Academic Quality Framework Chapter 7, Part C

Introduction 

1. This section provides information on the regulations, policies and procedures relating to assessment at Northeastern University London (the University). 
2. The University recognises that assessment practice and process must be robust and conform to internal and national regulations and standards, ensuring confidence on the reliability, validity and authenticity of marking. 
3. The Framework for Higher Education in England, ongoing condition B4: Assessments and Awards, has the following requirements:
   1. Students are assessed effectively.
   2. Each assessment is valid and reliable.
   3. Academic regulations are designed to ensure that relevant awards are credible. 
   4. Academic regulations are designed to ensure the effective assessment of the English language in a manner which appropriately reflects the level and content of the applicable higher education course.
   5. Relevant awards granted to students are credible at the point of being granted and when compared to those granted previously.
4. The UK Quality Code Theme: Assessment defines it as:

“…it determines whether each learner has achieved their course’s learning outcomes and allows the awarding body to ensure that appropriate standards are being applied rigorously.”

5. The UK Quality Code Theme: Assessment also states that assessments should be reliable, consistent, fair and valid, and repeatable. 
6. The University’s Assessment Strategy is based upon the following principles:
   1. Assessment must be driven in the first instance by the imperatives of teaching and learning.
   2. Assessment must be, in accordance with the OfS condition of ongoing registration B4, effective, valid, and reliable, and designed to ensure the quality and credibility of the award.
   3. Assessment must be aligned to course learning outcomes, and beyond that foster the development of certain student ‘dispositions,’ central to our overarching educational strategy.
   4. The assessments and wider teaching and learning strategy do not conflate the “real world” with the “world of work,” but rather consider the student holistically, paying equal attention to employability, wellbeing, and self-actualization.
   5. Assessment and its administration should be agile and keep pace with the University’s growth and evolving research and best practice in this area.
   6. Assessment must be guided by research and best practices and supported by new internal processes which integrate the expertise of the faculty and Quality Team. The University will empower all to innovate in this space.

“…it determines whether each learner has achieved their course’s learning outcomes and allows the awarding body to ensure that appropriate standards are being applied rigorously.”

7. Assessment at the University is therefore instrumental in meeting the OfS’s four primary regulatory objectives: ensuring that students: succeed in and progress from HE; receive a high-quality academic experience; are able to progress into employment or further study; receive value for money.

Assessment Strategies

8. Assessment is at the heart of a number of key aspects of student learning and student experience: from learning and evaluation to quality and inclusivity. 
9. The University’s Assessment Strategy can be viewed here.

Assessment Standards

10. Assessment practices and procedures must be robust and conform to internal and national expectations and standards, thereby ensuring confidence in the reliability, validity and authenticity of marking. 
11. Assessment criteria should be clearly specified, aligned to the Level/stage of the course, and used as the basis for marking.

Assessment Tasks

12. Assessment tasks should relate to the learning outcomes of the course and support the overarching assessment strategy. Assessment practices should be inclusive and equitable; the methods, tasks and processes should not advantage or disadvantage any group or individual; and assessment task design should support academic integrity and minimise opportunities for academic misconduct. The University will have in place processes for reasonable adjustments to be made for students with disabilities (see Assessment of Students with Disabilities).

Engaging Students in the Assessment Process

13. Students should be supported in developing an understanding of expectations through detailed Assessment Briefs and active engagement with the assessment process and criteria. 
14. Assessment tasks should enable student self-reflection and regulation, giving students the confidence and skills to use the variety of feedback available to them to monitor and regulate their performance. 
15. Realistic and balanced assessment workloads should spread the assessment loading and ensure adequate time for associated learning.

Reviewing and Evaluating Assessment

16. Assessment is a collegiate activity, which necessitates the Faculties discussing and agreeing assessment expectations and sharing experiences. 
17. As part of the University’s quality assurance and enhancement procedures, a review of the effectiveness of the assessments used to measure student learning is undertaken at assessment and course Level. This is considered by the Discipline as a core element of the annual monitoring procedure.
18. In addition, External Examiners are required, as part of their annual report, to comment upon the effectiveness of assessment procedures and how academic standards have been maintained. Course Leaders are also required to complete an Annual Course Review which is an analysis of the course performance. For more information, please see AQF5 Annual Monitoring and Reporting.

Types of Assessment

19. In general, the University seeks to follow a mixed method of assessment appropriate to the nature of the individual courses. 
20. Assessment at the University is divided into two categories: formative assessment and summative assessment.

Formative

21. All programmes are required to have effective mechanisms in place to ensure that students receive timely feedback that enables them to continuously improve their academic performance, knowledge and skills. 
22. The University emphasises the value of formative assessment to promote both the development of skills and engagement with programme material.

Summative

23. The purpose of summative assessment is to enable students to demonstrate that they have fulfilled the learning outcomes of their programme, and the courses therein, to the standard required for the award for which they are registered. 
24. Learning outcomes are specified on Programme Specifications and Course Descriptors at the time of approval of programmes and courses, or through subsequent modifications through the University’s agreed processes. (See AQF4 Programme and Course Approval and Modification.)

Designing, Setting and Arranging Assessments

Constructive Alignment

25. The constructive alignment of learning outcomes, teaching and assessment must be evident in the design of all programmes and courses and in the associated assessment tasks.
26. Assessment tasks are designed to foster student learning; to provide opportunities for reflection, feedback, and self-assessment; and to test the attainment of stated learning outcomes at the appropriate level of learning.
27. Teaching activities and the learning opportunities provided should help and support these processes.

Assessment Elements

28. The method of assessment and relative weighting of assessment elements is determined at the time of programme approval or revision of a course and are specified on Course Descriptors. 
29. Each course of 30 credits or higher, based on 300 notional learning hours or more, should have a maximum of three summative assessment elements.  
30. Each 15 or 20 credit course, based on 150 or 200 notional learning hours, respectively, should have a maximum of two summative assessment elements. 
31. Where there are critical teaching and learning reasons for a higher number of assessment elements, a Variation to Regulation must be sought following consultation with the Dean.
32. Each assessment element may be made up of one or more assessment sub-elements (i.e. individual tasks) combined together for reporting processes. Where multiple assessment sub-elements contribute to an assessment element, the means of determining the overall mark should be indicated in the Assessment Brief.

Preparing Assessments

33. Prior to the beginning of the academic year, all assessments (first and additional sittings as required) must be set at the same time and undergo the same level of scrutiny and approval.
34. The type and format of the additional sittings assessment element should, as far as practical, be similar to those of the assessment elements of the first attempt. However, if the additional sitting assessments are different to the first sitting, the assessment method must enable the student to meet the same learning outcomes as for the first sitting, and consideration must be taken to any skills that are to be met by multiple versions of assessment methods. 
35. In determining the nature of the additional sitting task for assessments other than written examinations, Course Leaders should consider how students can demonstrate the learning outcomes while maintaining the integrity of the assessment system. 
36. Written assignments will be completed to a specified deadline ensuring that students have adequate time to complete the task set.
37. Examinations will be held at specified time periods, unless otherwise confirmed through academic appeal or extenuating circumstances.
38. Where there are two or more sub-elements for an assessment element, all sub-elements must be submitted by a single deadline. In the limited cases where the sub-elements have different submission timelines, for example an oral assessment with slides, the sub-elements must be submitted by the deadline with late submissions not permitted. In these cases, should a student fail to submit an assessment sub-element by the deadline this will result in a zero for the assessment sub-element.

Assessment Methods

39. Where possible, assessment methods should prioritise the application of knowledge and skills to public and professional settings, thus engaging students in, and preparing them for, employment, citizenship, and personal fulfilment.  
40. Assessment methods should be inclusive, and consider the student holistically, paying equal attention to employability, wellbeing, and self-actualisation.
41. Assessment methods should be diverse at a programme level and aligned to the course and programme learning outcomes and the University’s overall assessment strategy to prioritise authentic, inclusive and rigorous assessment.  
42. Assessment methods of first and further sittings should be equivalent where possible. For further information, please see Second Sitting Assessment Elements in Reassessment. The assessment element method selected should ensure academic standards are maintained across all sittings.

Assessment Types

43. The University uses a number of different types of assessment for the reasons set out above. Guidance to faculty on assessment type and good practice can be found in the Assessment Toolkit on the VLE. The assessment type(s) are set out in the Course Descriptor.

Timings of Assessment

44. Summative assessments must be scheduled during the published semester dates or work-related learning study periods. 
45. The scheduling of assessments is administered through Registry, or their delegate, and submission deadlines will be published in the student’s VLE calendar.
46. Where courses depend heavily on field work or work-related learning, the period allowed for this must be defined and specified in the Course Descriptor.
47. Heads of Discipline should ensure that there is an appropriate spread of examination and assessment submission dates across the semester within a programme.
48. The Head of Registry or their delegate is responsible for ensuring that a definitive schedule of examinations and assessment dates is published on CELCAT and the VLE respectively well in advance of the assessment periods.

Changing Assessment and Assessment Weightings

49. The assessment strategy for a course will normally be agreed when the course is approved and may only be varied subsequently through the appropriate quality assurance process. (See AQF4 Programme and Course Approval and Modification.)

Design of Assessment

50. Course Leaders are responsible for preparing assessments, in consultation with those involved with the delivery of the course, and in line with the Course Descriptor. While questions should relate to the programme delivered, they may include reference to material not directly taught (e.g. further reading), provided that students have been told explicitly (e.g. in the programme/course documentation and assessment brief) that a particular subject would form part of the programme aims and learning outcomes, and that students would be expected to undertake self-directed learning on such material. 
51. The assigned External Examiner must be asked to review and provide feedback on the summative assessments and should be sent all relevant Assessment Briefs, draft examination papers, and Course Descriptors, to enable them to ascertain whether the draft assessments are fair and appropriate in relation to the course and where appropriate programme aims and learning outcomes.  The internal and external scrutiny process must be documented.
52. Once all substantive changes requested by the External Examiner have been incorporated in the examination paper, the Head of Discipline will ratify the final version. 
53. Where a Course Leader does not act on all changes suggested by the External Examiner, or makes additional substantive changes to the paper, it must be returned to the External Examiner for information and acknowledgement. 
54. Associate Directors of Teaching and Learning ensure that programme assessment elements are submitted to Registry, or their delegate, following scrutiny and final approval If an assessment element is structured and/or if an assessment sub-element is in several parts, the assessment brief should indicate the weighting that will be apportioned to each sub-element t; this will assist students in allocation an appropriate portion of the examination time to answer a particular question. 
55. The University provides guidance in the form of an Assessment Toolkit on designing assessments, and different assessment methods to faculty.
56. Associate Directors of Teaching and Learning must ensure that faculty prepare students sufficiently for assessment, and should ensure that assessments:
    1. Vary as appropriate from year to year.
    2. Are developmental from Level to Level.
    3. Are distinctive and require demonstration of higher order skills and application of knowledge, not just the knowledge itself, especially at FHEQ Levels 6 and 7.
    4. For highly weighted elements, such as projects and dissertations, contain mechanisms to monitor progress and the development of the final submission.
    5. Are course specific.
    6. Are set in relation to any practical skills that may be required.

Threshold Standards and External Benchmarks

57. In establishing the thresholds of standards for awards, courses, individual assessment tasks, and the manner in which assessments are conducted, Faculty must make use of appropriate external reference points. These include:
    1. The UK Quality Code, including the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ), which applies to degree, diplomas, certificates and other academic awards granted by a higher education provider in the exercise of its degree awarding powers. 
    2. Subject Benchmark Statements which help to establish the standards set by different subjects at undergraduate Level, and in some areas at Master’s Level, by providing expectations about the subject and qualification Level of programmes of study. 
    3. Higher and Degree Apprenticeship Standards show what an apprentice will be doing, and the skills required of them, by job role. Standards are developed by employer groups known as ‘trailblazers’ and the academic programme must be mapped to the relevant apprenticeship standard.
58. Each programme that the University approves is required to be mapped to a Subject Benchmark Statement, where available, to ensure that it meets national requirements.

Assessment of Assigned Group Work

59. Group and team working skills are important abilities. The importance of group working skills to students’ employability (the ability to listen, question, persuade, participate and, where necessary, lead) means that group work should feature in assessment practices. However, for the purpose of summative assessment, students’ marks at all Levels must reflect their individual abilities rather than those of the group of which they are part. Therefore, course marks cannot be based on group marks alone but must be combined with some form of individual assessment. 
60. Group work assessment element/sub-element marks must not constitute more than 30% of the overall course assessment weighting. 
61. Where an assessment element/sub-element is to receive only a group mark, this must receive permission of the Dean and arrangements agreed in advance for mechanisms to ensure that students are not disadvantaged should there be individual student circumstances which impact the group.
62. Course Leaders must have in place procedures to ensure that individual marks can be ascribed. This may include a range of activities including supervisory meetings, observations, journals, individualised activities within a group project, personal reflection, etc. A process in which students ascribe marks to other learner’s contributions may not be used, although such practices can be used for formative feedback.

Word Length and Format of Assignments

63. All word counts provided are maximum unless stated otherwise.  It is acceptable to be not more than 10% above the specified word limit. If an assignment’s word count is above 10% of the word limit, it will not be marked beyond the additional 10%.
64. For the purposes of assessments for technology courses, the submission of ‘code’ will be considered as an artifact. There is no word limit, however students must follow the guidance provided in the Course Syllabus about the amount of time in completing the code. The report that accompanies the code will have a set work limit which adheres to the regulation above.
65. If an assessment element is not submitted in the format specified in the Assessment Brief, the work will not be marked and will be awarded a 0. 
66. The total word count associated with assessment for a 30-40 -credit course should not normally exceed 8,000 – 10,000 words and the total word count for a 15-20 credit course should not normally exceed 3,000 – 5,000 words. An hour written examination is equivalent to approximately 1,000 words.

Viva Voce Examinations

67. Examiners may exceptionally choose to examine any learner using a viva voce examination in addition to the assessment(s) specified in the Course Descriptor, where alternative assessment has been agreed as part of a Learning Support Plan for a disabled student or where there is suspected academic misconduct as set out below.
68. This form of assessment should only be used sparingly, but may be properly used:
    1. As part of the approved assessment for a course: typically, vivas are used for the extended pieces of work such as dissertations or projects, and it is important that the assessment process is open to the same security as other forms of assessment, including provision for the External Examiner to review the outcomes. 
    2. Where recognised disability means that a viva is an appropriate and approved form of assessment replacing or supplementing the normal assessment task. 
    3. Where, whatever the initial assessment task, there are concerns about the authenticity of the learner’s work; in such circumstances, vivas must not be used to mark work.
69. The University does not conduct vivas in order to adjudicate decisions about borderline classifications. 
70. Students must attend viva voce examinations as required. Students should normally be given at least seven calendar days written notice of a potential viva unless academic misconduct is suspected where 24 hours’ notice will be given. Where learners do not attend without approved extenuating circumstances, examiners will make judgments on the basis of information available to them, and learners will have no right to request another viva opportunity.

Computer-Based Examinations

71. ‘Computer-based examinations’ refers to examinations which utilise specialist software and are normally undertaken only using server-based, centrally supported system(s) scheduled through Registry or its delegate. 
72. Computer-based examinations (CBEs) are subject to the same regulations as any other examination, 
73. CBEs may be set at a Level of study up to and including FHEQ Level 7, provided that the assessment approach and question design are appropriate. 
74. Students must be familiar with the CBE system to be used before they undertake a summative examination.

Assessments with Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

75. The University considers that multiple choice questions (MCQs), when well-constructed and used appropriately, can be an effective mechanism for assessing students’ achievement of course and programme learning outcomes. 
76. Multiple choice questions for summative assessments are normally written by the University faculty. The use of external question banks for summative assessments may only be used in exceptional cases and must be approved by the Dean.  External question banks may be used for formative assessments.
77. The use of MCQs should not typically account for more than 75% of the overall course mark at Level 4; 50% of the overall course mark at Level 5; and 25% of the course mark at level 6 and 7. Higher percentages may only be used with justification.

Pass/Fail Assessments

78. An assessment element/sub-element may be marked as Pass/Fail, i.e. without a mark, for example when it is a requirement of a Professional Statutory Regulatory Body (PSRB).

Compulsory Pass Assessments

79. For Undergraduate competency based assessments, the Course Leader can identify whether an assessment element is a compulsory pass. The Course Leader must confirm the compulsory pass requirement at the point of drafting the assessment brief and scrutiny process. This must be clearly stated in the assessment brief, so that the students are aware of the compulsory pass element. It is also advised that the faculty include this at the course induction presentation, i.e., first class.
80. For Postgraduate Taught programmes, the viva and/or oral presentation element of the dissertation should be at least 20% of the course weighting and the viva and/or oral presentation is a compulsory pass. If the student is unsuccessful with their viva, the PAB can offer a referral opportunity.
81. For all Higher and Degree Apprenticeship programmes all assessment elements are a compulsory pass.

Providing Information to Students Regarding Assessments

82. Course Descriptors must inform students about the assessment elements for that course. In addition, students must be informed about how they may access regulations specific to their programme of study, including regulations for progression (progression criteria), eligibility for awards, and appealing against academic decisions. 
83. In collaboration with Registry, the Timetable Team will provide a definitive schedule of examinations published on CELCAT and assignment submission dates which will be published on the University’s VLE well in advance of the examination period and assignment deadlines with the exception of Higher and Degree Apprenticeships where examinations will only be published on the VLE.
84. Faculty must be made aware of the following information concerning assessments and communications with students:
    1. Great caution must be exercised when informing students about the content (as opposed to the structure) of an assessment, and advice given should be sufficiently broad so as not to give students an unfair advantage in completing the assessment.
    2. The structure and/or content of an assessment should be provided in writing and made available to all students in the Assessment Brief.
    3. That the examination paper must be consistent with the information provided to students.
85. All assessments must be related to the learning outcomes of a course and its related programme(s). Information for students in regard to assessment, including the deadlines of submission of assessments and the consequences and penalties for late or non-submission of material for assessment, should be provided to all students at the beginning of each semester.

Assessment Briefs

86. For each summative assessment element, students should be provided with clear details of the nature of the assessment task, the associated assessment criteria and other relevant information in the form of an assessment brief. 
87. Typically, an assessment brief will include the following elements:
    1. Title of the assignment.
    2. The task is clearly articulated.
    3. Contribution of the assignment to the course overall mark (as a % weighting).
    4. The relationship of the task to the course through details of the learning outcomes being assessed.
    5. Information on how the task can be completed successfully though guidance and/or the provision of associated assessment criteria, and any additional appropriate guidance. 
    6. Details/entitlement of any support available during the period up to submission, including any opportunities for the developmental review of progress.
    7. Any word limit or time-limit specification.
    8. Any requirements for the format/presentation of work (for example, file format accepted: PDF, Word, etc.).
    9. The procedure for submitting the work, giving presentations etc.
    10. The projected date for the return of assessed work where appropriate (students should receive feedback on assessments within 28 calendar days of submission).
    11. Details of how the feedback will be provided.

Assessment Criteria

88. Assessment element criteria set out what is expected of students and should relate to the learning outcomes set for the course. 
89. The broad criteria for assessments are set out in the University’s Categorical Marking Scheme.
90. Assessment criteria should be shared with students in advance of the completion of assessments via Assessment Briefs or Rubric where applicable. 
91. The University’s Qualitative Assessment Rubric can be found in the Academic Handbook.

Assessment Procedures

92. These regulations apply to all credit bearing programmes, courses, and qualifications at the University.
93. To be eligible for a named award (e.g. BSc [Hons] Economics), a student must be registered on the appropriate programme and all programmes must have been completed within the approved maximum registration periods specified in AQF7, Part B: Admissions and Registration.
94. Students on a programme can only study the courses on that programme and may not substitute these for other courses; except through the application of Recognition of Prior Learning and Credit Transfer or application to substitute a failed elective course.
95. Practice-based standards and requirements of professional bodies may be reflected in learning outcomes where appropriate.
96. Assessment is a matter of academic judgement and not just the computation of marks. Specific rights of appeals against a decision involving academic judgement are very limited.
97. An award may, however, only be made when the student has fulfilled the learning outcomes of the programme and achieved the required academic standard. 
98. For a list of definitions regarding assessment at the University, please see Annex B.

Assessment of Courses

99. All students registered for a particular course should follow the same assessment plan, though this overall plan may include a choice of assessment types, in line with the University’s commitment to diversity and inclusion. And within any given assessment type, precise assessment tasks may vary between student groups and students, with approval from the Academic Registrar. One Progression and Award Board will ratify the marks for all the students taking that course in the same sitting.
100. The first assessment attempt (first sitting) for all elements must be scheduled to occur before the end date of the course, unless an exception is approved by the Dean. Programme and course end dates will be published by Registry. 
101. The form of assessment for each course must be specified within the Course Descriptor. Where there is more than one assessment element, the weighting attached to each assessment element must be stated on the Course Descriptor.
102. All courses must be summatively assessed; assessment elements will normally be marked using the relevant scheme. A mark must be produced for each assessment element such that an overall course mark can be determined.

Course Pass Mark

103. All students at Level 4 should attempt all assessment elements, (with the exception of apprentices who must attempt all assessment elements. All students at Level 5 and above must make a credible attempt all assessment elements, non-submission of any assessment element will result in an automatic failure of the course. Please refer to paragraphs 158-159 regarding credible attempts. The overall course pass mark is 40% for undergraduate courses and 50% for postgraduate courses. Marking on a pass/fail basis is not permitted except for zero weighted assessments.
     1. For apprenticeship end-point assessment courses, the pass mark is determined by the end-point assessment plan of the apprenticeship standard, which may be different to the standard pass mark set out above.
104. Marks for all assessment elements will be aggregated, according to their weighting as defined in the Course Descriptor, at each assessment sitting to determine the overall course mark for that sitting. The course will be deemed a pass where the aggregated course result is 40% or above for undergraduate programmes; or where the aggregated course result is 50% or above for postgraduate programmes.
105. Course marks will be rounded, when two or more assessment elements are aggregated, in accordance with the University’s convention on rounding (see section titled Using the Categorical Marking Scheme).
106. There may be a requirement for individual assessment elements to be passed in their own right (i.e., a must pass element). In these circumstances, those elements must achieve a pass mark of 40%/50% or more. Such exceptions are normally allowed when required by a Professional Statutory Regulatory Body and must be approved through the University’s programme and course approval and modification procedure and stated on the Course Descriptor (see AQF4 Programme and Course Approval and Modification).
107. Where a course has more than one assessment element, and one element is ‘deferred’ the course mark for that sitting will be calculated on the marks available. Regardless of the course outcome, the student will be offered an opportunity to attempt the deferred element at the next sitting.

Examining and Assessment Where a Member of Staff Has a Personal Interest, Involvement or Relationship With a Student

108. The University must ensure that students and staff carry out their duties in a professional manner and with integrity, without conflict of interest, bias, or the misuse of authority.
109. Staff must follow the University’s Personal Relationships between Staff and Students Policy, on the HR portal which prohibits any such relationship with a student they are teaching or other supervisory relationship. 
110. Where a member of faculty has a relationship with a student, for example where there is a family, friend or professional link, they should not participate in the marking or moderation of the student’s assessments.

Extension of an Assessment Submission Deadline Date

111. Extensions to a submission deadline can only be awarded through the Extenuating Circumstances Policy, except in the case where a student has a Learning Support Plan which explicitly states that the student can have a one week extension for formative and summative assessments. 
112. For more information, please refer to the Student Disability Policy.
113. Students may submit a request for an extension to an assessment submission date where Extenuating Circumstances have impacted on their learning and where a later submission would put them in a position of being ‘fit to study’ and to complete the work.
114. For further information, please see the Extenuating Circumstances Policy, which can be found here.

Feedback on Draft Summative Assessments

115. In certain circumstances the University permits feedback on draft summative assessments as set out in the Marking, Moderation and Feedback Policy.
116. Feedback on draft summative assessments should give guidance on general areas of improvement but must not include re-writing of text or other forms of direct faculty amendment of the student’s work. 
117. There is no mark awarded for draft summative assessments and students should be informed that any feedback provided for a draft summative assessment is not indicative of the final mark that the summative work will receive. Equally, faculty should not give any indication of a mark that work might receive if all formative guidance is followed. 
118. The timeline for submission of draft summative assessment is at the discretion of the member of faculty. If students submit their draft summative assessment late, the member of faculty is not obligated to review the draft and provide feedback.

Student Self-Assessment

119. Where in line with the demands of teaching and learning, assessment should facilitate self-reflection and self-assessment. Students are provided with clear learning outcomes and assessment criteria for each course that they study. Learning outcomes are contained within each Course Descriptor, and assessment criteria are contained within each Assessment Brief.

Assessment Deadlines

120. The mode of submission for all assessment elements will be set out in the Assessment Brief. Where submissions are to be up-loaded, this must be to the designated link on the VLE by the published date.
121. The date by which submission is required must be included in the assessment brief.

Submission of Work

122. At Level 4 all assessment elements should be attempted, except for apprentices where all assessment elements must be attempted, and any non-submissions will be marked as a 0/fail. At Level 5 and above all assessment elements MUST be attempted and – non-submission will be classified as a 0 mark/fail and the course failed overall. See the section titled Late Submissions below regarding credible submission attempts.
123. When submitting work for assessment, students are expected to comply with all instructions issued in the Assessment Brief. 
124. All text-based assessment elements are normally screened through the Turnitin Similarity and AI Generation Detection Service.
125. Written work presented for assessment must be word processed (unless stated otherwise), legible and comprehensible.
126. Markers may reject assessment elements which do not meet reasonable standards of presentation, and this may result in a fail mark being awarded. For further information, please see Marking Illegible Handwritten Assessments.
127. All written work must be presented in English, or the language of study confirmed at programme/course approval.

Late Submissions

128. It is the responsibility of the student to make themselves aware of and available to attend examinations or submit their assessment elements at the specified time and place/submission portal, make sure that they are properly equipped and prepared, as per the Assessment Brief. 
129. Faculty may not approve rescheduling of examinations or extensions to deadlines for assessment elements. Extraordinarily, only the Academic Registrar, in collaboration with the Associate Deans for Teaching and Learning, may approve rescheduling of examinations or extensions to deadlines for assessment elements.
130. Students are responsible for submitting their own assessments Students are strongly advised to submit their assessments ahead of the published deadlines to avoid a late penalty. 
131. In order for an attempt to be considered credible and recorded as a valid submission:
     1. The submission is in the form required by the assessment brief.
     2. The academic content of the submission addresses the specified topic.
132. Submissions which do not meet these criteria, including a blank document, will not be considered a credible submission and will be awarded a mark of zero.
133. If a student uploads the wrong version of their submission or an incorrect document as their final submission, the submission will be marked as set out above. An error on the part of a student in the submission of an assessment element is not grounds for academic appeal.
134. Students are normally permitted up to three submissions of assessment elements on the VLE, with the last submission being the one marked, whether this is before or after the deadline. 
135. Students who have submitted after the deadline will be subject to the penalty outlined below. The penalty system is:135
     1. Up to 24-hours late, A passing mark will receive a 10 percentage point deduction (e.g. 65% deducted to 55%) or capped at the threshold pass mark, (40% undergraduate, 50% postgraduate) whichever is the higher. Failing marks will not receive a penalty. 
     2. Students who do not submit their assessment element within 24 hours after the submission deadline are deemed to have failed that assessment element and the mark recorded will be 0%.
     3. 24 hours after the submission deadline, the VLE submission portal will be closed except in the case set out in paragraph 38 above.
     4. Where students have received an extended deadline through the extenuating circumstances policy or an LSP, the above late penalty will apply to the amended deadline.

Standards of Academic Practice

136. A guide to good academic practice is included in the University’s Academic Misconduct Policy.
137. If a student is suspected to have cheated or attempted to gain an unfair advantage in an assessment, disciplinary procedures will be implemented.
138. The Academic Misconduct Panel has the authority to deem the student to have failed part or all of the assessment, and may determine whether the students shall be allowed to be reassessed. 
139. The Academic Misconduct Panel also has the authority to withdraw the student from the programme should the misconduct be considered substantial.

Work Lost After Submission or Examination

140. In the exceptional event of the mark for an assessment (recorded or received as completed) not being available due to unforeseen circumstances, students will be asked for a duplicate copy of the lost assessment where appropriate. If students are unable to provide a duplicate copy and there is clear evidence of a submission, then the relevant PB/PAB will derive an appropriate mark based on the overall performance by the student. 
141. If work or mark sheets are lost during the marking and moderation process, the Course Leader with the Associate Director of Teaching and Learning, and the External Examiner will review the situation and make a recommendation to the Chair of the relevant PB/PAB on the students’ performance.

Marking

Roles and responsibilities

142. The Faculty Director has overall responsibility for the organisation of the faculty to ensure that assessments are compliant with the University regulations.
143. For clarity on Teaching Assistants and Teacher Assistant:
     1. Teaching Assistants can mark summative assessments. A sample of Teaching Assistants’ marked assessments (20%) should be moderated by the Course Leader. The Course Leader, in this case, has the final say on marks awarded to students. 
     2. Teacher Assistants cannot mark summative assessments.

Anonymous Submission

144. The University specifies that summative work should be submitted anonymously wherever possible in order to provide reassurance that marking is fair. Similarly, students are not identifiable when PB/PABs make decisions on progressions and awards.
145. All examination scripts and all summative coursework submitted for assessment at all levels should be submitted anonymously. Any exceptions must be formally approved using the Variance to Academic Regulation Form during the course approval or course modification procedure.
146. Anonymity should remain until such time as the marking and internal moderation process is complete and preliminary marks are released on the VLE. 
147. It is recognised that, while the principle of anonymity should be retained for summative assessment, the blanket application of anonymous submission is not always possible:
     1. oral examinations,
     2. presentations, 
     3. performances,
     4. laboratory or field work,
     5. assessments directly related to an apprentice’s work, 
     6. research dissertations or theses.
148. When this is the case for the types of assessment listed above, it is the responsibility of faculty to ensure that marks are awarded in a fair and equitable manner through the use of specific moderation techniques.
     1. Assessment elements submitted electronically through the VLE will have a submission number generated which will ensure anonymity of the candidate, except as set out above. Students should avoid putting their name on the submission.
149. With examinations, students must follow the instructions provided by the invigilators and ensure they put their candidate number in the place(s) indicated on the answer book or answer sheet provided. Students taking on-line examinations through the VLE will have a submission number automatically generated which ensures anonymity of the candidates and must not put their name on any part of their exam submission. Students placing their name anywhere on an examination will have the exam discounted and receive a zero.
150. Exceptionally, in the student’s interests, the ‘anonymity’ rule may be waived and the circumstances relating to an individual candidate brought to the markers’’ attention by prior approval of the student and Academic Registrar.

Marking Illegible Handwritten Assessments

151. An illegible handwritten assessment, either in its entirety or in part, is one that is not possible for a marker to decipher in a way that is fair and/or reliable and therefore an assessment decision cannot be made.
152. If a marker is unable to read an assessment, it must be sent to the relevant Associate Director of Teaching and Learning to confirm that the script is illegible. If the Associate Director of Teaching and Learning is the marker, the script must be sent to an Associate Dean of Teaching and Learning.
153. If it is confirmed that the script is illegible, Registry will contact the student in question, in writing, and ask them to attend the University in order to dictate their examination script for transcription. If the student refuses to attend, they will be awarded a mark of zero.
154. The person appointed to type the script must not be a registered student of the University (undergraduate or postgraduate taught). The costs associated with producing the script may fall to the student, and the cost will be agreed between the University and the scribe.
155. The content of the original script cannot be amended in any way, including spelling or grammatical errors or altering any figures or diagrams. The student will be informed that the purpose of attendance is to transcribe the existing script, and that any addition or omission of material will constitute a breach of academic integrity.
156. If any text cannot be transcribed (including by the student), it will be highlighted on the original script.
157. Following transcription, the student must sign a form to confirm that the transcript is a true copy of the original. The form should be kept separately from the transcript, to preserve the student’s anonymity during the marking process.
158. This procedure does not apply where alternative examination arrangements are in place for a student or where reasonable adjustments apply which relate to a student’s ability to write legibly.

Marking and Moderation Processes

159. Various marking processes are put in place to help ensure fairness and objectivity in the assessment process.

Double Marking

160. In ‘double marking’ there are two markers who mark the students’ work with the second marker seeing the first marker’s mark and feedback. Double marking is used for all Level 6 and Level 7, oral assessments 30% or higher weighting and dissertations and final projects. 
161. Double marking must be carried out by markers with appropriate academic knowledge and experience.
162. When double marking, both markers assess the work according to the defined Assessment Criteria and Marking Scheme with the second marker seeing the first marker’s mark and feedback. The work and marks awarded should then be discussed so that both markers can arrive at an agreed mark and enter it onto the Mark Sheet. 
163. The marks and comments of all markers and the agreed final mark must be kept for reference by the Course Leader and submitted to the External Examiner where such works form part of the External Examiner sample.
164. Assessments that have been double marked will not normally be subject to internal moderation.
165. Where double-marking is employed the following procedure should be followed for the agreement of marks between markers and for the resolution of any differences:
     1. the first marker’s mark will stand where there is a discrepancy of <5% in the mark for the assessment as a whole and it does not span a classification border;
     2. a discrepancy of >5% in the mark for the assessment as a whole or spanning a classification border is to be resolved by discussion between the markers to reach an agreed mark if possible;
     3. if agreement cannot be achieved refer to a third party. The third marker will determine the finalised mark noting the double marking views. This should not become the norm: markers should normally be able to secure agreement between themselves.

Second Marking

166. Second marking is similar to internal moderation but offers a review of the whole cohort scripts. It can be used to assist markers less familiar with assessment at HE Level and/or other University standards. In this case, the second marker will be an experienced member of faculty and should provide feedback to the first marker on both the Level and the nature of the feedback provided.
167. For detailed regulations on marking and moderation, please refer to the Marking, Moderation and Feedback Policy.

Moderation

168. Moderation of summative assessments must be conducted in order for the University to remain compliant with the UK Quality Code and the conditions of registration with the Office for Students. Formative assessments do not need to be moderated.
169. Internal moderation is when another member of faculty reviews a representative sample of students’ scripts with full knowledge of the mark and feedback made by the marker.
170. External moderation is when an appointed discipline external examiner reviews the same sample as considered by the internal moderation. External moderation is completed prior to the meeting of the PAB. For more information refer to AQF11 External Examining and End Point Assessment.
171. For more information, please see the Marking, Moderation and Feedback Policy.

Moderation Sample Size and Selection

172. The size of the sample of work for each summative assessment element will be a minimum of 10% or at least five pieces of work – whichever is the greater. These are the minimal standards for moderation but in some circumstances, sample sizes may be increased to maintain academic standards.
173. The sample must be properly representative across all the bands of award classification. At the discretion of the course leader or relevant Associate Director Teaching and Learning, all borderline passes and fails, can be sent for moderation.
174. Where assessments are divided between several first markers a full moderation sample must be provided for each marker. Where a cohort has sat different versions of an assessment element, a full moderation sample must be provided for each version of the assessment element.
175. The sample for moderations should be selected after the marking of all late submissions, including LSP extensions, has been completed.

Marking of Oral Presentations

176. All oral assessments are audio-visual or audio recorded. 
177. All oral assessments that are at Levels 6 or 7, and are worth 30% or more of the overall course mark, are double marked by two members of faculty who are present during the assessment. Where operational considerations make the attendance of two markers impracticable, recordings of all the oral assessments must be moderated. 
178. Oral assessments that are at Levels 4 or 5 or are less than 30% of the course mark, have one marker. All of these oral assessments are recorded and moderated in accordance with the moderation sample size regulations noted above.
179. Sample oral assessments at all Levels must be available for moderation by the Discipline External Examiner.

Categorical Marking Scheme

180. The University uses two Categorical Marking Schemes – one for undergraduate (shown in Table 1) and one for postgraduate (shown in Table 2) to mark all programmes leading to an award of the University. This ensures that a consistent and transparent approach to the way in which students are assessed, marked and reported on across all taught programmes is used. It also enables comparable levels of student achievement to be recognised (in line with the UK Quality Code Theme Assessment). 
181. A variance to the Categorical Marking Scheme, for instance due to specific programme/course requirements, must be agreed at the approval event. In such cases a Variance to the Academic Regulation Form will be completed at programme/course approval or review noting the modified marking scheme and will be communicated to students through the Course Descriptor and Assessment Brief.

Table 1 Categorical Marking Scheme – Undergraduate

Table 2 Categorical Marking Scheme – Postgraduate

Using the Categorical Marking Scheme

182. All assessment elements should be marked using the marks included in the scheme (see Table 1 and Table 2). 
183. Internal Examiners should use the full range of marks available to them, in line with the relevant Categorical Marking Scheme (Table 1 and Table 2), in the process of confirming the mark for a composite assessment task.
184. Assessment elements that have linear marking apart from those with approved variation, for example multiple choice or mathematics, should round up to the next mark available on the Categorical Marking Scheme. For example, if the AE mark is 46, the next categorical mark is 48, and that is the mark that is recorded for the assessment element. 
185. Course marks will be calculated according to the assessment weighting as defined in the Course Descriptor, as agreed at the programme approval or course modification event. The percentage calculated will be the final mark for that course. 
186. The University’s convention on rounding of numeric marks for all awards is as follows:
     1. Marks should be rounded when two or more assessment elements are computed, using a weighting formula, the result should be rounded into a single number course mark.
     2. For final course marks, rounding means that any mark of X.5 and decimal fractions above, becomes the next highest number e.g., 69.5 is rounded to 70, 59.5 to 60, and so on. Decimal fractions below X.5 are rounded to the next lowest number e.g., 69.4 is rounded to 69. For the purposes of rounding, only the first decimal place is used.

Work Not Meeting the Threshold Standard

187. The established pass mark of all assessments leading to an award of the University is 40% for undergraduate programmes and 50% for postgraduate programmes. Similarly, the established course pass mark is also 40% for undergraduate courses and 50% for postgraduate courses.

Compensation

188. Compensation is the process by which the Progression and Award Board, in consideration of the undergraduate student’s overall performance in the programme and their engagement on a programme, recommends that credit be awarded for a course in which the student has marginally failed to satisfy the assessment criteria, in order to enable the student to progress to the next level or be awarded the appropriate qualification.
189. Compensation can only be used when a student has attempted all assessments for a given sitting across all courses at that level. 
190. Compensation will be used to re-dress marginal failure where a student has obtained an overall course mark of 38% or 39% and has met all learning outcomes for the course.
191. Compensation can only be applied to one course per academic year, where all other courses have been passed. 
192. The maximum number of credits that can be compensated is 30. Courses over 30 credits cannot be compensated.
193. Compensation may not be applied to courses where a student has failed an element which has been designated as a ‘must pass’ or where a student has failed the course as a result of receiving an academic misconduct penalty of failing the course with no right to resit.
194. Compensation will be applied automatically when all the above criteria for compensation have been met. 
195. Compensation is not permitted, therefore ALL courses must be passed, for the following programmes:
     1.  Degree Apprenticeship programmes 
     2. BA (Hons) Psychology Final Project (PSRB requirement)
     3. Postgraduate programmes

Accessing Feedback and Marks

196. Assessment feedback is provided, in line with the University’s Marking, Moderation and Feedback Policy.
197. Provisional assessment marks are also made available to students electronically. Students are made aware, via the Programme Handbook, that where marks have not yet been considered by the relevant PAB, these marks are provisional, pending endorsement by the relevant PAB and may be subject to change. 
198. Students are responsible for collecting, accessing and engaging with any assessment feedback provided. 
199. The University has an institutional policy regarding the provision of feedback to students that offers guidance to faculty on providing effective feedback to students and provides students with guidance on how to use the feedback they receive to effectively improve their performance. See the Marking, Moderation and Feedback Policy for further information.

Feedback on Formative Assessments

200. Students receive qualitative and/or quantitative feedback on their formative assessments. This yields timely developmental feedback. Faculty are able to tailor the feedback to suit the level at which the learners are performing, and this enables students to explore their own arguments and comprehension of the subject at hand.

Feedback on Summative Assessments and Examinations

201. For assessment elements which are assessed during the programme or course, including projects and written assignments, feedback must be returned to students within 28 calendar days of submission. For apprenticeships this is excluding the study break periods.
202. Exceptionally, when this is not achievable (for example due to staff absence), students must be notified as soon as is reasonably possible of the revised date and the reason behind the change.
203. For summative examinations, students receive feedback in a form relevant to the type of examination taken. The Course Leader is responsible for ensuring that students receive constructive and developmental feedback in a timely fashion. This can be in the form of individualised feedback, e.g., for multiple choice exams it may involve seeing their marked script along with the correct answers to the questions, or generic feedback to the cohort in the form of an Internal Examiner Report, which may include outlines of ways in which students performed especially well or notes on opportunities that were generally missed.

Awarding Academic Credit

204. As defined by UK Quality Code Theme Course Design and Development, academic credit is:

“…allow providers to accurately describe and market their qualifications in consistent manner. Not only are they tools for securing threshold academic standards nationally, they allow valid comparisons to be made with qualifications in other nations which enables student mobility.”

205. Students may gain academic credit at the University by:
     1. Being awarded a pass mark for a course.
     2. Being credited with a course on the basis of the Recognition of Prior Learning and Credit Transfer (RPLCT) in which the credit may be given in line with the Recognition of Prior Learning and Transfer Credit Policy.

Reassessment

206. Reassessments are when students have been unsuccessful at the first attempt and are given the opportunity to retake the assessment elements they have failed. 
207. Reassessment opportunities normally happen at the next sitting of that assessment element.
208. Annex C indicates which assessment brief should be used for referral, referral due to academic misconduct and deferral assessments.
209. Second sitting assessments where the student has been referred by the PAB or re-submission of failed work will be awarded a maximum (capped) mark of 40% for undergraduate and 50% for postgraduate. Students will be provided with the mark that the work could have received prior to being capped but the student’s record will show the capped mark.

Additional Sitting Requirements

210. Students will be notified of the nature and timing of additional sitting assessments by Registry or delegate after the PB/PAB has confirmed the student’s progression status.
211. Students are responsible for observing information about additional sitting requirements, including details of the assessment such as dates, times, time zones of examinations and/or submission dates.

Reassessment Opportunities

212. Where students have failed to achieve a pass mark for the course at the first sitting, and they cannot be compensated for a marginal fail, they shall be offered a referral opportunity for each failed element at the next sitting, except where the recommendation of an Academic Misconduct Panel invokes a ‘no right to referral’ academic penalty and/or where a PB/PAB recommends withdrawal due to lack of progress.
213. Students shall not be able to re-attempt any passed elements of assessment except where students are required to repeat a course or where an academic misconduct penalty of fail course has been recommended.
214. Students must normally attempt the referred and deferred assessments at the next sitting as indicated at the time of results publication.

Deficit Credit

215. Students who have failed up to 30 credits or have deferred assessment elements, may progress to the next level/stage with the deficit credit, unless there are two levels between the deficit credit level and the progression level. For more information, please see Progression Criteria.

Repeat Course

216. Students who, after the second attempt, failed the course and are eligible to progress to the next level/stage with deficit credits will be granted a repeat course with attendance where all assessment elements are retaken as if for the first time, i.e., not capped.  
217. Students who, after the second sitting, did not pass the course because of deferred assessment elements (i.e. at first attempt) but are eligible to proceed with deficit credits will be granted the relevant number of attempts to retrieve the failed assessment element.
218. Repeat courses that have not been passed after the third and final attempt will be classified as an ‘Irretrievable Fail” unless an exceptional fourth attempt is permitted by the PB/PAB after careful consideration of the students overall academic performance. Students cannot progress to the next level with an irretrievable fail and will be withdrawn from the programme by the PAB, with consideration of any exit award for which the student may be eligible.
219. In exceptional cases and only on one occasion, undergraduate students who have failed an elective course after two attempts may request, in discussion with their academic adviser, to be permitted to substitute an alternative elective course at the same level and credit value. The student would be required to undertake the substitute elective course with attendance. The student will be permitted two attempts to pass the substitute elective course. The normal regulations in regards to progression with deficit credit apply in this circumstance.
220. Students who have more than 30 credits outstanding, are not permitted to proceed ‘with deficit’ and are required to remain at their level/stage and either repeat their outstanding assessment elements (if they have been deferred) or repeat the course with attendance (if assessment elements have been failed after two attempts).
221. Where a student is referred in an assessment element as a result of a proven case of academic misconduct the course mark is withheld. The student must then make a credible attempt at the referred element. If no credible attempt is made, the assessment element will be awarded a zero, and the course will be considered to be failed.
222. Where a student has submitted Extenuating Circumstances which have been accepted, they will be offered a deferral, that is, another attempt to take the missed assessment element. In such cases, the deferred assessment element will be marked as normal and the earned mark awarded. In cases where a deferral is offered in respect of a referred assessment, the mark will be capped at 40% (UG) and 50% (PG).

Reassessment for Student Route Visa students

Referred Assessment Element

223. Tuition, i.e., scheduled classes, is not provided for referred assessment elements, and therefore students on a Student Route Visa will not be issued a Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (CAS). Normally, referred assessments happen with the standard academic year and the need for a CAS will be minimal.
224. For further information, please contact the Visa Compliance Team.

Deficit Credit and Repeat Course

225. A student may be affected by the academic progression (immigration rules for the student) and the study caps (time limit) visa. They will need to request a new CAS for their new student visa, at least three months prior to their current visa expiry date. 
226. The University may assign a CAS if the student cannot undertake a deficit credit within their visa expiry date. This will be subject to getting approval from Registry and the Visa Compliance Team.

Assessment Terminology

Table 3 Assessment Terminology

Progression Criteria

Undergraduate degrees ONLY

227. Students can proceed to the next level of the programme with a maximum of 30 referred/deferred credits from the current level. Students cannot further progress to the next level with an irretrievably failed course that have exhausted all reassessment opportunities. Students cannot progress to the next level with a failed course which is a prerequisite for a course required at the next level of their degree programme.
228. Students who are unable to progress to the next level will be required to repeat the failed course(s). However, where a student has demonstrated a lack of engagement through low attendance, non-submission of assessment elements, and/or failure to respond to outreach from the University or where a student has not progressed on their degree over a period of two years, the Progression and Award Board may consider whether it would be appropriate in all the circumstances to withdraw the student.
229. If a student has deficit credits that are two levels below the level they are able to progress to, for example deficit Level 4 credit, with 120 Level 5 credits, the student is not able to progress and register on the next level until the deficit credits have been achieved. This could result in the student completing the deficit credits over an academic year, which will impact on their graduation year.  
230. Final year Level 6 students who are referred in 30 credits or less after the referral period and cannot be compensated in the failed course(s) will be offered the opportunity to have two further referral attempts at the failed assessment elements or accept the exit award for which they are eligible. Where a student fails to notify the University of their choice within 14 calendar days they will be given the appropriate award. 
231. Students who achieve fewer than 90 credits at Level 6 after the referral period will be offered the option to retake the failed course(s) or accept the exit award for which they are eligible.

Postgraduate

232. Students are required to achieve 180 Level 7 credits to be awarded the postgraduate taught qualification.
233. Within the programme structure, some courses may be designated as a corequisite or a prerequisite for another course. This is to enable the student to demonstrate that their skills and knowledge are at a standard to progress to the next course.
     1. Co-requisite: a course required to be taken in conjunction with another course.
     2. Pre-requisite: a course that is required to be taken before another course.
234. Co-requisites and pre-requisites are agreed through the University’s regulations (AQF4 Programme and Course Approval and Modification).

Conferment of Awards of Students Admitted With Advanced Standing or Awarded Through RPL

235. PAB will take account of the credit value of the exempted level in judging a student’s eligibility against the thresholds set for conferment of the University’s Awards. When calculating the final classification/result, only the courses assessed at the University will be counted – no marks for the exempted level(s) will be awarded.
236. When a student has been given credit for prior learning, Progression and Award Boards will take account of that credit in judging the student’s eligibility against the credit thresholds set for conferment of the University’s Awards. 
237. Where the calculation method includes discounting of courses, and the student has 60 or more credits at Level 5 then discounting will be applied in line with the classification method below using only those courses and credits studied at the University.

Classification of Awards

Undergraduate Awards

238. In order to complete a Degree with Honours, students shall satisfy the requirements associated with such an award as set out in the programme specification.
239. Students may be considered for an Honours degree, having been assessed in and been awarded 360 credits, Levels 4-6. Students must have been assessed in all courses. Credit awarded through the recognition of prior learning/transfer credit process is assessed credit
240. Within the programme structure, some courses may be designated as a co-requisite or a prerequisite for another course. This is to enable the student to demonstrate that their skills and knowledge are at a standard to progress to the next course.
241. Corequisite: a course required to be taken in conjunction with another course.
242. Prerequisite: a course that is required to be taken before another course.
243. Co-requisites and prerequisites are agreed through the University’s regulations (AQF4 Programme and Course Approval and Modification).
244. Where a student has been assessed in 360 credits, and has achieved at least 300 credits, the student will be eligible for the award of an Ordinary Degree.
245. Awards within Apprenticeships are subject to the same classification structure. When an Apprenticeship standard’s assessment plan specifies a specific degree classification calculation method, the specific method in the programme specification overwrites the general degree classification method. 
246. For students coming with completed and passed NU Accelerate courses, including pre matriculation, are not permitted to register on the same courses again if wishing to transfer their credit to the University degree. Grades will not be translated or used towards the degree classification calculation. 
247. For students who study abroad in the Spring semester of Level 5 at another Northeastern University campus, those courses are considered on a pass/fail basis.
     1. The grade achieved in the US will not be converted to a UK mark. The grade will not be used in the degree classification calculation. 
     2. Students are required to pass the course in order to gain sufficient credit to progress.
248. Classification marks for undergraduate programmes will be calculated using the course marks for:
     1. best 60 credits at Level 5, weighted at 3; 
     2. all Level 6 120 credits, weighted at 5.
249. Classifications averages are calculated to one decimal point. For further information on the weighting calculation, please see the University’s Qualitative Assessment Rubric.
250. The calculated overall classification mark will determine the Honours classification awarded; the classification boundaries are:
     1. First Class: 69.5% or more
     2. Second Class (First Division): 59.50% – 69.49%
     3. Second Class (Second Division): 49.50% – 59.49%
     4. Third Class: 39.5% – 49.49%
     5. Ordinary degree awards do not receive a classification.

Postgraduate Taught Awards

251. In order to complete a Degree, students shall satisfy the requirements associated with such an award as set out in the programme specification.
252. Students may be considered for an award, having been assessed in and been awarded 180 credits, Level 7. Students must have been assessed in all courses. Credit awarded through the Recognition of Prior Learning Process is assessed credit.
253. Classification marks for postgraduate programmes will be calculated using the weighted average course marks for
     1. the best 60 credits weighted at 3; 
     2. with the next best 60 credits weighted at 2; 
     3. the remaining 60 credits weighted at 1.
     4. Students who satisfy the requirements for a Master’s degree may be awarded a Master’s degree with Merit if they have attained an overall mark greater than or equal to 59.5%.
     5. Students who satisfy the requirements for a Master’s degree may be awarded a Master’s degree with Distinction if they have attained an overall mark greater than or equal to 69.5%.

Degree Apprenticeship Awards

254. Awards within an Apprenticeships are subject to the same classification structure for the awards related to their study programme. When an Apprenticeship standard’s assessment plan specifies a specific degree classification calculation method, the specific method in the programme specification overwrites the general degree classification method.
255. Apprenticeship end-point assessment categories however do differ. Where the apprenticeship end-point assessment is not integrated and takes place after the underpinning degree programme has completed, the apprenticeship is awarded pass, merit, distinction or fail, in accordance with the Apprenticeship standard’s assessment plan.

Exit Awards

256. Certificate in Higher Education: Achieved 120 credits at the University in any combination across L4 and L5.
257. Diploma in Higher Education: Achieved 240 credits in any combination across L4, L5 and L6, with a minimum of 120 credits at the University.
258. Ordinary Degree: Achieved 300 credits. A minimum of 60 credits must be at L6 in their discipline and a minimum of 180 credits achieved at the University.
259. Postgraduate Certificate: Achieved 60 L7 credits all of which must be achieved at the University. 
260. Postgraduate Diploma: Achieved 120 L7 credits of which a minimum of 60 must be achieved at the University.

Posthumous Awards

261. An award may be conferred posthumously where a student was close to completing their programme of study. The relevant PAB will consider each case on an individual basis.
262. No classification shall be awarded in the case of a posthumous award.
263. Exit awards may also be conferred as a posthumous award.

Aegrotat Awards

264. An aegrotat award may be conferred where a student was close to achieving an award but due to illness or other valid reason, as confirmed      by the Academic Registrar, is unlikely to be able to complete their studies within the maximum registration period. The relevant PAB will consider each case on an individual basis.
265. Where a student is receiving an aegrotat undergraduate or postgraduate degree no classification shall be awarded.
266. The Diploma of Higher Education may also be conferred as an aegrotat Diploma of Higher Education.
267. Aegrotat awards for students on other programmes may be conferred in certain exceptional circumstances.

Factors Affecting Assessment and Assessment Boards

268. This section provides information specifically on marking and other factors affecting assessment and its relationship to PB and PAB. Full details of the function of the PB and PAB is provided in AQF12: Assessment Boards. 
269. Where the performance profile of a course is at variance with general performance of the cohort or reflects a continuing problem in the operation of the course, this should be identified by the relevant Head of Discipline to the relevant PB and/or PAB. For the definition of a “Flagged Course”, please see AQF12 Assessment Boards.
270. In all the above cases:
     1. PB or PAB must consider the circumstances and their impact to determine whether there was a material impact on students’ performances (e.g. in respect of their performance in other similar assessments and courses).
     2. At level 5 and above Discipline External Examiners must be part of the process of consideration of any alteration to be made to the expected outcomes (e.g. an additional attempt allowed).
     3. The decision and reason must be minuted in detail to ensure that the basis of any change is made clear.
271. Students have the right to appeal against decisions made by the PB or PAB. For further information, see the Academic Appeals Policy and Procedures.

Sanctioned Students

272. Students who are not in good financial standing should attempt all assessment elements and will be assessed alongside other students for consistency. Student results will be processed by the PB or PAB but not released until good financial standing has been restored.

Access to Material After Assessment

Access to Marked Summative Assignments and Examination Scripts

273. Hard copies of written examination scripts will not normally be returned to the students.  See Marking Moderation and Feedback Policy for further information.

Access to Past and Practice Examination Papers

274. Past examination question papers are made available to students from the previous three academic years unless where past papers are not suitable, if it is a new course, or the course has been significantly modified.
275. Registry is responsible for the uploading of the past examination papers to the Virtual Learning Environment.
276. It may not always be practical to make available some past examination papers e.g. computer based exams.

Administration of Assessments

277. The University has in place a range of processes to ensure that assessment standards are set at an appropriate level and are consistently applied. These involve assessment scrutiny, moderation, external examining, and collective decision making at the PAB and PB.

Drafting of Examination Papers and Assessment Briefs

278. Registry is responsible for the administration of Examination Papers and Assessment Briefs. Registry will provide timelines for the submission of examination papers and assessments briefs. Submission deadlines must be met in order for documentation to be processed in accordance with the University’s regulations. 
279. Course Leaders draft Examination Papers and Assessment Briefs. These Examination Papers and Assessment Briefs are internally reviewed. The member of faculty completing the internal review will complete the required documentation. Modifications can be made after the internal review process and the final assessment are prepared and usually sent to the Discipline External Examiner (mandatory for Level 5 and above) for external moderation, ensuring that standards are appropriate and achievable.   
280.  The Head of Discipline ensures that feedback from the Discipline External Examiner is actioned, and there is a final scrutiny of all assessments prior to publication. Registry is responsible for inserting the date and start time of the examination, in line with the examination timetable.

Assessment Moderation Process

281. In seeking to achieve equity, validity and reliability in the assessment of student work, a range of moderation processes are employed at the University.
282. The Associate Dean Teaching and Learning  will ensure all assessments are marked in line with the University’s Marking, Moderation and Feedback Policy.
283. Academic Board is responsible for approving the moderation procedure.

Assessment Samples Sent to Discipline External Examiners

284. Discipline External Examiners receive samples of assessments in good time before Progression and Award Board meetings for moderation.
285. The size of the sample of work for each summative assessment element will be a minimum of 10% or at least five pieces of work – whichever is the greater figure.
286. The sample must be properly representative across the bands of award classification and borderline classifications, and fails. However, the selection may be extended to all first class/distinction, borderline classifications, and fails through agreement with External Examiners in advance.
287. A schedule must be set and maintained for the dispatch and return of work for moderation. If the schedule is not adhered to, internal moderators and examiners may be referred to the Disciplinary Procedure for Staff, and External Examiners may have their contract rescinded.

Visiting Lecturers and External Assessors

288. The University appoints External Assessors in line with the External Assessors Guidance.
289. Where visiting lecturers and external assessors are involved in the assessment of students, Course Leaders are responsible for ensuring that the visiting lecturer or external assessor has a comprehensive induction regarding the University’s assessment regulations, the marking of the visiting lecturer or external assessor is included in the moderation procedure, and that appropriate additional steps are taken depending on their experience of the University and its standards.
290. Exceptionally, where there is a dispute with the marking of a student’s assessment, an external assessor can be recruited to be the first marker with the External Examiner moderating the assessment.

Collecting and Collating Marks

291. Registry is responsible for the administration of assessments.
292. If the assessment element has one marker, the marker places their mark directly into the VLE. Registry is able to produce a report from the VLE to conduct quality checks, for example checking the Extenuating Circumstances, and to send to External Examiners as part of the external moderation procedure.
293. Where an assessment has several parts (e.g., Section A and Section B) or several questions and these have different weightings, and the overall mark needs to be calculated from the marks assigned, a marks sheet will be supplied by Registry with automatic calculators. Faculty should email Assessment if a mark sheet is required.
294.  Registry will hold a moderation record which will document which work needs to be/has been moderated.
295. The Associate Directors of Teaching and Learning are responsible for ensuring that faculty complete their marking/internal moderation and return of documentation in line with the timeline published.
296. When all assessment elements for a course have been marked, Registry ensures the marks are entered in the student information system. This mark input is then cross-checked.

Internal Monitoring of Assessment Procedure

297. The University places great emphasis on reviewing and improving assessment and examination processes. 
298. The administrative processes associated with assessment are under constant internal scrutiny; mark entry and PB/PAB processing are subject to a number of mechanisms to ensure the maintenance of academic standards.
299. Registry monitors submission by students through a series of reports and logging methods, ensuring that records are auditable.
300. Registers of attendance at examinations are maintained throughout the examination period by Registry.

The Conduct of Examinations

304. Registry centrally coordinates all formal invigilated examinations, including first and second sitting examinations. 
305. Registry will communicate to staff and students:  examination timings, locations, timetables, guidance, instructions for candidates, and any other necessary information. 
306. The University will deliver examinations in a number of locations, details of which are made available to students. It is the student’s responsibility to ensure that they are in attendance at the specified location in a timely manner. 
307. The timetable for each period of examination will be prepared as soon as practically possible after students are successfully registered for their courses or for referral assessments, and as soon as PB/PAB have completed their deliberations.

Assessment Results

Recording and Notification of Results

305. The Academic Registrar is responsible for ensuring a robust and reliable system is in place for the computation, checking, and recording of assessment decisions, and for providing relevant information in time for the final meetings of the PB/PAB.
306. Assessment data is centrally stored electronically within the University’s student information system where access is limited to ensure compliance with data protection legislation.
307. Staff involved in the marking, recording and collating of assessments should regard electronic and hard copies of assessment results and decisions as confidential documents, and should store and dispose of them appropriately. 
308. Marks for undergraduate and postgraduate courses are entered into the student information system. Students are notified of their results, and any implications for their progression/graduation by Registry. 
309. For Apprenticeship learners, access to assessment results and information regarding assessment judgments may be shared with their line manager and other employer contacts.
310. Results are recorded using the following conventions:
     1. A mark per assessment element is indicated using the Categorical Marking Scheme (see Table 1 and Table 2).
     2. An overall mark for each course is indicated which has been calculated using the appropriate weightings for each assessment element of that course. 
     3. Non-submission of summative assignments, or non-attendance at an examination or presentation, is awarded a 0.
311. Programme results are processed following confirmation by the PB/PAB. 
312. Students are normally informed in advance of the date of the release of results through the Programme Handbook. 
313. Results of assessments are normally released to students’ University email accounts by Registry (or their delegate). Results of assessments released prior to a PB/PAB are provisional, pending endorsement by the PB/PAB and may be subject to change. 
314. Students will normally be informed of their progression to the next level/stage of their programme by email. Information about who students can contact should they require clarification of their results or advice about their results will be included. 
315. No results should be divulged to students until the results have been published by Registry, and in the case of degree apprenticeship programmes, the end-point assessment has been completed. This regulation may be varied if it is deemed in the best interest of a student to notify them of their assessment results early. This decision must be made in consultation with and approved by the Academic Registrar. A file note shall be produced and retained in the student’s file to record that their results were released to them early.
316. Results should only be given to students in person or by the phone by the Registry if steps have been taken to confirm the student’s identity: they should NOT be disclosed to third parties (including parents) without a student’s explicit written consent. Other staff are not permitted to release ratified results to students.

Amended Results

317. Where an administrative error is found or the outcome of an appeal is that a student’s mark and/or course result should be amended, the student will be informed of this in writing.

Retention of Assessed Work

318. The University has a statutory requirement to retain student’s assessed work for a period of five years after they have completed their programme of study. For further information, please see Quality and Standards Conditions of Registration B4 and B5.

Academic Appeals

319. Academic Appeals are the route by which students may seek reconsideration of the PB/PAB decisions. Specific rights of appeals against a decision involving academic judgement are very limited.
320. Although rigorous procedures are followed to ensure that all student assessment elements are conducted and marked fairly and appropriately, students may appeal against a decision made by the PB/PAB in the following circumstances:
     1. New, relevant, written extenuating circumstances are presented (see the Extenuating Circumstances Policy), supported by appropriate evidence, that for good reason were not originally made available to the Extenuating Circumstances Panel, and therefore were not considered at the time of the decision of the Board.
     2. Marking and/or moderation processes were not conducted in accordance with current approved policies and procedures, or other irregularity concerned with the assessment process.
     3. There has been a material and significant error in the recording and/or processing of assessments/results.
     4. There has been a procedural error in the calculation of the award/progression decision.
     5. There is evidence of bias.
321. Where a student’s appeal is upheld after the relevant PB/PAB the outcome should be sent to the Chair of the PB/PAB for consideration and action.
322. Academic appeals will be considered in line with the Academic Appeals Policy and Procedures.

Academic Offences

323. Academic offences include:
     1. Collusion
     2. Fabrication
     3. Cheating
     4. Improper use of Artificial Intelligence
     5. Impersonation
     6. Plagiarism
324. This list above is not exhaustive. More information regarding academic offences and their penalties, along with guidance on good academic practices, is described in detail in the University’s Academic Misconduct Policy.

Assessment of Students with Disabilities

Specific Learning Differences or Difficulties with Disabilities

325. Upon recommendation from the Student Wellbeing Coordinator (SWC), students with evidence of Specific Learning Difference or Difficulty (SpLD) can request a reasonable adjustment to enable them to undertake assessment elements on an equal basis to their non-disabled peers. The reasonable adjustments will be recorded in a Learning Support Plan.
326.  Examples of reasonable adjustments are given below:
     1. Students with SpLD (e.g. dyslexia) and related problems will normally be permitted extra time beyond the approved duration for the reading of the examination paper and for the writing of their answers. Such students may be permitted additional time for examinations and/or the use of a reader or appropriate assisted technology. Question papers may be provided in alternative formats. 
     2. Students with a mental health or stress-related disorder, or with physical conditions which cause excessive fatigue may, at the discretion of the SWC, and only where medical evidence is available to support the claim, be permitted additional time and/or be allowed to take an examination alone, with provisions for rest breaks at suitable intervals if required. In severe cases, an alternative form of assessment may be used but care must be taken that the standard is safeguarded. Evidence of need must be provided in the form of a medical report from a GP or specialist. 
     3. Students with mobility impairment or mental health illnesses may be granted a number of rest breaks during an examination or similar task, in order to ease or exercise joints or muscles. This applies also to those with long term or short term (e.g. broken limbs) disabilities. Some students in this category may have no need for such rest breaks. 
     4. Students with impairments which restrict/prevent handwriting and typing may need to dictate answers, to a scribe or recording device, and therefore be separate from fellow students. If the student can write, but more slowly than most students, time may be allowed for this during the period of examination. Extra time may be appropriate when a reader is used (for more information, see the Student Disability Policy).
     5. Students with a visual impairment, up to and including total blindness, may be provided with a reader for written examinations, who will read the question paper and write answers at the student’s dictation. Consideration may be given to the use of appropriate technology for the production of answers by the student. In examinations, extra time may be needed for reading and re-reading of the questions, but this would normally be accommodated within the stipulated time period.
327. Students whose first language is not English will not normally be regarded as requiring special consideration in the sense of this section (British Sign Language is formally recognised as a language) and will be required to provide answers to questions in English.
328. Other reasonable adjustments outside of the example adjustments outlined above, such as alternative assessments, may be provided. Students should raise requests for alternative assessments through the SWC and the request will be considered by the Associate Dean of Teaching and Learning (Students) and the Academic Registrar in consultation with the student and the Head of Discipline.
     1.  It must be considered how the learning outcomes of the course will be met and the need to assess the student on equal terms with other students.  (bearing in mind the objectives of the course and the need to assess the student on equal terms with other students). This may involve an occupational health report from an external source.
329. To be able to explore the above options, the student must ensure that the University is made aware of their condition and to apply for consideration. The onus is on the student to ensure that the University is made aware of their condition and to apply for consideration of variation in assessment commensurate with the condition at the earliest opportunity and in good time before the assessment to enable any agreed arrangements to be put into place. Written evidence must be provided in the form of a medical or diagnostic report from a doctor or other appropriately qualified professional.
330. Students with a diagnosed condition must be assessed in such a way that they are neither systematically penalised nor systematically advantaged compared to other students. In order to make judgments as to the nature and extent of the variation in assessment methods appropriate to any particular student, the SWC must make use of all the information available, including taking advice from within and outside the University where appropriate.
331. Where a student is dissatisfied with the reasonable adjustments agreed by the SWC, they may request a review of the adjustments by the Registrar.
332. If a student has diagnosed conditions, acute or chronic, which are demonstrated to the satisfaction of the SWC but cannot be accommodated through special conditions for assessment, students will normally be expected to carry out the assessment under the approved conditions and the condition can be taken into account when the students’ achievement and progression is reviewed.

Degree Apprenticeship Students

333. All apprentices will complete the Additional Learning Support assessment in their application. Where disabilities are declared, Student Support and Development (SSD) will work with the student and employer to agree an action plan before the start of the apprenticeship. This support continues through their end-point assessment.
334. If a student is unable to be assessed by the approved assessment element for a course, the SWC will follow the steps above and the Academic Director for Centre of Apprenticeships will be included in the deliberations with the Associate Dean for Teaching and Learning and the Academic Registrar.

Assessment of Learners with Disabilities in End-Point Assessment

335. At end-point assessment, where this is not conducted by the University, the Academic Mentor will ensure that all information about the apprentice is shared with the End-Point Assessment Organisation (EPAO) and that the EPAO makes ‘reasonable adjustments’ as part of the end-point assessment.

Exception to the Assessment Regulations

336. In rare and exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to grant an individual student, group of students or cohort an exception to the University’s Assessment Regulations in order to ensure fairness and the maintenance of the integrity of awards in the best interest of the student(s).
337. Exceptions to the Assessment Regulations may only be granted where there is clear evidence that either:
     1. The student’s/groups/cohort’s circumstances are so extraordinary that they could not have reasonably been foreseen and accounted for within the Regulations as written and/or
     2. To apply the Assessment Regulations in the student’s/group’s/cohort’s particular exceptional circumstances would result in a grossly unfair disadvantage.
338. Requests for an exception to the Assessment Regulations may be made by a Head of Discipline, Faculty Director, or Associate Dean only. It is expected that all avenues to reasonably resolve an issue within the Assessment Regulations will have been explored before such a request is made.
339. Exceptions to the Assessment Regulations must be approved by the Dean. In reaching their decision they will normally seek advice from the Registrar, Head of Quality and Academic Registrar and they may request additional advice or information from other members of the University as they see appropriate.
340. The Dean may only approve exceptions to the Academic Regulations where they are satisfied that the academic standards of the University will not be compromised.
341. A record of all Exceptions to the Academic Regulations will be maintained by the Academic Registrar and will be reported annually to the Academic Board.

Version History

Annex A: Undergraduate/Degree Apprenticeship Calculation of Classification Mark

Annex B: Definitions

Annex C: Assessments for Referrals, Academic Misconduct Referrals and Deferrals

The rubric below indicates which assessment brief should be used for referral, referral due to academic misconduct and deferral assessments: