Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
University of Greenwich Assessment and Feedback Policy – 2019
Contents Introduction and Aims………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..… 1
Scope .................................................................................................................................................... 1
Requirements ....................................................................................................................................... 1
Purpose of assessment ................................................................................................................ 1 Structure of assessment .............................................................................................................. 2 Marking assessment ..................................................................................................................... 3 Referencing policy ........................................................................................................................ 3
Implementation ................................................................................................................................... 4
Appendix 1 – Related documents and policies ............................................................................ 5 Appendix 2 – Greenwich Requirements regarding quantity of assessment ................................ 6 Appendix 3– Greenwich Template marking rubric .................................................................... 10 Appendix 4 – Greenwich Feedback pro-forma .......................................................................... 18 Sampling for internal moderation.............................................................................................. 21 Sampling for external examining ............................................................................................... 21
Appendix 6: Implementing the policy for Portfolio assessment ........................................................ 22
Introduction and Aims ................................................................................................................ 22 Scope .......................................................................................................................................... 22 Requirements ............................................................................................................................. 22
Appendix 7: Implementation for Laboratory Books or Reports ........................................................ 23
Introduction and Aims ................................................................................................................ 23 Scope .......................................................................................................................................... 23 Requirements ............................................................................................................................. 23 Marking ...................................................................................................................................... 24 Template marking rubric ............................................................................................................ 24 Feedback .................................................................................................................................... 24
Appendix 8 – Further reading on good practice in assessment and feedback .................................. 25
Appendix 9 – Guidelines for engagement of undergraduate and postgraduate supervision ........... 26
Responsibilities of the Supervisor .............................................................................................. 26 Meetings and availability ................................................................................................... 26 Guidance and feedback ...................................................................................................... 26
Responsibilities of the Student .................................................................................................. 27 Meetings and availability ................................................................................................... 27 Project Management and Delivery ..................................................................................... 27
1
Introduction and Aims 1. The University of Greenwich’s Academic and Student Experience Strategy states
that the university “will implement a coherent and coordinated approach to assessment on all our programmes” and “enable students to maximise their potential through assessment accompanied by high quality, timely, and forward-looking feedback”.
2. The aims of the policy on assessment and feedback are to provide a framework for:
a. Designing, writing and reviewing assessment, and to ensure a common understanding of the purposes of assessment and feedback.
b. Ensuring consistent and equitable arrangements for the submission and recording of summative assessment.
c. Ensuring the provision of effective and timely feedback on assessed work. d. Ensuring the timely and efficient disclosure of marks and retention of all assessed work. e. Ensuring inclusive practice in assessment and feedback, ensuring all Greenwich
students are given the opportunity to succeed.
3. The University of Greenwich is committed to continued enhancement in assessment and feedback practice, grounded in evidence and research into pedagogical effectiveness. The university will provide support and development opportunities for all teaching staff to improve and enhance assessment and feedback.
4. This policy was developed and approved in the 2018-19 academic year.
Scope 5. This policy applies to all assessed work which contributes to an undergraduate or
postgraduate taught programme of study. Exemptions from the policy may only be granted by faculty Learning, Quality and Standards Committees. Exemptions will normally relate to specific and required professional, statutory, and regulatory body (PSRB) requirements and must be evidenced in writing. The principles underpinning this policy will apply to online- distance programmes where possible.
Requirements Purpose of assessment
6. Assessment at the University of Greenwich will have the following purpose: a. To enable students to excel in their chosen discipline and contribute to their
learning and development. b. To develop students’ knowledge and skills and readiness for the world of
employment and contribute towards achieving the Greenwich Graduate Attributes.
c. To enable students to demonstrate that they have fulfilled the objectives of their programme of study and have achieved the standard required for the award.
2
Structure of assessment
7. Assessment will be planned and coordinated across the duration of a programme and tested and interrogated to ensure that each piece of assessment adds value to student learning. For combined honours programmes, and programmes with assessment across multiple schools/departments, particular attention should be paid by programme leaders and link tutors to ensuring coordination and coherence of assessments.
8. The programme approval and Annual Programme Review (APR) process shall ensure that
programme assessment is compliant with this policy. Programmes shall evaluate their alignment with this policy and good practice in assessment on an annual basis.
9. Programmes will ensure that a variety of assessment methods are used and that assessments
are authentic,1 relevant to the desired learning and graduate outcomes, and assessing skills and knowledge that are worthwhile and meaningful.
10. Assessment shall be part of the university’s efforts to create an inclusive and diverse
curriculum. Staff shall aim to ensure that assessment outcomes are equitable, utilising the university’s inclusive curriculum project, and review the structure and content of assessment where outcomes and attainment are unequal.
11. Modules shall adhere to the requirements on minimum and maximum quantities of
summative assessment, as outlined in Appendix 2 of this policy. To manage workload for both students and staff, further ‘splitting’ of assessments into parts will not be permitted under any circumstances.
12. All summative assessment types will be preceded at some point within a programme by a
formative exercise, which has a significantly lower demand than the summative work, but which is an enabler for the summative work, and which is followed by detailed feedback. Formative activities which engage students in learning and which support preparation for the assessment task(s) will be included for each module.
13. Feedback will be of sufficient quality and quantity to facilitate student learning and will
signpost feed forward to the next assessment. Feedback should include, but not be limited to, the categories laid out in the table in appendix 4 of this policy.
14. Group assessments can be used as effective practice, but summative grades must be individual in all assessments in the final year of a programme.
15. Normally, all uploaded coursework will be submitted by 11.30pm on a working day via
Turnitin. Work that cannot be submitted digitally will be submitted by 3pm on a working day to the relevant faculty office. Work handed in physically should be accompanied by a header sheet. Header sheets will be created by module leaders and the relevant header sheet number will be available on Moodle.
16. Where appropriate, a student inclusion plan will indicate where reasonable adjustments can
be made to assessment. Academic staff must comply with the requirements of a student’s inclusion plan.
3
17. In the case of rare or unavoidable exceptions to the requirements specified in appendix 2, module handbooks will provide clear and transparent information on the respective weightings of assessment components and their contribution towards a student’s final module grade.
Marking assessment
18. All coursework marking shall be informed by clear criteria and a specific grade descriptor produced for each piece of assessment, based upon the rubric provided in Appendix 3. The customised assessment rubric should be available to students when the assessment is set. No other rubrics should be used, in order to ensure consistency for students across the university.
19. Assessments must be marked anonymously, with the exception of assessments involving a
necessary process of face-to-face involvement and feedback where anonymity is not practicable or appropriate (for example, where design portfolios, films, models evaluated in ‘crits’, artefacts, staging or clinical practice are involved). Programme awarding bodies must consider students’ final awards anonymously.
20. All criteria-based coursework assessments with continuous grading scales shall use the step-
marking system outlined in Appendix 3. This does not apply to assessments with discrete numerical marking scales (e.g. maths problems).
21. All marking standards and moderation of marking shall be conducted in accordance with the
university’s Academic Regulations for Taught Awards. Summative assessments must be subject to moderation as outlined in Appendix 5.
22. Double marking must be undertaken on dissertations, projects, and on a sample of crits, practical skills tests, poster presentations, artwork and artefacts, and live assessments (e.g. verbal presentations). It is normal for the marking of dissertations and final projects to be undertaken in blind double marking mode.
Referencing policy
23. Disciplinary areas will have a diversity of approaches to referencing and bibliographies, however, programme leaders will ensure that a consistent approach to referencing and its relative weighting in grading is taken across a programme. This should also apply consistently to joint and combined honours programmes.
24. Normally, referencing will be conducted in the Harvard style, and should count for no more
than approximately 5% of a grade on any single piece of work.
Feedback on assessment
25. Feedback on non-examination assessments will be provided in a timely manner to assist learning and performance in future assessment. At a maximum, feedback will be provided within 15 working days of submission by a specified date stated in the module handbook for digitally submitted work. For work submitted digitally, feedback will be provided via the Feedback Summary in the appropriate VLE platform.
4
26. Staff must use the feedback pro-forma in appendix 4 as a basis for providing constructive written feedback. This pro-forma must be used and may be supplemented by additional feedback should staff wish.
27. Students will therefore receive both a feedback pro-forma (appendix 4) and copy of the
specific marking rubric referenced in paragraph 23 (Appendix 3).
Implementation 28. The University of Greenwich will seek to utilise the latest learning technologies and internet
systems to facilitate consistent, smooth and user-friendly submission, marking and feedback on assessment.
5
Appendix 1 – Related documents and policies Academic Regulations for Taught Awards https://docs.gre.ac.uk/rep/sas/academic-regs University of Greenwich Assessment Hub https://www.gre.ac.uk/about-us/faculty/eddev/assessment Academic and Student Experience Strategy 2018-2022 https://docs.gre.ac.uk/rep/vco/academic-and-student-experience-strategy Inclusive Curriculum Framework https://www.gre.ac.uk/articles/planning-and-statistics/about-the-inclusive-curriculum-framework
6
Appendix 2 – Greenwich Requirements regarding quantity of assessment Adhering to both the minimum and maximum quantity of assessment specified below will enable effective student learning, maintenance of academic standards, timely feedback on assessment, and a reasonable workload for both students and staff. The university wishes to ensure a sufficient quantity of assessment to maintain standards and facilitate student learning, without overburdening students and academic staff with over-assessment. Normally, the following shall be considered the minimum and maximum number of summative assessments per module:
Minimum Maximum 10 credit module One summative assessment One summative assessment 15 credit module One summative assessment Two summative assessments (both
weighted at least 20%) 20 credit module One summative assessment Two summative assessments (both
weighted at least 20%) 30 credit module Two summative assessments
(both weighted at least 20%) Three summative assessments (all weighted at least 20% and no more than 50%)
40 credit module Two summative assessments (both weighted at least 20%)
Three summative assessments (all weighted at least 20% and no more than 50%)
The requirements in this appendix do not cover cases of dissertations, portfolio assessments, lab books and final-year projects which are covered by other appendixes in this policy. The quantity and size of these assessments should be fixed and agreed with faculty Directors of Learning and Teaching during programme and module approvals. The below tables outline the maximum length of essays and examinations (including open-book and seen exams) that should be used for varying suites of assessment on 10, 15, 20, 30 and 40 credit modules. These should be considered maximum lengths only and not a minimum requirement for assessment length or size. Additional ‘critical thinking time’ is permitted for examinations. Where there are professional body requirements then these can be used as exemptions to this framework. Table 1 - 10 credit Modules
Assessment Coursework (essay/report) - Maximum length
Exam – maximum time Other assessment type (e.g. PAD; presentation; poster; performance; in-class test; artefact etc.)
Coursework 3,000 words - - Exam - 2 hours - Other - - 1 assessment
7
Table 2 - 15 credit Modules No assessment item to be weighted <20% (but pass/fail might be acceptable for some ‘Other’ assessment types; e.g. PADs)
Assessment Coursework (essay/report) - Maximum length
Exam – maximum time Other assessment type (e.g. PAD; presentation; poster; performance; in-class test; artefact etc.)
Coursework only 3,000 words - - Coursework + Other equally weighted
2,000 words - 1 item of assessment
Coursework and Exam where exam weighted <30%
2,000 words 1 hour -
Exam + Other where exam weighted <50%
- 1 hour 1 item of assessment
Coursework and Exam equally weighted
1,500 words 1.5 hours -
Exam + other equally weighted
- 1.5 hours 1 item of assessment
Exam only - 2 hours -
Table 3 - 20 credit Modules No assessment item to be weighted <20% (but pass/fail might be acceptable for some ‘Other’ assessment types; e.g. PADs)
Assessment Coursework (essay/report) - Maximum length
Exam – maximum time Other assessment type (e.g. PAD; presentation; poster; performance; in-class test; artefact etc.)
Coursework only 4,500 words - - Coursework + Other equally weighted
3,000 words - 1 item of assessment
Coursework and Exam where exam weighted <30%
3,000 words 1.5 hour -
Exam + Other where exam weighted <50%
- 1.5 hour 1 item of assessment
Coursework and Exam equally weighted
2,000 words 2 hours -
Exam + other equally weighted
- 2 hours 1 item of assessment
Exam only - 2.5 hours -
8
Table 4 - 30 credit modules No assessment item to be weighted <20% (but pass/fail might be acceptable for some ‘Other’ assessment types; e.g. PADs)
Assessment Coursework (essay/report) - Maximum length
Exam – maximum time Other assessment type (e.g. presentation; poster; performance; in-class test; artefact etc.)
Coursework only 6,000 words total (2 pieces)
- -
Coursework + Other 4,000 words - 1 item of assessment Coursework + Other 2,000 words - 2 items of assessment Coursework and Exam where exam weighted <30%
5,000 words 1.5 hour -
Coursework + Exam + Other where exam weighted <50%
3,000 words 1.5 hour 1 item of assessment
Exam + Other where exam weighted <50%
- 1.5 hour 2 items of assessment
Coursework and Exam where exam weighted 50%
4,500 words 2 hours -
Coursework + Exam + Other where exam weighted 50%
3,000 words 2 hours 1 item of assessment
Exam + Other where exam weighted 50%
- 2 hours 2 items of assessment
Coursework + Exam where exam weighted>50%
4,000 words 3 hours -
Coursework + Exam + Other where exam weighted >50%
2,000 words 3 hours 1 item of assessment
Exam + Other where exam weighted >50%
- 3 hours 2 items of assessment
Table 5 - 40 credit modules No assessment item to be weighted <20% (but pass/fail might be acceptable for some ‘Other’ assessment types; e.g. PADs)
Assessment Coursework (essay/report) - Maximum length
Exam – maximum time Other assessment type (e.g. presentation; poster; performance; in-class test; artefact etc.)
Coursework only 7,500 words total (2 pieces)
- -
Coursework + Other 4,500 words - 1 item of assessment Coursework + Other 3,000 words - 2 items of assessment Coursework and Exam where exam weighted <30%
6,000 words 1.5 hour -
Coursework + Exam + Other where exam weighted <50%
3,500 words 1.5 hour 1 item of assessment
Exam + Other where exam weighted <50%
- 2 hours 2 items of assessment
9
Coursework and Exam where exam weighted 50%
5,500 words 2 hours -
Coursework + Exam + Other where exam weighted 50%
4,000 words 2 hours 1 item of assessment
Exam + Other where exam weighted 50%
- 3 hours 2 items of assessment
Coursework + Exam where exam weighted>50%
5,000 words 3 hours -
Coursework + Exam + Other where exam weighted >50%
3,000 words 3 hours 1 item of assessment
Exam + Other where exam weighted >50%
- 3 hours 2 items of assessment
Note regarding credits Any modules valued at credits not covered by Tables 1-5 should be at a length appropriate to their size and comparable to the sizes presented here. Further guidance should be sought from the appropriate Faculty Director of Learning and Teaching. Adhering to both the minimum and maximum quantity of assessment specified below will enable effective student learning, maintenance of academic standards, timely feedback on assessment, and a reasonable workload for both students and staff.
10
Appendix 3– Greenwich Template marking rubric
• Tutors should use the domains suggested below to formulate their own rubric with specific criteria for each assignment – the generic rubric below is therefore for tutor use not student use. Not all statements below will be relevant, but you will be able to read the relevant AD and Level and make your own professional judgements.
• The rubric supports adherence to the QAA and FHEQ descriptors, particularly in terms of language and consistency of approach across diverse discipline areas. • The rubric should remind tutors of areas/domains of assessment which they are likely to want to assess and aid feedback to students. • Exemplar rubrics for common forms of assessment will be made available on the university assessment and feedback hub. • A template rubric will be attached to every module page in Moodle. • Regarding Stepped Marking, where a rubric is set to automatically calculate the percentage grading, tutors should look at the assessment holistically after the calculation
has been completed, with a view to increasing the grade to the next Step Mark. • Where a module has more than one assessment attached, each assessment should be individually Step Marked, although it is understood that when averaged, the final
grade may not fall on a Step Mark. • Where your assessment is graded numerically in very specific ways e.g. individual marks for each correct answer on a maths paper, as an exception you may seek
permission for those assessments to fall outside Step Marking. This will need to be done on a case by case basis.
Generic Template Rubric Assessment Domains ADs may not all be relevant to every assessment, but you should consider each AD as you formulate your specific criteria for assessment and complete your specific rubric
80-100 Exceptional
70-79 Excellent
60-69 Very Good
50-59 Good
40-49 Satisfactory
30-39 Fail
0-29 Fail
Stepped Marking: When marking assessments, percentage grades must end in either 0, 2, 5 or 8, for example 60% 62% 65% or 68%. Please use the above wording and delineation for a consistent university wide approach.
Assessment Domain 1: Content, Knowledge and Understanding
Level 3: A developing factual and conceptual knowledge base, with some appreciation of the breadth of the field of study and the relevant terminology. Increasing knowledge and understanding of main concepts and theories. A good grasp of the skills and knowledge covered. Understand that knowledge is open to on-going debate.
Level 4: Knowledge of the underlying concepts and principles associated with their area(s) of study, and an ability to evaluate and interpret these within the context of that area of study. Comprehensive coverage of assessment specifications alongside accurate consistent knowledge and understanding of main concepts and theories. Beginning to show awareness of the limitations of the knowledge base, its terminology and discourse. Understand that knowledge is open to on-going debate.
Level 5: Knowledge and critical understanding of the well-established principles, theories and concepts of their area(s) of study, and of the way in which those principles have developed. Comprehensive coverage of assessment criteria, accurate knowledge and comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. Demonstrate an awareness of different ideas, contexts and frameworks, and recognise those areas where the knowledge base is most or least secure. Level 6: Systematic understanding of key aspects of their field of study, including acquisition of coherent and detailed knowledge, at least some of which is at, or informed by, the forefront of defined aspects of a discipline understanding of the material covered in this module, and of the way in which key concepts relate to one another. Detailed appreciation of the way in which some aspects of the material covered are uncertain or contradictory.
11
Level 7: Sophisticated and comprehensive knowledge of the subject area. Systematic understanding of knowledge, and a critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights, much of which is at, or informed by, the forefront of their academic discipline, field of study or area of professional practice. Ability in the appropriate use of the relevant literature, theory, methodologies, practices or tools to analyse and synthesise at Masters level.
Assessment Domain 2: Range and Relevance of Research Informed Evidence
Level 3: Within a defined context, manage information and collect data from a range of straightforward sources. An ability to apply the skills of analysis, synthesis, evaluation independently in relatively simple and familiar contexts, or with guidance or structure when working with greater complexity. Able to collate and categorise ideas and information. Good reference to and application of research informed evidence. Developing ability to analyse. Level 4: An ability to present, evaluate and interpret qualitative and quantitative data, in order to develop lines of argument and make sound judgements in accordance with basic theories and concepts of their subject(s) of study. Comprehensive range of evidence which is interpreted with insight in its application of context. Some perception and persuasion demonstrated. Explicit understanding of other stances. Range of evidence and critical engagement embedded in work. Can collect and interpret appropriate data and successfully undertake research with a degree of autonomy. Level 5: Ability to apply underlying concepts and principles outside the context in which they were first studied, including, where appropriate, the application of those principles in an employment context. Knowledge of the main methods of enquiry in this assessment, and some evidence of the ability to evaluate critically the appropriateness of different approaches to solving problems in the field of study. Consistently effective in analysing key concepts that have been studied and draws on a comprehensive range of evidence, reflection and reasoned argument. Level 6: An ability to deploy accurately established techniques of analysis and enquiry within a discipline. The ability to describe and comment upon particular aspects of current research, or equivalent advanced scholarship, in the discipline. The ability to manage their own learning, and to make use of scholarly reviews and primary sources (for example, refereed research articles and/or original materials appropriate to the discipline). Level 7: A comprehensive understanding of techniques applicable to their own research or advanced scholarship. Originality in the application of knowledge, together with a practical understanding of how established techniques of research and enquiry are used to create and interpret knowledge in the discipline. Conceptual understanding that enables the student to evaluate critically current research and advanced scholarship in the discipline, as well as to evaluate methodologies and develop critiques of them.
12
Assessment Domain 3: Cognitive/Intellectual Skills
Level 3: A developing ability to analyse key concepts and apply given tools/methods to a well-defined problem and show emerging recognition of the complexity of associated issues. An increasing ability to apply knowledge and skills within a defined context and evaluate own strengths and weaknesses within criteria largely set by others. Capable of developing a sustain argument. Can generate a range of appropriate responses to given problems. Level 4: Evaluate the appropriateness of different approaches to solving problems related to their area(s) of study and/or work. Information /data is organised using appropriate structures to construct emergent knowledge which address the question. Coherent and well balanced – comparative reasoning with some analytical arguments beginning. Conclusions are a cogent integration of theories, evidence, concepts and academic arguments. A focus on: Interpretation; Conceptualisation; Evaluation; Argument and Judgement Level 5: Use a range of established techniques to initiate and undertake critical analysis of information, and to propose solutions to problems arising from that analysis. An understanding of the limits of their knowledge, and how this influences analyses and interpretations based on that knowledge. A focus on: Systematic Thinking, Critical Evaluation of Arguments ,Make Judgements, Critical Analysis and Enquiry, Application (including employment context where appropriate), Identification of Solutions Level 6: Apply the methods and techniques that they have learned to review and consolidate. Extend and apply their knowledge and understanding, and initiate and carry out projects. Devise and sustain arguments, and/or to solve problems, using ideas and techniques, some of which are at the forefront of a discipline. An appreciation of the uncertainty, ambiguity and limits of knowledge mature and independent approach to problem-solving. Create appropriate hypotheses and have used well-justified, imaginative and innovative approaches to explore them. A focus on: Critical Thinking and Enquiry, Critical Evaluation, Critical Analysis and Interpretation ,Application (including employment context where appropriate) Level 7: Deal with complex issues both systematically and creatively, make sound judgements in the absence of complete data, and communicate their conclusions clearly to specialist and non-specialist audiences; where appropriate. Draw upon critical evaluation of current knowledge in the field to propose new hypotheses Critical Thinking and Enquiry, Critical Evaluation, Critical Analysis and Interpretation, Application (including employment context where appropriate), Originality and Contribution to the Discipline.
Assessment Domain 4: Communication, Organisation and Presentation Graduate Employability and Application of Skills
Communication, Organisation and Presentation: Express ideas effectively and fluently. Is able to communicate information appropriately and accurately using a range of media structure and style; organisation and coherence through a range of assessments, including essay; presentation; artefact; film; poster, professional report etc. Graduate Employability Skills: Ability to relate theory to professional practice. Skills of communication, teamwork, negotiation, problem solving, leadership, resilience and motivation. Ability to respect and recognise different perspectives and ways of working and demonstrate a high degree of professionalism e.g. for ‘Presentations’ the ability to share workload, engage in respectful, professional debate, recognise and value each person and their contribution, engage an audience etc.. Demonstrate initiative, creativity, imagination, motivation and self-management. Articulate an awareness of the social and community contexts within their disciplinary field. Level 3: Produce a coherent and well-structured assessment; organise ideas fluently and undertake accurate proof reading to eliminate errors in academic presentation. Present arguments and findings concisely. Highly professional approaches and transferable skills to enable them to operate in predictable, defined contexts that require use of a specified range of standard techniques. Use of clear, accurate English, well organised, with flow and progression, well- structured argument. Syntax and grammar indicates appropriate level of maturity. Demonstrates transferable skills required for employment.
13
Level 4: Communicate the results of their study/work accurately and reliably, and with structured and coherent arguments which are fluent and appropriately structured, as well as systematic and logical. Demonstrates the qualities and transferable skills necessary for employment requiring the exercise of some personal responsibility. Act with a limited amount of personal autonomy, under direction, within defined guidelines. Insight and autonomy when evaluation own strengths and areas for development in relation to professional and practical skills. Use of clear, accurate English, well organised, with flow and progression. Level 5: Produce a coherent and well-structured assessment which effectively communicates information, arguments and analysis in a variety of forms to specialist and non-specialist audiences, and deploy key techniques of the discipline effectively. The qualities and transferable skills necessary for employment requiring the exercise of personal responsibility and decision-making, alongside evidence of innovation and/or well-judged experimentation and risk-taking. Use of clear, accurate English, well organised, with flow and progression. Level 6: Produce a cohesive and well-structured assessment which makes judgements and frames appropriate questions to achieve a solution - or identifies a range of solutions to a problem. Where appropriate the assessment demonstrates the qualities and transferable skills necessary for employment requiring: the exercise of initiative and personal responsibility, decision-making in complex and unpredictable contexts, the learning ability needed to undertake appropriate further training of a professional or equivalent nature. Evidence of innovation and/or well-judged experimentation and risk-taking. Use of clear, accurate English, well organised and well presented, with flow and progression. Level 7: Demonstrates self-direction and originality in tackling and solving problems, and act autonomously in planning and implementing tasks at a professional or equivalent level. High level qualities and transferable skills necessary for employment requiring: the exercise of initiative and personal responsibility decision-making in complex and unpredictable situations. The independent learning ability required for continuing professional development evidence of innovation and/or well-judged experimentation and risk-taking. Use of clear, accurate English, well organised, with flow and progression.
Assessment Domain 5: Referencing, sourcing, acknowledging and coverage
Level 3: Sources used are acknowledged in the text and reference list/bibliography using correct academic citation – including online sources. Referencing is consistently accurate. Work has followed the academic practice required for the module in terms of citation and referencing. Reading list is adequate in terms of number of sources. There may be many secondary sources. Level 4: All literature is correctly and consistently referenced both within the text and reference list/bibliography. Reading list demonstrate wide reading and assignment includes many primary sources. All sources are referenced appropriately, all references written in the correct format – including online sources. Level 5: Sources used are all acknowledged in the text and reference list/bibliography using correct academic citation – including online sources. Bibliography is wide and extensive and sources cited in text are predominately primary sources. Evidence of broad, independent reading from appropriate sources. Level 6: Sources used are all acknowledged in the text and reference list/bibliography, using correct academic citation – including online sources. Referencing is consistent throughout. Follows a professional approach to academic practice. Bibliography is outstanding in its breadth and depth and all sources are primary sources. Level 7: Sources used are all acknowledged in the text and reference list/bibliography using correct academic citation – including online sources. Referencing is consistent throughout. Follows a professional approach to academic practice. Bibliography is outstanding in its breadth and depth and all sources are primary sources. Comprehensive range of evidence used.
With reference to documentation from: Sheffield Hallam; Surrey; Canterbury; UoG Psychology, Social work and Counselling; UoG Teacher Education; QAA and FHEQ; Manchester Met, Kingston, Kent.
14
Multi Media Assessment: Choice of Essay, Poster, Pamphlet, Power Point etc. to demonstrate criteria (see module guide) Year 3 BA Level 6
Criteria for Assessment
80-100 Exceptional
70-79 Excellent
60-69 Very Good
50-59 Good
40-49 Satisfactory
30-39 Fail
0-29 Fail
Analyse routes to become a Primary Maths Specialist and consider this role, focussing upon Deep Subject Knowledge, Subject Specific Pedagogy (within a Mastery curriculum) and Whole School Impact ASSESSMENT DOMAIN 1
Demonstrates exceptional systematic understanding when discussing routes to becoming a Specialist Teacher. Exceptional acquisition of coherent and detailed knowledge through which you critically analyse the role of the Maths Specialist Teacher. There is exceptional evidence of engagement with all key elements.
Demonstrates excellent systematic understanding of routes to becoming a Specialist Teacher. Excellent acquisition of coherent and detailed knowledge through which you critically analyse the role of the Maths Specialist Teacher. There is excellent evidence of engagement with all key elements.
Has researched into the routes to becoming a Specialist and demonstrates a very good systematic understanding. Coherent and detailed knowledge is presented at a very good level and you are able to provide very good critical analysis of the role of the Maths Specialist Teacher. There is also very good evidence of engagement with all key elements.
Has researched into the routes to becoming a Specialist and demonstrates good systematic understanding. Detailed knowledge is presented at fairly good level and you are able to provide some good critical analysis of the role of the Maths Specialist Teacher. There is also good evidence of engagement with all key elements, with some omissions in detail.
Routes are discussed with limited accuracy and several omissions. You demonstrate a satisfactory level of understanding but it is less systematic and provides a description rather than an analysis of the role and lacks criticality. There is limited evidence of engagement with all key elements. Overall a satisfactory attempt at this criteria.
Confusion about routes to this role and several omissions. Provides little evidence of analysis of the role of the Maths Specialist Teacher. There is insufficient evidence of engagement with each key element. There is a clear lack of criticality needed at level 6.
Very Confused about routes with many omissions. Unacceptable lack of evidence of any analysis of the role of the Maths Specialist. Key elements omitted or discussed too briefly. There is no evidence of criticality needed at level 6.
Evaluate the importance and impact of positive attitudes towards mathematics in this role ASSESSMENT DOMAIN 1
The assignment provides exceptionally strong and consistent evidence of critical evaluation when considering the importance and impact of positive attitudes, and an exceptional understanding of the way key concepts presented relate to one another. You demonstrate exceptional critical understanding of the materials covered in
The assignment provides excellent evidence of critical evaluation when considering the importance and impact of positive attitudes, and an excellent understanding of the way key concepts presented relate to one another. You demonstrate excellent critical understanding of the materials covered in
The assignment provides very good evidence of critical evaluation when considering the importance and impact of positive attitudes, and a very good understanding of the way key concepts presented relate to one another, with some omissions. You demonstrate very good critical understanding of the materials covered in the module
The assignment provides some good evidence of evaluation when considering the importance and impact of positive attitudes – some of which is demonstrates criticality. You have a good understanding of the way concepts presented relate to one another – although there are several omissions. You also demonstrate a fairly good understanding of
The assignment begins to consider the importance of positive attitudes towards maths, and demonstrates a satisfactory level of understanding. There is some evidence of evaluation when considering the importance and impact of positive attitudes, although this is more descriptive. Satisfactory understanding of the way concepts
The assignment provides little evidence of evaluation when considering the importance of positive attitudes There is little evidence of your understanding around the issues of positivity. The work is descriptive rather than analytical and does not demonstrate understanding of the
The assignment lacks any evidence of understanding the importance of positive attitudes There is no evidence of critical analysis needed at level 6. There is little or no understanding of the way concepts presented relate to one another and many omissions – some of which were covered directly in the module sessions
Exemplar rubric from BA Primary Education (provided as an example for real-world rubric use)
15
the module which relate to this criteria
the module which relate to this criteria.
which relate to this criteria.
the materials covered in the module.
presented are related– with clear omissions.
way concepts presented relate to one another.
Demonstrate that you have drawn upon a range of relevant reading and research into the role of the Primary Maths Specialist and the impact of positive attitudes when teaching mathematics. ASSESSMENT DOMAIN 2
.An extensively wide range of current and appropriate literature is presented to support your strong arguments and different perspectives, and you provide exceptional commentary and advanced scholarship into the role of the Maths Specialist Teacher. An exceptional ability to deploy established techniques of analysis and enquiry when researching into the role of the Primary Maths Specialist Teacher
You provide an extensive range of current and appropriate literature to support your strong arguments and different perspectives, and you provide excellent commentary and strong scholarship into the role of the Maths Specialist. An excellent ability to deploy established techniques of analysis and enquiry when researching into the role of the Primary Maths Specialist Teacher
A very good range of appropriate literature is used. Views are discussed and arguments presented with reference to this literature, and there is evidence of very good deployment of established techniques of analysis and enquiry when researching into the role of the Maths Specialist. There is also evidence of very good commentary on aspects of current research and scholarship into the role of the Primary Maths Specialist.
Some good relevant reading is evident and demonstrates good understanding of the issues. There is evidence of some use of established techniques of analysis and enquiry when researching into the role of the Maths Specialist. There is also some evidence of good commentary on aspects that include are mostly current research and scholarship into the role of the Primary Maths Specialist.
Satisfactory reference is made to background reading but it is limited in nature and draws on a restricted number of authors. There is some limited evidence of techniques of enquiry. There is some evidence that the literature has helped to inform your thinking and satisfactory evidence of use of some techniques of analysis when researching into the Primary Maths Specialist.
There is a failure to engage with enough relevant literature and, where background reading is referred to there is little evidence that it has been understood. You have little understanding of the techniques needed for analysis or enquiry into the research around the role of the Maths Specialist. You need to read much more widely and improve your understanding into this role and the research that supports it.
There is almost no evidence of engagement in relevant background reading. There is no real understanding of the techniques needed for analysis or enquiry into the research around the role of the Maths Specialist. You need to spend time researching and engaging with module materials to develop an understanding into this role and the research that supports it.
16
Evidence that you have used this research into the role of the Primary Maths Specialist Teacher and the impact of positive attitudes, to make critical judgements and interpretations, and to provide a persuasive argument which demonstrates intellectual clarity ASSESSMENT DOMAIN 3
An exceptional ability to devise and sustain a comprehensive argument. An exceptional understanding of both the limits and the gaps in the knowledge available around the Primary Specialist Role. Very strong hypothesis presented and well-justified approaches to exploring this. You critically evaluate the research you have undertaken in the field of the Primary Maths Specialist Teacher and its impact in the Primary setting.
An excellent ability to devise and sustain a comprehensive argument. Excellent understanding of both the limits and the gaps in the knowledge available around the Primary Specialist Role. Strong hypothesis presented and well-justified approaches to exploring this. You critically evaluate the research you have undertaken in the field of Primary Maths Specialist Teachers and its impact in the Primary setting.
You demonstrate a very good ability to devise and sustain a clear argument. Very good understanding of some of the limits in the knowledge available around the Primary Specialist Role. Very good hypothesis presented and a justified approaches to exploring this. In places you do a very good job of critically evaluating much of the research you have undertaken in the field of Primary Maths Specialist Teachers and its impact in the Primary setting.
You demonstrate a good ability to devise and present a mostly clear argument using your understanding of the knowledge you have gained around the Primary Specialist Role. You present evidence of a clear hypothesis and at times you justify your approaches to exploring this. There is some good evidence of critical commentary in places on aspects of current research and scholarship into Maths Specialist, although it can be descriptive in places.
A satisfactory ability to present some elements of an argument using your understanding of the knowledge you have researched around the Primary Specialist Role. You present some evidence of a hypothesis and some exploration of this. There is satisfactory evidence of some critical commentary in places on aspects of your research into Maths Specialist and attitudes, although it is too descriptive.
Little in the way of argument is provided to demonstrate your understanding of knowledge available on the role of the Primary Specialist. You present no real hypothesis and explore very little literature around this. There is very little (if any) critical commentary presented and research is described rather than evaluated.
No argument is provided to demonstrate your understanding of knowledge available on the role of the Primary Specialist. You present no evidence of a hypothesis and no real exploration of any literature. Any commentary is descriptive and does not demonstrate level 6 criticality.
17
Assignment is written in coherent Standard English, is well structured and well presented in an appropriate academic style. ASSESSMENT DOMAIN 4
This assessment is exceptionally well structured and organised. The written English is of an extremely high standard and observes all academic conventions in style and content. The assessment flows exceptionally well and is a pleasure to read.
Excellent structure and very well organised ides. The written English is of a very high standard and the work observes all academic conventions in style and content. Excellent flow and style and a pleasure to read.
A very good structure – with clear presentation and organisation of ideas. The work observes almost all academic conventions in style, content and is presented well, mostly using Standard English throughout. The majority of this work uses a style which flows well.
A good structure for the most part. The work observes many academic conventions in style and content and is mostly presented in Standard English, with some errors and omissions. Some sentence structure also needs revision and this can affect the flow of your work in places.
The structure is satisfactory overall but does need improvement. Many errors appear in the use of Standard English (possibly due to poor proof reading). The work does not flow well in several places and this affects clarity.
Little structure and the work is hampered by errors in Standard English. It lacks academic style and does not flow well. Further proof reading clearly needed and additional support for academic writing. The student should refer themselves to student services for additional support in their writing.
No structure presented and the assessment includes a significant number of errors in Standard English. It lacks academic style and this impedes flow. Further proof reading clearly needed and additional support for academic writing. The student should refer themselves to student services for additional support in their writing.
Assignment referencing and sourcing is correct ASSESSMENT DOMAIN 5
Sources used are, without exception, acknowledged in the text and the reference list/bibliography, using correct citation – including online sources. Follows an exceptionally strongly professional approach to academic practice. Bibliography is also exceptional in its breadth and depth and all sources are primary sources.
Sources used are all acknowledged in the text and the reference list/bibliography, using correct citation – including online sources. Follows an excellent, professional approach to academic practice. Bibliography is also excellent in its breadth and depth and all sources are primary sources.
Sources used are almost all acknowledged in the text and the reference list/bibliography, mostly using correct citation – including most online sources. A very good approach to academic practice. Bibliography is very good in its breadth and depth and most sources are primary sources.
Literature is not always correctly referenced within the text and/or reference list/bibliography. Almost all texts are included in bibliography. Reading list is good in terms of number of sources but there are several secondary sources.
The assignment includes citations within the main body and has a reference list /bibliography. However this referencing is often inaccurate and/or there are several omissions. Reading list is short and limited. An over reliance on secondary sources.
The reference list/bibliography has many errors in its layout. Many references in the main text are incomplete or incorrect, and may be missing from the bibliography. You need further support with this.
The assignment lacks a reference list/ bibliography or it is incorrectly laid out. Referencing system within the assignment (i.e. Harvard) has not been followed and you need further support with this.
18
Appendix 4 – Greenwich Feedback pro-forma The below template should form the basis of written feedback on assessed work. It should be provided to students within 15 working days of the assignment deadline, ideally in advance of the next comparable piece of assessment. A copy of this template will be made available on Moodle.
Feedback and Feedforward for next assignment What you did well in this assignment:
What you could improve in this assignment:
What you can take forward to your next assignment:
Marker:
Moderator (where relevant): Comment:
19
Appendix 5: Marking and Moderation Requirements All marking and moderation must be completed before release of marks to students. Any actions through moderation and double marking should take place before the release of grades and within the time frame expected as set out in the Assessment and Feedback Policy. Any unresolved issues should be negotiated by the Head of School/Department. The external examiner’s role does not extend to undertaking marking or negotiating compromises. The information below is the minimum expectation for moderation; a risk-based approach should be adopted.
Marking
Double Marking 1. Double marking involves two markers each giving marks for the assessments submitted. The
two markers then agree a final mark, with the student receiving ONLY the agreed mark. Double marking can be completed in “blind” mode or “open” mode, depending on the assessment.
a. In ‘blind’ double marking mode, each marker must arrive at their initial mark independently. After initial marking is completed, the two markers then compare notes to arrive at a jointly agreed mark.
b. In ‘open’ double marking mode, the markers may arrive at their mark in awareness of the grade awarded by the other marker.
2. The marker(s) provide only either agreed comments or individual comments that reflect the agreed mark.
3. Where an assessment item is marked by a range of staff involved in blind double marking, a principal marker must be identified. The principal marker will check the feedback and distribution patterns and complete a “Marking Overview Form”. Another colleague, who has not contributed to the marking set, will then act as the moderator in reviewing the sample.
Marking of Exam Papers and Paper-Based Time Constrained Assessments 4. In respect of examination scripts, the marker is to ensure:
a. All marking should be done consistently, and a similar method should be used by multiple markers on the same assessment (i.e. one colour pen used e.g. red).
b. Sub marks for each part of each question are written in the margin (e.g. 6/8). c. A total mark for each question is written in a circle, in the margin, and on the
script cover. d. Calculation of the final percentage for the script is written on the front cover.
5. In respect of examination scripts, the moderator is to ensure: a. All marking should be done in another colour different from first assessor (e.g. in
green). b. The sample of scripts reviewed demonstrates that:
i. there is agreement with the first marker/s over the marking of all of the questions on the paper.
ii. all pages have been first marked (preferably initialling at the foot of the page).
iii. that the totals are correct and transcribed correctly to the front of the scripts and the total percentage calculated is correct.
20
Marking “Live” Assessments 6. For live assessments, such as presentations or demonstrations, the marking procedures
depend upon the nature of what is being assessed: a. Where the live assessment is substantially of oral capability, or physical skills
thresholds, or debating/position defence: in these instances, marking will usually involve two markers. All of the work must be double marked either ‘live’ or may be singly marked but simultaneously recorded (e.g. audio recording for vivas or video recording for presentations/performances).
b. The standard moderation process (see below headed “Moderation”) and external examining can be used; however, where the Faculty has permitted the attendance of an external, this is solely for the purpose of providing commentary on the quality oversight of the module, unless there is an additional PSRB requirement.
c. Where recordings are undertaken: i. students should be asked for their written permission to record them. If
a student refuses permission the second marker(s) must attend and the external will be provided with the notes in lieu of recordings.
ii. where live assessment is predominantly centred upon marking an associated artefact, or model, or research task, etc. and this is in evidence to the markers, and where the presentation is a means to convey this in an interactive synopsis form: the marking of the assessment may be undertaken singularly. The standard sampling process may be used in these situations.
Online assessments 7. Module Leaders should demonstrate that they have properly checked and moderated online
tests that are marked by the system, to ensure that there have been no issues arising, by checking for errors in the system.
Moderation 8. Moderation is the most common practice used on modules to demonstrate peer evaluation
and oversight. This requires the moderator(s) to scrutinise the marking by sampling the cohort and evaluating the distribution of the marking and the quality of the feedback. Each marker, within the marking team, must be subject to the moderation process.
9. If the quality of the feedback and distribution of marks are deemed suitable, moderators may endorse the initial marks awarded. However, if the moderator:
a. considers the feedback in the sample is not based on good practice set out in the
Assessment and Feedback Policy; or b. considers the marking is not at an appropriate level or in line with the marking
criteria; or c. believes that the indicated grades are appropriately ranged but the distribution
requires adjustment1,
1 Normally it is not expected that individual grades be adjusted
21
then the marker(s) and moderator(s) must enter into discussions and take any required actions. See Section 5 above in respect of exam marking for additional steps relating to that type of assessment.
Sampling for internal moderation
10. The moderator(s) should identify the sample of work for review (the moderated sample) from the full set of marked work.
11. The Module Leader (or nominee) will provide the sample to the appointed External Examiner - where required. The Module Leader (or nominee) will also prepare a “Marking Overview Form”, which will include records of the marking and moderation processes for the external examiner’s quality oversight purposes.
12. A representative sample of at least 10% of the cohort or up to 5 pieces of work (whichever is greatest) of all assessment will be moderated. In addition, all fails must be moderated. The upper limits of the sample size should be a maximum of 20 items, covering the full range of marks.
13. All samples should be stored according to the Faculty’s standard procedures and available for the external examiner in a timely manner to facilitate their workloads.
Sampling for external examining
14. A representative sample of at least 10% of the cohort or up to 5 pieces of work (whichever is greatest) of all assessment will be provided to the external examiner (for the levels required). The upper limits of the sample size should be a maximum of 20 items, covering the full range of marks.
22
Appendix 6: Implementing the policy for Portfolio assessment Introduction and Aims The aims of this note are to provide a framework for:
a. Designing, writing and reviewing portfolio assessments, and ensuring a common understanding of the purposes of portfolio based assessment and feedback.
b. Ensuring the provision of effective and timely feedback on portfolio assessed work. c. Ensuring inclusive practice in portfolio assessment and feedback, ensuring all Greenwich
students are given the opportunity to succeed.
Scope This note applies to all assessed portfolio assessment which contributes to an undergraduate or postgraduate taught programme of study. Any requests for an exemption from the policy may only be granted by the respective faculty Learning, Quality and Standards Committee. Exemptions will normally relate to specific professional, statutory, and regulatory body (PSRB) requirements and must be evidenced in writing at the time of the request being made.
Requirements Portfolios at the University of Greenwich have the following purpose:
• To enable students to excel in their chosen discipline and contribute to their learning and development.
• To develop students’ knowledge and skills and readiness for the world of employment and contribute towards achieving the Greenwich Graduate Attributes.
• To enable students to demonstrate that they have fulfilled the objectives of their programme of study and have achieved the standard required for the award.
A portfolio assessment should have a coherence of purpose and will be planned, tested and interrogated to ensure that each item within the individual portfolio adds value to student learning. All portfolio assessments must be authentic, relevant to desired learning and graduate outcomes, and assess skills and knowledge that are worthwhile and meaningful.
A portfolio will be recognised as one summative assessment within the overall context of the module assessment workload. Where it is appropriate, the word count limit for a portfolio assessment should be aligned to an equivalent coursework assignment as specified in Appendix 2. The portfolio assessment will have a weighting that reflects the number of individual items and the expected hours of application required by the student for each item. The individual items should each have clearly specified weightings to reflect their contribution to the overall assessment. These details must be clearly articulated in the assessment specification. The quantity and size of portfolio assessments should be fixed and agreed with the faculty Director of Learning and Teaching during programme and module approval and review.
A summative portfolio assessment will be preceded by one relevant formative element to support the development of one or more of the summative portfolio items. The feedback from the formative element will also be an enabler for the summative work. Items contributing to a portfolio assessment may include a group element as effective practice, but summative grades must be individual in all portfolio assessments in the final year of a programme.
All portfolio items will be submitted as a single collection by the assessment deadline. This will be either as an online submission or as a physical artefact with the appropriate header sheet adhering to the hand-in times stated in the policy.
23
Appendix 7: Implementation for Laboratory Books or Reports Introduction and Aims
This note must be read alongside the University Assessment and Feedback Policy of which it forms a part.
The aims of this note are to provide a framework for:
d. Designing, writing and reviewing laboratory assessments, and ensuring a common understanding of the purposes of laboratory based assessment and feedback.
e. Ensuring the provision of effective and timely feedback on laboratory assessed work. f. Ensuring the timely and efficient disclosure of marks and retention of all laboratory
assessed work. g. Ensuring inclusive practice in laboratory assessment and feedback, ensuring all
Greenwich students are given the opportunity to succeed.
Scope
This note applies to all assessed laboratory books or reports which contribute to an undergraduate or postgraduate taught programme of study. Exemptions from the policy may only be granted by faculty Learning, Quality and Standards Committees. Exemptions will normally relate to specific and required professional, statutory, and regulatory body (PSRB) requirements and must be evidenced in writing.
Requirements
Laboratory Books or reports at the University of Greenwich have the following purpose:
• To enable students to excel in their chosen discipline and contribute to their learning and development.
• To develop students’ knowledge and skills and readiness for the world of employment and contribute towards achieving the Greenwich Graduate Attributes.
• To enable students to demonstrate that they have fulfilled the objectives of their programme of study and have achieved the standard required for the award.
Laboratory assessments will be planned and coordinated across the duration of a programme and tested and interrogated to ensure that each piece of assessment adds value to student learning. All laboratory assessments must be authentic, relevant to desired learning and graduate outcomes, and assess skills and knowledge that are worthwhile and meaningful. Laboratory books and reports will be recognised as one summative assessment within the overall context of the module assessment workload in accordance with the university’s assessment and feedback policy and will therefore usually have a weighting of between 20% and 50%. The exact weightings must be clear in the module handbook. The quantity and size of laboratory assessments should be fixed and agreed with faculty Directors of Learning and Teaching during programme and module approvals.
The work involved in completing the laboratory books should be of the same order as other summative assessments (i.e. not more than 3000 words or 1.5 hours)
Where there are specific professional body requirements, these can be used as exemptions to this framework but these must be evidenced and agreed with the faculty Directors of Learning and Teaching.
24
Each type of summative laboratory assessments will be proceeded by a formative exercise, the feedback for which will be an enabler for the summative work. Where additional ‘exercises’ are used to engage students with formative feedback, it should be made clear to students that this constitutes formative feedback. Group laboratory assessments can be used as effective practice, but summative grades must be individual in all laboratory assessments in the final year of a programme.
All laboratory books will be submitted immediately after completion of the experiment via a hardcopy lab book or online submission. Hard copy laboratory books must include space for the student’s name, programme and Banner number on the front cover and include the standard disclaimer on header sheets. Laboratory activities will recognise student inclusion plans. Marking All laboratory assessment marking shall be informed by clear criteria and a specific grade descriptor produced for each piece of assessment. If at all possible, this should be based upon the rubrics in the University’s Assessment and Feedback policy.
Although laboratory assessments cannot be marked strictly anonymously, assessors should aim to mark without reference to the details on the front cover (perhaps by stacking the books face down).
Laboratory assessments shall use the step-marking system outlined in appendix 3 of the policy. All marking standards and moderation of marking shall be conducted in accordance with the university’s academic regulations for taught awards.
Referencing will not usually be required in laboratory assessments but, where it is, it should be in the Harvard style, and count for no more than 5% of a grade on any single piece of work. Template marking rubric Tutors should use the template marking rubric contained within the overarching Assessment and Feedback policy, if possible. Feedback Feedback on laboratory books will be of sufficient quality and quantity to facilitate student learning and will signpost feed forward to the next assessment Written feedback on assessed laboratory books will include the following elements
• What you did well in this assignment: • What you could improve in this assignment: • What you can take forward to your next assignment:
Feedback on laboratory based assessment will be provided in a timely manner to assist learning and performance in future assessments. At a maximum, feedback will be provided within 15 working days of submission, or before the next laboratory assessment if that is earlier.
25
Appendix 8 – Further reading on good practice in assessment and feedback Advance HE (Higher Education Academy) – ‘A Marked Improvement’ assessment toolkit https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/marked-improvement National Union of Students – Assessment and Feedback benchmarking tool https://www.nusconnect.org.uk/resources/assessment-and-feedback-benchmarking-tool Graham Gibbs - '53 Powerful Ideas': Numbers 27 (Making Feedback Work: Assessment) and 28 (Making Feedback Work: Students) https://www.seda.ac.uk/53-powerful-ideas Graham Gibbs – Using assessment to support student learning https://portal.uea.ac.uk/documents/6207125/8588523/using-assessment-to-support-student-learning.pdf Graham Gibbs - Improving student learning through assessment and feedback (video lecture) https://blogs.city.ac.uk/learningatcity/2014/12/11/revisiting-graham-gibbs/#.XK21_aBKh9M Advance HE (Higher Education Academy) – Re-assessing innovative assessment https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/blog/re-assessing-innovative-assessment
26
Appendix 9 – Guidelines for engagement of undergraduate and postgraduate supervision
The undergraduate/postgraduate project/dissertation (referred to in this appendix as the dissertation) is often seen as an area of study where the student is able to demonstrate a number of key skills including independent working and communication. It is one of the few opportunities for a student to undertake a piece of research under the guidance of an experienced researcher or practitioner. These guidelines are: • To be used as part of a supportive approach to assist students in their undertaking of their
dissertation. • To help identify areas of concern as early as possible and to provide support to address these
It is acknowledged that each student will have an individual supervision experience as each dissertation undertaken is tailored to the needs of the student and the nature of the research. The outline below presents the expectation for both the student and the supervisor in the undertaking of a dissertation.
Responsibilities of the Supervisor Meetings and availability
1. To maintain contact through dissertation meetings. The supervisor should be available to meet with the student a number of times over the course of the module. The meetings can be conducted face-to-face or online. Guidelines for the frequency are outlined in Tables 1 and 2 below.
2. A record to be kept, agreed between supervisor and student, of all such formal meetings, including dates, actions agreed and deadlines set.
3. It is not the responsibility of the supervisor to chase the student who fails to arrange or attend meetings.
4. Provide a response to email within the normal two-working day guidelines where possible. However, this may be limited to a single email response per-week if emails are numerous.
5. In the event of the supervisor being granted a leave of absence, to propose adequate alternative arrangements for supervision.
Guidance and feedback
1. The topic and proposal of work should be agreed with the student. This should also include any consideration of additional resources and any research ethics approval that will need to be obtained.
2. Discuss a timetable if applicable and give advice on the necessary completion dates of successive stages of the work so that the dissertation may be completed within the scheduled time.
3. Provide advice during the development and implementation of the work. 4. Provide feedback on an outline structure of the dissertation (headings and subheadings in bullet
points) 5. Provide feedback on one draft section (written text) of the dissertation if submitted by the
agreed deadline. 6. Immediately raise with the module leader any issues of concern relating to the dissertation. 7. It is not the responsibility of the supervisor to provide any content for inclusion in the
dissertation or for any solutions to be provided in respect of the work undertaken. 8. It is not the responsibility of the supervisor to proof-read through the complete dissertation, nor
to provide feedback on a draft of the complete dissertation. 9. It is not the responsibility of the supervisor to indicate any grading of the work in progress as it is
only the final submission which will be formally assessed.
27
Responsibilities of the Student Meetings and availability
1. Arranging supervision meetings within reasonable time frames and to attend these meetings. 2. Provide an agenda in advance of each meeting covering the topics and/or issues to be discussed;
these can then form the basis of the recorded minutes for the meeting. 3. Record action points discussed during the meeting with the supervisor; these can then be
included as a part of the recorded minutes in item (2) above.
Project Management and Delivery 1. Lead on the identification of a suitable topic and development of the research proposal. 2. Together with the supervisor, create a timetable with milestones to ensure the timely
completion of the dissertation. 3. Manage day-to-day running of the work, including meeting all deadlines agreed with the
supervisor. 4. Submit the research ethics application by the set deadline(s), if applicable. 5. Read and review relevant literature, undertake all necessary development work and author the
dissertation. 6. Conduct the research in a manner that complies with issues of a legal, safety, data protection,
ethical and professional nature. 7. The student should address any concerns relating to the dissertation as early as possible with
the supervisor. If these are not satisfactorily addressed the student could reasonably raise these with the module leader.
In setting out the expectations for both the student and the supervisor it is helpful to also provide guidelines with regards to word count of the final dissertation and the minimum and maximum number of meetings that should be held between the student and the supervisor. These are presented in Table 1 below.
credits Normal word count of the dissertation
(or equivalent)1
Minimum and maximum entitlement of 1-2-1 instances
of supervision with student2
Supervisor BAW points allocation
per student 30 5000-7000 Min:2 Max:6 7
40-45 7000-9000 Min:3 Max:9 10 60 9000-11000 Min:4 Max:12 14
Table 1: Parameters to guide staff and students being supervised for undergraduate dissertation credits Normal word count
of the dissertation (or equivalent)1
Minimum and maximum entitlement of 1-2-1 instances
of supervision with student2
Supervisor BAW points allocation
per student 30 8000-10000 Min:2 Max:6 5
40-45 10000-12000 Min:3 Max:9 7 60 12000-15000 Min:4 Max:12 10
Table 2: Parameters to guide staff and students being supervised for postgraduate dissertation 1 PSRB requirement will need to be evidenced if different from the stated limits. 2 Variation to take account of discipline. Meetings can be face to face or online. Where email is predominantly used for remote supervision this must include a more substantive level of engagement and arranged on the basis of mutual agreement.
