Assessment and Marking: Case Studies from Other Institutions
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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