Assessment and Marking: Case Studies from Other Institutions

Title: Assessment and Marking: Case Studies from Other Institutions

Date: January 2014

Author: Kevin Hewitt, Project Officer, DSE

Enquiries: Kevin Hewitt, Project Officer, DSE

Status: Final

Introduction

This report outlines the approach of a selection of other Universities to issues surrounding assessment and marking. In doing so, it gives an insight into the varieties of practice which exist across the sector and aims to inform possible future approaches at the University of Manchester. Four Universities have been chosen for the purpose of comparison – two from the Russell Group (Bristol and Liverpool) and two local Universities who have recently revised their approaches to assessment (MMU and Salford).

The report concentrates on the following key issues, in line with the Project Charter for the Assessment and Marking Project:

 Timing, amount, structure and variety of assessment

 Marking and marking schemes

 Reassessment policies, including policies on reassessment overseas

Note that this report focuses on assessment and marking for students on taught programmes. The assessment of students on research programmes is not covered here.

Case Studies

Case Study One – The University of Bristol

The University of Bristol’s key policies on assessment can be found in their ‘Regulations and Code of Practice for Taught Programmes: Rules for Assessment, Progression and the Award of a Qualification.’1 Of all the regulations considered in this report, the University of Bristol’s are perhaps the most similar to the University of Manchester’s, but there are nevertheless some points on which they differ, as outlined below.

1 http://www.bris.ac.uk/esu/assessment/codefortaughtprogs13.pdf

Timing, Amount, Structure and Variety of Assessment

The University of Bristol regulations give the following guidance with regards to these matters:

‘Assessment should reflect a balance of formative and summative requirements such that students are guided in their learning as well as being given information on ways in which they can improve their attainment […] A programme need not employ all of the forms of assessment but the range should be sufficient to enable the full spectrum of knowledge and skills (both subject specific and generic)… to be appropriately assessed individually or cumulatively […] 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.’2

None of this is markedly different from the guidance contained in the University of Manchester Assessment Framework which states that ‘There should be an appropriate mix of formative and summative assessment throughout the programme […] Excessive and unnecessary assessment should be avoided (an intended learning outcome should not normally be assessed repeatedly) […] The timing and amount of assessment should be organised to facilitate deep learning.’3

The University of Bristol, unlike some Universities, does not attempt to prescribe at a University level how many assessment tasks are permitted on each module, or when they should take place, and in this respect takes the same approach to assessment design as the University of Manchester i.e. broad guidance as opposed to detailed regulation. Examples of some different approaches will be discussed later in this report.

Marking and Marking Criteria

One area in which the Universities of Bristol and Manchester differ is that the former provides generic University-level marking descriptors, which are reproduced in Appendix 1. These are designed to inform subject-specific criteria at the programme level. The regulations give the following guidance regarding this:

‘Faculties, with their constituent schools, must establish appropriately specific and detailed marking criteria which are congruent with the University-level criteria and, if appropriate, the level of study. All forms of programme-specific marking criteria must be approved by the Faculty.’4

The provision of an institutional-level marking scheme goes one step further than the guidelines currently provided by the University of Manchester Assessment Framework, which simply states that:

‘Students should be given clear information on the assessment process and the criteria applied to each assessment. Grade descriptors used should be consistent across units in a given programme and should be readily accessible to students in unit and programme handbooks or equivalent […] Schools should also expedite the adoption of a common set of grade descriptors across all

2 Ibid, p.38

3 http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/DocuInfo.aspx?DocID=7333, p.4

4 http://www.bris.ac.uk/esu/assessment/codefortaughtprogs13.pdf, p.46

programmes in a manner to be informed by the forthcoming review of degree regulations and assessment policies.’5

The policy of both Universities on second marking is similar, however, in that it is left to faculties/schools to determine their own procedures, rather than there being a University-wide policy:

‘Each faculty, through its Faculty Quality Enhancement 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’6 (University of Bristol)

‘Schools should state their policy for marking different types of assessment and Faculties will be responsible for ensuring that the policies of their Schools are each comprehensive and are equitable across the Faculty.’7 (University of Manchester)

This stands in contrast to the policies of some Universities, discussed below, which have much more prescriptive policies on how much work should be second marked, under what circumstances, and by whom.

Resit Policies, including Overseas Resits

While the policies of the Universities of Bristol and Manchester are very similar with regards to reassessment, there are some subtle differences. For example, at Bristol the carrying of credits is not allowed. If an Undergraduate at Levels 4 or 5 still has 20 credits outstanding following resits, the 20 credits must be taken and passed as part of a ‘supplementary year’ (which may involve taking additional study skills units) before the student is allowed to progress to the next level – they cannot be taken concurrently.8

In other respects, however, the policies are virtually identical (one example being not allowing resits for final year students, except for professional body accreditation reasons). The policies regarding overseas resits are also similar, although the University of Bristol does concede that they may be allowed ‘in exceptional cases’9, while the University of Manchester guidance simply states that ‘the University does not normally allow re-sit examinations to be held away from Manchester.’10

5 http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/DocuInfo.aspx?DocID=7333, p.14

6 http://www.bris.ac.uk/esu/assessment/codefortaughtprogs13.pdf, p.52

7 http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/DocuInfo.aspx?DocID=7333, p.9

8 http://www.bris.ac.uk/esu/assessment/codefortaughtprogs13.pdf, p.164 - 167

9 http://www.bristol.ac.uk/exams/exams-outside-uk.html/

10 http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/DocuInfo.aspx?DocID=7333, p.44

Case Study Two – The University of Liverpool

The University of Liverpool’s key policies regarding assessment for taught students are contained in its Code of Practice on Assessment 2013-14.11 The core code is supplemented by a series of appendices relating to specific issues (e.g. appeals) and to specific groups of students. The use of appendices means that the main Code of Practice document is much slimmer than the University of Manchester Assessment Framework, coming in at 15 pages compared to 60. It is also easier to navigate than the Manchester document; for example, it contains both a glossary of terms and an executive summary. These features may help make it more accessible to staff involved in assessment and marking.

Timing, Amount, Structure and Variety of Assessment

With regards to the timing and amount of assessment, the University of Liverpool’s Code of Practice counsels that:

‘Care should be taken to ensure that the amount of assessment for a programme or module/element of a programme is commensurate with the need for students to be able to demonstrate the achievement of learning outcomes and is not excessive. Assessment strategies should also be formulated so as to allow students adequate time to reflect on their learning before being assessed.’12

With regards to the structure and variety of assessment, meanwhile, the University of Liverpool code of practice states that ‘a range of assessment techniques should be adopted which are appropriate to the teaching and learning methods and the specified learning outcomes… care should be taken to ensure that there is an appropriate mix of formative assessment and summative assessment…assessment policies, practices and procedures should take account of the diversity of the student population and should not unfairly discriminate against any student.’13

None of this is surprising, and there are similar guidelines in the University of Manchester Assessment Framework. This suggests that the two documents are in broad agreement over assessment principles. However, as was also the case at the University of Bristol, differences start to emerge in the detailed implementation of these principles, as shown in the examples below.

Marking and Marking Schemes

Grading criteria and marking are dealt with in Section 4 of the University of Liverpool’s code, with a marks scale and marking descriptors for undergraduate programmes being set out in Appendix A to the code. These are reproduced in full in Appendix 2 of this document. Key features of the University of Liverpool’s approach include:

11 http://www.liv.ac.uk/tqsd/code-of-practice-on-assessment/

12 Ibid, p.4

13 Ibid, p.4

 The provision of broad guidance regarding the categorisation of student achievement (e.g. what would constitute first class work for different types of assessment – written exams, projects and essays or dissertations).

 Within this broad guidance, discretion is given to each department to develop their own set of qualitative marking descriptors relating to that particular subject, taking into account the appropriate subject benchmark statement(s).

 The University of Liverpool document is also quite explicit about the provision of information to students about assessment criteria, to the extent that a whole section of the Code of Practice is devoted to this14

In contrast, the University of Manchester Assessment Framework is rather less explicit about these issues – as discussed above, responsibility for the development and dissemination of marking criteria is devolved to schools and faculties, with no central ‘template’ or guidance to follow. Neither is there any prescription that the marking criteria which are developed be linked to the appropriate subject benchmark statement(s), as is the case at Liverpool.

Beyond the consideration of marking schemes and assessment criteria, Section 4 of the University of Liverpool code also discusses scrutiny of marking and the circumstances under which marking should be internally moderated. The rules regarding moderation are much more prescriptive than at Manchester, and include percentages of work that must be moderated under specific circumstances (e.g. under most circumstances, any assessment task that contributes 20% or more to the overall module mark must be moderated under Liverpool’s rules).15 In contrast, although general guidance on scrutiny of marks is given in the Manchester document, schools are ultimately given responsibility for stating their own policies, and faculties are made responsible for ensuring these are comprehensive and equitable across the Faculty – there is no central University policy contained in the Assessment Framework.16

Resit policies

Section 10 of the University of Liverpool Code of Practice on Assessment covers Failure in Assessment, including Resit Policies. There are some significant differences between it and the corresponding University of Manchester Assessment Framework. For example:

 No mention is made of Liverpool students being able to carry credits, although repeating all or part of a year (with or without attendance) is allowed.17

 Provision is made at Liverpool for the re-sitting/re-taking of failed final year assessments by students on most undergraduate degrees. In contrast, no reassessment opportunities are

14 Ibid, p.13

15 Ibid, p.5

16 http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/DocuInfo.aspx?DocID=7333, p.9.

17 http://www.liv.ac.uk/tqsd/code-of-practice-on-assessment/, p.11

offered for the final 120 credits of a Bachelors programme at Manchester (except where a student seeks to be reassessed in order to achieve the higher marks required by a professional, statutory or regulatory body).18

 The Manchester Assessment Framework states that ‘reassessment must be designed to assess achievement of the same intended learning outcomes but need not be of the same form as that originally used.’19 The emphasis of the Liverpool document differs somewhat, stating that ‘the method of assessment should normally be the same’, although it does go on to concede that different methods of assessment may be allowed.20

With regards to overseas resits, there is no explicit guidance contained in the Liverpool Code of Practice on the procedure to be adopted. However, the following information is available on the University’s website:

‘If you plan to return to your home country during the summer vacation and wish to re-sit any exams whilst there, you need to make arrangements for this before you leave the UK. Please note that only formal written exams can be re-sat outside the UK. Class tests, mid-term or practical exams involving the use of laboratories and equipment can only be re-sat inside the UK.’21

Unlike the University of Manchester, it appears the University of Liverpool does therefore allow overseas resits.

Case Study Three – The University of Salford

Two complementary documents outline the University of Salford’s approach to Assessment and Feedback – the Assessment and Feedback for Taught Awards Policy22 sets out the regulations to be followed, whilst the University Assessment Handbook23 provides advice on the design and delivery of assessment and feedback. Both documents will be considered in the following discussion. The more general Academic Regulations for Taught Programmes24 will also be considered, since they contain a section on assessment.

18 Ibid

19 http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/DocuInfo.aspx?DocID=7333, p.42

20 http://www.liv.ac.uk/tqsd/code-of-practice-on-assessment/, p.10

21 http://www.liv.ac.uk/studentsupport/ist/resits.htm

22 http://www.governance.salford.ac.uk/cms/resources/uploads/File/AQA/Assessment_and_Feedback_for_Taug ht_Awards.pdf

23 http://www.hr.salford.ac.uk/cms/resources/uploads/File/UoS%20assessment%20handbook%20201213.pdf

24 http://www.governance.salford.ac.uk/cms/resources/uploads/File/policies/Academic_Regulations_for_Taught _Programmes_2013-2014.pdf

Timing, Amount, Structure and Variety of Assessment

The University of Salford Assessment Handbook advocates taking a whole programme approach to assessment design:

‘Curriculum mapping should include details of the assessment methods used across the programme and the timing of assessments (i.e. during or at the end of modules); this information will allow the programme team to reflect on whether assessment methods offer sufficient variety and, similarly, whether the timing of assessments across the level / programme is conducive to student learning and will enable staff to provide timely feedback’25

None of this is very different from the principle in the University of Manchester Assessment Framework that ‘assessment tasks should be managed across the programme, to achieve appropriate variety in assessment tasks, avoid unnecessary concentrations of assessment at particular times and reflect intellectual progression through the programme.’26 What is different, however, is the fact that the University of Salford has very specific rules on the amount of assessment permitted per module and the timing of these assessments:

‘When determining the assessment load for a module, the following University principle must be taken into account:

 A maximum of one in-module and one end of module assessment is permitted per 20, 30 or 40 credit module

 Modules of 60 credits at levels 3, 4, 5 and 6 may have up to three assessed components

 Modules at level 7 must have no more than two components of assessment

The purpose of this principle is to minimise the summative assessment burden, and to encourage both staff and students to treat assessment as a crucial component of learning and not as an end in itself.’27

In contrast, while the University of Manchester Assessment Framework articulates the general principle of not over-assessing students, it does not go so far as to prescribe the amount of assessment permitted on each module.

In general, however, the University of Salford Assessment Handbook is more advisory, and less prescriptive, than the above principle might suggest. For example, it contains useful guidance for staff on how to write learning outcomes at programme and module level, such that they align with external reference points such as the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications, whilst also

25 http://www.hr.salford.ac.uk/cms/resources/uploads/File/UoS%20assessment%20handbook%20201213.pdf, p.8

26 http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/DocuInfo.aspx?DocID=7333, p.5

27 http://www.hr.salford.ac.uk/cms/resources/uploads/File/UoS%20assessment%20handbook%20201213.pdf, p.11

expressing in appropriate language precisely what is to be assessed.28 The handbook also contains useful sections on ‘designing out’ opportunities for academic misconduct from assessment, and on different modes of providing feedback to students. In this respect, it is primarily designed as a practical document to assist with assessment design and delivery. This contrasts with some of the other documents discussed in this report (including, to an extent, the University of Manchester Assessment Framework) which focus to a greater extent on presenting University policies, procedures and guidelines, and to a lesser extent on how these might be implemented on the ground.

Marking and Marking Schemes

The Assessment & Feedback for Taught Awards Policy sets out the University of Salford’s position on marking schemes as follows:

‘The University marking scale provides brief grade descriptors. Schools are required to develop, implement and review annually subject-specific marking criteria that align with the University descriptors. Schools should report on their annual reviews of subject-specific marking criteria and their relationship to University descriptors to their College Quality, Standards and Enhancement Committee.’29

It then goes on to set out the University grade descriptors shown below:

Percentage Mark Level of Performance

90-100 outstanding

80-89 excellent

70-79 very good

60-69 good

50-59 fair (UG), satisfactory (PGT)

40-49 adequate (UG), unsatisfactory (PGT)

30-39 unsatisfactory (UG), inadequate (PGT)

20-29 poor

10-19 very poor

0-9 extremely poor

28 Ibid, pp.5-9

29 http://www.governance.salford.ac.uk/cms/resources/uploads/File/AQA/Assessment_and_Feedback_for_Taug ht_Awards.pdf, p.6

These descriptors are clearly very brief. The University Assessment Handbook does provide some limited additional guidance for schools by, for example, indicating how marking schemes can be used during the marking process and when communicating feedback to students.30 However, in comparison with the University of Liverpool’s approach, the University of Salford guidance is much more limited.

The University of Salford’s approach to moderation has more in common with the University of Liverpool, however. For example, there are specific rules on how much work should be internally moderated (‘the sample must be equal to the square root of the total number of students within a cohort to a minimum number of 10’)31 and the assessment policy also gives several other criteria to take into account when selecting the sample, such as the need to ensure that it reflects the full range of programmes on which the module is delivered. The policy also goes into specific detail about the procedure to be followed by internal (and external) moderators, and includes a ‘University moderation template’ which is reproduced in Appendix 3 of this report.

Resit Policies

Taught students at the University of Salford generally have three attempts at assessment per module: the original attempt, a resit of any failed components as necessary, and a retake of the whole module with attendance. An exception is where the student did not attempt the final component of a module at the first attempt and did not submit Personal Mitigating Circumstances to explain why – in this case, a retake of the module is not permitted.32 Carrying credit is not normally allowed, except in cases of Personal Mitigating Circumstances or where a student has made an appeal.

There is no specific information contained in any of the University of Salford documents on reassessment overseas. However, the following information is available on the University website:

‘Students whose permanent residence is outside the UK and who wish to apply to take their re-sit examinations at a British Council Office overseas should complete an overseas re-sit application form.

There is a £30.00 administration charge payable to the University of Salford and students must also meet any local costs required by the British Council office. These are payable directly to the British Council office.’

30 http://www.hr.salford.ac.uk/cms/resources/uploads/File/UoS%20assessment%20handbook%20201213.pdf, pp.20-21

31 http://www.governance.salford.ac.uk/cms/resources/uploads/File/AQA/Assessment_and_Feedback_for_Taug ht_Awards.pdf, p.8

32 http://www.governance.salford.ac.uk/cms/resources/uploads/File/policies/Academic_Regulations_for_Taught _Programmes_2013-2014.pdf, p.36

The University of Salford therefore allows overseas resits, in common with the University of Liverpool, but in contrast to the University of Manchester.

Case Study Four – Manchester Metropolitan University

A key document concerning assessment at MMU is the recently developed ‘Institutional Code of Practice for the Assessment of Students.’33 This relatively slim document is supplemented by a variety of others setting out in more detail the exact regulations to be followed, such as the Undergraduate Curriculum Framework34 and the Policies and Procedures for the Management of Assessment: Assessment Grading, Criteria and Marking35. All of these will be considered in the discussion which follows.

Timing, Amount, Structure and Variety of Assessment

The Code of Practice begins by setting out a list of ‘principles of assessment’, which have been formulated taking account of the QAA Quality Code for Higher Education. Although the principles are not significantly different from those contained in the University of Manchester Assessment Framework, it is notable that the Manchester document currently makes no reference to the QAA.

The Code of Practice then includes a section on the relationship between assessment tasks and learning outcomes, and the guidance there is supplemented by a section on aims and learning outcomes in the Undergraduate and Postgraduate Taught Curriculum Frameworks.36 With regards to unit level learning outcomes, it is emphasised that they should be described in terms of what the student should be able to do at the end of the unit, be specific and measurable and align with the appropriate subject benchmark statements.37 At the programme level, transferable intellectual skills and the University’s graduate outcomes are to be included alongside course-specific outcomes.38

With regards to the amount of assessment, for Undergraduates the following rules are articulated39:

 Formative assessment, as a means of delivering early feedback to students, is encouraged

 Each 30 credit unit must have no more than two elements of summative assessment and 60 credit units should contain at least two and not more than three elements of summative assessment. 15 credit units must have one element of assessment.

33 http://www.mmu.ac.uk/academic/casqe/regulations/docs/assessment_icp.pdf

34 http://www.mmu.ac.uk/academic/casqe/regulations/docs/ug_curriculum_framework.pdf

35 www.mmu.ac.uk/academic/casqe/regulations/docs/assessment_procedures.pdf

36 http://www.mmu.ac.uk/academic/casqe/regulations/curriculum-frameworks.php

37 http://www.mmu.ac.uk/academic/casqe/regulations/docs/assessment_icp.pdf, p.7

38 http://www.mmu.ac.uk/academic/casqe/regulations/docs/ug_curriculum_framework.pdf, p.16-17

39 http://www.mmu.ac.uk/academic/casqe/regulations/docs/ug_curriculum_framework.pdf, p.18-19

 Where appropriate, an element of assessment may be made up of more than one component e.g. a written and an oral report or a series of practical exercises but these must be submitted and marked as one piece of work and there should be very few summative assessments that have sub-elements.

 The delivery of the assessment strategy should be managed by the course (programme) leader and show a balance of assessment across the course. The course leader is responsible for the appropriate volume, timing and balance of assessed work.

This is similar to the approach adopted by the University of Salford, in that specific rules are given regarding the amount of summative assessment permitted and programme leaders are given responsibility for co-ordinating assessment across programmes (note that although the University of Manchester Assessment Framework also states that assessment tasks should be managed across programmes, it does not specify who is responsible for this).40

Marking and Marking Schemes

The issue of marking schemes is dealt with in the MMU document ‘Policies and Procedures for the Management of Assessment: Assessment Grading, Criteria and Marking.’41

The University’s approach to marking schemes is to provide University Standard Descriptors, setting out in broad terms what is expected of students at a particular level - these are in turn based on the University’s Graduate Outcomes. A set of standard descriptors, specifying what students have to do to pass each level, are reproduced in Appendix 4.

However, it is acknowledged that the standard descriptors are ‘too generic to support making grading decisions for individual assignments and so need to be interpreted into specific marking criteria for each task.’42 The advice given is that assignment-level marking criteria should reflect the University Standard Descriptors whilst also demonstrating a logical relationship to the unit’s intended learning outcomes. It is acknowledged that programme teams may choose to use similar criteria for particular tasks at the same level across a programme (e.g. essays, presentations, exams, portfolios) and that this may make it easier for students to judge their progress between different units.

This approach of providing broad University level criteria / guidance on marking, which can then be further developed / refined by discipline or programme teams, is similar to that of the other Universities already mentioned.

The approach of MMU to second marking is also similar to that of the other Universities mentioned above – it has specific guidance on the amount of work that should be second marked and the procedures to be followed in the event of discrepancies in marking between the first and second markers (e.g. ‘if the difference between the marks given by the first and second markers is less than

40 http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=7333, p.5

41 www.mmu.ac.uk/academic/casqe/regulations/docs/assessment_procedures.pdf

42 Ibid, p.1

or equal to 3%, the awarded mark shall be the average of the two.’)43 This contrasts with the less prescriptive guidance given in the University of Manchester Assessment Framework.

Resit Policies

Most of MMU’s policies on re-assessment are broadly familiar. One unusual feature is that students failing more than 60 credits in an academic year take their re-assessments in the next academic year, rather than in the reassessment period.44 No mention is made of carrying credits forward to the next level and, in common with the University of Salford, three assessment attempts are generally allowed, although this may be reduced in cases of lack of engagement. Unlike the University of Salford, second reassessments (retakes) may be with or without attendance, but international students are recommended to retake with attendance so that they can renew their student visa and stay in the UK for the whole of the retake year.45 No mention is made of students being able to take reassessments overseas.

Conclusion

This report has discussed the approach of a selection of Universities to some issues surrounding assessment and marking and has provided examples of how, in some cases, other Universities take a different approach to the University of Manchester. Whether they are right to do so is a matter for discussion and debate, and this paper aims to act as a stimulus for that debate.

The issues discussed here were chosen since they are mentioned in the project charter for the Assessment and Marking Project, but there may well be other issues of interest to the steering group and other stakeholders. This report is therefore accompanied by a further paper, discussing some wider issues related to transforming assessment, as outlined in a recent Higher Education Academy report. It is hoped the two papers – this one focusing on specific issues and case studies, the other with a broader focus – will together provide a useful starting point for a review of assessment strategy, policy and practice at the University of Manchester.

43 www.mmu.ac.uk/academic/casqe/regulations/docs/summative_assessment_icp.pdf, p.5

44 http://www.mmu.ac.uk/academic/casqe/regulations/assessment-UG.php, p.4

45 http://www.mmu.ac.uk/students/assessments/international.php