cases, examples to support the precepts. Where examples are provided, their purpose is to illustrate concepts, and sometimes to refer to what might be considered good practice, depending on the context and subject, and the students being assessed. These examples are not intended to form a checklist and were chosen to exemplify the concepts being explained. (See also paragraphs 5, 6 and 8 of the Foreword.)

21 In using this document, institutions will also need to refer to other sections of the Code of practice, in particular:

  • Section 1: postgraduate research programmes
  • Section 2: collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning)
  • Section 3: students with disabilities
  • Section 4: external examining
  • Section 5: academic appeals and student complaints
  • Section 7: programme approval, monitoring and review
  • Section 9: placement learning

and also:

  • Guidelines for the accreditation of prior learning
  • Guidelines for preparing programme specifications.

Please note that this section of the Code of practice applies only to taught modules and programmes. The Code of practice, Section 1: Postgraduate research programmes contains a section on the assessment of research students (precepts 22 to 24).

Precepts and explanations

General principles

1
As bodies responsible for the academic standards of awards made in their name, institutions have effective procedures for:

i designing, approving, supervising and reviewing the assessment strategies for programmes and awards

ii implementing rigorous assessment practices that ensure the standard for each award and award element is set and maintained at the appropriate level, and that student performance is properly judged against this

iii evaluating how academic standards are maintained and developed through assessment practice that also encourages a positive approach to student learning.

In considering how their policies and practices reflect this precept, institutions may find it helpful to consider other elements of the Academic Infrastructure, ie subject benchmark statements, frameworks for higher education qualifications and programme specifications. Also relevant are other external guidelines relating to the subject, for example, advice provided by professional, statutory and/or regulatory bodies. Programme specifications normally contain a summary of intended learning outcomes, assessment methods and marking criteria that apply to a programme or group of programmes.

It is for individual institutions to determine the frequency and regularity with which evaluation of assessment practice is conducted. This might appropriately take place as part of an annual monitoring process or be integrated with internal institutional periodic review, for example, as part of a five-yearly cycle.

Ways in which institutions might wish to ensure that their practices are consistent with the above precept could include:

  • making clear where responsibility lies in the institution for assuring that assessment practice supports these general principles
  • at subject level, evaluating the extent to which assessment tasks and associated criteria are effective in measuring student attainment of the intended learning outcomes of modules and programmes
  • at subject and institutional levels, checking that assessment policies and practices remain responsive to external developments in assessment, including professional, statutory and/or regulatory body requirements, where appropriate
  • having in place a mechanism to monitor and compare student achievement and academic standards over time
  • analysing trends in results, for example to analyse mark, grade or honours distributions, or to identify any relation between student entry qualifications and assessment outcomes.

2
Institutions publicise and implement principles and procedures for, and processes of, assessment that are explicit, valid and reliable.

There are good reasons why forms of assessment vary widely. These include the need to ensure that types of assessment, including re-assessment, test the intended learning outcomes accurately and fairly, and are appropriate to the subject being studied, the mode of learning, and to the students taking the module or programme. In deciding which assessment methods to use, institutions, faculties, schools and departments may find it helpful to consider how:

  • to make information and guidance on assessment clear, accurate and accessible to all staff, students, placement or practice providers, assessors and external examiners, thereby minimising the potential for inconsistency of marking practice or perceived lack of fairness
  • the range and types of assessments used measure appropriately students’ achievement of the knowledge, skills and understanding identified as intended learning outcomes. It is important that each assessment enables students to demonstrate the extent to which they meet the intended learning outcomes in respect of both the subject and any generic skills
  • to ensure that assessment is operated fairly within programmes and for individual learners; and that assessment policies and principles are applied consistently. Showing how agreed marking criteria, grading schemes and moderation are used at different levels or stages of a programme and to maintain academic standards may help to demonstrate fair assessment processes
  • to verify that marks have been accurately recorded, in whatever form, to avoid transcription errors. For example, some institutions give students the opportunity to check that their own marks have been transcribed accurately.

Contribution to student learning

3
Institutions encourage assessment practice that makes a positive contribution to student learning.

There are numerous examples of both formative and summative assessment methods across different subjects that enable students to show their ability to meet and, where appropriate, exceed the intended learning outcomes for the module or programme.

Institutions can encourage staff to make use of different assessment methods by ensuring they have access to expertise, internal and external, to support the development of assessment that focuses on what students have learned and are able to do, rather than what they cannot do.

There are circumstances where students and their teachers need to be aware of gaps in their knowledge, understanding or skills. For example, in some subjects there may be a need to be fully conversant with health and safety regulations, or to meet the requirements of professional, statutory and/or regulatory bodies. Such requirements may pose unavoidable barriers to student progression.

Examples of assessment that support student learning include:

  • designing a ‘feedback loop’ into assessment tasks so that students can apply formative feedback (from staff or peers) to improve their performance in the next assessment
  • setting assessment tasks such as extended assignments that involve students researching a topic and producing work based on their research
  • the use of peer-assessed activities during formal teaching sessions where students, either in pairs or groups, comment constructively on one another’s work. This technique enables students to understand assessment criteria and deepens their learning in several ways, which can include:

    a learning from the way others have approached an assessment task (structure, content, analysis) and
    b learning through assessing someone else’s work, which encourages them to evaluate and benchmark their own performance and to improve it.
    Peer-assessed activities can be used in a variety of learning situations, including practical work and in large or small classes
  • involving, for example, patients or clients in giving feedback to students
  • where oral examinations take place, ensuring that opportunities are available for a student to practise and receive constructive feedback, and that the practise and feedback are timed to enable students to refine their work and, if necessary, to further develop the personal skills needed to present their arguments effectively.

The emphasis in this section of the Code of practice is on the positive aspects of assessment and its use in supporting student learning, but it is important to mention that, in some cases, the outcome of an assessment will be the student’s failure to achieve intended learning outcomes (see also third paragraph of precept 3 above). Failure can be used positively to support student learning if accompanied by appropriate advice that enables a student to improve his/her performance.

Conversely, a student may exceed the learning outcomes for a programme or module and it is important that the assessment is designed to record such additional achievement.

Assessment panels and examination boards

4
Institutions publicise and implement effective, clear and consistent policies for the membership, procedures, powers and accountability of assessment panels and boards of examiners.

Each panel’s or board’s decisions should be fair and demonstrate adherence to institutional and other relevant policies, procedures and processes. Panels and boards should also refer appropriately to the institutional regulations that apply to the qualifications awarded. Other requirements that may need to be taken into account are those of professional, statutory and/or regulatory bodies. It is helpful if all relevant policies, procedures, processes and regulations are readily available to students and staff.

Panels and boards should be constituted and operated with these objectives in mind. Taking the following points into account may help to achieve them.

There are often different levels and/or stages of assessment panels and boards of examiners, for instance in modular systems. Where there is more than one such panel or board, the relative powers and responsibilities of each needs to be clearly defined. For example, a departmental panel or board might have responsibility for deciding on the mark or grade a student should receive for a module assessment, and a subsequent faculty panel or board might then make a decision about how the mark affects the student’s progression to the next stage of the programme, or the final result.

It is often a requirement that external, as well as internal, assessors and/or examiners attend assessment panels or boards of examiners’ meetings that consider the results of students they have assessed. It is in everyone’s interests for these requirements to be made clear to and understood by all involved: assessors, examiners, chairs of panels/boards, departments etc. It is normally considered important for any exceptional circumstances in which such a requirement would be waived, in respect of either external or internal assessors/examiners, to be clearly stated and made known to all concerned well in advance of a meeting.

If it is also an institutional policy that one or more internal members of the institution (independent of the academic unit operating the assessment) attends the panel or board, he/she is likely to find it helpful to have clear guidance on his/her role and contribution. For example, the independent person might be present as an ‘expert’
on institutional policies and regulations.

Because of the potential conflicts of interest that can arise when confirming assessment decisions, members of assessment panels and boards of examiners need ample opportunities to declare any personal interest, involvement or relationship with a student being assessed. In some institutions, the need to declare conflicts of interest is avoided if students’ identities are not disclosed at examination boards and assessment panels.

Other points on which institutions may wish to consider giving guidance in respect of assessment panels and boards of examiners include:

  • the minimum number of internal and external members who must be present for valid decisions to be taken
  • what, if any, student work should be available to meetings of the assessment panels and boards of examiners
  • the circumstances in which a panel or board may exercise discretion, and the extent of that discretion. Guidance at institutional level about the circumstances in which it is appropriate to exercise academic discretion is likely to contribute to assuring the consistent operation of discretion in, for example, dealing with borderline cases (see also precept 7 below), or taking into account variations in student performance during a programme. Guidance can helpfully include advice on the treatment of evidence provided about students whose assessment performance might have been adversely affected by extenuating circumstances
  • the need to keep appropriate records of the procedures and decisions of each assessment panel and board of examiners. There are several reasons why it is considered good practice to keep minutes of panels and boards, including the need for an institution to be able to assure itself that it is operating within institutional policies and guidelines consistently and taking account of programme regulations, and the importance of being able to track details of decision-making, including the circumstances in which academic or other discretion is exercised, as mentioned above.

(See also the Code of practice, Section 4: External examining.)

Conduct of assessment

5
Institutions ensure that assessment is conducted with rigour, probity and fairness, and with due regard for security.

Clear policies and regulations covering all aspects of the conduct of assessment are key to this precept. Such guidance enables faculties, schools and departments to know how to meet the institution’s minimum requirements for assessment procedures, while allowing them to exercise appropriate autonomy at subject level.

For example, in the interests of equal opportunities, institutions will wish to achieve cross-institutional consistency in the procedures for dealing with extenuating circumstances (see precept 4 above), which are likely to be applicable to different forms of assessed material. However, an institution may think it appropriate to allow faculties, schools or departments to decide which assessment marks can contribute to a final degree mark, to allow for different subject needs and curricular structures.

Statements about procedural matters can helpfully be included in institutional guidance that governs the conduct of assessment, including, for example:

  • how and when students who need special assessment arrangements (for instance, those with dyslexia) are to be accommodated
  • if a student’s ability in the language in which the assessment is conducted is taken into account in marking assessed work, how this is made clear to all concerned, especially the student
  • how invigilation is carried out, including guidance for invigilators
  • how deadlines for submission of assessed work are set and met, and what penalties will be applied for not meeting them
  • the ways in which assessment results arising from different learning situations, for example, during a work placement, when a student is returning from an exchange overseas; or at another institution, can be integrated appropriately with other assessment results
  • how, and for how long, it is necessary to retain assessed work.

(See also the Code of practice, Section 2: Collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning) and the Joint Information Systems Committee’s records management policy.)

Amount and timing of assessment

6
Institutions encourage departments and schools to ensure that the amount and timing of assessment enable effective and appropriate measurement of students’ achievement of intended learning outcomes.

Deciding on the appropriate number and timing of assessment tasks is part of designing assessment that is fit for purpose. Institutions are likely to want to consider carefully how to coordinate assessment deadlines, especially where students are studying several subjects in parallel and/or taking joint programmes, to avoid clashes and excessive assessment burdens for students and staff. The benefits of timely formative assessment are explored elsewhere in this document (see precept 3).

Summative assessment gives students adequate opportunity to show they have achieved, or exceeded, the intended learning outcomes at different levels and stages. It is therefore helpful to avoid premature summative assessment and to give students enough time to mature in their learning and to synthesise knowledge. This may deepen knowledge and understanding of the subject and allow development of any personal, intellectual or practical skills that contribute to the intended learning outcomes.

In observing this precept institutions may find it helpful to consider:

  • how the organisation and delivery of the curriculum, including formal teaching, are linked to opportunities for students to demonstrate their achievement of the specified learning outcomes through appropriately scheduled assessment
  • how to avoid excessive amounts of summative assessment and emphasise support for student learning, especially through formative assessment
  • the need for efficiency in relation to the number of assessment tasks, without compromising opportunities for students to show their achievements and, where appropriate, the possibility of combining the assessment of a number of cognate modules so as to avoid assessment overload. In some circumstances, synoptic assessment can help to reduce the number of summative assessment tasks while encouraging students to make links between concepts, and/or to analyse different learning components
  • the need for appropriate timing of assessment, in particular ensuring students have adequate time to reflect on learning before being assessed. It is particularly important for students to have opportunities to practise skills, especially in vocational programmes involving fitness to practice
  • reviewing the amount of time available between completion of an assessment task by a student and the date at which the results are required, either by the student or the institution, to ensure that those involved in marking student work have enough time to complete it satisfactorily. This is particularly important in relation to final results.

Marking and grading

7
Institutions have transparent and fair mechanisms for marking and for moderating marks.

Publicising and using clear marking criteria and, where appropriate, marking schemes, are key factors in assuring that marking is carried out fairly and consistently across all subjects. An important principle is that students and markers are aware of, and understand, the marking criteria and/or schemes that will be used to mark each assessment task.

Precepts and explanations relating to external scrutiny and moderation of marking are included in the Code of practice, Section 4: External examining.

Internal moderation is important in assuring that examiners apply marking criteria consistently, and that there is a shared understanding of the academic standards students are expected to achieve. Different methods of internal moderation are more or less appropriate for particular situations. In some circumstances, moderation may be limited to sampling a representative number of scripts from a cohort of students, perhaps with emphasis on borderline cases. In other cases, moderation may involve second-marking.

Some of the factors institutions may wish to take into account in developing policies and procedures on marking and moderation include the following.

How to ensure that marking and grading schemes used at faculty, school and departmental level are appropriate and comparable. Institutions can provide helpful guidance on the circumstances in which it is appropriate and feasible to give a precise numerical mark when assessing student work, and when using grades or bands of marks is more appropriate. For example, in a numerical subject when a model answer for an assessment task is available, it is likely to be possible to give an exact mark to a student’s answer, whereas in a non-numerical context, with necessarily less precise assessment criteria, it may be preferable to use a grading system where each grade covers a range of numerical marks.

  • The need to provide advice on how borderline marks or grades are defined and treated.
  • The circumstances in which anonymous-marking is appropriate and when it is either not practical or inappropriate (for example, in work-based assessment or
    in the performing arts), and the need to provide institutional guidance about this. Such guidance can helpfully include advice about where in the assessment process anonymity ends, for example when introducing information about extenuating circumstances.
  • When second or double-marking is appropriate, and how assessments from larger groups are sampled. It may be helpful to highlight the importance of demonstrating that second or double-marking has taken place, and of putting in place practical arrangements that avoid prejudicing the second marker’s judgement, for example through the use of cover sheets or similar methods.
  • The processes governing any internal moderation or verification of marks and the procedure to be followed when an internal or external moderator disagrees with the original marks.
  • The usefulness of undertaking an analysis of marking and marking trends to facilitate comparisons and provide evidence on standards. Some institutions may find it appropriate to incorporate such analysis in annual monitoring processes.

8
Institutions publicise and implement clear rules and regulations for progressing from one stage of a programme to another and for qualifying for an award.

It is important that students, staff and examiners are aware of the ways in which assessment results will be used, including how they affect progression within a programme and their contribution to the overall programme mark.

The results required to pass each stage and to progress to the next stage of a programme, where appropriate, need to be clearly stated and explained to students at the beginning of the programme. The purpose of this is to ensure that students understand the impact of individual marks on their ability to progress and ultimately
to complete the programme.

In modular systems, it is important to make clear the effect that passing or failing an individual module will have on the student’s eligibility to take other modules, as well as the overall implications for progression and completion.

For each taught programme or group of programmes, institutions may wish to consider putting in place fair and easily understood procedures for combining individual marks to come to a final programme mark. These procedures will need to be transparent and easily accessible to students, staff and examiners and to have been previously evaluated by the institution to assure their reliability and validity.

Consistent approaches to progression and final marking across an institution are important, with fairness to all students and the maintenance of academic standards key principles. Flexibility at subject level may be appropriate, to reflect different discipline needs and marking conventions, including those in practice-based subjects, but this is normally accommodated within the overarching rules set by the institution. Where, for subject-related or other reasons, some variation is sought, it should be endorsed by the institution before being applied.

Consistency of treatment as described above should enable an institution to recognise comparable levels of student achievement across disciplines in similar ways. In some subjects or programme structures, for instance joint programmes, it may be most appropriate to assess students on their profile across different modules; in other subjects or programme structures, an arithmetic or weighted mean of results might be more suitable.

Institutions may find it helpful to cover the following details in guidance at institutional and programme levels.

  • The extent to which a student’s overall success in a programme can include failure in part of the programme, where this is permitted by institutional rules and regulations. In modular systems, guidance can helpfully distinguish between core and optional modules and include details about any modules that must be passed to meet professional, statutory and/or regulatory bodies’ requirements. It is important to ensure that students receiving an award have achieved or exceeded the learning outcomes for the programme.
  • In taught programmes, defining which marks contribute to the decision about whether a student receives an award.
  • On what basis retakes or resubmissions can occur, making clear the number and timing permitted and the accompanying procedures; for example, resitting examinations, resubmitting a dissertation, repeating a work-based or other type of practical assessment, or repeating an oral examination.
  • The rules for deferring or not completing an assessment, together with any special assessment conditions or penalties that may apply, including any restriction on the marks, grades or levels of award that can be obtained on the basis of retaken or deferred assessments. It is helpful if such rules cover a wide range of circumstances, including any progression permitted or awards conferred because of a student’s absence due to illness or other personal circumstances.

Precept 12 below, concerning professional, statutory and/or regulatory body requirements, is also relevant to progression and qualification.

Feedback to students on their performance

9
Institutions provide appropriate feedback to students on assessed work in a way that promotes learning and facilitates improvement.

It is good practice to provide students with sufficient, constructive and timely feedback on their work in respect of all types of assessment. Timing is important: students benefit from feedback on their work at a time when they will be able to use it and are most likely to take notice of it, for example, during a module rather than at the end.

Institutions are already alert to the need for staff to use their time effectively while providing comments to students on their work. Time spent on providing formative feedback to students part way through a module or programme can enable them to improve their performance before the next assessment. Concentrating staff effort on providing feedback during the learning process has the added benefit of giving students advice about how to improve their performance in time to affect their final mark.

It may be helpful to consider how different forms of feedback can be used for different purposes. For example, students are likely to find it helpful to receive constructive comments on their work from a range of sources including teachers, peers and, where appropriate, practitioners. Encouraging students to reflect on their own performance, as well as receiving feedback from others, can be a useful part of the learning process, especially when opportunities for self-assessment are integrated in a module or programme.

It is also possible to provide generic feedback to students in ways that help them to improve their individual performance by learning from the cohort as a whole. For example, making available anonymously a summary of all comments provided to individual students on an assessment task set for a group can help each student to think about how his/her work could be improved, especially if the comments are clearly related to learning outcomes and assessment criteria. Another strategy that can be economical of staff time but that can provide helpful feedback to students is publishing, anonymously, assessed work at different levels showing examples of progression and staff expectations of increasing development.

In meeting the needs of students for feedback on their progression and attainment, it can be helpful to consider:

  • the desirability of providing feedback at an appropriate time in the learning process (see above paragraphs), and as soon as possible after the student has completed the assessment task
  • specifying the nature and extent of feedback that students can expect and whether this is to be accompanied by the return of assessed work. In describing feedback mechanisms, it may be helpful to consider the needs of students such as those studying part-time or learning at a distance
  • the effective use of comments on returned work, including relating feedback to assessment criteria, in order to help students identify areas for improvement as well as commending them for achievement
  • the role of oral feedback, either on a group or individual basis, as a means of supplementing or replacing written feedback
  • providing guidance about the point in the module or programme where it is no longer appropriate for a member of staff to continue providing feedback to a student on his/her work. This is normally when a student is approaching a summative assessment, such as submission of a dissertation, or handing in a coursework assignment.

Staff development and training

10
Institutions ensure that everyone involved in the assessment of students is competent to undertake their roles and responsibilities.

Development opportunities for staff are important and can be offered in many different formats, and can be used to show that relatively small changes to assessment practice can increase the emphasis on student learning or optimise the effectiveness of staff time spent on assessing students’ work. Designing assessment tasks that allow students to focus on their interests, while enabling them to show they have achieved the module or programme learning outcomes, can help to fulfil both objectives.

One of the purposes of development opportunities in assessment practice provided by institutions, directly or indirectly, is to enable staff to appreciate the different requirements and purposes of formative and summative assessment. Such opportunities may cover the design of appropriate assessment tasks for evaluating different learning outcomes within different academic disciplines, taking account of some of the objectives outlined in precept 3 above.

Development opportunities might be used to:

  • promote understanding of the theory and practice of assessment and its implementation in the institution. The most useful development opportunities are likely to cover good assessment practice in the relevant subject discipline, including exploring the different purposes of formative and summative assessment. They may also cover a broad range of assessment tasks, and emphasise the importance of testing intended learning outcomes and providing meaningful and timely feedback to students
  • focus on competence and fitness for purpose, enabling staff to match assessment tasks appropriately to the subject and intended learning outcomes, and to share good practice within and across disciplines and institutions
  • enable staff to learn about new approaches to assessment as well as the best ways to operate existing or traditional methods
  • encourage staff to be aware of cultural differences and the ways in which these may affect student perceptions of assessment and their ability to perform assessment tasks successfully
  • provide induction on assessment practice for new staff, postgraduates involved in assessing other students, practitioners who are assessors, established staff and those with new responsibilities. This may include enabling staff to take part in activities offered by and through the Higher Education Academy, or similar organisations, and which are designed to support professional academic standards
  • meet the training needs of all those involved in assessment procedures and processes, and might cover interpretation of regulations, chairing assessment meetings, and record-keeping at assessment panels and boards, where appropriate. Staff from collaborating institutions who are involved in assessing students may welcome being invited to training and development events.

Language of assessment

11
The languages used in teaching and assessment are normally the same. If, for any reason, this is not possible, institutions ensure that their academic standards are not consequently put at risk.

Institutions that permit assessment in languages other than those in which they ordinarily work need to be confident that they can assure the academic standards of the awards made in their name. Circumstances in which institutions might permit assessment to be conducted in a language(s) other than that not used for teaching and study include educational partnerships or collaborative programmes, particularly those involved with overseas provision. These circumstances may include those where British Sign Language is used.

This precept will also be of interest to institutions subject to the requirements of the Welsh Language Act (1993). Information about the QAA Welsh Language Scheme can be found on the QAA website.

The Code of practice, Section 2: Collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning) also covers this topic in the Introduction, under the heading ‘Language of study and assessment’.

In anticipation of receiving requests from students for assessment to be undertaken in a language not used for teaching, institutions may find it helpful to publish clear criteria for evaluating such cases. Such criteria may include guidance about the time at which requests can be made. Where requests are granted, it is important to mention this on the student’s transcript.

Important factors to take into account in setting criteria are ensuring that staff involved in teaching and assessing students have the necessary subject knowledge and expertise in the relevant language(s), and identifying and appointing suitable external examiners. Guidance might also cover institutional policy on whether reference tools like dictionaries are permitted in examinations.

It is also a priority to ensure that students are not disadvantaged or advantaged by the potential need to translate assessed work. It is best to avoid translation wherever possible. Where it is necessary, mechanisms are required to assure the reliability and validity of the assessment outcome.

Professional, statutory and regulatory bodies' requirements

12
Institutions provide clear information to staff and students about specific assessment outcomes or other criteria that must be met to fulfil the requirements of professional, statutory or regulatory bodies.

Students benefit from access to clear information, available in different media, including web-based materials, about the requirements of the professional, statutory and/or regulatory bodies that accredit their qualifications (see also precept 8 above).

Applicants and students need to receive, as soon as possible, information about how professional, statutory and/or regulatory body accreditation affects any programmes for which they are applying or are registered. Facts they may need to know include the exact terms on which the accreditation is based including, where appropriate, the modules that must be passed, and at what levels, to meet the requirements of the relevant professional, statutory and/or regulatory body. If an institution is in the process of seeking accreditation from a professional, statutory and/or regulatory body, it is helpful for applicants and students registered on relevant programmes to be aware of this. Students and applicants are also likely to appreciate being informed about the outcome of such accreditation proposals.

Where appropriate, applicants and students may find it helpful to be made aware of relevant contacts in professional, statutory and/or regulatory bodies whom they can approach for further information about questions, such as the volume of accredited work needed and length of time it may take before accreditation takes place.

Institutions may also find it helpful to encourage professional, statutory and/or regulatory bodies to be aware of relevant higher education reference points, such as this section of the Code of practice.

In circumstances where a work placement is involved in the accreditation process, it is important that individual students are aware of who will be assessing their work during the placement and how those marks will contribute to their overall result. Further references to the assessment of placement learning can be found in the Code of practice, Section 9: Placement learning.

It is useful to alert overseas applicants as soon as possible to any relevant aspects
of professional, statutory and/or regulatory body accreditation. For example, some professional, statutory and/or regulatory body accreditation criteria exclude international students and in some cases, non-UK nationals who have graduated from accredited programmes may be authorised to practice in the UK but not in their home country. Accreditation in professional and vocational disciplines may also be subject to such circumstances, for example, where practice is related to different professional, legal or political situations.

Institutions can help prospective students by anticipating the requirements applicants may need to meet to fulfil an accrediting body’s criteria, and its possible expectations after graduating from an accredited programme.

Assessment regulations

13
Institutions review and amend assessment regulations periodically, as appropriate, to assure themselves that the regulations remain fit for purpose. 

Good practice in assessment reflects subject and educational needs. As and when these change, it is desirable to verify that related assessment remains appropriate. For example, a change in the way in which a programme is structured or delivered may make it appropriate to shift the balance between formative and summative assessment. Changes to the external environment, for example, new legislation or changing professional practice, are also likely to prompt review of assessment regulations. The involvement of as wide a range of people as possible in reviewing assessment regulations may help to ensure their appropriateness, especially when major changes are likely.

Factors that institutions may wish to take into account in this context include:

  • how often it is appropriate to review assessment regulations, what circumstances normally activate a review, who in the institution is responsible for reviewing such regulations and what procedures are usually adopted
  • the need to ensure that proposed changes are discussed with staff, students, external examiners and any relevant professional, statutory and/or regulatory body, and to determine how consultation will occur.

When deciding on the timescale for enacting any changes to assessment regulations, institutions may find it helpful to consider the impact of changes on current students and whether such changes should apply to those students already registered on the programmes affected. Clarity for students is essential and, where the new regulation may be to the detriment of existing students, transitional regulations may help to minimise the impact.

Student conduct in assessment

14
Institutions encourage students to adopt good academic conduct in respect of assessment and ensure they are aware of their responsibilities.

Students find it helpful to receive information and guidance about their responsibilities as active participants in assessment. This could include, for example:

  • accepted and acceptable forms of academic referencing and citation, and advice about avoiding poor academic practice, for example, making clear the need to avoid over-reliance on imported material
  • the measures that can be taken to prevent fraudulent activities, including impersonation and the submission of work that is not that of the student. For example, institutions may find it helpful to put in place administrative procedures to prevent cheating in formal examinations and also to design assessments to reduce opportunities for cheating
  • definitions of academic misconduct in respect of assessment (and the related penalties incurred), such as any form of cheating, including plagiarism, collusion, impersonation and the use of inadmissible material (including any material that breaches confidentiality, or that is downloaded from electronic sources without appropriate acknowledgement). Some institutions ask students to check their own work using plagiarism detection software, to emphasise the individual’s responsibility for good academic conduct
  • making sure that students are informed of the consequences of academic misconduct. It is important that procedures are applied consistently across an institution, to avoid the possibility of students in different departments or schools being treated differently for similar contraventions of rules covering cheating.

Appeals against assessment decisions

15
Institutions publish and implement impartial and effective mechanisms to deal with the unfair operation of assessment regulations and the resolution of appeals against assessment decisions.

While students cannot normally appeal against academic judgements, institutions may find it helpful to consider how concerns about the unfair operation of assessment procedures and regulations are dealt with and the types of evidence normally required to investigate such matters. It is essential that procedures for addressing contravention of regulations and for resolving appeals are fair, open and well publicised. This protects the rights of all concerned and it is in everyone’s interests that appeals are dealt with in a consistent and timely manner.

The earlier that any perceived failure to follow assessment regulations is identified and dealt with, the less likely it is that they will proceed to the appeals stage. All concerned are likely to appreciate being made aware of the stages and processes through which appeals proceed.

Institutions will wish to publish clear guidance about the appeals process, including:

  • definition of the grounds for an appeal
  • how to lodge an appeal and how decisions are taken to grant a hearing
  • how appeals panels are normally constituted and the relationship of the members of a panel to those involved in the decision being appealed against
  • who is responsible for keeping records of an appeal hearing and the format the records may take
  • how results are communicated to all interested parties, in such a way that enables everyone to know whether the result is the final outcome, or whether there is a further right of appeal.

The Code of practice, Section 5: Academic appeals and student complaints on academic matters is also relevant.

Recording, documenting and communicating

16
Institutions ensure that assessment decisions are recorded and documented accurately and systematically, and that the decisions of relevant assessment panels and examination boards are communicated as quickly as possible.

Everyone involved in the assessment process needs to know how, when and where results will be made available. It is particularly important that students are aware of who will provide them with results and how and when this will occur.

For purposes of accuracy and fairness, institutions may find it helpful to provide:

  • clear statements of the responsibilities of all those involved in computation, checking and recording of assessment decisions
  • systems for back-up when using electronic storage or transmission of assessment data
  • clear policies on access to information on assessment judgements about individuals.

When disclosing assessment results to students, it is helpful to have clear guidance about whether the result is final, or whether it is subject to confirmation by an assessment panel or examination board whose decision may include input from an external examiner. Where provisional results are provided for students, it is important that they are not in any doubt about the standing of the results and, if they are not final, how and when they will be ratified.

In the case of some assessment outcomes, it is often customary for a student to know the result of the assessment before it has finally been approved. It is therefore important that all concerned in the assessment process, especially the student, are aware of the different stages of the process and that results may be provisional if released before formal approval by the relevant committee.

Institutions may also wish to take account of legislation about the right of an individual to decline to allow his/her results to be made public.

Appendix 1: the precepts

General principles

1
As bodies responsible for the academic standards of awards made in their name, institutions have effective procedures for:

i     designing, approving, supervising and reviewing the assessment strategies for programmes and awards

ii   implementing rigorous assessment practices that ensure the standard for each award and award element is set and maintained at the appropriate level, and that student performance is properly judged against this

iii  evaluating how academic standards are maintained and developed through assessment practice that also encourages a positive approach to student learning.

2
Institutions publicise and implement principles and procedures for, and processes of, assessment that are explicit, valid and reliable.

Contribution to student learning

3
Institutions encourage assessment practice that makes a positive contribution to student learning.

Assessment panels and examination boards

4
Institutions publicise and implement effective, clear and consistent policies for the membership, procedures, powers and accountability of assessment panels and boards of examiners.

Conduct of assessment

5
Institutions ensure that assessment is conducted with rigour, probity and fairness and with due regard for security.

Amount and timing of assessment

6
Institutions encourage departments and schools to ensure that the amount and timing of assessment enable effective and appropriate measurement of students’ achievement of intended learning outcomes.

Marking and grading

7
Institutions have transparent and fair mechanisms for marking and for moderating marks.

8
Institutions publicise and implement clear rules and regulations for progressing from one stage of a programme to another, and for qualifying for an award.

Feedback to students on their performance

9
Institutions provide appropriate feedback to students on assessed work in a way that promotes learning and facilitates improvement.

Staff development and training

10
Institutions ensure that everyone involved in the assessment of students is competent to undertake their roles and responsibilities.

Language of assessment

11
The languages used in teaching and assessment are normally the same. If, for any reason, this is not possible, institutions ensure that their academic standards are not consequently put at risk.

Professional, statutory and regulatory bodies’ requirements

12
Institutions provide clear information to staff and students about specific assessment outcomes or other criteria that must be met to fulfil the requirements of professional, statutory or regulatory bodies.

Assessment regulations

13
Institutions review and amend assessment regulations periodically, as appropriate, to assure themselves that the regulations remain fit for purpose. 

Student conduct in assessment

14
Institutions encourage students to adopt good academic conduct in respect of assessment and ensure they are aware of their responsibilities.

Appeals against assessment decisions

15
Institutions publish and implement impartial and effective mechanisms to deal with the unfair operation of assessment regulations and the resolution of appeals against assessment decisions.

Recording, documenting and communicating assessment decisions

16
Institutions ensure that assessment decisions are recorded and documented accurately and systematically, and that the decisions of relevant assessment panels and examination boards are communicated as quickly as possible

Appendix 2: definitions of terms

These definitions apply to the above terms as they have been used in this section of the Code of practice. They are not intended to be authoritative, and may not necessarily apply in other circumstances or documents.

Anonymous marking: The identity of students is not revealed to markers and/or to the assessment panel or examination board. There may be a point towards the end of the assessment process where anonymity ends, for example, if information about extenuating circumstances is revealed to a panel or board.

Double/second marking (also referred to as ‘internal verification’): Student work is independently assessed by more than one marker. Each marker normally keeps a record of all marks awarded, together with his/her rationale for awarding each mark. The use of marking sheets or similar procedures for written work can help to ensure that the marks given by the first marker do not influence the second marker’s judgement. Markers’ notes enable discussions to take place, after initial marking, about the reasons for individuals’ decisions if there is a significant difference between the markers’ judgements. It is useful to define ‘significant’ in this respect.

Marking criteria: Based on the intended learning outcomes for the work being assessed, the knowledge, understanding and skills markers expect a student to display in the assessment task and which are taken into account in marking the work.

Marking scheme: A detailed framework for assigning marks, where a specific number of marks is given to individual components of the answer.

Model answer: The assessor’s explicit view of what an answer to an assessment task should contain. Model answers are more commonly used where the right answer can be defined precisely.

Moderation: A process by which it is possible to assure that an assessment outcome is fair and reliable and that marking criteria have been applied consistently. Methods of moderation include:

  • sampling, either by an internal or external examiner
  • additional marking, for example of borderlines, firsts and fails, or where there is significant difference between the marks of different markers that cannot be resolved without the opinion of another marker
  • review of marks: where there is a significant difference between several assessment marks for an individual student, within or between parts of a programme, which indicate the marks may need to be reconsidered.

Sampling: This is most commonly used in the process of moderation (see above). It normally involves internal or external examiners scrutinising a sample of work from a student cohort. Sampling may be based on the desirability of checking borderline marks of any kind, or to test that marking criteria have been applied consistently across the assessment of students in the cohort.

Synoptic assessment: An assessment that encourages students to combine elements of their learning from different parts of a programme and to show their accumulated knowledge and understanding of a topic or subject area. A synoptic assessment normally enables students to show their ability to integrate and apply their skills, knowledge and understanding with breadth and depth in the subject. It can help to test a student’s capability of applying the knowledge and understanding gained in one part of a programme to increase their understanding in other parts of the programme, or across the programme as a whole.

Appendix 3: membership of the advisory group

Professor Colin Beeson

Vice Principal, Royal Northern College
of Music

Professor David Boud

Professor of Adult Education, University of Technology, Sydney

Professor Mary Carswell

Director, The Derbyshire Business School, University of Derby

Dr David Evans

School of Biological and Molecular Sciences, Oxford Brookes University

Simon Felton

General Secretary, National Postgraduate Committee

Professor Peter Main

Director, Education & Science, Institute of Physics

Professor George McDonald Ross

Director, Philosophy and Religious Studies Subject Centre, Higher Education Academy

David Parry

Clerk to the Governors, Southampton Solent University

Professor Jonathan Sandy

Department of Oral and Dental Science, University of Bristol

Brian Salter

Deputy College Secretary and Academic Registrar, King’s College London

Professor Steve Trevillion

Head of Social Work Education, General Social Care Council

Dr Clive Turner

HE Development Manager, City College, Norwich

Helen Wenman

General Social Care Council

Helen Bowles

Standing Conference of Principals

Gerard Madill

Universities Scotland

Greg Wade

Universities UK

Janet Bohrer

Development Officer, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education

Gill Clarke

Assistant Director, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education and Director, Teaching Support Unit, University of Bristol

[1] The phrase ‘module or programme’ is used throughout the document to represent a programme or part of it. Part of a programme might be a group of modules/courses/units, one module/course/unit, or an element, ie a component of a module/course/unit. [Back]

TopTop