Regulations and Code of Practice for Taught Programmes - online version

REGULATIONS AND CODE OF PRACTICE FOR TAUGHT PROGRAMMES

Rules for Assessment, Progression and the Award of a Qualification

2011-12

* See accompanying memo from Professor Avril Waterman-Pearson (Pro Vice-Chancellor) [pdf, 40kb]

CONTENTS

#
1	Introduction
2	Significant changes to the Code for 2011-12
General Regulations and Principles for Taught Programmes
3	Principles for establishing taught programmes
4	General regulations for undergraduate programmes
5	General regulations for taught postgraduate programmes
Forms and Conduct of Assessment
6	Types of assessment and setting assessment tasks for summative purposes
7	Conduct of formal unseen written examinations
8	Conduct of coursework and similar forms of written summative assessment
9	E-assessment
10	Oral examinations of individual students
11	Anonymity
12	Assessment and disability
13	The timetabling of assessment with regard to religious observances
14	The timetabling and conduct of assessment with regard to pregnancy / maternity and paternity
The Marking Process
15	Marking criteria for assessment
16	Marking processes and internal verification / moderation
17	Formative feedback
18	Medical and other extenuating circumstances
19	Penalties for cheating, plagiarism, other academic misconduct and the late submission of coursework
Assessment Outcomes
20	Pass marks
21	Credit
22	The unit mark
23	The year mark – in undergraduate programmes
24	The taught component mark – in taught postgraduate programmes
25	Progression, the award of credit and re-assessment for undergraduate programmes – for students newly registered prior to 2011-12
26	Progression and completion of students on taught modular programmes – for students newly registered from 2011-12
27	Principles for the progression and completion of students on the professional programmes
28	The final programme mark and degree classification in undergraduate modular programmes in the undergraduate professional programmes in taught postgraduate programmes
29	Applying accredited prior learning to the calculation of the final programme mark and/or the degree classification in modular undergraduate programmes
30	Suspension of studies
31	Appeals against decisions of boards of examiners
32	Disclosure of marks and results
33	Transcripts
34	Retention of student work
Roles and Responsibilities
35	Education directors
36	Personal tutors
37	Programme directors
38	Internal examiners
39	School examination officer(s)
40	External examiners
41	Composition and role of programme (school) examination boards
42	Faculty examination boards
Annexes > >

1 Introduction

1.1. These Regulations and Code of Practice (‘the Code’) summarise the University’s expectations for the conduct of assessment, progression and the award of a qualification in undergraduate and taught postgraduate programmes. For information on research students please see the Regulations and Code of Practice for Research Degree Programmes.

1.2. The University reviewed its degree classification, progression and marking procedures during 2008 -11 with the aim of implementing coherent, transparent and consistent common University wide regulations and guidance for assessment, progression and the award of qualification. A number of proposals arising from the review were approved by Senate in 2009 -10 and 2010-11 and are included in this Code. Timelines for the implementation of the new rules/regulations are provided in annex 2.

1.3. Students who registered before the implementation date for the new regulations (or ‘rules’) for progression and calculating the final programme mark / degree classification are subject to the regulations in place in the academic year prior to the implementation date for the new regulation, for the duration of their programme of study.

Those students who initially registered for their programme before the implementation date but, through suspension or the requirement to repeat a year or undertake a supplementary year, on returning to study join a cohort of students that are governed by the new regulations, will also become subject to the new regulations.

Regulations / rules within the Code may not be varied. They are indicated by the boxed title of the section (where the entire section is regulatory - sections 4, 5, 11, 22, 23, 24, 26, 28 and 30) or by boxed text (where only part of the section is regulatory). The rest of the Code should also be followed. Any requests to depart from the Code must be approved by the relevant faculty undergraduate or graduate Education Director and must be in accordance with faculty policy. If deemed appropriate, the University Undergraduate Studies Committee or, University Graduate Studies Committee and/or the relevant faculty committees may be consulted by the Education Director. University and faculty committees will ensure consistency of practice university-wide, and will make decisions that take account of the spirit of the Code.

(Back to top)

2 Significant Changes to the Regulations and Code of Practice for Taught Programmes for 2011-12

Previous	Title: ‘Regulations and Code of Practice for the Assessment and Progression of Students on Taught Programmes’
Change	New title:‘Regulations and Code of Practice for Taught Programmes – Rules for Assessment, Progression and the Award of a Qualification’
Rationale	The new title better describes the content of the Code with the addition and incorporation of new sections relating to the award of a qualification.

Previous	The General Regulations for Undergraduate Programmes, including the Regulations for Specific Programmes, were provided in the University’s Charter, Acts, Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations.The Regulations for Taught Postgraduate Programmes, including the Regulations for Specific Programmes, were provided in the University’s Regulations and Code of Practice for Taught Postgraduate Programmes, which has now been dissolved.
Change	The ‘General Regulations for Undergraduate Programmes’ and the ‘General Regulations for Taught Postgraduate Programmes’ have been updated and incorporated into the Code as sections 4 and 5 respectively. The ‘List of Undergraduate Programmes’, the ‘List of Taught Postgraduate Programmes’ and the ‘Regulations for Specific Programmes (undergraduate and taught postgraduate)’ have been extracted and added as annexes.
Rationale	So to clarify and enforce current regulation, to ensure consistency and complementarity between sets of regulations and to locate all regulation related to assessment, progression and the award of the qualification in one document.The updating of the General Regulations will be managed by Education Committee in future, although any changes will still require approval from Senate and Council.

Previous	N/A
Change	New statement: 3.10 "Faculties and schools must consider and fulfil the principles for the design and delivery of programmes by distance learning, whether as part of a programme or the whole programme.” And inclusion of a new annex on the design and delivery of distance learning at the University (annex 3).
Rationale	With the emergence of distance learning as a potential mode for delivering education, a set of principles to underpin the design and delivery of distance learning have been devised.

Previous	N/A
Change	New clause in 3.14: "Units should not span more than one academic year."
Rationale	Given that there is not an academic rationale for this practice and such units do present a number of practical administrative difficulties.

Previous	10.1 Anonymity must be preserved when marks are considered at examination boards
Change	“11.1 Anonymity must be preserved when marks are considered at school examination boards and as far as possible at faculty boards.”
Rationale	To account for the difficulties that has been experienced in ensuring anonymity at faculty boards.

Previous	N/A
Change	New clauses within section 12:‘Assessment and disability ’relating to ‘Assessment and discrimination by association’. New section (14) on: ‘The timing and conduct of assessment with respect to pregnancy/maternity or paternity’.
Rationale	To account for legislation in the new Equality Act 2010.

Previous	Section on (15) ‘Marking criteria for all assessment tasks’
Change	This section has been updated to incorporate the new statements on utilising ‘University generic marking criteria and scales’, ahead of a planned full implementation in 2012-13.
Rationale	The purpose of the new content is to seek to improve consistency across the Institution, in respect of assessing attainment levels by adopting high level University wide generic marking criteria and to help students better understand the marks that they are awarded.As it has been recognised that some schools will be less well placed than others to implement these marking criteria proposals immediately and so their use, while encouraged during 2011-2012, will not be mandatory until 2012/2013 when it will be implemented for all forms of marking for all years of students.

Previous	Section on (18) ‘Medical and other extenuating circumstances’
Change	Minor revisions to section, including: clarifying the possible decisions the Faculty Board of Examiners may make when presented with extenuating circumstances; clarifying the date at which students should submit a completed extenuating circumstances form, as follows: “18.3: Students must complete the University’s form for extenuating circumstances and submit the form to the relevant School or Faculty Office within TWO days (excluding weekends and bank holidays) following the final assessment or examination in the assessment / examination period to which it relates, so as to inform the Faculty Board of Examiners for his/her programme of any extenuating circumstances that may have affected his/her ability to fulfil the criteria for the award of credit points or to perform to the best of his/her ability in assessment events.”
Rationale	So to provide clearer guidance on the process.

Previous	A Certificate of Higher Education requires a minimum of 90 credit points at the level of the qualification.
Change	As stated in the University’s credit framework (21.4) a Certificate of Higher Education now requires a minimum of 120 credit points at the level of the qualification.
Rationale	The University does not offer any pre-level 4 (certificate) units.

N/A

Change

New section (22) on ‘the unit mark’, which includes:

“22.1 The mark should be calculated and recorded to one decimal place by averaging the marks for each of the constituent elements / assessments.

22.3 For the purposes of awarding credit for an individual unit, the recorded mark for each unit is rounded to the nearest integer.

22.4 For the purposes of determining progression from year to year or from the taught component to the dissertation stage, the recorded mark, to one decimal place, is used to calculate the average year or taught component mark.

22.5 For the purposes of determining the final programme mark and degree classification in taught modular programmes, the recorded unit mark, to one decimal place, is used to calculate the final programme mark.

22.7 The final unit mark should be displayed as the calculated rounded integer, unless required by a board of examiners for the purposes of calculating the year/taught component mark (so to determine progression) or the final programme mark (so to determine degree classification).”

Rationale

In parallel with the implementation of common rules for the calculation of progression and the final programme mark, to clarify how the constituent unit mark is calculated and recorded.

N/A

Change

New section (23) on ‘the year mark – in undergraduate programmes’:

“23.1 For the purposes of determining progression, specifically for the application of 26.11, the overall mark achieved for the year in undergraduate programmes is calculated by averaging the recorded unit marks (i.e. recorded to one decimal place).

23.2 The weighting given to the unit mark will correspond to the credit point value of the unit, e.g. the mark for a 20 credit point unit would be a 1/6 of the whole year mark, if the student has to achieve 120 credit points during the year.

23.3 The result of the calculation of the overall mark achieved for the year is rounded to the nearest integer for the purpose of applying progression rules as set out in 26.11.”

Rationale

In parallel with the implementation of common rules for the calculation of progression and the final programme mark, to clarify how the year mark is calculated so to determine progression to the next year of study.

N/A

Change

New section (24) on ‘the taught component mark – in taught postgraduate programmes’, which includes:

“24.1 For the purposes of determining progression from the taught component to the dissertation stage, specifically the application of 26.12 and classification (see 28.2) the overall mark achieved for the taught component is calculated by averaging the recorded unit marks, which are to one decimal place.

24.2 The weighting given to the unit mark will correspond to the credit point value of the unit, e.g. the mark for a 20 credit point unit would be 1/6 of the whole year mark, if the student has to achieve 120 credit points during the year.

24.3 The result of the calculation of the overall mark achieved for the taught component is rounded to the nearest integer. “

Rationale

To clarify how the taught component mark is calculated so to determine progression to the dissertation stage.

Previous	Section (25) on ‘Progression, the award of credit and re-assessment for undergraduate programmes’
Change	The previous section (25) now applies to those undergraduate students initially registered prior to the 2011-12 academic year. A new section on the common rules for the progression and completion of students on taught modular programmes (section 26) – for students newly registered from 2011-12 has been incorporated, and additionally: “26.1 If there is a discrepancy, these rules have primacy over Faculty Standing Orders, or equivalent faculty-level rules or regulations, with regard to the progression and completion of students newly registered on taught modular programmes from the 2011-12 academic year.” “26.2 For the purposes of awarding credit for an individual unit, the recorded mark for each unit is rounded to the nearest integer.” “26.3 For the purposes of determining progression from year to year, the recorded unit mark, to one decimal place, is used to calculate the year mark. The result of the calculation of the overall average mark achieved for the year should be rounded to the nearest integer for the purpose of applying 26.11.” Furthermore an implication of the new progression rules is that faculties which currently utilise the Ordinary Degree as a mechanism for identifying students, whose academic performance is giving concern, will need to develop a separate “at risk” monitoring mechanism for such students, as the option of transferring students onto, and then a year later, out of an Ordinary Degree a progression option is no longer possible. Ordinary degrees are now used as an exit route only.
Rationale	To resolve the anomalies and inconsistencies across the University, in respect of the award of credit for the purposes of the progression of students from year to year and for completion.The additional statements have been added to clarify the supremacy of the rules over local regulations or rules and to distinguish between the (rounded) mark that is considered for the award of credit and the mark (to one decimal point) that contributes to the calculation of the year mark.

Section (25) on ‘Progression, the award of credit and re-assessment for undergraduate programmes’

Change

The previous section (25) now applies to those undergraduate students initially registered prior to the 2011-12 academic year. A new section on the common rules for the progression and completion of students on taught modular programmes (section 26) – for students newly registered from 2011-12 has been incorporated, and additionally:

“26.1 If there is a discrepancy, these rules have primacy over Faculty Standing Orders, or equivalent faculty-level rules or regulations, with regard to the progression and completion of students newly registered on taught modular programmes from the 2011-12 academic year.”

“26.2 For the purposes of awarding credit for an individual unit, the recorded mark for each unit is rounded to the nearest integer.”

“26.3 For the purposes of determining progression from year to year, the recorded unit mark, to one decimal place, is used to calculate the year mark. The result of the calculation of the overall average mark achieved for the year should be rounded to the nearest integer for the purpose of applying 26.11.”

Furthermore an implication of the new progression rules is that faculties which currently utilise the Ordinary Degree as a mechanism for identifying students, whose academic performance is giving concern, will need to develop a separate “at risk” monitoring mechanism for such students, as the option of transferring students onto, and then a year later, out of an Ordinary Degree a progression option is no longer possible. Ordinary degrees are now used as an exit route only.

Rationale

To resolve the anomalies and inconsistencies across the University, in respect of the award of credit for the purposes of the progression of students from year to year and for completion.The additional statements have been added to clarify the supremacy of the rules over local regulations or rules and to distinguish between the (rounded) mark that is considered for the award of credit and the mark (to one decimal point) that contributes to the calculation of the year mark.

Previous	N/A
Change	New section (27) on‘Principles for the progression and completion of students on the MBChB, BDS and BVSc professional programmes’
Rationale	As above. The professional programmes are non-modular and have different requirements of their students in accordance with professional body needs and so will have a separate set of regulations for progression and completion of the programme.The principles are for guidance in 2011-12; the finalised policy, once approved, will become regulations from 2012-13.

Previous	This was previously determined by Faculty Standing Orders, or equivalent.
Change	New clauses within section 28 (28.15 – 28.23) on ‘calculating the final programme mark and the award of a degree with merit or distinction for the MBChB, BDS and BVSc professional programmes’.
Rationale	So to standardise the method for calculating the final programme mark and the award of a degree with merit or distinction across the undergraduate professional programmes.

Previous	N/A
Change	New clauses within section 28 (28.24 – 28.26) on ‘calculating the final programme mark in taught postgraduate programmes’. These rules apply to all newly registered students on the professional programmes of MB,ChB, BDS and BVSc at the University of Bristol from the 2011-12 academic year. Students who registered before 2011-2012 will continue to be governed by the regulations that were in place in the academic year 2010-11, for the duration of their programme of study, unless they re-sit a year (and thereby join a cohort governed by the new rules, in which case they too will be subject to the new rules) or a current cohort of students consents to the new rules being applied, so long as this would not disadvantage any student.
Rationale	So to confirm the common method for calculating the final programme mark for taught postgraduate programmes.

Previous	The regulations on suspensions or extensions of studies in taught postgraduate programmes were previously provided in the Regulations and Code of Practice for Taught
Change	Incorporation of the regulations into section 30: ‘Suspensions or extensions of studies’.
Rationale	So to bring information on suspensions and extensions of studies into one section.

Previous	Statements in the section on the Disclosure of Marks and Results were for guidance only.
Change	Clauses 32.2 – 32.7 have become regulation.
Rationale	To reinforce a consistent process for the disclosure of marks and results across the University.

Previous	N/A
Change	The ‘Roles and Responsibilities’ section has been moved to the back of the main document. Additionally a statement on ‘Education Directors’ has been added:“35.1 It is the responsibility of the faculty Education Directors, supported by each Faculty Quality Assurance Team (FQAT), to work closely with schools to implement university and faculty policies and procedures with respect to these Regulations and Code.“
Rationale	To confirm the role of the Education Directors in implementing the policies with respect to the Regulations and Code.

Annexes

Minor amendments to section 10 (‘Information for Boards of Examiners’) and 11 (‘Appeal against a decision of a Board of Examiners’) within Annex 11: Examination Regulations, as approved by Council;
Addition of Annex 2: ‘Dates for implementing new university policy’;
Removal of previous Annex: ‘Examples of Generic Marking criteria’;
Minor amendments to Annex 13: ‘Guidance for faculties on classifying extenuating circumstances;
Minor amendments to Annex 14: ‘Guidance on student absence due to illness’;
Minor amendments to Annex 18 ‘Guidance for faculties on implementing the ‘supplementary year’;
Addition of Annex 16: ‘QAA Descriptor for a Higher Education Qualification at Level 7’;
Addition of Annex 19: ‘Flow diagram of the options for student progression under the new common rules – for newly registered students from 2011-12’;
Incorporation of Annex 22: ‘Guidance on suspension or extension of study for taught postgraduate students’ from the previous Regulations and Code of Practice for Taught Postgraduate Programmes;
Addition of Annex 23: ‘Calculating the unit mark, year mark, taught component mark and final programme mark and degree classification in taught programmes’;
Addition of Annex 25: ‘Agreed weightings, by faculty, to be applied for the purposes of calculating the final programme mark and degree classification in undergraduate programmes’.
Incorporation of Annex 26: ‘Dissertation Guidelines for Taught Postgraduate Programmes’ from the previous Regulations and Code of Practice for Taught Postgraduate Programmes;

(Back to top)

General Regulations and Principles for Taught Programmes

3 Principles for establishing taught programmes

3.1 Each degree programme is the responsibility of the relevant faculty, subject to approval by Senate.

3.2 Every degree programme must be justified on academic grounds and the level of demand for them must be sufficient to merit the use of the resources required for delivery.

3.3 Faculties must adhere to the established procedures for the approval of named degree programmes.

3.4 Control over entry to any programme or unit rests with faculties (programmes) and schools (units). This includes the evaluation and acceptance of students transferring from other institutions or internally within the University.

3.5 All new and existing undergraduate and taught postgraduate programmes must be fully modular in structure, with the exception of the MB,ChB, BDS and BVSc programmes, which are currently not modular.

3.6 Undergraduate programmes may be a single honours unitary degree or a joint honours degree devoting approximately equal time to two subjects or a major/minor combination where the minor subject accounts for at least a quarter of the programme.

3.7 Faculties and schools must specify the constituent units, as well as other pre- and co-requisites, for all existing and any new programmes in the programme specification.

3.8 Faculties and schools whose programmes or units are either validated by professional bodies or which are required to adhere to curricular content specified by professional bodies will establish with those organisations what constitutes an acceptable curricular structure.

3.9 For each joint honours programme, one of the contributing schools must own the programme and apply the relevant regulations as set out in this policy. For programmes that span faculties the programme committee must decide the ‘home’ school, and therefore faculty ownership, guided by the balance of the programme content and emphasis.

3.10 Faculties and schools must consider and fulfil the principles for the design and delivery of programmes by distance learning, whether as part of a programme or the whole programme (see annex 3).

The programme structure

3.11 The modular structure of any programme should:

permit flexibility in the choice of units across school, faculty and institutional boundaries to academic advantage, enabling students to exercise a measure of choice in their own curricula;
facilitate new interdisciplinary programmes/units;
safeguard the existence of, and the choice to take, coherent, specialist degree programmes;
facilitate access for non-traditional students;
permit University of Bristol students to use credits gained at the University towards a degree in another university;
within the constraints of double counting, described in points 4.12 and 4.13 of the General Regulations for Undergraduate Programmes and point 5.5 in the General Regulations for Taught Postgraduate Programmes, allow for credit transfer to permit University of Bristol students to use credits gained during a period of study at another university towards their Bristol degree; allow students from other universities to use the credits they bring with them towards a University of Bristol degree, subject to the acceptability of individual students; and allow students from elsewhere to use credits gained in a period of study at the University of Bristol towards a degree in their own university (see the University’s Guidelines on the Accreditation of Prior Learning for Taught Programmes at annex 20);
offer the opportunity for students who do not complete a full programme of study at the University to be provided with tangible evidence that they have successfully completed a piece of work within an accepted curricular structure.

Unit sizes and structure of the teaching year

3.12 The University's standard unit sizes are 10, 20, 30, 40 and 60 credit points. A single 120 credit point undergraduate unit which encompasses a full academic year where the student is studying abroad or in industry is also permitted.

3.13 In postgraduate taught programmes units of more than 60 credit points are permitted to accommodate projects or dissertations.

3.14 The University follows a two teaching block (12, 12 + 6 pattern) for the academic year. Therefore, faculties and schools must so arrange units that the whole curriculum year of any programme may be divided into two parts. Units should not span more than one academic year. A unit may only be scheduled to run outside of this structure where there are good pedagogic reasons so to do and subject to approval by Education Committee.

Levels of study

3.15 To enable credit transfer, internally and externally, the levels of credit below have been identified:

level 3 units may be considered as alternatives to A levels; they are normally pre-requisites to level 4 units and feature in pathway programmes,
level 4 units are normally taken as part of the first year of an undergraduate programme,
level 5 units are normally taken as part of the second, third or final year of an undergraduate programme.
level 6 units are normally taken as part of the third or final year of an undergraduate programme.
level 7 units are normally taken as part of the final year of a master’s or integrated master’s programme or the year abroad.

Open Units - student choice within undergraduate programmes

3.16 In order to support the principle of students being given the opportunity to broaden their education within the programme of study, all full time students on undergraduate degree programmes will normally have the opportunity to take units outside of their subject discipline (i.e. ‘open units’) worth 40 credit points (from 2012-13, the minimum requirement for open units in a year of study will be 20 credit points) in a defined year of study, except where this is not practicable due to professional accreditation reasons. Schools wishing to permit students the opportunity to take open units worth more than a total of 40 credit points may do so.

3.17 Faculties and schools will determine the point during a student's career at which open units may be taken. Faculties and schools may specify to its students which open units are most appropriate for them to take.

3.18 Students do not have a right to take any particular unit. The availability of any particular unit is subject to practical constraints such as space in teaching rooms or laboratories and timetabling. Subject to these constraints, students may also seek to take a unit (or units), which has not been flagged as being an ‘open unit’.

3.19 Students are not required to take open units. If they wish, and subject to the programme structure and practical constraints described in 3.18, they can take the 40 credit points set aside for open units in their honours subject(s).

(Back to top)

4 General Regulations for Undergraduate Programmes

These Regulations apply to:

Preliminary Certificates
Pathway Certificates
Certificates of Higher Education
Diplomas of Higher Education
Foundation Degrees
The First Degree programmes of BA, BSc, BEng, LLB, BEd, MSci and MEng, relating to the levels of study described in the Glossary (annex 1).

A list of current undergraduate programmes, to which these Regulations apply, is provided at annex 4.

The Regulations for the specific programmes: MBChB, BDS, BVSc, Diploma in Dental Hygiene, Diploma in Dental Therapy, Professional Graduate Certificate in Education and the Graduate Diploma, are available at annex 5.

The Diploma in Dental Hygiene, which is governed by specific regulations, is subject to these General Regulations except where the specific regulations indicate otherwise.

4.1 To be eligible for admission to a programme of study candidates shall have such qualifications as Senate shall determine.

Most candidates for admission to the University will be at least 18 years old on entry. If a candidate is selected who will be under 18 years of age on admission, such admission shall be conditional on a declaration by the Academic Registrar that satisfactory arrangements have been made for the student’s accommodation and pastoral care, in accordance with the University’s Policy on the Safeguarding of Children, Young People and Vulnerable Adults.

4.2 No student shall be permitted to register and be admitted to any programme of study at the start of any academic year if that student:

a) has failed to satisfy the academic requirements of the programme for the previous year of study, as outlined in the regulations for the progression of students on taught programmes (see sections 25 and 26); or

b) is in debt to the University in respect of tuition or other ancillary fees, accommodation fees or fines properly imposed for breach of any University regulation, unless specific arrangements have been agreed with the University for the settlement of the debt; or

c) is suspended.

4.3 Subject to the approval of Senate, Faculty Boards shall determine the programmes to be offered for each degree, diploma or certificate within the faculty and the units to be taken within each programme. Details of the curriculum requirements for each programme shall be published in the faculty and/or school handbook to which the programme belongs.

4.4 Subject to the approval of Faculty Boards and Senate, schools shall determine:

a) the content and duration of each unit and the criteria for its satisfactory completion;

b) the value in terms of credit points and level to be assigned to each unit;

c) the pre-requisites and co-requisites associated with each unit.

4.5 The normal requirement for each full-time year of study is not less than 120 credit points and not more than 130. The University does not encourage students to take more than the required units for the programme. However, if a student chooses to do so they will be required to pay a fee for the additional units and neither the credit nor the marks accumulated will count towards their final award.

4.6 The consent of the Faculty Board shall be necessary for the admission of a student to any assessment and to each part of a programme. Each programme is governed by the University Examination Regulations (see annex 11).

4.7 Each student shall attend such lectures, discussion periods, tutorials, practical classes, design classes, fieldwork, vacation courses and any other educational activities as described in the programme specification, and shall undertake such written and other work as may be required. Each student shall also attend, as an integral part of the programme, such work placements, vacation courses and fieldwork as are defined in the programme and are required of her/him. Each student shall also undertake any professional requirements, as described in the programme specification. Each student shall undertake such assessments as are arranged.

4.8 The failure of any student to show satisfactory progress on the programme, including failure in summative assessment, failure to obtain credit points or to attend regularly any prescribed part of a programme (including such lectures, discussion periods, tutorial and practical classes, fieldwork, design classes and vacation courses as may be required) or to undertake prescribed written or other work or to present himself or herself for any examination or to reach a satisfactory standard in any assessment or any part or parts of an assessment, shall be reported to the Faculty Board which may at any time, if it thinks fit, require the student concerned to repeat part of a programme or to retake an assessment or to withdraw from a unit or units or the whole programme in accordance with the University regulations on student progression.

Any student who has been required to withdraw shall be informed in writing of the decision and of the University procedures for making representations against the decision.

4.9 The Faculty board of examiners shall determine whether a candidate, on completion of the programme including the final assessment, has obtained the required number of credit points for the award of a degree, diploma or certificate. The class of the degree will be determined in accordance with the University regulations on degree classification (see section 28).

4.10 A student who has obtained 120 credit points at level 4 or above but who either does not proceed to undertake further units or does not satisfactorily complete further units may, if his or her faculty has made provision, be awarded a Certificate of Higher Education. Similarly, a candidate registered for a higher award who has obtained 240 credit points at appropriate levels may, if his or her faculty has made provision, be awarded a Diploma of Higher Education (see the University’s Credit Framework in section 21 for more details).

For the purposes of the Intercalated Degree of BSc in the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry or the Faculty of Medical and Veterinary Sciences, or the BA in Medical Humanities in the Faculty of Arts, the first two years of the MB,ChB, BDS or BVSc programme shall each deemed to be worth 120 credit points.

4.11 Study and assessment carried out under the supervision of the University, or in another institution approved by Senate, and credit points obtained there from may be accepted towards the fulfilment of the requirements of a particular programme.

In every case, except where there is a specific agreement with another institution which has been approved by Senate or in the case of the BSc (Hons) in Social Work with Children and Young People or the BSc (Hons) in Professional Practice with Children and Young People, a candidate for a degree programme must take and satisfactorily complete University of Bristol units which comprise the final 120 credit points of the programme.

4.12 Save as specified below credit points may be used once only and may not be used towards two or more undergraduate awards of this University or of another institution and this University. The exceptions are:

a) with the consent of Senate, where an award at one level may be subsumed into an award at a higher level;

b) with the consent of Senate, where a University award or award of another institution has independent standing as a professional qualification and is accredited by a professional body;

c) where a medical, dental or veterinary student of this University intercalates a year of study for the degree of BSc or BA in this University or elsewhere, or where a medical, dental or veterinary student from another institution intercalates a year of study for the degree of BSc or BA in this University.

4.1 3 No student who is registered for a programme of full-time study leading to a qualification of the University of Bristol may concurrently be registered on a programme of full-time study leading to the award of a qualification of another institution.

4.14 The degrees of BA, BSc, BEng, LLB, may be awarded with honours or as ordinary degrees. Names of successful candidates for honours shall be arranged as follows: first class honours; second class honours in two divisions and third class honours. The names of successful candidates for the ordinary degrees shall be listed separately.

4.15 The degrees of MSci and MEng may be awarded with honours, as follows: first class honours and second class honours in two divisions.

4.16 The Foundation Degree is not awarded with honours.

4.17 Subject to Ordinance 15, the following table shows the minimum and maximum periods of study for full-time undergraduate awards covered by these regulations. Periods of study for part-time students shall be calculated pro-rata to the periods of full-time study. For this purpose, the maximum period of study for an undergraduate programme excludes periods of suspension, but includes periods of extension that have been accepted by the Faculty, due to poor academic performance, for example where students re-take an academic year.

Title of Award	Period of Study (one academic year normally equals 30 weeks' study)
Title of Award	Minimum	Maximum
Professional degrees (BDS, BVSc, MB,ChB)	5 academic years*	7 academic years
Integrated (5-year) Master's degree (e.g. with a Year Abroad/in Industry)	5 academic years	6 academic years
Integrated 4-year Master’s Degree	4 academic years	5 academic years
Honours Bachelor (4-year) Degree	4 academic years	5 academic years
Honours Bachelor (3-year) Degree	3 academic years	4 academic years
Honours Bachelor Degree that requires study abroad or in industry (i.e. away from the University) for one academic year	4 academic years	5 academic years
Ordinary Degree	2 ½ academic years	4 academic years
Foundation Degree	2 academic years	4 academic years
Undergraduate Diploma of Higher Education	2 academic years	3 academic years
Undergraduate Certificate of Higher Education	1 academic year	1 academic year
Pathway Certificate (single subject)	1 academic year	See relevant programme specification
Preliminary Certificate (combined studies)	1 academic year	n/a

* with the exception of graduate entry onto the MB,ChB, which is 4 years for those with a suitable undergraduate degree.

(Back to top)

5 General Regulations for Taught Postgraduate Programmes

The programmes governed by these Regulations are provided in annex 6: the ‘List of Taught Postgraduate Programmes’.

The Regulations for the specific programmes of MClinDent, PCGE and the MSc in Social Work can be found at annex 7.

Selection and admission

5.1 Selection of students for taught postgraduate programmes must be in accordance with the University’s Admissions Principles and Procedures for Postgraduate Taught Programmes.

Registration

5.2 Students must register at the beginning of each academic year for which credit is being sought and pay the relevant tuition fee. Continuing students in debt to the University will not be permitted to re-register or progress until the debt is settled.

5.3 No student registered for a programme of full-time study leading to a qualification of the University of Bristol may be registered concurrently on a programme of full or part-time study leading to the award of a qualification at this or another institution.

5.4 Students on some taught postgraduate programmes may be permitted to register initially for a postgraduate diploma or postgraduate certificate, subject to faculty approval.

5.5 Graduates of the University in receipt of a Postgraduate Certificate or Postgraduate Diploma award may be permitted by the faculty to re-register for the taught or research component (and to pay the relevant fee) for a Master’s degree, normally within the programme’s maximum study period or, where applicable, as part of Accredited Prior Learning procedures (see annex 20). In such cases, on successful completion of the Master’s award, the Postgraduate Certificate or Diploma will be subsumed into the higher award and the original award certificate must be returned to the Faculty office by the student.

Period of study

5.6 The period of study commences when the student is first registered for the degree programme. Students are expected to complete their programme within the specified normal period of study and must not exceed the maximum study period.

5.7 The maximum study period normally only applies to students who are undergoing re-assessment.

5.8 The normal and maximum periods of study for taught postgraduate degrees are:

Title of award	Student mode of attendance	Normal study period	Maximum study period
Postgraduate Certificate 60 credit points	Full-time	Not less than 15 weeks' study	6 months
	Part-time	6 months	12 months
	Part-time variable	Not applicable	Not more than two years' study
Postgraduate Diploma 120 credit points	Full-time	Not less than 31 weeks' study	12 months
	Part-time	6 months	24 months
	Part-time variable	Not applicable	Not more than three years' study
Master's degree 180 credit points	Full-time	Not less than 50 weeks' study	18 months
	Part-time	24 months	36 months
	Part-time variable	Not applicable	Not more than five years' study*
MA in Law 240 credit points	Full-time	24 months	Not more than three years' study
MSc in Social Work 300 credit points	Full-time	24 months	Not more than three years' study
MClinDent 180 credit point	Full-time	24 months	36 months
MClinDent 180 credit point	Part-time	48 months	60 months
PGCE (Postgraduate Certificate in Education) 60 credit points	Full-time	12 months	Not more than three years' study.

* Not more than eight years study for part-time variable students on the MSc in Teaching and Learning for Health Professionals and the Master in Laws (LLM) by Advanced Study.

Student Entitlements

5.10 Taught postgraduate students can expect:

a) Information on tuition fees, registration, induction, the timetable and staff office hours/availability.

b) Information on programme and unit content and requirements and how academic progress towards the award is monitored.

c) Adequate opportunities to meet their personal tutor and/or programme director (as applicable), unit directors and dissertation supervisor(s) for informal and formal discussions about academic progress or pastoral matters.

d) Information on the return of required written work, with formative feedback, within an agreed time scale (typically 3 weeks for full-time students, unless exceptional circumstances arise, in which case students will be informed of the deadline).

e) Access to a learning infrastructure that supports their academic progress and their ability to complete the degree successfully within the required time period. Where relevant, details of appropriate language courses should be provided, bearing in mind the challenge of taking a language course while committed to a full-time programme of study

f) Access to an appropriate learning environment, including a wider research environment, (in the University or collaborating institutions) within which there is relevant and sufficient expertise and appropriate facilities available to support the programme of study.

g) Information about the support and guidance available at School/Faculty/University level (e.g. student handbooks, student web pages), including information on complaints and appeals procedures and information on student representation procedures at School/ Faculty/University level and on student feedback opportunities

Student Responsibilities

5.11 Taught postgraduate students are expected to:

a) Register with the University at the start of the academic session, ensuring that they are registered on the correct units with sufficient credit points for the programme.

b) Pay the required tuition fee and ensure that they have the necessary financial support to enable completion of the programme

c) Take responsibility for their own personal and professional development and academic progress, making the most of those learning opportunities that will enhance their capacity for independent and ‘self-directed’ learning.

d) Meet the University’s requirements for good academic conduct, including timely submission of assessed work by the set deadline, attending at meetings with unit directors and dissertation supervisor(s) as required, attend lectures, seminars and practical sessions regularly and take an active part in the programme of study.

e) Maintain effective working relationships with teaching staff (programme director, personal tutor, unit directors, dissertation supervisor) and other students, treating all with respect and consideration. Students on professionally-recognised vocational programmes are additionally expected to maintain standards of conduct commensurate with professional practice standards.

f) Maintain academic integrity, acknowledging fully the work of others in their coursework and assessed work, and be familiar with the referencing conventions of the discipline or programme, so that their work is free from plagiarism.

g) Notify the University of any disability, mitigating circumstance or support needs that may affect their study or performance in assessments, in line with these Regulations and Code of Practice.

h) Notify the University of changes in their personal information (term time/home addresses, telephone numbers) immediately by updating their personal details online.

i) Notify their programme director of any potential change in circumstance (requests for a change in mode of attendance, suspension of study, resumption of study, extension of study, programme transfer or withdrawal) in good time.

j) Be familiar with, and comply with, University Regulations and Guidelines including: these Regulations and Code of Practice, relevant programme regulations, the Rules and Regulations for Students (including the University’s Intellectual Property Policy for Students and the Examination Regulations (including sections on plagiarism and cheating).

k) Be familiar with relevant University rules on health and safety, data protection, research ethics and confidentiality and the norms of good research practice applicable to their disciplinary area.

l) International students with visa / immigration queries must only discuss these with the specially trained staff based in the International Advice and Support Unit in the International Office. These staff can also provide general support and guidance to international students.

Monitoring of the progress of taught postgraduate students

5.12 Faculties should monitor the progress of taught postgraduate students at examination boards and as part of Annual Programme Review.

5.13 The University expects informal monitoring of student progress within 2 - 3 months of initial registration. Practice may vary according to the discipline, student cohort or mode of study. Schools will make it clear in their handbooks which method is used.

5.14 Monitoring of student progress normally includes monitoring of attendance on units and performance in seminars and may also include informal evaluations of a student’s progress in a unit/programme.

5.15 Informal reviews of student progress will help ensure that the student is in a position to overcome practical or academic hurdles to progress and will enable the student to discuss any concerns about progress with the unit/dissertation supervisor. The student should see and comment on any written report made about his/her progress.

5.16 Part-time variable students should receive timely feedback on their progress in each unit from the unit director, normally in advance of commencing study on another unit. Guidance should be provided in school handbooks.

The Dissertation

5.17 For most postgraduate Master’s awards, a dissertation worth 60 credit points is required. Postgraduate Master’s awards with an enhanced research component normally require dissertation/s worth 90 to 120 credit points. Dissertation requirements are outlined in the ‘Dissertation Guidelines for Taught Postgraduate Programmes’ (annex 26) and in individual programme specifications.

5.18 The dissertation/research project must normally be submitted by 15 September. Faculties may alter this deadline date for part-time or professional Master’s programmes. Information on submission procedures and submission deadlines are published in faculty and/or school handbooks.

5.19 The dissertation must be a student’s own work. A student may not include in any dissertation (or equivalent), material previously submitted and approved for an award of a degree at this or any other university.

5.20 School responsibilities concerning the dissertation:

a) To assign each student a dissertation supervisor by the start of the dissertation.

b) To provide students with information and guidance on the dissertation process, the standards expected and the normal number of contact hours that apply. Students can expect to receive information in a school handbook and guidance in a dissertation workshop, seminar, work session and/or unit.

c) To inform students of the faculty/school norms on the reading of draft section(s) of the dissertation that will apply (once only is the norm in many but not all schools) and information on the amount of formative feedback that will be given during the process.

d) To provide students with relevant legal and regulatory information and guidance e.g. health and safety, research ethics, copyright, data protection, plagiarism, criminal records bureau check procedures.

e) If a student's research requires a period working away from the University, the School should ensure that appropriate supervisory/personal tutor arrangements, understood by the student, are in put in place to cover these periods.

f) To inform students of the independent sources of help/advice that are available should a problem arise during the dissertation process, e.g. programme director, personal tutor.

g) In schools where a dissertation or research project has a placement element or a student spends time at a company location, the dissertation supervisor and the safety officer will seek to ensure student safety by ensuring that the company has a safety code of practice. Organisers of placements must be familiar with the University’s Guidelines on Student Placements in Taught Programmes.

5.2.1 Dissertation supervisor’s responsibilities

a) To be aware of and understand University policies and procedures.

b) To be knowledgeable about the general or specific research area of the student’s dissertation so as to provide guidance on the nature of the dissertation and the standard of work expected.

c) To advise on the planning of the dissertation; to discuss the timetable and dates for completion of different stages.

d) To advise the student on training necessary for completion of the dissertation, e.g. statistical or software courses which may include referral to other sources of help and advice. To advise on techniques, research methods, research ethics and other relevant issues (e.g. criminal records check procedures, intellectual property), and to encourage the student to become aware of recent developments in the research area.

e) To supervise and maintain contact with the student through meetings, email or telephone contact where appropriate (e.g. when a student is working on a placement away from Bristol) as detailed in school handbooks.

f) To propose adequate arrangements for supervision of students during study leave (or unavoidable absence) to the Programme Director or Head of School, as applicable.

g) The dissertation supervisor will not proof-read or edit the work. In programmes where a specified proportion of the draft dissertation may be read by the dissertation supervisor, s/he may comment on the following as applicable: dissertation or report structure, content of sections, research sources and methodology, referencing and style.

h) Where re-assessment of the dissertation is permitted by the Examination Board, the dissertation supervisor will ensure that the student understands the feedback given by the examiners and knows what is required for re-submission.

5.22 Student’s responsibilities during the dissertation

a) To agree a suitable dissertation topic with their dissertation supervisor and to work on a research plan in consultation with that supervisor.

b) To attend dissertation workshops and seminars (where provided) and be familiar with relevant school information on the dissertation process.

c) To agree a schedule of meetings with their dissertation supervisor at the start of the process, initiate meetings, attend all scheduled meetings and presentations and remain in contact during the period of the dissertation.

d) To be responsible for their own progress with the dissertation, keeping their dissertation supervisor informed of their overall progress, raising any problems they are having with the dissertation with their dissertation supervisor at the earliest opportunity. To work on their dissertation taking account of advice and guidance and submit work by set deadlines.

e) To ensure that ethical or statutory checks are carried out early in the dissertation process so that the progress of their research is not delayed. Criminal records bureau, research ethics or intellectual property checks or approval may take weeks/months to complete.

f) Where required by the school, to provide the dissertation supervisor with a draft section of the dissertation by the specified deadline, in accordance with school dissertation guidelines.

g) To be responsible for the quality and standard of their own work. They should proof-read the final draft, ensure it is legible and check that both citation and referencing have been done to the required standard.

h) To submit the dissertation within the normal study period for the programme

i) Where the Examination Board permits re-assessment of the dissertation, the student must take account of the feedback from examiners to improve the re-submitted work.

Feedback Opportunities

5.23 Taught postgraduates may provide feedback on their experiences through their student representatives on school staff/student liaison committees, through ‘end of programme’ and unit questionnaires as well as providing their views during School Reviews. At faculty level they may express their views through student representatives on relevant faculty committees and by providing feedback on their experiences to Faculty Quality Assurance Teams. At University level there are student representatives on Education Committee, Senate, Student Affairs Committee and Council.

(Back to top)

Forms and Conduct of Assessment

Introduction

Assessment is defined in the Quality Assurance Agency’s Code of Practice section on Assessment of Students as “a generic term for a set of processes that measure the outcomes of students’ learning, in terms of knowledge acquired, understanding developed, and skills gained”.

Assessment serves many purposes:

It is the means whereby student achievement is measured and compared, thereby providing the basis for decisions on whether a student is ready to progress or qualify for an award or to receive a licence to practise;
enabling students to obtain feedback on the quality of their learning, thereby helping them improve their performance;
giving staff an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of teaching and consistency of practice.

Assessment methods and their application are integral to the interdependent curriculum design/teaching and learning/assessment cycle and should reflect the intended learning outcomes at all stages of the programme. Staff should be aware of the impact that assessment has in shaping students’ dispositions towards learning, their understanding of goals and their motivation.

In view of the value of different types of assessment for the student learning process, it is essential that assessment methods and procedures are carefully planned to reflect intended learning outcomes. In particular, staff should consider carefully which assessment method is most appropriate for evaluating student performance in a chosen element or unit, i.e. whether it will enable students to demonstrate that they have achieved, or exceeded, the intended learning outcomes.

6 Types of assessment and setting assessment tasks for summative purposes

6.1 Annex 8 summarises the assessment methods that might be expected in taught programmes. The list is not exhaustive, but covers types of assessment that are appropriate for evaluating students’ performance across a range of intended learning outcomes. Most can be used for both formative and summative purposes, as appropriate. Where there is a strong predilection towards one purpose or the other, this is noted in the ‘comments’ column; otherwise there is no attempt to differentiate between suitability for formative or summative assessment.

6.2 Assessment may be:

a) diagnostic: assessment which provides an indicator of a learner’s aptitude and preparedness for a programme of study and identifies possible learning problems;

b) formative: designed to provide learners with feedback on progress and inform development, but does not contribute to the overall assessment;

c) summative: provides a measure of achievement or failure made in respect of a learner’s performance in relation to the intended learning outcomes of the programme of study.

6.3 Assessment should be designed with a view to student progress, both in terms of subject knowledge and in terms of skills and attributes. The assessment design should indicate a progression over time and from formative assessment to summative assessment, through courses and across programmes. A focus on student progress requires that assessment is understood as being part of the learning process, as well as a summative endeavour, as described here:

a) assessment of learning is essentially summative and is evidenced in the assessment of the knowledge, skills and disposition/abilities of a learner;

b) assessment for learning relates to providing formative feedback on performance which will aid further learning;

c) assessment as learning can be defined as students engaging in self assessment with the gathering and interpretation of evidence to inform and plan future personal learning strategies, and the development of students as self-regulated learners.

The transition from assessment of learning to assessment for learning reflects a commitment to placing student learning at the centre of assessment design. Students should be encouraged to see their own role in assessment as one of active engagement, rather than passive response. Given the increased level of technology available to, and used by students, its appropriate use will enhance student engagement in the assessment process.

6.4 Programmes are designed such that students are given an opportunity to develop aptitudes for, and be assessed on, learning outcomes that have been defined for the programme they are undertaking. Assessment tasks in courses are designed to assess one or more of the course learning outcomes, and are regularly evaluated to determine that the task is appropriate. The assessment in courses reflects a balance of formative and summative requirements in that students must be guided in their learning as well as being given information on ways in which they can improve their attainment. There must also be clear development of, and information about, progression through the programme of study, in terms of both attainment and demonstration of skills and attributes.

6.5 A programme need not employ all of the forms of assessment listed in annex 8 but the range should be sufficient to enable the full spectrum of knowledge and skills (both subject specific and generic) embodied in the programme and unit or element intended learning outcomes, to be appropriately assessed individually or cumulatively. The following principles should be applied wherever possible in assessing student work:

a) Different forms of assessment should be used to test different types of skills.

b) A variety of forms of summative assessment should be utilised, as appropriate, within a programme preceded by the provision of a formative experience of the summative assessment.

c) The volume of summative assessment in a programme must be the least necessary to measure the extent to which students have achieved the intended learning outcomes.

d) The overall assessment load associated with any unit must be appropriate to the level of study, the credit point weighting, and the need for formative feedback. This must be specified and agreed when the unit is first approved and should be reviewed as part of annual programme review.

e) Programme Directors should agree appropriate assessment methods to assist unit directors in choosing a set of formative and summative assessment tasks which are proportionate and consistent within the subject.

f) In assessing a unit composed of more than one element, it is the unit as a whole, not each element that needs to be satisfactorily completed. Elements need not be capable of being separately assessed although programmes may require an element to be satisfactorily completed in order to pass the unit / enable the credit points to be awarded. Alternatively, if it is considered to be academically essential for a student to complete successfully one or more parts of a programme, those parts may be classified as units and assessed accordingly.

g) Students should be given outline information about the assessment tasks they will encounter at the outset of the programme and the implications of any failure. Detailed information should be given at the beginning of each subsequent academic year on the timing and weighting of each assessment. Such information should be made available in programme/unit handbooks, and online via Blackboard, and should be reinforced, both at the beginning of a unit and before each assessment task.

h) Decisions about the utilisation of the different types of assessment tasks should take into account competency standards, developing graduate attributes, professional frameworks, subject benchmarks and the degree to which the task can provide formative feedback and encourage student self-reflection.

Assuring assessment criteria and intended learning outcomes at unit level

6.6 Faculties are responsible for ensuring that students are given clear guidance on the assessment requirements of their programmes and units and receive equitable treatment university-wide.

6.7 Unit specifications must provide sufficient information about the assessment in relation to the intended learning outcomes. This should be accomplished by reference to the university common generic marking criteria and marking scales (see section 15) as well as the subject-specific marking criteria.

6.8 Any significant changes to a unit, at whatever level it is approved, should automatically trigger a review of whether the assessment methods and criteria remain congruent with the unit’s intended learning outcomes.

6.9 Annual review mechanisms for units (annual unit or programme reviews) must provide appropriate opportunities for evaluating whether the assessments test the stated unit objectives/learning outcomes. This should be an agenda item at the Annual Programme Review.

Setting assessment tasks

6.10 It is the responsibility of the head of school and the relevant programme director to ensure that processes are in place for conducting assessment (see Guidelines for Programme Directors at annex 10). Schools should appoint a school examinations officer(s) to be generally responsible for the conduct of assessment in the school (see section 39).

6.11 More than one person must be involved in the setting of any assessment task so as to ensure a common understanding of what is being asked of the student and a consistent approach to marking. Any assessment task should be appropriately moderated.

6.12 Faculties and/or schools should have established mechanisms (such as a board of examiners’ meeting) to scrutinise the assessment tasks set, to ensure they are of an appropriate standard and are consistent with the programme specifications with regard to content, intended learning outcomes and assessment methods. The timing of these mechanisms needs to take account of any assessment tasks students may be required to undertake at the end of, or during, teaching block 1.

6.13 External examiners must be sufficiently involved in the scrutiny of assessment tasks to enable them to fulfil their primary role in assuring the academic standards of programmes of study. To facilitate this, they should have access to the relevant information relating to aims and objectives, contents, intended learning outcomes, assessment methods, marking criteria and any model answers.

(Back to top)

7 Conduct of formal unseen written examinations

7.1 The procedures under which the University requires unseen written examinations to be conducted are set out in the University’s Examination Regulations (annex 11). Should any divergence from these procedures be requested, the chair of the relevant board of examiners must be consulted. S/he may act on behalf of the board, but should first consult the undergraduate or graduate Education Director.

7.2 The University's Examination Regulations contain detailed provisions concerning the handling of allegations of plagiarism, cheating and other examinations offences (sections 2.9 -11.18). Anyone with responsibility for handling such allegations must be fully familiar with these regulations.

(Back to top)

8 Conduct of coursework and similar forms of written summative assessment

Coursework is defined as any assessment based on essays, assignments, creative writing or other tasks that is completed outside timetabled classes in the students' own time. This section gives guidance on procedures concerning the conduct of this type of assessment. Summative assignments should be set, marked and moderated in the manner described in the Code.

8.1 Students should be provided with timetables at the start of each unit indicating when coursework will be set, when it is to be submitted and when it will be returned. Deadlines for coursework should be provided in sufficient time for completion.

8.2 Clear statements about how a student should apply for an extension to the original deadline and the penalties for late submission must also be provided (see section 19). Academic misconduct associated with continuously assessed assignments should be dealt with as a disciplinary offence.

8.3 Formative feedback on coursework, including summative assignments, should be provided to students. The work and the feedback should be returned promptly, in sufficient time to help the student’s work on subsequent assignments. Student-led forms of feedback should also be undertaken prior to any subsequent assignments (see section 17).

8.4 External examiner(s) should be supplied with the summative assessment structure for a programme in which the examination and coursework requirements are defined. External examiner(s) must be able to scrutinise examination papers and examples of work from units where assessment is entirely through coursework.

8.5 The director of a unit which utilises coursework as an assessment method must ensure that all those involved in the assessment process are aware of the guidelines for the assessment of the unit. When marking of coursework is undertaken by more than one person, procedures must be in place to ensure the uniformity of marking.

(Back to top)

9 E-assessment

The principles and guidance in this section apply to both summative and formative forms of e-assessment.

9.1 Students should be given access to/experience of the examination format and the technology prior to the summative examination. It is also good practice to give students prior exposure to a formative examination with feedback.

9.2 Arrangements should be made for responding to unexpected technical problems in a way that is fair and efficient and within a reasonable timeframe. This includes technical support in case of server failure. In cases of serious technical failure, students should be offered the examination in paper format.

9.3 The examination should be rehearsed in the same technological environment (although not necessarily with the same group of students) as the actual examination, to ensure that it is robust.

9.4 Invigilation should be appropriate to the type of e-assessment being used and will require technical invigilation of the server which delivers the assessment is located. This will require prior liaison and agreement with Information Services staff. Invigilators should be fully briefed prior to the assessment.

9.5 The summative examination should only be accessible by secure password and the performance recorded by university-approved secure management tools suited for the purpose.

9.6 Computers used for summative examinations should wherever possible have both internet and communication tools disabled, except as needed for the purpose of the assessment.

9.7 Reasonable and appropriate adjustments must be made for students with disabilities that could put them at a disadvantage due to the format of the examination. Students who have made a case for special arrangements must be offered an alternative to the e-assessment e.g. a paper based assessment (see section 12 for further information on assessment and disability).

9.8 The use of a large pool or sub-pools of examination questions from which a randomised sub-set of questions is generated to produce individualised student exams is strongly encouraged as long as the pool/s cover/s all aspects of the examinable material and the sub-sample generated is representative. Pools of questions should be carefully constructed to test the unit’s intended learning outcomes.

9.9 The outcomes of e- examinations must be electronically recorded for quality assurance purposes, in line with the policy for archiving summative assessment (see section 34). This is the responsibility of the relevant school.

9.10 Schools are responsible for the academic aspect of the e-assessment, whilst Information Services is responsible for the technical infrastructure which enables the assessment to occur. Effective communication between schools and Information Services is crucial to ensure this.

9.11 Schools must ensure that the scheduling of e-assessments does not conflict with the central examinations timetable.

9.12 The academic processes around setting e-assessment should be the same as those for other forms of assessment; in particular:

a) External examiners should have access to the questions and approve the assessment design.

b) Staff should be offered support and training in the design of the assessment. All questions should be peer reviewed.

c) It is good practice to use a balance of question types of varying difficulty. Marks for questions should be based upon the level of difficulty of the questions.

d) Examination performance using a computer based format must not be norm referenced; the contribution to the overall assessment should reflect the learning outcomes of the unit being assessed.

e) Negative marking should be allowed only if consistent with the purposes of the assessment (see section 16.12).

(Back to top)

10 Oral examinations of individual students

These principles relate directly to summative oral examinations, though most of the principles are also applicable to formatively assessed examinations (e.g. class presentation).

10.1 Two examiners must normally be present during all oral examinations. If this is not possible then a procedure for recording the event must be in place e.g. video, Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE).

10.2 Oral examinations should only be used when it matches the intended learning outcome being tested e.g. practical or performance skills. Normally this would not include assessment of simple factual knowledge recall.

10.3 It is the responsibility of the school/examination board to demonstrate that the oral examination is reliable, fair and appropriate and adds value to the assessment portfolio.

10.4 The external examiner must have adequate access to all intended student learning outcomes, including those attached to the oral examination, to be able to form a judgement as to the fairness and appropriateness of the assessment and student performance.

10.5 In all cases where oral examinations contribute to the summative assessment of taught programmes, students and examiners must always be aware of the purposes of the assessment and all the possible implications of the outcome.

10.6 If an oral examination is part of the assessment of a unit, it must apply to every student taking that unit.

10.7 An oral examination is not permitted as a means of moderating a student’s examination result or degree classification.

(Back to top)

11 Anonymity

11.1 Anonymity must be preserved when marks are considered at school examination boards and as far as possible at faculty boards.

11.2 Anonymity must also be preserved wherever practicable during the marking process though it is acknowledged that anonymity is difficult to achieve at certain points in the process for some types of assessment (e.g. fieldwork) and where cohort sizes are small (e.g. in some taught postgraduate programmes).

11.3 If, because of the nature of the assessment process, anonymity is difficult to achieve during the marking process, schools must assure themselves they have in place a fair and robust method of awarding marks. If this difficulty is due to the cohort size where only partial anonymity is possible, then a system of marking for all candidates must be adopted so to assure consistency of treatment for candidates.

11.4 To assure a sufficient level of anonymity students will be given a University number for retention until they have completed the programme.

11.5 The principle of anonymous marking must also apply, as far as possible, to the assessment of postgraduate taught students. However, given the specialised nature of dissertations at any level, it may be impossible to achieve anonymity in assessing taught postgraduates.

(Back to top)

12 Assessment and disability

12.1 Disability is a characteristic that is protected under the Equality Act 2010. Schools should have procedures in place that anticipate the support needs of students with a disability (e.g. a school disability adviser who will liaise as required if a disability is disclosed). However, it is recognised that in some programmes (e.g. professional) some assessments cannot be adjusted as they test mandatory learning outcomes and/or a competence standard.

12.2 Schools should ensure that students are given the opportunity to disclose a disability throughout their programme of study and are made aware that failure to do so may adversely impact on the school’s ability to make any necessary reasonable adjustments.

12.3 Any student who discloses a disability, such that additional support may be required, should be referred to the Access Unit. In most cases the Access Unit will develop a personalised support plan for the student, in collaboration with staff in the school/faculty and the student concerned. The plan should set out what reasonable adjustments should be made to support the student (including adjustments to assessment practice where required).

12.4 When faced with determining what is a reasonable adjustment to an assessment event, staff are advised to contact the Organisational Development Manager (Diversity) in Human Resources in the first instance and at the earliest opportunity to obtain expert advice and assistance (contact details are provided in annex 12).

12.5 Where a student believes that they require adjustments to assessment, they should complete and submit an alternative examination arrangements form at the earliest opportunity and by the stipulated deadline. Students should be made aware that if the evidence is not made available by the deadline specified, this will affect the school’s decision in terms of what it considers reasonable and practicable to arrange within the time available.

12.6 Examiners are not obliged to retrospectively consider the effect of a disability, not declared and evaluated prior to the assessment, on a student’s performance. The School may permit such a student an opportunity to undergo a supplementary assessment, with appropriate reasonable adjustments, should this be deemed appropriate following a subsequent professional evaluation of the disability.

12. 7 Programme and unit directors are encouraged to consider the accessibility of assessments and, during annual programme review, to consider whether assessment of the learning outcomes could be undertaken in different ways without compromising any competence standards. They should also establish which learning outcomes justifiably constitute competence standards, in which case the duty to make reasonable adjustments may not apply.

12.8 Faculties should keep records of alternative assessment arrangements made by schools.

12.9 Such arrangements must be approved by the faculty undergraduate or graduate Education Director (or nominee).

Assessment and discrimination by association

12.10 It is direct discrimination if an education provider treats a student less favourably because of the student’s association with another person, who has a protected characteristic. However, this does not apply to pregnancy or maternity. Discrimination by association may occur in various ways, e.g. where the student has the relationship of parent, child, partner, carer or friend of someone with a protected characteristic.

The protected characteristics for higher education are: age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; and sexual orientation. More information on the protected characteristics > >

12.11 Schools should consider making adjustments for students because of their association with someone who has the protected characteristic of disability. In relation to assessment, this could mean that a student will request an alternative assessment date due to their role as a carer of a disabled dependent. Consideration to adjustment of an assessment (e.g. timing) would have to be given if the request is due to the student’s association with a disabled person.

12.12 Further information and guidance on competence standards and the practical aspect of making reasonable adjustments to assessment because of disability is provided in annex 12. The University’s policy on Student Mental Health is also available.

(Back to top)

13 The timetabling of assessment with regard to religious observances

13.1 Where it is practicable, reasonable and fair to all students, assessment tasks should be designed to accommodate the religious observances of the students and staff involved. The Examinations Office and schools should work together, with advice from the Multi-faith Chaplaincy when necessary, to try to ensure, as far as it is practicable so to do, that the examination timetable does not conflict with the observance of religious festivals and other holy days.

13.2 Schools should make clear to prospective applicants and current students, at the outset of their studies, that it is their personal responsibility to inform the faculty office about their religious beliefs where there is potential for conflict with the setting of assessment. Students should be reminded of their obligations through an appropriate entry in school / programme handbooks.

13.3 Some programmes include mandatory requirements, often but not exclusively, related to the need to demonstrate certain knowledge, skills and competencies required by professional, statutory or regulatory bodies. These may require students to undertake study and assessments on days associated with religious observance.

(Back to top)

14 Timing and conduct of assessment with respect to pregnancy/maternity or paternity

14.1 If it is likely that a student’s pregnancy might affect her ability to meet coursework deadlines or sit examinations, consideration must be given to implementing measures to ensure that she meets the requirements of her programme.

14.2 If a student is due to give birth near to, or during assessment deadlines, or the examination period, but she wishes to complete her assessed work or sit her examinations, she should not be prevented from so doing.

14.3 Schools should ensure that the needs of pregnant students are addressed during assessments, including offering the opportunity to sit the examination in a location separate from other students.

14.4 If a pregnant student is concerned about sitting examinations or meeting assessed work deadlines, or if she has a pregnancy-related health condition that is exacerbated by stress, she should be advised to seek medical advice. If her midwife or doctor advises against her sitting an examination or trying to meet the assessed work deadline, an alternative method of assessment should be explored.

14.5 If a pregnant student is unable to undertake an alternative method of assessment, or if she experiences significant pregnancy-related problems in the course of an examination or while undertaking assessed work, the school should make arrangements for her to sit the examination, as a first attempt, at the earliest possible opportunity or agree to an extension to the deadline for the submission of coursework.

14.6 If student is likely to be absent due to their partner giving birth, and where the due date conflicts with any scheduled assessments, staff should endeavour to offer flexibility wherever practicable so to do. However, it must be made clear that in such circumstances automatic dispensation from examinations will not always be possible. This provision also extends to cover same sex couples.

(Back to top)

The Marking Process

15 Marking criteria for assessment

15.1 Marking criteria are designed to help students know what is expected of them. Marking criteria differ from model answers and more prescriptive marking schemes which assign a fixed proportion of the assessment mark to particular knowledge, understanding and/or skills. Annex 1 provides definitions for: marking criteria, marking scheme and model answer.

15.2 Explicit descriptors (marking criteria - reflecting the broad learning outcomes, knowledge and skills requirements which are taken into account in awarding marks) are necessary to enable consistent standards of marking and judgement to be maintained. They also help provide students with a clear statement of what is expected of them and provide guidance on how their performance may be improved.

15.3 Where there is more than one marker for a particular assessment task, schools should take steps to ensure consistency of marking. Subject specific assessment criteria must be precise enough to ensure consistency of marking across candidates and markers, compatible with a proper exercise of academic judgement on the part of individual markers. The subject specific criteria must be made available to students as well as staff, and specified in programme handbooks. Marking criteria should always be made available to staff and students before the assessment.

15.4 Markers are encouraged to use pro forma in order to show how they have arrived at their decision. Comments provided on pro forma should help candidates, internal markers and moderators and external examiners to understand why a particular mark has been awarded. Schools should agree, in advance of the assessment, whether internal moderators have access to the pro forma / mark sheets completed by the first marker before or after they mark a candidate’s work.

University generic marking criteria (to become mandatory from 2012-13)

15.5 The common University generic marking criteria, set out in tables 1 and 2, represent levels of attainment on a graded scale, for each level of study.

15.6 The common marking criteria are designed to be used for an individual piece of assessed student work. The descriptors give broad comparability of standards by level of study across all programmes as well as level of performance across the University. They reflect the QAA Framework for Higher Education Qualifications but need to be benchmarked against subject specific criteria at the programme level.

15.7 The descriptors, interpreted appropriately for the subject and the level of study, implicitly cover good academic practice and the avoidance of plagiarism.

15.8 These high level University descriptors should be sense checked at programme level and detailed marking criteria developed at the subject/assessment level for each band on the scale, based on the academic needs of the programme and the intended learning outcomes for the students, to supplement the generic marking criteria. These more detailed marking criteria should ensure that subject-specific intended learning outcomes are assessed.

15.9 Standard setting of assessments should also be reviewed so that the assessments set are appropriate to the level of study, e.g. a high score at level 7 (or ‘M’) on an Multiple Choice Questions should not be achievable purely by correctly answering a lot of level 4 (or ‘C’) questions.

Scales

Assessment of qualitative work

15.10 Where an assessment, or examination, is a single piece of work, or a small number of long examination answers, schools are encouraged to adopt the use of the 21 point scale with the marking criteria. This is appropriate for essay-based subjects, dissertations and many pieces of work where there is no “right answer” and the quality of the analysis and argument is particularly important.

15.11 The 21 point scale uses 21 points which map onto fixed points on the 0-100 scale (see table 1). The aim of the 21 point scale is to facilitate greater consistency in the use of mark scales across different faculties, by encouraging the use of the full range of marks available. This should help to ensure equitable treatment of students of similar abilities and achievements across the University, which is particularly important for inter and multi-disciplinary programmes. On the 21 point scale, with the exception of points 5 and 0, the descriptors cover a range of marks, with the allocation of the exact mark within each band dependent on the extent to which the elements in the descriptor and subject specific marking criteria are met.

15.12 If the 101 point scale is used for qualitative work, the same criteria should apply (see table 2). The advantage of using identified points across the whole 0-100 scale is that the difference between work within a class band (if it can be made) is stretched allowing excellence to be rewarded.

15.13 Points on the 101 point scale other than those for which descriptors are provided may also be used as long as the ability to differentiate between those marks and the bands of marks for which descriptors are provided is demonstrable by the addition of specific differential descriptors by the programme.

Assessment of numerically based work or an examination with a large number of questions

15.14 There are some types of assessment that do not easily lend themselves to a 21 point grading scale. Where an assessment or examination is based on numerical work, or where there are a large number of questions in an examination with small numbers of marks for each question, it is logical to mark the assessment using all points on the 0-100 scale. This is typical of many assessments in Science and Engineering.

Must pass competency assessments

15.15 Neither a 21 nor a 101 point scale is applicable to must-pass competence assessments, where marks are not awarded; the student either passes or not. Such assessment may be employed, subject to approval by the faculty, when a student is required to demonstrate a minimum standard of competence for reasons related to professional accreditation requirements.

Reaching the ‘Unit Mark’ (see also section 22)

15.16 Within the overall system individual assessment events should be marked on one of the two scales, depending on the characteristics of the assessment or examination as described above. Where assessments consist of a mixture of numerical and more discursive questions, the unit specification will state which marking scale will be utilised.

15.17 Marks for all work, whether marked using every point the 0-100 scale (numerically based work) or using the fixed points on the 101 point scale or the 21 point scale (essays, dissertations etc), should fall into the same categories, so that a piece of work given a mark of 78/100, for example, has reached the same standard whether it is a Mathematics examination, a History essay, an oral language examination or a design project in Engineering.

15.18 The 21 point scale is a non linear ordinal scale. A mark on the 21 point scale IS NOT equivalent to a percentage arrived at by multiplying the mark by 5. Table 3 provides an equivalence relationship to enable the aggregation of marks from different assessment events to provide the overall unit mark which will be a percentage. This is illustrated below for a notional unit the assessment of which consists of:

• Dissertation (25%),

• Unseen written exam (35%),

• MCQ (25%)

• Oral presentation (15%).

In this example the MCQ uses all points on the 101 scale whereas all the other assessments use the 21 point scale.

To achieve the final unit mark each element mark needs to be adjusted as shown below:

	Dissertation (25%)	Unseen written exam (35%)	MCQ (25%)	Oral exam (15%)	Total unit mark out of 100
Actual score	12 on 0-20 scale	8 on 0-20 scale	57 on 0-100 scale	15 on 0-20 scale
Adjusted to 101 scale	62/100	48/100	57/100	72/100
Final weighted mark	62/100 x 25 = 15.5	48/100 x 35 = 16.8	57/100 x 25 = 14.3*	72/100 x 15 = 10.8	57.4

* calculated to one decimal place

15.19 The overall unit mark must be expressed as a percentage as the University’s degree classification methodology is based on the percentage scale.

15.20 The final programme mark for a taught programme will be calculated by applying the agreed algorithm for the programme to the percentage unit marks (see section 28).

TABLE 1: GENERIC MARKING CRITERIA ON THE 21 POINT SCALE

QAA Level of Study

Generic Descriptors of Assessment Criteria for an individual piece of student work.

(All levels subsume the positive attributes of the level below them)

4 (C)

5 (I)

6 (H)

7 (M)

Subject specific assessment criteria are satisfied to the very highest standard with no areas of weakness.

Very extensive and detailed knowledge with impressive conceptual understanding. Extensive evidence of coherence, creativity, originality, autonomy, imagination and the ability to deal with complexity, contradictions or gaps in the knowledge base and ability to synthesise appropriate principles by reference to primary sources and knowledge at the forefront of the discipline.

Answer very well organised, accurate and very well presented and may be of publishable standard.

Subject specific assessment criteria are satisfied to a high standard with no areas of weakness.

Excellent knowledge and understanding; clear evidence of coherence, creativity, originality and the ability to deal with complexity, contradictions or gaps in the knowledge base and ability to synthesise appropriate principles by reference to primary sources and knowledge at the forefront of the discipline..

Answer very well organised, accurate and very well presented and may be close to publishable standard.

Subject specific assessment criteria are satisfied to a high standard with very few areas of weakness.

Demonstrates excellent knowledge and understanding; clear evidence of analysis, coherence, creativity, originality and the ability to synthesise appropriate principles by reference, where appropriate, to primary sources and knowledge at the forefront of the discipline.

Answer very well organised, accurate and very well presented. .

Subject specific assessment criteria are satisfied to a good standard with few areas of weakness.

Displays good knowledge and understanding with clear evidence of analysis, coherence, and the ability to synthesise materials from other modules, from primary sources and knowledge at the forefront of the discipline.

Answer well organised, accurate and very well presented

Subject specific assessment criteria are satisfied with few errors

Displays good knowledge and understanding with few errors and some evidence of analysis and the ability to synthesise material from the teaching programme and from wider reading, including primary reference sources, and /or from practical experience.

Answer well organised, accurate and well presented

Subject specific assessment criteria are satisfied with no significant errors

Good knowledge and understanding, with no significant errors and evidence of the ability to select, apply and analyse information from teaching programme and information gained from wider reading which includes primary reference sources and/or from practical experience. At M level, demonstration of independent study should be informed by primary sources and knowledge at the forefront of the discipline.

Answer well organised and well presented

¹ Most subject specific assessment criteria are satisfied

No major fundamental errors (except at M level).

Reasonable knowledge and understanding of key concepts, no major fundamental errors but significant subject specific criteria are omitted. Demonstrates some ability to select, apply and analyses information derived from teaching programme, but fails to demonstrate evidence of independent study.

Answer well organised

Most subject specific assessment criteria are satisfied, except at M level.

Shows knowledge of most of the important elements and some understanding, but patchy and contains some major errors and omissions and little evidence of critical analysis.

Answer is organised and presented just about satisfactorily

Some relevant knowledge of more important elements, but limited understanding.

No major misconceptions but several omissions.

Answer is of limited quality but is just acceptable.

Deficient attainment of intended learning outcomes for all except level 4 of study

Inadequate knowledge and understanding and major misconceptions, but at least basic awareness of some aspects of the area.

Answer incomplete, poorly organised and presented

Appreciably deficient attainment of intended learning outcomes for any level of study

Serious lack of any relevant knowledge and understanding of fundamental aspects of subject,

Answer incomplete, poorly organised and presented.

Seriously deficient attainment of intended learning outcomes.

Poor quality work well below the appropriate standards required for the level of study

Very minimal knowledge; no understanding; fundamental misconceptions, unacceptable presentation

No understanding or any relevant knowledge, fundamental misconceptions.

Fails in all respects to provide any assessable answer to the question

Work not worthy of marking or not submitted

Key: The shaded boxes indicate the minimum standard required for that level of study

TABLE 2: GENERIC MARKING CRITERIA ON THE 101 POINT SCALE

QAA Level of Study				Generic Descriptors of Assessment Criteria for an individual piece of student work. (All levels subsume the positive attributes of the level below them)
4 (C)	5 (I)	6 (H)	7 (M)
			89 -100	Subject specific assessment criteria are satisfied to the very highest standard with no areas of weakness. Very extensive and detailed knowledge with impressive conceptual understanding. Extensive evidence of coherence, creativity, originality, autonomy, imagination and the ability to deal with complexity, contradictions or gaps in the knowledge base and ability to synthesise appropriate principles by reference to primary sources and knowledge at the forefront of the discipline. Answer very well organised, accurate and very well presented and may be of publishable standard.
		89 -100	78-83	Subject specific assessment criteria are satisfied to a high standard with no areas of weakness. Excellent knowledge and understanding; clear evidence of coherence, creativity, originality and the ability to deal with complexity, contradictions or gaps in the knowledge base and ability to synthesise appropriate principles by reference to primary sources and knowledge at the forefront of the discipline.. Answer very well organised, accurate and very well presented and may be close to publishable standard.
	89-100	78-83	68-72	Subject specific assessment criteria are satisfied to a high standard with very few areas of weakness. Demonstrates excellent knowledge and understanding; clear evidence of analysis, coherence, creativity, originality and the ability to synthesise appropriate principles by reference, where appropriate, to primary sources and knowledge at the forefront of the discipline. Answer very well organised, accurate and very well presented. .
89-100	78-83	68-72	62-65	Subject specific assessment criteria are satisfied to a good standard with few areas of weakness. Displays good knowledge and understanding with clear evidence of analysis, coherence, and the ability to synthesise materials from other modules, from primary sources and knowledge at the forefront of the discipline. Answer well organised, accurate and very well presented
78-83	68-72	62-65	55-58	Subject specific assessment criteria are satisfied with few errors Displays good knowledge and understanding with few errors and some evidence of analysis and the ability to synthesise material from the teaching programme and from wider reading, including primary reference sources, and /or from practical experience. Answer well organised, accurate and well presented
68-72	62-65	55-58	48-52	Subject specific assessment criteria are satisfied with no significant errors Good knowledge and understanding, with no significant errors and evidence of the ability to select, apply and analyse information from teaching programme and information gained from wider reading which includes primary reference sources and/or from practical experience. At M level, demonstration of independent study should be informed by primary sources and knowledge at the forefront of the discipline. Answer well organised and well presented
62-65	55-58	48-52	42-45	Most subject specific assessment criteria are satisfied No major fundamental errors (except at M level). Reasonable knowledge and understanding of key concepts, no major fundamental errors but significant subject specific criteria are omitted. Demonstrates some ability to select, apply and analyses information derived from teaching programme, but fails to demonstrate evidence of independent study. Answer well organised
55-58	48-52	42-45	33-39	Most subject specific assessment criteria are satisfied, except at M level. Shows knowledge of most of the important elements and some understanding, but patchy and contains some major errors and omissions and little evidence of critical analysis. Answer is organised and presented just about satisfactorily
48-52	42-45	33 -39	22-29	Some relevant knowledge of more important elements, but limited understanding. No major misconceptions but several omissions. Answer is of limited quality but is just acceptable.
42-45	33-39	22-29	7-15	Deficient attainment of intended learning outcomes for all except level 4 of study Inadequate knowledge and understanding and major misconceptions, but at least basic awareness of some aspects of the area. Answer incomplete, poorly organised and presented
33-39	22-29	7-15	0	Appreciably deficient attainment of intended learning outcomes for any level of study Serious lack of any relevant knowledge and understanding of fundamental aspects of subject. Answer incomplete, poorly organised and presented.
22-29	7-15	0	-	Seriously deficient attainment of intended learning outcomes. Poor quality work well below the appropriate standards required for the level of study Very minimal knowledge; no understanding; fundamental misconceptions, unacceptable presentation
0-15	0	-	_	No understanding or any relevant knowledge, fundamental misconceptions Fails in all respects to provide any assessable answer to the question Work not worthy of marking or not submitted

Key:

• The GREEN shaded boxes indicate the minimum standard required for that level of study

• The BLUE shaded boxes indicate the lower second class borderline

• The PINK shaded boxes indicate the upper second class borderline

• The YELLOW shaded boxes indicate the first class borderline

Use of Points between the bands will require the development of descriptors that differentiate the level of performance required to attain those marks

TABLE 3: Relationship between the 21 and 101 point scale

Class	Description	21 point scale	Equivalent to these fixed points on the 101 point scale
First class	Exceptional	20	100
First class	Excellent	19	94
First class	High	18	89
First class	Mid	17	83
First class	Mid	16	78
First class	Low	15	72
Upper second	High	14	68
Upper second	Mid	13	65
Upper second	Low	12	62
Lower second	High	11	58
Lower second	Mid	10	55
Lower second	Low	9	52
Third	High	8	48
Third	Mid	7	45
Third	Low	6	42
Fail	Marginal fail	5	36
Fail	Fail	4	29
Fail	Fail	3	22
Fail	Fail	2	15
Fail	Fail	1	7
Zero	Zero	0	0

(Back to top)

16 Marking processes and internal verification (i.e. moderation)

16.1 The University assures the quality of its marking through moderation; exceptionally it uses double-marking in situations as described below. Definitions of the terms used in this section can be found in the glossary of terms at annex 1.

16.2 All work assessed for summative purposes should be capable of being independently moderated and made available in case it needs to be moderated by the external examiner(s).

16.3 Where coursework is assessed summatively, schools should have a system in place to ensure students’ work is available for moderation at a later date, by a means that ensures that the marked work is identical to that originally submitted.

16.4 Students should be informed at the outset of their programme of studies and at the beginning of each academic year of any obligation to make available assessed work which might be required for the purpose of moderation.

16.5 Each faculty, through its Faculty Quality Assurance Team, should ensure that its schools have clear marking and verification procedures, as well as information on the operation of moderation, so that students are treated fairly and consistently across the University. Such information, along with details on the University’s procedure for handling the final programme mark within the borderline of classifications (see section 28), should be available to students (e.g. in the student handbook).

16.6 The less prescriptive the assessment (i.e. the lower the expectation of conformity to a model answer), the more necessary it is to ensure an effective moderation strategy. The types of moderation and how they may or may not be applied for assessments within the University of Bristol are outlined below.

16.7 There are two circumstances where scaling is permissible:
a) Where the raw scores for the whole cohort are converted onto an appropriately distributed marking scale as part of the planned design of the assessment.
b) Where the marks of a cohort of students are moderated post hoc due to an unintended distribution of marks. When an assessment or a question within an assessment has not performed as intended, scaling may be employed (in this instance the methodology will not have been planned beforehand). This should be an exceptional event.

16.8 Before scaling is used, the intention must first be discussed with the relevant Faculty Education Director, prior to application, and then approved by the relevant external examiners and the examination board.

16.9 The rationale for scaling should be recorded in the programme specification and/or in the minutes of the examination board in the case of (a) above, and in the minutes of the relevant examination board in the case of (b).

16.10 The use of scaling must also be made transparent to students: in the case of (a), students must be informed of the way in which the raw scores are converted onto the marking scale prior to the assessment; whilst in the case of (b) students should be informed of the process, where it makes a significant impact, after the assessment. Schools are responsible for making the method and rationale available to students.

16.11 Norm-Referencing is not permitted as a means of assessment in the University of Bristol. Criterion-referenced assessment (e.g. marking schemes, marking criteria) is to be used for all assessments.

16.12 Negative Marking may be employed in subjects where it is essential that the student should not guess the right answer. If negative marking is employed, this must be with the full knowledge of the student. There must be appropriate rubric, explaining that the assessment will be subject to negative marking on the cover of an examination paper, and the students should be given opportunities to practise such assessments before undertaking a summative assessment marked in this way.

16.13 Some schools may choose to adopt double marking as academically desirable in the case of summative assessment, (see annex 1 for a definition of double marking).

16.14 Detailed marking criteria for: assessed group work; the assessment of class presentations; and self/peer (student) assessment, must be established and made available to students and examiners.

16.15 In respect of group work, it is often desirable to award both a group and individual mark, to ensure individuals’ contributions to the task are acknowledged. The weighting of the group and individual mark and how the marks are combined should be made clear to the students.

16.16 It is recognised that there are particular difficulties in providing for the second marking/moderation of class presentations which contribute to the overall unit mark. As long as the class presentation remains a small component of the overall mark, it is acknowledged that the benefits that stem from this form of assessment more than compensate for any limitations in the moderation procedure, particularly where oral skills form one of the learning outcomes. A formal record of how the assessment mark was arrived at will form the main source of evidence upon which moderation can rest, though alternative sources such as the audio and/or visual recording of the presentation may be used. All such evidence should be made available for moderation.

16.17 If a school is prepared to offer a candidate, who has produced an illegible script, the opportunity to dictate or transcribe it, in accordance with the Examination Regulations (2.8) at annex 11, the following procedure must be followed:

If an examiner is unable to read a script, he/she should ascertain whether any colleague who is similarly qualified to act as an examiner for that examination is able to read and mark it. If no suitable examiner can be found, the chair of the board of examiners must be notified. The chair should write to the candidate asking them to attend for the purpose of transcribing their illegible script. The candidate must be advised in writing that the object of attendance is only to transcribe the existing script and that the addition or omission of any material will constitute an examinations offence. The candidate must be asked to sign their transcript confirming that it is a true copy of the original. Alternatively, a candidate may be invited to dictate the script for transcription, by another person, in which case the candidate should be asked to read and sign the resulting transcript. A photocopy of the original script must be taken before it is given to the candidate and it should subsequently be compared with the transcription to ensure accuracy. The transcript along with the script should then be returned to the original examiner for marking.

(Back to top)

17 Formative Feedback

This section includes some statements highlighted in bold type to emphasise their importance.

17.1 Formative feedback is an integral part of the learning process; it helps students to evaluate their current level of performance and to improve. The precise forms in which feedback is delivered will vary from unit to unit.

17.2 Each school must develop and publicise to its students a clear policy on the delivery of feedback, covering the following points:

the different ways in which students will receive guidance on their work;
which assessment tasks students will receive feedback on, and in what form;
the schedule for the delivery of feedback on different forms of assessment (feedback should normally be delivered within three working weeks of the deadline for submission), and how students will be informed if it proves impossible to meet the agreed deadline;
what opportunities students will have to discuss their work and their progress with staff, as well as guidance on how they should make use of feedback.

The policy on feedback must be in accordance with the following principles:

17.3 Feedback should always be focused on helping students to develop their skills, knowledge and understanding, both subject-specific and transferable, and to identify areas for improvement. Explaining why a particular assessment mark was awarded may be part of this process as it helps students to understand what constitutes a good piece of work and evaluate their own performance according to those criteria, but it is not the primary purpose of feedback. This has implications for deciding which assessment tasks will involve feedback, and in what form it will be delivered. Assessment for formative purposes usually involves individual feedback to help the students improve their performance in the unit overall. Whether it is appropriate to give detailed individual feedback on summative assessment tasks (rather than generic feedback given to all students on the unit) will depend on the relation of that unit to the students’ work over the rest of the programme.

17.4 Students should receive feedback that is appropriate to different activities and assessment tasks while also recognising the effective use of staff time. Students should receive feedback on their knowledge and understanding of different subjects covered in the programme; so clearly there must be some form of feedback given in every unit. Students should also receive feedback on the different subject-specific and transferable skills involved in their programme, but this need not be delivered separately in every unit. Students are often resistant to less standard forms of feedback (e.g. peer assessment), and do not always recognise as ‘feedback’ verbal comments made, for example, during a practical class. This highlights the importance of communicating the school’s policy on feedback clearly to all students; it is also emphasises the need to introduce students to as many different forms of assessment and feedback as possible at the outset of their programme of study.

17.5 Feedback must be received early enough to influence the next activity or assessment task. The amount of time required to give feedback on a piece of formative assessment will depend on the nature of the assessment task and other programme-specific factors, but feedback must normally be provided within three working weeks of the submission deadline, unless there is a special reason why this deadline cannot be met. It is essential that feedback is received by the student in good time to influence the next relevant activity or assessment task, which may be part of a different unit. Students must be given a clear statement of when they can expect feedback, so as to help them plan their work. Schools should take an overview of the range of assessment tasks students are required to complete, in different units on the programme, and review the relationship between the various deadlines, to ensure that students are afforded a reasonable opportunity to make best use of feedback.

17.6 Where feedback is directly related to the student’s level of performance, and especially where a piece of work contributes both to the unit mark and is serving formative purposes, it is important that it is closely related to the relevant marking criteria; the use of pro forma feedback sheets can be an effective means of ensuring this (see example in annex 9). It can also be useful to provide students with examples of work that exhibits the desired attributes, e.g. through an ‘essay bank’ or worked examples.

17.7 Students must be given the opportunity to seek clarification and further advice. Feedback on purely formative assessments is not a one-way process in which the marker simply communicates a judgement to the student; it is an integral part of the process of learning through reflection. Students should always be given the opportunity to seek clarification of the meaning or implications of comments made by the marker of the assessment; this may be provided through individual or group tutorials, or by ensuring that students are able, if they wish, to contact the member of staff during tutorial hours. It may be appropriate to consider how some students (e.g. those who are significantly under-performing) can be actively encouraged to take advantage of the guidance on offer.

17.8 Students should be encouraged to reflect on the feedback they have received, not only in relation to the specific unit but in the context of their programme as a whole. It may be effective to build such reflection into the programme of regular meetings with the personal/academic tutor, e.g. by use of a ‘Progress Review Form’ (delivered through a web-based or hard copy Personal development portfolio (PDP) which expressly asks them to consider what lessons they have learned from the feedback they have received and how they have used this information in their next assignment. Students should also be directed towards appropriate training opportunities.

17.9 Students should be supported in making the best use of feedback. The ability to respond appropriately and effectively to constructive criticism and advice is a skill relevant to any academic discipline and future career. However, students often do not see feedback as a way of improving their future performance; rather they view it as explaining why they received a particular mark. They do not always recognise as ‘feedback’ all the different ways in which they are given comments on their performance and they have to be helped and trained to respond appropriately to feedback; through guidance in student handbooks, introductory sessions at the beginning of their university careers, and through the tutorial system.

17.10 It may be appropriate to withhold feedback as a penalty for the failure by the student to meet the deadline for submission of coursework, as long as there are no extenuating circumstances.

17.11 See annex 9 for further information on approaches to providing formative feedback for a number of different assessment practices.

(Back to top)

18 Medical and other extenuating circumstances

18.1 Information must be provided to students on the procedure for the treatment of medical and other extenuating circumstances. As a minimum, schools should include information in student handbooks about the procedure that should be followed and the importance of informing the school about medical or other extenuating circumstances prior to the meeting of the relevant special circumstances committee and provide the date of the committee meeting. Staff and students in the school should be made aware of the correct person in the school to be provided with documentation of evidence and how it will be stored. Schools should ensure that their procedures are arranged so the number of copies is kept to a minimum.

18.2 The following extracts from the University’s Examination Regulations are relevant to this section:

10.1 Procedure for consideration of Extenuating Circumstances
Boards of examiners shall establish a committee (which will meet before the Board of Examiners meets) to consider any relevant matters, for example personal matters such as illness or bereavement, that may have affected a student's performance in assessment.

10.2 Evidence
If a student wishes a board of examiners to take any such matters into account, s/he must complete and submit the relevant form before the meeting of the board at which the student's examination performance is to be considered. A written record must be kept of such matters. Any such matters which could have been raised before the meeting of the board, but, without good reason, were not raised, will not be considered in the event of an appeal.
The committee may require a student to submit such other evidence as it deems necessary to substantiate any matter raised by the student.

18.3 Students must complete the University’s form for extenuating circumstances and submit the form to the relevant School or Faculty Office within 2 days (excluding weekends and bank holidays) following the final assessment or examination in the assessment / examination period to which it relates, so as to inform the Faculty Board of Examiners for his/her programme of any extenuating circumstances that may have affected his/her ability to fulfil the criteria for the award of credit points or to perform to the best of his/her ability in assessment events. Relevant evidence must be provided.

18.4 Students should be informed about the nature of the evidence that they will need to provide to supplement the information supplied in the University’s form for extenuating circumstances.

18.5 A small ‘special circumstances committee(s)’ must be established, at either faculty or school level (to be determined by the Faculty), to consider the cases of candidates whose performance in any summative assessment may have been affected by illness or other extenuating circumstances.

18.6 Such a committee should be set up and run in accordance with the following principles:

a) The Faculty or School should establish a procedure for ensuring that judgements are as consistent and robust as possible, in-year and year-on-year. The special circumstances committee should use its discretion in deciding on the severity and impact in any particular case. Judgements should be guided by University advice (set out in annex 13) as to what is considered “acute” or “chronic” and “mild, moderate or severe”.

b) The special circumstances committee should consider cases where students have brought evidence or made a claim that they may have been disadvantaged on the grounds of medical or extenuating circumstances.

c) The special circumstances committee may be chaired by the chair of the Board of Examiners to which it reports. For Faculty or School Examination Boards where the chair would also be involved in any appeal process, an alternative chair for the special circumstances committee must be appointed.

d) The special circumstances committee should meet as soon as is convenient before the Board of Examiners.

e) The special circumstances committee should determine:

which (if any) assessments may have been affected by the circumstances drawn to its attention;
whether the impact on the student’s capacity to perform is likely to have been mild, moderate or severe, and whether the extenuating circumstance was acute (of short duration and only likely to have had a negative impact upon the student’s performance in the assessment) or chronic (over a significant period of time and therefore likely to have had an impact upon their learning as well as their performance in the assessment);
whether sufficient allowance for the circumstances has already been made, for example, by making special arrangements for examinations or by granting extensions to deadlines.

f) The committee should note the reasons underlying its decisions and these notes should form part of the Board of Examiners’ record of the decision.

g) The role of the special circumstances committee is to evaluate whether or not extenuating circumstances may have affected the candidate’s capacity to perform. It is not the role of the special circumstances committee to determine the effect, if any, on the candidate’s results.

h) Information about the precise medical or other extenuating circumstances of the candidate must remain confidential to the special circumstances committee.

i) Where a Board of Examiners has considered extenuating circumstances and made a discretionary decision (including not to take any action), as outlined in 18.8, the candidate should be provided with a written response giving reasons for the decision.

18.7 Faculty Board of Examiners are required to note the advice given by the special circumstances committee on whether the circumstances are likely to have had a mild, moderate, or severe effect on the student’s capacity to perform either during the assessment (following an acute circumstance) or whether their learning may also have been affected (following a chronic circumstance). The Board should then determine the effect, if any, on the candidate’s results.

18.8 If there is evidence that a mark, which is likely to have been affected by the extenuating circumstance, would have been better in the absence of the circumstance, the Faculty Board of Examiners shall take such decision, in respect of the student, as is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The Faculty Board of Examiners shall take into account whether the student’s performance during the assessment was not a fair reflection of his/her level of attainment due primarily to acute circumstances or whether the student’s learning was negatively affected by chronic circumstances. The Board of Examiners’ decisions may include:

to take no action;
the award credit notwithstanding a fail mark;
allowing the student to re-attempt the assessment without penalty (a supplementary assessment –“as for the first time”- see annex 1 for definition)
to allow the student to re-attempt the year or for undergraduate students only to undertake a supplementary year “as for the first time”;
disregarding the affected mark for the purposes of calculating the final programme mark or degree classification;
allowing the re-submission of the dissertation in taught postgraduate programmes where the student has achieved a mark less than 45 out of 100 (see 26.26).

The manipulation of the mark itself should be considered only as a last resort and applied in exceptional acute circumstances by a higher mark being awarded on the basis of performance in other contexts.

18.9 Faculty Boards of Examiners may wish to seek professional advice e.g. medical opinion prior to making a decision, particularly if chronic circumstances are involved.

18.10 Faculty Boards of Examiners should ensure that their decisions in respect of students whose performance is impaired by extenuating circumstances are consistent over time.

18.11 Faculties should ensure that all Boards of Examiners record their decision-making in ways that facilitate consistent decision making year on year.

18.12 A record must be kept of the consideration of medical or other evidence, at any stage of a student’s progress; the reasons for any decisions made and the outcomes agreed.

18.13 Guidance on student absence from assessment due to illness is provided at annex 14.

(Back to top)

19 Penalties for cheating, plagiarism, other academic misconduct and the late submission of coursework

(See also sections 7 and 8)

The University’s Examination Regulations (annex 11) contain full details of the regulations and procedures to be followed in respect of academic misconduct, including plagiarism.

19.1 Information on what constitutes academic misconduct in respect of assessment (including clear definitions of plagiarism, collusion, cheating, impersonation and the use of inadmissible material) should be provided, or referenced by a web link, in school handbooks together with specific information about the consequences of such misconduct. It may be necessary for individual schools to develop additional guidance on what constitutes academic misconduct, to reflect the relevant academic discipline.

19.2 When recommending a penalty to a Board of Examiners, an appropriately constituted committee/panel will consider the offence and penalty independently of its potential impact on the student’s degree classification. Whether the penalty for offence in question should be reflected in the degree class to be awarded is the judgement of the board. In such cases, the board should take into account any effect on the degree classification that the penalty already has had.

19.3 Students must be made aware of the existence of penalties for not meeting submission deadlines. These should be clearly specified in writing to students and staff at the beginning of the programme / unit, preferably in the programme / unit handbook.

19.4 Faculties’ policies on the penalties for the late submission of undergraduate summative coursework, should be in accordance with the following:

a) Faculties should adopt an approach to the late submission of coursework within the framework provided and their schools should ensure that the policy is communicated to students at the outset of their studies, stated in student handbooks and re-iterated at the start of teaching of each unit;

b) Schools should ensure that students from other schools or faculties who register for their units are made explicitly aware of the faculty policy on the late submission of coursework;

c) Coursework that is submitted after a deadline should be subject to some penalty, unless an extension has been agreed by the School, prior to the deadline, or late submission is justified by reason of illness or other validated extenuating circumstance (see the University guidance on student absence due to illness at annex 14);

d) For work submitted up to 24 hours after the agreed submission deadline, a penalty of 10 marks out of 100 (or 3 marks out of 20) from the mark the student would have received applies (e.g. coursework that is marked at 60/100 would become 50/100 or a mark of 10/20 would become 7/20) once the penalty is applied);

e) For work submitted 7 calendar days after the submission deadline the student will receive a mark of 0, although schools may still require work of a satisfactory standard to be submitted in order for credit to be awarded;

f) Faculties should decide on the rate of reduction, by day or at specific thresholds, for late submissions made after the 24 hour period but within 7 days. In setting the rate by which the mark is reduced the weighting of the assessment may be taken into account;

g) Any penalty applied should be in the form of a mark reduction from the mark the student would have achieved.

See faculty policies:

Faculty of Arts [pdf] (see section 3.6, p16)
Faculty of Engineering
Faculty of Medical and Veterinary Sciences
Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry
Faculty of Science
Faculty of Social Sciences and Law [pdf]

(Back to top)

Assessment Outcomes

20 Pass marks

Undergraduate level

20.1 Within modular honours programmes, students must achieve at least 40 out of 100 to pass undergraduate (level 4-6) units.

20.2 Within the professional programmes in the faculties of Medicine and Dentistry and Medical and Veterinary Sciences, students must achieve at least 50 out of 100 to pass at the unit/element level.

Taught postgraduate level

20.3 The pass mark set by the University for any level 7 (M) unit is 50 out of 100.

20.4 Where taught postgraduate programmes include units at level 6 (H) or lower the pass mark for those units remains 40 out of 100. Marks for these units must be taken into account in the calculation of the programme mark and cannot be adjusted.

Shared teaching between undergraduates and postgraduates

20.5 Undergraduate and taught postgraduate students may be taught together. If undergraduate and taught postgraduate students undertake the same unit, with the same learning outcomes and assessment, the credit awarded will be at the pre-defined level of the unit. If the learning outcomes and assessment differ for the undergraduate and postgraduate students then they are deemed to be undertaking different units; such units must have been previously approved at the different levels.

20.6 The levels of study and relevant qualification descriptors laid down by the QAA can be found in their national qualifications framework document (see annex 16 for the descriptor of a higher education qualification at level 7).

(Back to top)

21 Credit

21.1 The University’s credit framework, which summarise the amount and level of credit required to receive a University award, is reproduced on the following pages. The credit requirements for students first registered on programmes in, and after, 2010-11 is set out in the first table (21.4). The credit requirements for students who first registered on their current programme of study prior to 2010-11 is provided in the second table (21.5), which will apply until the students who first registered before 2010-11 are deemed to have completed their studies.

21.2 An important principle in the framework is the recognition that qualifications are based on cumulative learning. There is an acceptance of the concept of building upon postgraduate qualifications to lead to advanced awards.

21.3 The amount and level of credit specified in the tables should be regarded as the University minimum. If a school wishes to diverge from these amounts, the faculty must seek University level approval, through Education Committee.

21.4 Credit requirements for students first registered on programmes of study in and after 2010-11:

Qualification	FHEQ Level	Previous UOB Level	Total credits required	Minimum credits required at the highest level*	Equivalent ECTS credits	Additional credit requirements
Taught Master’s degree (including the four-year Integrated Master’s degree)*	7	M	At least 180	150	The minimum requirement is 60, however, a range of 90-120 is more typical.	* The total credit requirement for the Integrated Master’s programme is 480 credits, with at least 120 at the level of the qualification (7/M).
Postgraduate Diploma	7	M	At least 120	90		Remaining credits to be at level C/4 or higher
Postgraduate Certificate (including the Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE))	7	M	At least 60	40
Bachelor’s degree with honours	6	H	At least 360	90	180 - 240	Remaining credits to include at least 100 at level I/5 or above
Bachelor’s degree (Ordinary degree)	6	H	At least 300	60	180 - 240
Professional Graduate Certificate in Education (PGCE)	6	H	At least 60	40
Graduate Diploma	6	H	At least 80	80
Graduate Certificate	6	H	At least 40	40
Foundation Degree	5	I	At least 240	90
Diploma of Higher Education in (Faculty name) (Subject)**	5	I	At least 240	90	Approx. 120	Remaining credits at level C/4 or above.
Certificate of Higher Education in (Faculty name) (Subject)**	4	C	At least 120	120
Pathway Certificate in (Faculty name) (Subject name where appropriate)**	3	NQF level 3	At least 120	120

* The highest level is the level of the qualification

** Structured programme in a single discipline or approved combination of disciplines; may be awarded with Distinction.

Notes:

1) This table should be read in conjunction with the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications and the Higher Education Credit Framework for England (August 2008). The University’s credit framework will apply in cases where the credit requirement is higher than that stated in the national credit framework.

2) The MB,ChB (Medicine), BDS (Dentistry) and BVSc (Veterinary Science) undergraduate programmes are not included in the University's modular structure and therefore do not have credit points attached to them.

3) At the discretion of the faculty joint honours degrees may vary from the minimum of 90 credits at level 6 because of the need for more flexible structures in joint programmes.

4) Individual students can choose to take units at a higher level than normally specified during their programme, e.g. a level 7 unit might be substituted for a level 6 unit, or a level 6 unit might replace one at level 5.

5) The purpose of combining the stand-alone and integrated Master’s qualifications is to emphasise equivalence of achievement.

6) The QAA has published a statement on the PGCE qualification title.

7) The University’s qualifications relate to the Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area (FQ-EHEA) as follows:

Doctoral degrees Third Cycle Qualifications (Not typically credit rated)

Master’s degrees Second Cycle Qualifications (Min. 60 ECTS credits, however a range of 90-120 ECTS credits is typical)

Integrated Master’s degrees Second Cycle Qualifications (As above)

Bachelor’s degrees with Honours First Cycle Qualifications (180-240 ECTS credits)

Foundation degrees Short Cycle Qualifications (120 ECTS credits)

Diplomas of Higher Education As above

21.5 Credit requirements for students first registered on their current programmes of study before 2010 -11:

Qualification	FHEQ Level	Previous UoB Level	Total credits required	Minimum number of credits required at the highest level*	Additional credit requirements
Postgraduate level awards
EdD, DDS, DSocSci, EngD, DEdPsy	8	D	at least 540	360	Remaining credits to be at level M
Master’s degree	7	M	at least 180	130	Remaining credits to be at level C or higher
Postgraduate Diploma	7	M	at least 120	90	Remaining credits to be at level C or higher
Postgraduate Certificate	7	M	at least 60	60	n/a
Undergraduate level awards
MSci, MEng (Integrated (4-year) Master’s degree)	7	M	at least 480	80	Remaining credits to include at least 240 at levels H and I (no less than 120 at level H)
Graduate Diploma	6	H	at least 120	80	n/a
Graduate Certificate	6	H	at least 60	60	n/a
Honours degree	6	H	at least 360	100	Remaining credits to include at least 100 at level I or above
Ordinary degree	5	I	at least 300	120	Remaining credits may include some at level H
Foundation Degree	5	I	at least 240	120	n/a
Undergraduate Diploma	5	I	at least 240	80	Remaining credits at level C or above
Undergraduate Certificate	4	C	at least 120	120	Students who registered directly onto a Certificate before August 2001 may supplement a minimum of 90 credits at level C with a maximum of 30 credits at QCA level 3.
Pathway Certificate (single subject)	-	QCA level 3	at least 120	120
Preliminary Certificate (Combined studies)	-	QCA level 3	at least 120	120	Normally 80 credit points to be gained in awarding faculty.

* The highest level is the level of the qualification.

Notes:

1) This table should be read in conjunction with the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications and the Higher Education Credit Framework for England (August 2008).The University’s credit framework will apply in cases where the credit requirement is higher than that stated in the national credit framework.

3) At the discretion of the Faculty joint honours degrees may vary from the minimum of 100 credits at level 6 because of the need for more flexible structures in joint programmes.

4) In the MSci and MEng, the University minimum of 80 credits at level 7 does not prevent schools and faculties from fulfilling requirements of professional bodies for a higher proportion of level 7 credits.

Individual students can choose to take units at a higher level than normally specified during their programme, e.g. a level 7 unit might be substituted for a level 6 unit, or a level 6 unit might replace one at level 5.

Credit points

21.6 In assigning credit points to units, faculties and schools are required to use total student input per normal full-time year of study as a measure. An average of 40 hours per week of total student input in term time is suggested as an appropriate measure of the time an average student will need to spend to be able to complete the assessment for a programme successfully.

21.7 As stated in 4.5 of the General Regulations for Undergraduate Programmes: the normal requirement for each full-time year of study is not less than 120 credit points and not more than 130. The University does not encourage students to take more than the required units for the programme. However, if a student chooses to do so they will be required to pay a fee for the additional units and neither the credit nor the marks accumulated will count towards their final award.”

The attainment of additional credit points in any curriculum year cannot be carried forward in such a way as to reduce the volume of credit that must be taken in any succeeding year, or to accelerate a student's progress towards any award.

21.8 A unit shared by students studying on more than one programme must always be allocated the same credit points.

21.9 Credit points may be used once only and may not be used towards two or more awards of this University or of another institution and the University, with the exceptions as specified in points 4.12 and 4.13 of the General Regulations for Undergraduate Programmes and point 5.5 in the General Regulations for Taught Postgraduate Programmes.

21.10 It is the responsibility of the relevant Faculty Board of Examiners to determine whether or not a student has satisfied the criteria for the award of credit points.

(Back to top)

22 The unit mark

See also sections 15.16 - 15.20 and annex 23.

22.1 The mark for each individual unit is calculated and recorded to one decimal place by averaging the marks for each of the constituent elements / assessments.

22.2 Sub-unit (i.e. assessment) marks are normally integers, however, where this is not the case the assessment mark (prior to any weighting) should be recorded to no more than one decimal place.

22.3 For the purposes of awarding credit for an individual unit, the recorded mark for each unit is rounded to the nearest integer.

22.4 For the purposes of determining progression from year to year or from the taught component to the dissertation stage, the recorded unit mark, to one decimal place, is used to calculate the average year or taught component mark (see sections 26 and 27).

22.6 Programmes may weight elements or different assessment marks differently within a unit and may permit compensation across elements within a unit, as prescribed within the appropriate programme and unit specifications. When assessing a unit composed of more than one element, it is the unit as a whole, rather than the individual elements that needs to be completed satisfactorily, although programmes may also require an element to be satisfactorily completed in order to enable credit points to be awarded for a unit.

22.8 Students should receive the scores for each assessment, as well as their overall rounded unit mark.

(Back to top)

23 The year mark - in undergraduate programmes

23.1 For the purposes of determining progression, specifically for the application of 26.11, the overall mark achieved for the year in undergraduate programmes is calculated by averaging the recorded unit marks (i.e. recorded to one decimal place).

23.3 The result of the calculation of the overall mark achieved for the year is rounded to the nearest integer for the purpose of applying progression rules as set out in 26.11.

See annex 23 for an example of this calculation.

(Back to top)

24 The taught component mark - in taught postgraduate programmes

24.1 For the purposes of determining progression from the taught component to the dissertation stage, specifically the application of 26.12 and classification (see 28.2) the overall mark achieved for the taught component is calculated by averaging the recorded unit marks, which are to one decimal place.

24.3 The result of the calculation of the overall mark achieved for the taught component is rounded to the nearest integer.

See annex 23 for an example of this calculation.

24.4 Progression to the dissertation stage is normally only permitted on the satisfactory completion of the taught component. There is no compensation between the taught component and the dissertation (i.e. a mark in the taught component cannot compensate for a lower mark in the dissertation, and vice versa). The dissertation may be suspended at the discretion of the relevant Board of Examiners if the result from the taught component is unsatisfactory.

(Back to top)

25 Progression, the award of credit and re-assessment for undergraduate programmes - for students initially registered prior to the 2011-12 academic year

Student progress

25.1 Each faculty is responsible for developing clear conditions for the progress of students registered on programmes within the faculty. In the case of students following the same programme of study, but registered in different faculties, the boards of those faculties will jointly be responsible for determining conditions for progress, which will be set out in faculty and school guidelines relating to the treatment of examination marks. It is not necessarily the case that 120 credit points must have been obtained in a curriculum year, in every case, in advance of progression. Likewise, the achievement of 120 credit points in a curriculum year does not, of itself, ensure progression to a subsequent unit.

25.2 Decisions on progress must take account of the possibility of credit accumulation and transfer. Credit points may be awarded, even if the conditions for progress within the faculty have not been fulfilled, enabling the student to use the credit in some other way, for example in transferring to another programme either in the University or elsewhere.

25.3 Students must be made fully aware, at registration, of the assessment requirements of their programmes and the criteria for progression relating to the units on which they are registered. It is the responsibility of programme directors and unit organisers to ensure delivery of this information to students. Suitable communication methods include faculty and school handbooks.

Criteria for the award of credit points

25.4 The following criteria are recommended for use in awarding credit points:

• Reaching a satisfactory standard (normally a mark of 40 out of 100 for units at level 4, 5 and 6) in one or more of the following:

- a formal examination, project report, extended essay or other form of written work;

- completion of practical work, e.g. field courses, laboratory sessions, language tuition, etc, deemed essential to understanding the academic discipline the student is studying;

- a combination of coursework and practical work, supplemented by a record of attendance at teaching sessions, e.g. tutorials or laboratory sessions;

• the acquisition of professional skills and attributes required in disciplines such as education, the health professions or the performing arts.

25.5 The criteria for the award of credit points must be made explicit by the school(s) concerned and specified in advance of the student commencing study in a unit. A faculty may choose to award credit points in individual cases in circumstances where the student has obtained marks in an examination or other work in a range of 30-39 out of 100 and has satisfied additional criteria, clearly specified in advance.

25.6 Any additional criteria which affect the award of credit points (e.g. attendance at lectures, tutorials, laboratory or fieldwork sessions) should be specified explicitly in unit assessment criteria made available to students prior to commencement of their study of the unit.

25.7 The School offering the unit is responsible for setting the assessment process, and for awarding an overall assessment mark and credit points upon successful completion of the unit. It is for the faculty in which the student is based to determine and apply the rules for progress in the programme, as stated in section 25.1.

25.8 If failure to obtain credit points for any unit occurs in any assessment other than those relating to the final year of study, the relevant faculty committee will recommend one of the following, as appropriate:

that the student subsequently re-takes and passes the unit or the assessment of the unit, obtaining the necessary credit points;
that the student subsequently achieves a satisfactory standard in an additional approved unit of at least equivalent value;
that the student be required to repeat the year of the course as a whole;
that the student withdraw from the programme, with an award, if appropriate.

Opportunities for re-assessment

25.9 The opportunities for re-assessment to be offered to undergraduate students are:

a) subject to the approval of the Board of the Faculty, re-assessment of any unit for the award of credit points should be offered to any student who has failed to obtain the credit points at the first attempt.

b) any re-assessment of a unit should normally be completed prior to the commencement of the final year examination.

c) an appropriate method of re-assessment for all units should be devised, with the approval of the relevant faculty(ies), not necessarily in the same form as the original assessment.

d) opportunities for re-assessment of units should be made clear to students at the start of their programme/unit.

Assessment for the final programme mark / degree classification

25.10 If a student fails an examination and the subsequent re-sit, or, as a result of recognised extenuating circumstances, has not achieved the pass mark in the appropriate examinations to allow him / her to progress, the relevant Faculty Board of Examiners can:

withdraw the student from the programme, with an exit award as appropriate;
permit the student to repeat the whole year; or,
permit the student to undertake a supplementary year.

Students who are placed on a supplementary year are expected to be registered on the units they have failed and any additional study skills units, as determined by the faculty. Guidance for faculties on implementing the supplementary year is at annex 18.

25.11 In any reassessment of a unit which contributes to the final programme mark and/or degree classification, and which is passed, only the minimum pass mark (normally 40 out of 100 for units at levels 4, 5 and 6) will be formally awarded even if a student achieves a higher mark in the re-assessment, save where there was good cause for the initial failed assessment.

25.12 If a student does not satisfactorily complete assessments in a unit contributing to the final programme mark and/or degree classification, and if this results in failure to obtain the credit points needed for the award of a degree, the degree may not be awarded unless the failure is due to certified illness or other sufficient cause. However, having received the prior approval of the Faculty Board and Senate, a faculty Board of Examiners may choose to award 120 credit points for the final year of study on the basis of an overall pass in the final year's examinations. Such approval may only be sought in respect of a particular programme or group of programmes and not in respect of individual students after the event.

25.13 A Faculty Board of Examiners may also choose to award 120 credit points for a full time year of study (or part time equivalent) in an Undergraduate Certificate or Diploma programme on the basis of a pass overall in the final assessment.

26 Common university rules for the progression and completion of students on taught modular programmes – for students newly registered from the academic year 2011-12

26.1 If there is a discrepancy, these rules have primacy over Faculty Standing Orders, or equivalent faculty-level rules or regulations, with regard to the progression and completion of students newly registered on taught modular programmes from the 2011-12 academic year.

26.2 For the purposes of awarding credit for an individual unit, the recorded mark for each unit is rounded to the nearest integer.

26.3 For the purposes of determining progression from year to year, the recorded unit mark, to one decimal place, is used to calculate the year mark. The result of the calculation of the overall average mark achieved for the year should be rounded to the nearest integer for the purpose of applying 26.11.

26.4 If a student fails to achieve the credit points, but there is evidence that their performance at the time of the examination is likely to have been affected by extenuating circumstances, the provisions in section 18 ‘Medical and other extenuating circumstances’, will apply.

The award of credit for the purposes of progression

26.5 Students must achieve the pass mark for the unit (normally a mark of 40 out of 100 at levels 4-6 and 50 out of 100 at level 7) and meet any additional criteria, if applicable, to be awarded the associated credit. The criteria for the award of credit points, and an explanation of how the award of credit may be affected by criteria additional to marks in an examination or other formal assessment, must be explicitly described in the relevant programme and unit specification and communicated to the students in advance of the commencement of their study of the unit.

Additional criteria may include: reaching a satisfactory standard in the completion of a project report, other form of written work, or practical work which is deemed essential to understanding the academic discipline the student is studying; a sufficient record of attendance at teaching sessions; or, the acquisition of professional skills.

26.6 By reaching a satisfactory standard, students thereby acquire the necessary credit points to progress, except as specified below.

26.7 A student (except if in the final year of their undergraduate programme, see 26.16-19) who does not achieve the pass mark for a unit should normally be permitted a second attempt to achieve a satisfactory standard to progress (i.e. a ‘re-sit’). A “re-sit” need not be in the same form as the original assessment, as long as it: tests the same learning outcomes, does not compromise any competence standards; and applies to the entire cohort of students who are undertaking the re-assessment.

A re-sit should normally be completed prior to the commencement of the following year of study in the case of an undergraduate programme. In the case of taught postgraduate programmes, re-sit examinations should normally take place as soon as possible after the learning experience, while re-submission of essays and coursework should normally be within 4-6 weeks for full-time taught postgraduate students.

A faculty Board of Examiners may, at their discretion, permit a student to undertake a re-sit in a failed unit from the first teaching block PRIOR to the receipt of all the unit marks for the academic year (i.e. before the end of the summer examination period).

26.8 A student (except if they are in the final year of their undergraduate programme, see 26.16-19) who does not achieve the specified additional criteria for a unit (regardless of the mark achieved) will be permitted a second attempt to meet the criteria in order to be awarded the credit for the unit.

26.9 Students must achieve at least a third of the credit points for the year of study by achieving the pass mark at the first attempt (i.e. 40 credit points or more for undergraduate programmes and 60 credit points or more for taught postgraduate programmes), AND must have satisfied any additional criteria at the time they are considered by the progression board, or equivalent, in order to be permitted a second attempt (i.e. re-sit) in any failed units so as to be able to attain a satisfactory standard to be able progress to the following year of study (undergraduate programmes) or to the dissertation stage (postgraduate taught programmes).

26.10 If a student does not achieve at least a third of the credit points for the year of study, s/he will be required to withdraw from the programme with an exit award, if appropriate; unless there are validated extenuating circumstances (see section 18). However, exceptionally, the relevant faculty Board of Examiners may permit the student to repeat the whole year of the programme.

26.11 Notwithstanding 26.7, an undergraduate student who fails at the first attempt to achieve the pass mark associated with unit/s with a maximum value of 20 credit points (i.e. 1/6 of the credit points for the year of study) in an academic year may be permitted to progress, notwithstanding the failed unit/s (for those programmes where the credit value of the individual units is more than 20, such that failure of a single unit will result in a shortfall of credit in excess of 20 in the year, a student may also be permitted to progress under this rule), so long as s/he:

a) has not previously been allowed to progress under this rule such that they will have failed to achieve the pass mark in units with a cumulative credit value of more than 40 credit points, and

b) receives a unit mark within a pre-specified range of the pass mark at the first attempt (35-39 out of 100 for level 4-6 units and 45-49 out of 100 for level 7 units), and

c) has an overall mark average for all the units taken in the year at, or higher than, the average pass mark of all the units taken in the year, and

d) has not failed a unit that is deemed by the faculty or a relevant professional body as being ‘required to pass’ either for entry onto a subsequent unit(s) or for professional body accreditation reasons, and

e) fulfils all other requirements for the award of credit, as stated in the programme and/or unit specification, such as:

completion of practical work, e.g. field courses, laboratory sessions, language tuition, etc, deemed essential to understanding the academic discipline the student is studying;
a combination of coursework and practical work, supplemented by a record of attendance at teaching sessions, e.g. tutorials or laboratory sessions;
the acquisition of professional skills and attributes required in disciplines such as education, the health professions or the performing arts; and

f) satisfactorily completes any additional work, deemed necessary by the Faculty Board of Examiners, so as to enable the student to achieve the learning outcomes in the assessment(s) that they had failed.

26.12 Notwithstanding 26.7, a taught postgraduate student who fails, at the first or second attempt, to achieve the pass mark associated with taught unit/s with a maximum value of 30 credit points (i.e. 1/6 of the credit points for the year of study), at the end of the taught component, may be permitted to progress to the dissertation stage, notwithstanding the failed unit mark/s (in the case of students studying on programmes where the credit value of the individual units is more than 30, such that a single failed unit will result in shortfall of credit in excess of 30 in the year, progress may be permitted), so long as he or she:

a) receives a unit mark within a pre-specified range of the pass mark at the first attempt (45-49 out of 100 for level 7 units), and

b) has an overall mark average for all the taught units taken in the year at, or higher than, the average pass mark of all the taught units taken in the year, and

c) has not failed a unit that is deemed by the faculty or a professional body as being ‘required to pass’ either for entry onto a subsequent unit(s) or for professional body accreditation reasons, and

d) fulfils all other requirements for the award of credit, as stated in the programme and/or unit specification, such as:

completion of practical work, e.g. field courses, laboratory sessions, language tuition, etc, deemed essential to understanding the academic discipline the student is studying;
a combination of coursework and practical work, supplemented by a record of attendance at teaching sessions, e.g. tutorials or laboratory sessions;
the acquisition of professional skills and attributes required in disciplines such as education, the health professions or the performing arts; and

e) satisfactorily completes any additional work deemed necessary, as determined by the relevant Board of Examiners, so as to enable the student to achieve the learning outcomes in the assessment(s) that they had failed.

26.13 Students who are permitted to progress as described in 26.11 or 26.12 (i.e. notwithstanding a failed unit mark) will be awarded and carry forward the actual unit mark they achieved at their first attempt (not the unit pass mark) and will only receive the credit for these unit/s upon final completion of the programme for which they are registered (i.e. at graduation).

26.14 If any student fails to achieve the unit pass mark following a re-sit of the unit, s/he will be required to withdraw from the programme with an exit award, if appropriate; unless there are validated extenuating circumstances (see section 18). However, exceptionally, the relevant faculty Board of Examiners may decide to offer one of the following opportunities:

a) To permit the student to repeat the whole year of the programme.

b) An undergraduate student may be permitted a final opportunity to be re-assessed, as part of a ‘supplementary year’, in order to obtain the necessary credit points to progress. Students who are placed on a supplementary year will be registered on the units they have failed, as well as any additional study skills units as determined by the faculty (guidance on the supplementary year is available at annex 18).

26.15 For any unit which is passed by re-assessment, student will receive the awarded mark for the re-assessment, however the recorded unit mark will be capped at the minimum pass mark (40 out of 100 for units at levels 4, 5 and 6, and 50 out of 100 for units at level 7), even if the student achieves a higher mark in the re-assessment. The marks recorded when repeating the whole year or undertaking the supplementary year will also be capped at the minimum pass mark regardless of what marks are actually achieved, unless the student is being permitted to repeat the year or undertake a supplementary year “as for the first time” due to validated extenuating circumstances. [red text denotes an in-year revision - approved by Education Committee, 29 Feb 2012]

The award of credit in the final year of undergraduate study for the purposes of completion

26.16 Students must achieve the pass mark (normally a mark of 40 out of 100 at levels 4-6 and 50 out of 100 at level 7) and meet any additional criteria, as described in 26.5, if applicable for the unit, to be awarded the associated credit. By achieving this students thereby acquire the necessary credit points in their final year to complete the programme of study, except as specified below.

26.17 Re-assessment of units within the final year of undergraduate modular programmes is only permitted, where, for professional body accreditation reasons, the unit is deemed to be ‘must-pass’, in which case the faculty Board of Examiners will offer the student a final re-assessment opportunity.

26.18 A faculty Board of Examiners may choose to permit the award of 120 credit points for the final year of undergraduate study on the basis of a pass overall in assessments undertaken in the final year. This may only be enacted in respect of a particular programme or group of programmes, and not in respect of individual students, and not after the event. A faculty Board of Examiners may, likewise, choose to award 120 credit points for a full time year of study (or part time equivalent) in an Undergraduate Certificate or Diploma programme on the basis of a pass overall in the final assessment.

26.19 If a student does not obtain the necessary credit points in units that contribute to the final programme mark and/or degree classification, the degree may not be awarded and the student will receive a lower award, as determined by the University’s credit framework (see section 21), unless the failure is due to certified illness or other validated extenuating circumstances, as detailed in Ordinance 18, and the associated ‘Guidance in Respect of Students Who Have Not Completed All Required Assessment for Honours Classification’ (annex 24).

Additional requirements for progression within an Integrated Master’s Degree

26.20 In order to progress within a four year Integrated Master’s programme, students must achieve a year mark of 55 or more out of 100 in each of Years 2 and 3. Those students who are awarded 120 credit points for the year but do not achieve a year mark of 55 or more out of 100: will either be automatically transferred onto an equivalent Honours degree or, following completion of Year 3, the faculty Board of Examiners may award an Ordinary Degree or an equivalent Honours degree where the student has successfully met all the criteria, as described in the programme specification, for the award, or has validated extenuating circumstances which prohibits them from returning for the final year of study.

26.21 In order to progress within the five-year Integrated Master’s programme, “Engineering Design with Study in Industry” students must achieve a year mark of 55 or more out of 100 in each of Years 2, 3 and 4 in order to progress. Those students who are awarded 120 credit points for the year but do not achieve a year mark of 55 or more out of 100: will either be automatically transferred onto an equivalent Honours degree or, following completion of Year 3 or 4, the faculty Board of Examiners may award an Ordinary Degree or an equivalent Honours degree where the student has successfully met all the criteria, as described in the programme specification, for the award, or has validated extenuating circumstances which prohibits them from returning for the final year of study.

Progression within an Integrated Master’s Degree to undertake the Study Abroad or Year in Industry

26.22 In order to progress, within an Integrated Master’s programme, onto the “Study Abroad” or “Year in Industry”, students must achieve a year mark of 55 or more out of 100 in Year 2 and must satisfy any additional criteria which may be required by specific programmes. These additional criteria will be set out clearly in the programme specification and will be made clear to students at the outset of their studies. Those students who are awarded 120 credit points for the year but do not achieve a year mark of 55 or more out of 100 will be automatically transferred onto the equivalent Honours degree.

Award of credit for the dissertation in taught postgraduate programmes

See also section 24 on the ‘taught component mark’ and annex 26 for the ‘Dissertation Guidelines for Taught Postgraduate Programmes’.

26.23 Students must achieve the pass mark for the dissertation to be awarded the associated credit; by reaching a satisfactory standard students thereby acquire the necessary credit points to complete the programme of study, except as specified below.

26.24 Where a student has achieved a near-pass mark (over 45 but less than 50 out of 100 or equivalent on 21 point scale) for the dissertation and, in addition, the examiners recommend that it is suitable for re-assessment, the relevant Board of Examiners may decide to permit the student to re-submit the dissertation, or equivalent.

26.25 Re-submission of the dissertation where the student has achieved a mark less than 45 out of 100 will be permitted where failure is due to validated extenuating circumstances (see section 18).

26.26 The recorded mark for any re-submitted dissertation will be capped at the minimum pass mark (50 out of 100) even if the student achieves a higher level of attainment in the re-assessment, except that where there is good cause for the initial failure (validated extenuating circumstances) the dissertation may be re-submitted “as though for the first time” and the mark achieved need not be capped.

26.27 Re-submission of the dissertation must normally be made within 3 months of the student being notified by the faculty Board of Examiners of its decision (and within 6 months for part-time students and 12 months for part-time variable students).

26.28 Where re-assessment of the dissertation is not permitted the student may be awarded a postgraduate diploma, if appropriate, by the relevant Board of Examiners, subject to the satisfactory accumulation of credit points. Whenever a Board decides that re-submission of the dissertation is not permitted, the reason(s) must be clearly documented in the meeting minutes.

(Back to top)

27 Principles for the progression and completion of students on the MBChB, BDS, and BVSc professional programmes

These principles are for guidance only in 2011-12; once finalised and approved the revised policy will apply from 2012-13.

27.1 Students should achieve a minimum standard by attaining the pass mark for all units and any additional assessment and meet any additional criteria, if applicable, to progress to the next year of study. Any additional criteria should be explicitly described in the relevant programme and unit specification and communicated to the students in advance of the commencement of their study of the unit.

Additional criteria may include: adhering to particular professional standards, regularly attending any prescribed activity or to undertake or attend a prescribed assessment or reaching a satisfactory standard in any work which is deemed essential to understanding the academic discipline the student is studying.

By reaching a satisfactory standard, students thereby acquire the necessary credit points to progress, except as specified below.

27.2 If a student fails to achieve the minimum standard, but there is evidence that their performance at the time of the examination is likely to have been affected by extenuating circumstances, section 18 ‘Medical and other extenuating circumstances’, applies.

27.3 The options available to the Faculty Board of Examiners for a student who, at the first attempt, fails to achieve the pass mark and/or meet any additional criteria (as prescribed in the programme specification) of any unit(s) and/or additional assessment(s) in an academic year will be to require the student to:

re-sit the assessment(s) that they fail so as to enable the student to attain a satisfactory standard to progress; or
repeat the whole year of the programme; or
withdraw from the programme with an exit award, if appropriate.

27.4 The options available to the Faculty Board of Examiners for a student who, at the second attempt (i.e. at the re-sit), fails to achieve the pass mark in the assessments undertaken or meet any additional criteria, will be to require the student to:

withdraw from the programme with an exit award, if appropriate, or
following the first year of study only, the Board may offer the student the opportunity to repeat the whole year of the programme and re-sit for a third and final attempt, subject to any supplementary conditions for progression as determined by the Faculty Board of Examiners.

27.5 If a student fails a unit or any additional assessment in the final year of study, a final re-assessment opportunity is permitted; subject to the specified threshold/criteria for permitting a re-assessment is achieved, so as to enable the student to enable the student to attain a satisfactory standard to complete the programme of study. A student who fails to achieve the specified threshold may be permitted to repeat the whole of the final year of study.

27.6 The opportunity to repeat any year of study is subject to the limit on the maximum duration of study on the programme, as determined by the University (see 4.17 of the General Regulations for Undergraduate Programmes) and/or professional bodies.

27.7 A “re-sit” must normally be undertaken by the student at the next available opportunity and must be prior to the following year of study.

27.8 For any unit or assessment which is passed at a re-sit, the recorded mark will be capped at the minimum pass mark, even if the student achieves a higher mark in the re-assessment. The marks recorded when repeating a whole year will also be capped at the minimum pass mark regardless of what marks are achieved, unless the student is undertaking the year again “as for the first time” due to validated extenuating circumstances.

(Back to top)

28 The final programme mark and degree classification

28.1 Bands of marks for use in final undergraduate degree classification:

All Faculties *

First Class Honours 70 and above

Second Class Honours, First Division 60-69

Second Class Honours, Second Division 50-59

Third Class Honours 40-49

Fail 39 and below

An Ordinary degree can be awarded if a student has successfully completed at least 300 credits with a minimum of 60 credits at level 6.

* The pass mark for the professional programmes MB,ChB, BDS, BVSc, is 50 out of 100. The bands above do not apply to the professional degree programmes MB,ChB, BDS, BVSc.

28.2 Bands of marks for use in taught postgraduate classification (see 28.24 - 26):

Award with Distinction

not less than 65 out of 100 for the taught component overall and not less than 70 out of 100 for the dissertation though faculties retain discretion to increase this threshold;

or,

for existing Masters’ programmes that do not have a separate dissertation: not less than 65 out of 100 overall with a mark of not less than 70 in two thirds of the total credit points for the award, though faculties retain discretion to increase this threshold.

Award with Merit

not less than 60 out of 100 for the taught component overall and not less than 60 out of 100 for the dissertation though faculties retain discretion to increase this threshold;

or,

for existing Masters’ programmes that do not have a separate dissertation: not less than 60 out of 100 overall with a mark of not less than 60 out of 100 in two thirds of the total credit points for the award, though faculties retain discretion to increase this threshold.

Pass

50 and over out of 100

Fail

49 and below out of 100

Calculating the final programme mark and degree classification for undergraduate modular programmes

The common algorithmic rules apply to all new registrations from the 2010-11 academic year on an undergraduate programme (and therefore first applying to intercalating students in the 2012-13 academic year) so to calculate the final programme mark and/or degree classification. The new degree classification rules do not apply to the two programmes in the School of Applied Community and Health Studies (BSc Deaf Studies and BSc Audiology) which are being phased out.

An example of the calculation to reach the final programme mark and degree classification in an undergraduate programme is provided in annex 23.

Students who were first registered before 2010-2011 will continue to be governed by the regulations for degree classification that were in place in the academic year 2009-10.

This policy applies to all undergraduate students, including those who study on a part time basis. For this purpose, where reference is made to ‘years of study’ the rules in this policy must be applied on a pro rata basis and equivalent to the volume of credit that a full-time student would normally undertake in an academic year.

28.3 The various options for faculties to offer students who do not complete all the required assessment for honours classification in relation to Ordinance 18 are provided at annex 24.

Primary Rule for calculating the final programme mark

28.4 First year marks will not contribute to the calculation of the final programme mark and/or degree classification.

28.5 All units taken in the years of study that contribute to the final programme mark and/or degree classification will count towards the weighted average final mark. Where students are given exemption from units, due to accredited prior learning, see section 29.

28.6 The weightings apply to years of study, not to the level of the units taken by a student within the year.

28.7 The default position is that within each faculty a single weighting rule for the years of study will apply, unless a faculty is able to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of Education Committee, that more than one weighting rule is required because of the major differences between subjects within the faculty and/or professional body accreditation requirements. The agreed weightings for the programmes within each of the faculties are provided in annex 25.

28.8 Within each year of study the weighting given to the unit mark, in relation to the mean ‘year mark’, will correspond to the credit point value of the unit, e.g. the mark for a 20 credit point unit would be 1/6 of the whole year mark, if the student has to achieve 120 credit points during the year.

28.9 For the purposes of applying the primary and secondary rules, individual unit marks are recorded to one decimal place only and not rounded to the nearest integer. However, the overall final programme mark is rounded to the nearest integer (up if 0.5 and above or down if below). This must be done PRIOR to determining whether the final programme mark is within the borderline range.

28.10 The honours programme classification boundary ranges are based on marks out of 100 and are:

First / 2.1 equal to or more than 68 but less than 70

2.1 / 2.2 equal to or more than 58 but less than 60

2.2 / Third equal to or more than 48 but less than 50

Third / Fail equal to or more than 38 but less than 40

If the final summative programme mark falls within the range of one of these classification boundaries, the secondary rule will apply.

Secondary Rule

28.11 If the final summative programme mark falls within the range of one of the classification boundaries, as set out in 28.10, the higher degree classification will only be awarded if 50% or more of the individual unit marks, weighted by credit point value and year of study, which contribute to the degree classification are achieved at the higher class, otherwise the lower class will be awarded.

28.12 It is the responsibility of the School Examination Board to consider and determine between classifications on the basis of the secondary rule.

28.13 No further rules will apply for the calculation of the degree classification following application of the single algorithm.

28.14 Rules which are inherent to the design of the programme, such as a requirement for the student to pass a project in order to graduate, must be approved by the University’s Programme Approval Group and be described in the relevant programme specification, and be implemented before the algorithm is applied.

Calculating the final programme mark and the award of a degree with merit or distinction for the MBChB, BDS, and BVSc professional programmes

These rules apply to all newly registered students on the professional programmes of MB,ChB, BDS and BVSc at the University of Bristol from the 2011-12 academic year and supersede all previous regulations and standing orders. Students who registered before 2011-2012 will continue to be governed by the regulations that were in place in the academic year 2010-11, for the duration of their programme of study, unless they re-sit a year (and thereby join a cohort governed by the new rules, in which case they too will be subject to the new rules) or a current cohort of students consents to the new rules being applied, so long as this would not disadvantage any student.

NOTE: it has been agreed that the MB,ChB programme will apply these rules in calculating the final programme mark and classification to all graduating students from, and including, the 2012-13 academic year.

28.15 Individual unit marks are recorded to one decimal place only and not rounded to the nearest integer. The result of the calculation of both the overall average mark achieved for the year and the final programme mark will also be recorded to one decimal point.

28.16 If there is evidence that the performance of a student at the time of examination is likely to have been affected by extenuating circumstances, section 18 ‘Medical and other extenuating circumstances’, applies.

28.17 Requirements which are inherent to the design of the programme, such as the requirement for the student to pass a particular assessment or component in order to graduate, must be described in the relevant programme specification, and be implemented before these rules are applied.

28.18 The marks gained in all units within the approved programme structure that are undertaken by the student will contribute to the final programme mark. Where students are given exemption from units/elements of the programme due to accredited prior learning, including from other higher education institutions, marks previously gained for any such units will not contribute to the calculation of the final programme mark.

28.19 Unit marks will be weighted for any calculation of the year and the final programme mark, as described in the relevant programme specification / student handbook. Students must be informed of any weighting in advance of commencement of the year of study.

28.20 Assessments which only test competencies on a pass/fail basis will not contribute to the unit mark and therefore will also not contribute to the year mark or the final programme mark.

28.21 The award of a degree with merit and distinction will be determined by the final programme mark in relation to the overall performance in the cohort, as follows :

The top 10% of the student cohort on the programme will be awarded a degree with distinction;
The next 15% of the student cohort on the programme will be awarded a degree with merit;
All other students that have a final programme mark of 50 out of 100 or more will be awarded a professional degree. The rank of the remainder of students may be published, at the discretion of the relevant faculty Board of Examiners.

The professional programmes determine student performance primarily on the attainment of a threshold of competence. For this reason these degrees are not classified. However potential employers require the university to recognise excellence and the simplest, most transparent and justifiable approach is by ranking within a cohort of students. All three programmes have sufficient students each year to minimise the risk of students being disadvantaged by any year effect.

28.22 Where programmes decide to award distinctions or merits for individual units, the same method provided in 28.21 will apply.

28.23 No further rules will apply for the calculation of the final programme mark and the award of a degree with merit and distinction following application of these rules.

Calculating the final programme mark for taught postgraduate programmes

28.24 The final programme mark is calculated by averaging the weighted individual unit marks, which are recorded to one decimal place. The overall final programme mark should be rounded to the nearest integer (up if 0.5 and above or down if below).

28.25 The weighting of each unit mark, in calculating the ‘final programme mark’, will correspond to the credit point value of the unit. See annex 23 for an example of how to do this calculation.

28.26 The classification of the award in relation to the final programme mark is provided in section 28.2.

(Back to top)

29 Applying accredited prior learning to the calculation of the final programme mark and/or the degree classification in modular undergraduate programmes

Accredited Prior (Certified) Learning – AP(C) L

29.1 With regard to applications for AP(C)L, schools should consider the learning which has been accredited at the other institution and decide, in the best interests of the student, how this may be taken into account. The school has discretion to decide if: (a) the subject content, and therefore knowledge gained, is sufficiently similar for a student to be exempt from unit(s), and (b) whether marks may be transferred (see annex 18 for the University’s Guidelines on the Accreditation of Prior Learning for all taught programmes).

29.2 Where a student is exempted from units due to recognition of prior credit from another institution, and these units contribute to the final programme mark and/or degree classification but the marks are not accepted, these unit(s) will not be considered in the algorithm for the purpose of calculating the final mark and the degree classification.

29.3 If a student is exempted from a year of study (due to accredited prior learning) that would otherwise contribute to the final programme mark and/or the degree classification, but marks have not been transferred, no weighting will be given to the “exempt” year when determining the final programme mark and/or the degree classification. The relevant weighting must be applied, on a pro rata basis, to the remaining years of study. For example, if a student is exempt from the second year of study:

• Bachelor’s three year honours degree: 0:25:75, will become 0:0:100;

• Integrated four year master’s degree: 0:10:40:50, will become 0:0:45:55.

29.4 Where a student is exempted from units (due to accreditation of prior learning from another institution) that contribute to the final programme mark and/or degree classification and the marks are accepted by the University, the transferred marks will be ‘converted’ and incorporated into the algorithm for calculating the final programme mark and degree classification.

Accredited Prior Experiential Learning - APEL

29.5 Where a student is exempted from units due to the recognition of the non-certified acquisition of relevant skills and knowledge, gained through relevant experience and where these units contribute to degree classification, then these units will not be given any weight in the algorithm when calculating the final mark and the degree classification.

(Back to top)

30 Suspensions or extensions of studies

30.1 The Guidance on Establishing the Grounds for Granting a Suspension of Studies and Subsequent Return to Study for Undergraduate Students and the Guidance on Suspension or Extension of Study for Taught Postgraduate Programmes is available at annexes 21 and 22 respectively.

30.2 The Faculty Education Directors are authorised to approve suspensions of studies. All approved suspensions should be reported to the Faculty Board.

30.3 Any suspension of study for a visa-holding student must be reported to the Faculty Office as soon as it is known, for report to the UK Border Agency.

30.4 Suspension or extension requests are only granted if they are in line with the University’s guidelines, are supported by documentary evidence and are submitted on the appropriate form. Medical evidence will be treated in confidence.

30.5 A suspension of study has implications for tuition fees liability. Advice on reimbursement of tuition fees should therefore be sought from the faculty office. An extension of study may extend fees liability.

30.6 Suspensions or extensions must be for a defined period. If a student is unable to return on the agreed date, he/she must seek further approval to extend his/her period of suspension/ extension.

30.7 A suspension of studies for an undergraduate student may only extend beyond 12 months in exceptional circumstances. A student for whom one year of suspension becomes insufficient should withdraw from his/her studies and seek to recommence the programme at a later date.

30.8 For a taught postgraduate student a suspension of studies may be granted, by the Graduate Education Director, for up to a maximum period of 12 months. In exceptional circumstances a suspension of up to 24 months in total may be granted by the Graduate Education Director. Taught postgraduate students suspending studies for more than 24 months, who wish to resume studies, will be subject to a re-application process. This process may take into account Accredited Prior Learning (APL) including accumulated credit points and academic performance.

30.9 For a taught postgraduate student one or more extensions of study totalling not more than 12 months may be authorised by the Graduate Education Director. Extensions of study for any period that takes the total period of extension over 12 months require the approval of the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Education and Students). In all cases the extension request should be sent to the Graduate Education Director for the Faculty in the first instance accompanied by a strong written case with evidence.

30.10 The University of Bristol is not responsible for students during their periods of suspension

(Back to top)

31 Appeals against decisions of boards of examiners

31.1 All information concerning the University’s regulations for appeals against the decisions of Boards of examiners is contained in annex 11, the University’s Examination Regulations.

31.2 It is essential to address a student’s representation against a decision of a board of examiners as early as possible, and initially within the respective school and faculty. Students must be made aware of section 11 of the Examination Regulations (annex 11) governing appeals, with particular attention drawn to the 15 working day deadline from the date of notification of the decision for submitting a formal appeal. Students should also be reminded that a degree cannot be conferred whilst an appeal is ongoing.

31.3 The student’s eligibility to graduate at a degree congregation will depend on the degree being confirmed by a specific date, normally 2 weeks prior to the start of the degree congregation (the precise deadline date is set by the examinations and degree congregation offices annually). Appeals that have not been resolved by this date will result in the student being offered the opportunity to graduate at the next available ceremony.

31.4 Information on the University’s student complaints procedure can be found at www.bristol.ac.uk/secretary/studentrulesregs/complaints.html.

(Back to top)

32 Disclosure of marks and results

32.1 There is no general requirement to return examination scripts to candidates but schools should share examination results with students wherever this would make a useful contribution to formative feedback. Faculties should adopt a consistent policy on this matter. Staff should be aware that any comments made by examiners, in relation to a specific candidate, with respect to any assessment, including coursework, must be disclosed to the candidate, if s/he makes a formal request under the Data Protection Act 1998. However, this should not inhibit markers from making appropriate comments to indicate why, in their judgement, a script or piece of work merits the mark awarded.

32.2 No marks that contribute to examination results should be disclosed to students until they have been agreed by the Faculty Board of Examiners unless they are clearly identified as being provisional.

32.3 A detailed breakdown of results should only be disclosed to the individual receiving the award. Faculties must have clear procedures for such disclosure of marks.

32.4 Degree results may be published on school notice boards or websites at the discretion of the relevant school(s). The anonymity of the student must be protected when publishing these results (e.g. by using the students’ University of Bristol numbers not names).

32.5 Schools should arrange for designated staff to be available on the next working day/two days following the meeting of the Faculty Board of Examiners to advise students of the results agreed by the board of examiners for individual papers or units and, where appropriate, to advise whether the board of examiners took account of any extenuating circumstances. In disclosing marks to students, staff should take care not to enter into discussion about the apparent fairness or otherwise of the mark(s) agreed by the board of examiners. Designated staff should advise students of any recommendations already reported to or going forward to the progress committee or faculty board regarding any failure; investigate any extenuating circumstances raised by the student that could not reasonably have been made known at an earlier stage, and advise the student of his/her right to make representations. Faculty offices should arrange, in appropriate cases, for this advice to be communicated in writing to the student, stating clearly the date by which they should make representations either in writing or in at a personal interview with designated staff, or the undergraduate or graduate education director or the dean.

32.6 Students making representations to designated staff, the Education Director or the Dean regarding any disputed decision of a Board of Examiners should be informed of their right to make a formal appeal under section 11 of the Examination Regulations.

32.7 Faculties and schools must bear in mind the need to comply with the Data Protection Act when disclosing personal information. Guidance about compliance with the Data Protection Act can be obtained from the Secretary’s Office.

(Back to top)

33 Transcripts

33.1 The transcript is intended to provide useful information to potential employers or to other universities (in the case of credit transfer) and to facilitate better understanding of the student's level of attainment overall and in individual units.

33.2 For the purpose of transcripts and credit transfer, the University will make it clear how the student has performed in assessments relating both to the achievement of credit points and to overall performance.

33.3 The transcript in the approved format will show a single mark for each unit, which represents the mark agreed by the Board of Examiners. This might be a combined mark to take into account different elements of assessment such as written work, practicals, coursework etc.

33.4 A copy of the transcript, in the approved format, will be provided automatically to students on completion of their studies. Subsequently, a charge will be levied for the provision of transcripts to graduated students.

(Back to top)

34 Retention of Student Work

34.1 Schools should judge what summatively-assessed work needs to be retained so to ensure that such work is available in the case of appeal. For this reason, the work of a student would not normally be retained for longer than a year following graduation.

34.2 Schools should also take into account the requirements of professional, statutory and regulatory bodies, where relevant.

Roles and Responsibilities

35 Education Directors

35.1 It is the responsibility of the faculty Education Directors, supported by each Faculty Quality Assurance Team (FQAT), to work closely with schools to implement university and faculty policies and procedures with respect to these Regulations and Code.

(Back to top)

36 Personal Tutors

36.1 The University sets out its minimum provision for personal tutors in the Regulations for Personal Tutors.

36.2 Personal Tutors and students should be familiar with the University’s Student Help resource which provides answers to frequently asked questions and links to University student support and advice services.

(Back to top)

37 Programme Directors

In the Faculty of Arts, the Graduate Officer is the programme director for all Master’s programmes within a School. Details of the job description are obtainable from the school office. In addition, there are MA co-ordinators in each School. In the School of Law, the Director of Graduate Studies undertakes most aspects of this role except admissions.

37.1 Annex 10 sets out the University’s guidelines for Programme Directors. Programme Directors must be familiar with these guidelines and all regulations that relate to their programme including this Code.

37.2 The Programme Director must ensure the programme for which he/she is responsible meets the diverse needs of different student groups.

37.3 The Programme Director is responsible for the quality assurance of the programme for which he/she is responsible, including Annual Programme Review arrangements and feedback on the programme.

(Back to top)

38 Internal examiners

All internal and external examiners must ensure that they are fully informed about these Regulations and Code.

38.1 The roles of the internal examiner and school examinations officer(s) have been split for the purpose of these Regulations and Code although it is recognised that in some schools these roles may be held by the same person. The principal internal examiner and/or the examinations officer should be nominated by the head of school to take responsibility for liasing with the external examiner. It must be clear to all concerned who will undertake this contact role.

38.2 Internal examiners are normally the individuals responsible for assessment in the relevant unit. The curriculum vitae of all internal examiners who are not on academic pathways one and three, including anyone not holding academic status at the University, should be submitted annually by the school for approval by the relevant faculty board/s. Internal examiners are expected to attend the meeting(s) of the relevant board of examiners. Each faculty should have a policy on the quoracy of its boards of examiners.

38.3 One of the internal examiners (the ‘principal’ internal examiner) for each unit (who is likely to be the unit director/organiser) should take academic responsibility for the unit’s summative assessment. This person should ensure that the following tasks are completed satisfactorily: the setting of papers, liasing with external examiners, preparing any relevant assessment and marking criteria, leading teams of markers (where appropriate), ensuring a proper process of internal verification and agreeing sets of marks. The principal internal examiner is responsible to the school board of examiners.

38.4 The principal internal examiner is responsible for establishing procedures at school level to enter and check the marks for each individual piece of assessed work which forms the basis for examiners’ meetings.

38.5 He/she is also responsible for ensuring back-up systems are in place for electronic storage and transmission systems.

(Back to top)

39 School examinations officer(s)

39.1 School examinations officer(s) will be appointed by the Head of School. Their role is to organise and co-ordinate the school’s assessment processes, from the preparation of examination papers provided by internal examiners to the accurate recording of assessment marks and their presentation to the board of examiners.

39.2 School examinations officer(s) should be the principal line of communication with the Faculty and to the University Examinations Office (Academic Registry). Information on the roles and responsibility of the Academic Registry in the examinations process is available at annex 17.

(Back to top)

40 External examiners

40.1 The purpose of the external examiner system is to ensure that:

a) the academic standards of University awards and their component parts are set and maintained at the appropriate level, and that the standards of student performance are properly judged against this;

b) the assessment process measures student achievement against the intended learning outcomes, and is rigorous, fairly operated, and in line with University policies and regulations;

c) the assessment process is fair and is fairly operated in the marking, grading and classification of student performance, and that decisions are made in accordance with University regulations;

d) the University is able to compare the standard of its awards with those in other higher education institutions.

40.2 The duties and responsibilities of individual external examiners will be based on their role to act as independent and impartial advisors providing informed comment on academic standards set (including those associated with professional, statutory and regulatory bodies (PSRBs) where appropriate) and student achievement in relation to those standards.

40.3 The University has its own internal quality assurance procedures for the processing and consideration of assessment marks, and attaches great importance to peer review from colleagues in other academic institutions, professional bodies, industry or commerce. When arriving at the degree classifications given to final year undergraduates and the final award for taught postgraduates, appropriate weight should be given to the view of the external examiner(s) as full and equal members of the Examination Board.

40.4 In addition to attendance at examination boards, external examiners also have the right to attend any other examiners’ meetings relating to the programme with which they are concerned and at which decisions on individual students are to be taken. In some circumstances, it may be necessary to consult the external examiners of units taken by students in subjects outside their main programme subject area.

40.5 The role of the external examiner is not confined to consideration of examination results and attendance at examination boards. External examiners are encouraged, to comment and advise on the content, balance and structure of programmes and units, the development and review of programmes and/or units, and on assessment processes.

40.6 External examiners have the right to see all examination scripts and any other work that contributes to the award result, though normally the external examiner would only receive a selection of scripts, as agreed in advance with the relevant school(s). The selection should normally include all examination scripts and other assessed work that contributes to the award results of candidates assessed internally as borderline first class, third class, or failures. Where internal double marking takes place, a third internal marker might be asked to adjudicate in circumstances where the first two internal examiners are unable to agree a mark. If this does not resolve the disagreement, the external examiner may be invited to provide a view.

40.7 Chairs of boards of examiners are responsible for conveying the contents of external examiners’ reports to their schools and programme directors as part of the on-going process of assessment review. The matter should appear as an item on the agenda for a subsequent school or examiners meeting and a record of any agreed alterations in assessment practices must be kept. External examiners should be given formal written feedback on the discussion of their reports and consequent changes in assessment practices by the head of school or nominee. The school’s responses should also be forwarded to the Education Support Unit.

40.8 Annex 15 - Guidelines for External Examining of Taught Programmes provides full details of the University’s external examining processes.

(Back to top)

41 Role of programme (or school) examination boards

41.1 This section should be viewed alongside Ordinance 17, Assessment for Academic Awards, which includes details of the constitution and requirements for Boards of Examiners.

41.2 An ‘initial’ examination board is one which is convened at the programme or school level. Such examination boards must consist of at least three people and are convened to approve each undergraduate and taught postgraduate academic award of the University. Membership of initial examination boards normally includes the internal and external examiners for each subject or group of subjects in the programme of study for the award. Such boards make recommendations to the Faculty Examination Board to the faculty in which the degree is awarded. External examiners are normally required to be present at the meetings of the board of examiners for all programmes which lead to a University award, and to which they have been appointed as external examiner.

41.3 The Faculties of Medicine and Dentistry and Medical and Veterinary Sciences may choose to convene separate ‘unit’ examination boards as well as programme boards to reflect the nature of their professional programmes. A unit examination board must also consist of at least three people.

41.4 Discussions held at the programme or school examination board are confidential. The procedure for disclosing marks and results to students is outlined in section 32.

41.5 A designated member of the board of examiners must take responsibility for overseeing the processing of marks at all stages of the assessment procedure.

41.6 The written records of all meetings of boards of examiners should be kept and communicated to the Faculty Examination Board. This should contain adequate details of the discussion of borderline cases and where individual medical or other extenuating circumstances are presented. A record should be kept of how and why decisions were taken (i.e. the reasons for each decision).

41.7 Schools should ensure they give as much notice as possible to all board members of the dates of examination board meetings and other occasions on which they may be required to be present so that the quoracy of the board of examiners is met.

41.8 Boards of examiners should determine the range of assessed material and, where appropriate, the evidence relating to the award of marks for that assessed work that will be subject to moderation.

41.9 In some circumstances, in addition to marks, student work may be made available at the meeting of boards of examiners (e.g. where low marks achieved in one part of a programme are being considered against additional work done by the student).

41.10 Boards of examiners should assure themselves that elements of formative work that is also used for summative purposes should be subject to moderation and should establish a mechanism to verify the authenticity of that work (i.e. that it is the student’s own work and it is as it was originally submitted). See section 16 for details on internal verification / moderation.

41.11 Boards of examiners should assure themselves that the guidelines which determine the selection of scripts that the external examiner receives are adhered to.

41.12 It is the responsibility of the board of examiners to draw the Faculty Board’s attention to issues it wishes to raise. It should also refer complex cases, including those of unusual profile students (e.g. where a student is awarded a zero mark as a result of plagiarism) to the Faculty Examination Board.

41.13 During the period when the new degree classification policy is being implemented, a Faculty Education Director, or nominee, may attend School Examination Boards in order to aid interpretation of the new policy for classification and provide insight on particularly complex cases.

(Back to top)

42 Faculty examination boards

42.1 The role of the Faculty Examination Board includes: assuring fair and consistent treatment of candidates and their results across all schools in the faculty; monitoring assessment trends and any major deviations from norms faculty-wide; and receiving and assuring the appropriateness of subject specific marking criteria in the light of the agreed university wide generic marking criteria.

42.2 The decision to approve the award result and confer a student is only final when approved by the faculty examination board. Until this occurs student’s results are deemed to be provisional and subject to confirmation.

42.3 The remit of the Faculty Examination Board is outlined in Ordinance 17 as:

3 (b) …The faculty examination board shall be chaired by the dean or his or her nominee and its composition shall be determined by the faculty board. The faculty examination board shall not question the academic judgement of the initial examination board, but shall ensure that proper procedures have been carried out, and that the treatment of special cases is fair across the faculty, including consideration given for illness and personal problems affecting a student’s performance, the award of aegrotat degrees and penalties imposed for plagiarism. Within this remit, the faculty examination board shall have the power to accept or amend recommendations made by the initial examination board.

42.4 The responsibility of the Faculty Examination Board in alleged cases of cheating or plagiarism is outlined in the Examination Regulations (4.4):

If the alleged offence of cheating or plagiarism is considered by the chair of the school board of examiners, in consultation with the undergraduate or graduate dean of the faculty, to be more serious than should be handled at school level, taking into account the criteria listed [in section 8], the chair of the school board of examiners will notify the student in writing that the case will be referred to the chair of the faculty board of examiners. The student will also be informed, at this stage, whether any other examination scripts or pieces of work are under consideration.

42.5 Discussions held at the Faculty Examination Board are confidential. The procedure for disclosing marks and results to students is outlined in section 32.

42.6 A record of each meeting of the Faculty Examination Board must be kept, including the reasons for decisions and how they are taken. This record must contain adequate details of the discussion of borderline cases and where individual medical, or other extenuating circumstances, are taken into account.

Annexes > >

(Back to top)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Approved by Senate, 7 May 2008
Amendments for 2009-10: approved by Senate, 15 June 2009 and under vacation powers, August 2009.
Amendments for 2010-11: approved by Senate, May and June 2010
Amendments for 2011-12: approved by Senate, December 2010, May and June 2011 and under vacation powers, August 2011.

EDUCATION SUPPORT UNIT

INFORMATION ABOUT

Regulations and Code of Practice for Taught Programmes - online version

1 Introduction

2 Significant Changes to the Regulations and Code of Practice for Taught Programmes for 2011-12

General Regulations and Principles for Taught Programmes

3 Principles for establishing taught programmes

The programme structure

Unit sizes and structure of the teaching year

Levels of study

Open Units - student choice within undergraduate programmes

4 General Regulations for Undergraduate Programmes

5 General Regulations for Taught Postgraduate Programmes

Selection and admission

Registration

Period of study

Student Entitlements

Student Responsibilities

Monitoring of the progress of taught postgraduate students

The Dissertation

Feedback Opportunities

Forms and Conduct of Assessment

Introduction

6 Types of assessment and setting assessment tasks for summative purposes

Assuring assessment criteria and intended learning outcomes at unit level

Setting assessment tasks

7 Conduct of formal unseen written examinations

8 Conduct of coursework and similar forms of written summative assessment

9 E-assessment

10 Oral examinations of individual students

11 Anonymity

12 Assessment and disability

Assessment and discrimination by association

13 The timetabling of assessment with regard to religious observances

14 Timing and conduct of assessment with respect to pregnancy/maternity or paternity

The Marking Process

15 Marking criteria for assessment

University generic marking criteria (to become mandatory from 2012-13)

Scales

TABLE 1: GENERIC MARKING CRITERIA ON THE 21 POINT SCALE

TABLE 2: GENERIC MARKING CRITERIA ON THE 101 POINT SCALE

TABLE 3: Relationship between the 21 and 101 point scale

16 Marking processes and internal verification (i.e. moderation)

17 Formative Feedback

18 Medical and other extenuating circumstances

19 Penalties for cheating, plagiarism, other academic misconduct and the late submission of coursework

Assessment Outcomes

20 Pass marks

Undergraduate level

Taught postgraduate level

Shared teaching between undergraduates and postgraduates

21 Credit

21.4 Credit requirements for students first registered on programmes of study in and after 2010-11:

21.5 Credit requirements for students first registered on their current programmes of study before 2010 -11:

Credit points

22 The unit mark

23 The year mark - in undergraduate programmes

24 The taught component mark - in taught postgraduate programmes

25 Progression, the award of credit and re-assessment for undergraduate programmes - for students initially registered prior to the 2011-12 academic year

Student progress

Criteria for the award of credit points

Opportunities for re-assessment

Assessment for the final programme mark / degree classification

26 Common university rules for the progression and completion of students on taught modular programmes – for students newly registered from the academic year 2011-12

The award of credit for the purposes of progression

The award of credit in the final year of undergraduate study for the purposes of completion

Additional requirements for progression within an Integrated Master’s Degree

Progression within an Integrated Master’s Degree to undertake the Study Abroad or Year in Industry

Award of credit for the dissertation in taught postgraduate programmes

27 Principles for the progression and completion of students on the MBChB, BDS, and BVSc professional programmes

28 The final programme mark and degree classification

Calculating the final programme mark and degree classification for undergraduate modular programmes

Calculating the final programme mark and the award of a degree with merit or distinction for the MBChB, BDS, and BVSc professional programmes

Calculating the final programme mark for taught postgraduate programmes

29 Applying accredited prior learning to the calculation of the final programme mark and/or the degree classification in modular undergraduate programmes

30 Suspensions or extensions of studies

31 Appeals against decisions of boards of examiners

32 Disclosure of marks and results

33 Transcripts

34 Retention of Student Work