EDUCATION SUPPORT UNIT

• Contact details
• A-Z Index

INFORMATION ABOUT

• Academic Development
• Assessment and External Examining
  • Regulations and Code of Practice for Taught Programmes
  • Annexes to the Regulations and Code of Practice for Taught Programmes
  • External Examiners
  • Feedback to Students
• Committees and Groups
• Distance Learning
• TEL
• Faculty Advice and Support
• Postgraduate Education
• Programme and Unit Approval
• Student Surveys
• Supporting Student Learning
• Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Programme
• Undergraduate Education

Regulations and Code of Practice for Taught Programmes - online version

  

 

REGULATIONS AND CODE OF PRACTICE FOR TAUGHT PROGRAMMES

Rules for Assessment, Progression and the Award of a Qualification

2012-13

* See accompanying memo from Professor Nick Lieven (Pro Vice-Chancellor) [pdf, 41kb]

 

PDF version [1107kb]

 

CONTENTS

A.  Preamble

1.   Introduction 2.   Significant changes to the Code for 2012-13

B.  Programme structure and design

3.   All taught programmes 4.   Undergraduate modular programmes

C.  Admission and study

5.   Undergraduate programmes 6.   Taught postgraduate programmes 7.   All taught programmes - student absence due to illness or other cause 8.   All taught programmes - suspension of study

D.  Forms and conduct of assessment – in all taught programmes

9.   Types of assessment 10. Conduct of assessment Formal unseen written examinations Coursework E-Assessment Oral Examinations 11. Assessment and student circumstances Disability Discrimination by association Religious observances Pregnancy / Maternity and paternity 12. Formative feedback

E.  Marking of assessments and the processing of marks – in all taught programmes

13.  Marking criteria 14.  Treatment of marks 15.  Processing and recording marks 16.  Anonymity 17.  Penalties Academic misconduct Late submission of summative coursework  Exceeding the size limit in summative coursework

F.  Arrangements and processes for determining progress and awards – in all taught programmes

18.  Bodies and roles responsible for determining progression and awards Faculty Education Directors Personal Tutors Programme Directors Internal Examiners Schools Examination Officer External Examiners Programme (or school) Examination Board Faculty Examination Board 19.  Pass mark 20.  Extenuating circumstances 21.  Treatment and publication of results 22.  Appeals against decisions of the boards of examiners

G.  Regulation and policies for determining progress and awards

23.  Student progression and completion in undergraduate modular programmes 24.  Student progression and completion in taught postgraduate modular programmes 25.  Student progression and completion in non-modular programmes 26.  Awards: for undergraduate modular programmes 27.  Awards: for taught postgraduate modular programmes 28.  Awards: for non-modular undergraduate programmes

Annexes > >

 

A.  PREAMBLE

 

1. Introduction

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

1.2. Students who registered before the implementation date for new regulations (or ‘rules’) for progression and calculating the final programme mark / degree classification are subject to the regulations in place in the academic year prior to the implementation date for the new regulation, for the duration of their programme of study. Timelines for the implementation of the new rules/regulations are provided in annex 2.

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

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

1.4. Regulations / rules within the Code may not be varied. They are indicated by boxed text. The rest of the Code should also be followed.  Any requests to depart from the Code must be approved by the relevant faculty undergraduate or graduate Education Director and must be in accordance with faculty policy. If deemed appropriate, the University Undergraduate or, Graduate, Studies Committee and/or the relevant faculty committees may be consulted by the Education Director. University and faculty committees will ensure consistency of practice university-wide, and will make decisions that take account of the spirit of the Code.

(Back to top)

2.  Significant Changes to the Code for 2012-13

Change	The content of the Code has been re-structured so that it is presented in a more logical way.
Rationale	The recent amalgamation of a number of documents / policies into the Code had left it fragmented in places.

Change	The presentation of the Code has also undergone a number of aesthetic changes, as follows: Some annexes have been removed from the printed version and located on the web only; Entire sections have been boxed to denote regulatory status; An index has been added.
Rationale	So to help users better reference and navigate the content.

Change

Move a clause from section 28 to front of Code (1.4) so to apply universally: “This Code applies to all taught students, including those who study on a part time basis. For this purpose, where reference is made to ‘a year of study’ the rules in this policy must be applied on a pro rata basis and equivalent to the volume of credit that a full-time student would normally undertake in an academic year.”

Rationale

How particular policies are applied to part-time students was previously only referenced in the section on degree classification.

Change	Revise (6.8): the normal period of study for Masters programmes to ‘12 months’ rather than 50 weeks.
Rationale	In response to UKBA requirements.

Previous	Annex 14: ‘Guidance on student absence due to illness’
Change	The guidance has been brought into the main content of the Code (as section 7) with some minor revisions to the wording.
Rationale	So to better clarify the process for notification where students are absent from the University in teaching time.

Change	Addition of a new clause (8.5), as follows: “A suspension should only be backdated for up to one month from the start of the absence period to account for circumstances where the student’s absence from the University is unavoidable or urgently required.”
Rationale	So to conform to UKBA requirements.

Previous	(15) “University generic marking criteria and scales – to become mandatory from 2012-13”.
Change	Revise to: (13) “to be fully implemented from 2013-14”.
Rationale	The requirement to apply this section has been delayed by an academic year for the following reasons: To review the experiences of those schools that have piloted / tested the application of generic marking criteria and the 0-20 scale; To enable schools to properly develop discipline-specific marking criteria; To allow development of the generic marking criteria, particularly in relation to level 7 and 8.

Change	Addition of a new policy (in section 17) for defining the size limit for summative coursework and the associated penalty for exceeding the limit in taught programmes.
Rationale	So to encourage consistency in how size limits for coursework are defined and penalties for breaching the limit across the institution.

Previous	(18.6 f) “The committee should note the reasons underlying its decisions and these notes should form part of the Board of Examiners’ record of the decision.”
Change	Revise to (20.6 f): “The committee should note the reasons underlying its decisions and these notes, along with information on the period of time in which the circumstances affected the student and the assessments / forms of learning that were affected, should form its report to the Board of Examiners’.”
Rationale	It was raised that additional information would be helpful for the Exam Board in determining the effect of the circumstance on the candidate’s result.

Previous	(22.1) “The mark for each individual unit is calculated by averaging the marks for each of its constituent elements / assessments.”
Change	Revise to (15.1): “The mark for each individual unit is calculated as the weighted average of the marks for each of its constituent elements / assessments. The unit mark should be truncated and recorded to one decimal place.”
Rationale	So to avoid ‘double rounding’, which would distort the mark e.g. in an exam-only unit, the mark may come out at 59.45% - when recording the unit mark, this will be recorded as 59.5%, and then on the transcript as 60%, when it should be 59%. AND to acknowledge that some elements / assessments may be weighted in the calculation of the unit mark.

Change

Add new clauses, as follows: (15.10) “Units that are pass/fail only will not contribute towards the calculation of the year mark, but must be passed for the purposes of progression / completion.” (15.14) “Units that are pass/fail only will not contribute towards the calculation of the taught component mark, but must be passed for the purposes of progression / completion.” And revise to (26.6): “First year marks will not contribute to the calculation of the final programme mark and/or degree classification. Additionally, units in any year of study that are pass/fail only will be disregarded in this calculation.”

Rationale

So to clarify that units which are pass/fail only do not contribute to the calculation of the year or programme mark but must be passed so to complete/progress.

Change	Revision to (20.6 i): “The candidate should  be informed where a Board of Examiners has considered extenuating circumstances and made a discretionary decision (including not to take any action), as outlined in 20.8. the candidate should be provided with A written response giving reasons for the decision should be available on request.”
Rationale	It has been raised that it would be unreasonably time-consuming to write to each candidate therefore a written response will be available on request.

Change

Add a clause into the list of decisions that a Faculty Board of Examiners may make where extenuating circumstances are present (20.8): “The Board of Examiners’ decisions may include: - awarding a classified degree where the student is prevented by illness or other substantial cause from completing a minor part of the assessment and the Board is unable to make an academic award under any other of the University’s regulations;”

Rationale

So to reference the fact that this option is available to a Board of Examiners (under Ordinance 18).

Change	Revision to (21.5): “Schools should arrange for designated staff to be available on the next working day/two days following the meeting of the Faculty Board of Examiners to advise students of the results agreed by the board of examiners...”
Rationale	It has been raised that schools are not always able to ‘designate’ staff to be available following the publishing of marks.

Previous	(23.1) “For the purposes of determining progression, specifically for the application of 26.11, the overall mark achieved for the year in undergraduate programmes is calculated by averaging the recorded unit marks...” (24.1) “For the purposes of determining progression from the taught component to the dissertation stage, specifically the application of 26.12 and classification, the overall mark achieved for the taught component is calculated by averaging the recorded unit marks...”
Change	Revise both (15.9 and 15.13) to: “... is calculated by averaging the recorded weighted unit marks (i.e. recorded to one decimal place).”
Rationale	So to clarify that unit marks may be weighted when calculating the year or taught component mark.

Previous	(26.7) “A student (except if in the final year of their programme) who does not achieve the pass mark for a unit should normally be permitted a second attempt …”
Change	Revise to (23.7 and 24.7): “A student (except if in the final year of their programme) who is not awarded the credit for a unit should normally be permitted a second attempt …”
Rationale	So to clarify that only if the student is not awarded the credit for a unit on the first attempt then he or she should be permitted a second attempt.

Previous	(26.11 / 12) “...an undergraduate / taught postgraduate student who fails at the first attempt to achieve the pass mark associated with unit/s with a maximum value of 20/30 credit points in an academic year may be permitted to progress notwithstanding the failed unit/s (for those programmes where the credit value of the individual units is more than 20 / 30, such that failure of a single unit will result in a shortfall of credit in excess of 20 / 30 in the year, a student may also be permitted to progress under this rule) ...”
Change	Revise to: “23.11 Notwithstanding 23.7, the relevant Board of Examiners will award credit to an undergraduate student to permit progression, despite failure to achieve a pass mark associated with taught unit(s) at the first attempt, provided conditions (a)-(g) are satisfied. a)     Either, where the total of the credit points failed does not exceed 20 credit points (i.e. a sixth of the total credit points for the year of study). Or, for programmes where the credit value of each and every taught unit  exceeds 20 credit points, the total of the credit points failed does not exceed the value of the unit in the year of study with the lowest amount of credit points.”        ... “24.11 Notwithstanding 24.7, the relevant Board of Examiners will award credit to a taught postgraduate student to permit progression or completion, despite failure to achieve a pass mark associated with taught unit(s) at the first or second attempt, provided conditions (a)-(f) are satisfied.  a)    Either where the total of the taught credit points failed does not exceed the normal permitted maximum value of a sixth of the total credit points for the award (typically, 30 credit points for a 180 credit point Masters programme, 20 credit points for a 120 credit point Diploma and 10 credit points for a 60 credit point Certificate)  Or, for programmes where the credit value of each and every taught unit exceeds the maximum permitted value, as defined above, the total of the credit points failed does not exceed the credit point value of the lowest value taught unit. b)    receives a unit mark within a pre-specified range of the pass mark at the first attempt (45-49 out of 100 for level 7 units) at the first attempt, and c)     has an overall average mark for all the taught units of at least 50 out of 100.taken in the year at, or higher than, the average pass mark of all the taught units taken in the year, and”        ...
Rationale	So to prevent inconsistent employment, the permissiveness of the clause has been removed; therefore if a taught student qualifies for the award of credit, notwithstanding a fail mark, then this clause will be employed. To clarify that the clause can be enacted where a student fails a unit above the maximum credit point value only if each and every individual unit in the year of study or taught component is more than the maximum value, for example the clause should not be applied if an undergraduate student failed a 40 cp unit in a 40:40:20:20 structure, but can in a 40:40:40 structure. It was deemed that to award credit notwithstanding a fail mark in taught postgraduate programmes at the second attempt (i.e. following a re-sit) was not in the spirit of the original clause, i.e. that a student who has narrowly failed in a unit but otherwise has a good academic record and meets the stated criteria can progress despite the fail mark, which is not the case where it is applied following a second attempt. The other proposed revisions are clarifications, rather than changes, to current policy.

Change	New clause (24.10) “Faculties have discretionary authority to permit taught postgraduate students who have failed part, or all, of the taught component to re-sit for the purposes of achieving an exit award.”
Rationale	So to legislate for practice where faculties permitted taught postgraduate students who had failed part, or all, of the taught component to re-sit for the purposes of achieving an exit award.

Change	In place of section 27, addition of the approved rules for student progression in the professional programmes (25).
Rationale	So to encourage consistency in determining student progression between the three professional programmes.

Change

Revise the clause (27.3) so that a merit or distinction can be awarded in taught postgraduate programmes, as follows: “An award with Merit or Distinction is permitted for postgraduate taught masters, diplomas and certificates, where these are specifically named entry-level qualifications. An award with Merit or Distinction is not permitted for exit awards where students are required to exit the programme on academic grounds. An exit award with Merit or Distinction may be permitted where students are prevented by exceptional circumstances from completing the intended award.”

Rationale

So to adopt a consistent position to whether merit/distinction can be awarded in PGT Diplomas and Certificates – this practice previously varied across the institution.

Previous	(28.2) Pass  50 and over out of 100             Fail   49 and below out of 100
Change	Revise the clause (27.4) with regard to the pass or fail of a taught postgraduate programme, as follows: “Pass  at least 50 out of 100 for the taught component overall and, for masters awards, at least 50 out of 100 for the dissertation.  Fail     49 or below out of 100 for the taught component overall or, where relevant, 49 or below out of 100 for the dissertation.”
Rationale	So to clarify that a student has to pass both the taught component and dissertation elements to pass the programme overall.

Change	New clause (28.8): “The award of a degree in the non-modular professional programmes is determined by the final programme mark, as follows:    Pass               50 and above    Fail                 49 and below”
Rationale	So to state the pass/fail boundary in non-modular programmes, as this was not previously included (only how merit and distinctions are awarded).

Change	Addition of a clause into the Guidelines for Accredited Prior Learning (annex 5), as follows: “The maximum amounts of AP(C)L can be exceeded where a student is returning to undertake a ‘top-up’ qualification, provided that the lower award has been made by the University and is still relevant to the higher qualification.”
Rationale	The Guidelines for APL previously did not account for cases where a student wished to ‘top-up’ their qualification (e.g. handing in a PG Certificate award to undertake a PG Diploma qualification) within the maximum volume of APL that can be accepted by the University.

Change

Addition of a new policy on student transfer between undergraduate programmes of the University (annex 7). Also addition of one associated clause (5.12) into the regulations for undergraduate regulations and another into the section on student progression (23.13) to outline that a Board of Examiners is able to transfer a student to a cognate programme where he or she has failed a discrete part of the programme.

Rationale

So to provide a clear and consistent policy on the process of student transfer.

Previous	Annex 24: ‘Guidance in respect of students who have not completed all required assessment for honours classification in relation to Ordinance 18’
Change	Annex 14: A number of revisions have been applied to the guidance on the application of Ordinance 18, particularly that the Ordinance should only be applied where the student has not completed all required assessment and it is not possible to award the qualification for which the student is registered under the University’s regulations.
Rationale	So to clarify the circumstance and process within which it is appropriate to employ the Ordinance at the undergraduate level.

Annexes

• 3: The specific regulations for the Postgraduate Certificate in Education and BDS programmes (removal of year 0) have been updated.
• 6: Minor revision to the Examination Regulations - to 2.2 (‘entering the examination room’) and 4.4.1 (‘student interview – within the procedure for cases of plagiarism’).
• 12: The University’s code of practice for the external examining of taught programmes has been revised in response to new guidance from the QAA.
• 13: Minor revision to the guidance for faculties on classifying extenuating circumstances.
• 15: New annex added to outline the options available to boards of examiners where extenuating circumstances are present.
• 17: Minor revision to the diagram showing the options available for the progression of students on taught modular programmes – to reflect changes in the progression regulations.
• 18: The guidance for faculties on implementing the supplementary year has been updated to reference the fact that taught postgraduate students can also undertake this year.

Moved sections from the main content of the 2011-12 version of the Code to become annexes:

• (New annex 16) Regulations for progression, the award of credit and re-assessment for undergraduate programmes - for students initially registered prior to 2011-12;
• (New annex 21) Applying accredited prior learning to the calculation of the final programme mark and/or the degree classification in modular undergraduate programmes.

(Back to top)

 

B. PROGRAMME STRUCTURE AND DESIGN

3. All Taught Programmes

The current programmes approved by Senate, governed by the regulations in this section, are provided at www.bristol.ac.uk/esu/assessment/annex/annex-programmelist1213.html.

The regulations for the specific programmes: MBChB, BDS, BVSc, Diploma in Dental Therapy, Foundation Degree in Counselling, Postgraduate Certificate in Education, the Graduate Diploma and the MSc in Social Work are available at annex 3.

The Diploma in Dental Hygiene, which is governed by specific regulations, is subject to these Regulations except where the specific regulations in annex 3 indicate otherwise.

The programme structure

3.10 The modular structure of any programme should:

1. permit flexibility in the choice of units across school, faculty and institutional boundaries to academic advantage, enabling students to exercise a measure of choice in their own curricula;
2. facilitate new interdisciplinary programmes/units;
3. safeguard the existence of, and the choice to take, coherent, specialist degree programmes;
4. facilitate access for non-traditional students;
5. permit University of Bristol students to use credits gained at the University towards a degree in another university;
6. within the constraints of double counting, described in points 5.9 and 5.10 (undergraduate) and point 6.5 (taught postgraduate), allow for credit transfer to permit University of Bristol students to use credits gained during a period of study at another university towards their Bristol degree; allow students from other universities to use the credits they bring with them towards a University of Bristol degree, subject to the acceptability of individual students; and allow students from elsewhere to use credits gained in a period of study at the University of Bristol towards a degree in their own university (see the University’s Guidelines on the Accreditation of Prior Learning for Taught Programmes at annex 5);
7. offer the opportunity for students who do not complete a full programme of study at the University to be provided with tangible evidence that they have successfully completed a piece of work within an accepted curricular structure.

Unit sizes and structure of the teaching year

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

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

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

Levels of study

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

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

Credit

3.15 The University’s credit framework, which summarise the amount and level of credit required to receive a University award, is reproduced on the following pages. The credit requirements for students first registered on programmes in, and after, 2010-11 is set out in the first table (3.18). The credit requirements for students who first registered on their current programme of study prior to 2010-11 is provided in the second table (3.19), which will apply until the students who first registered before 2010-11 are deemed to have completed their studies.

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

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

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

* The highest level is the level of the qualification

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

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Doctoral degrees: Third Cycle Qualifications (Not typically credit rated)
• Master’s degrees: Second Cycle Qualifications (Min. 60 ECTS credits, however a range of 90-120 ECTS credits is typical)
• Integrated Master’s degrees: Second Cycle Qualifications (As above)
• Bachelor’s degrees with Honours: First Cycle Qualifications (180-240 ECTS credits)       
• Foundation degrees: Short Cycle Qualifications (120 ECTS credits)
• Diplomas of Higher Education: As above

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

* The highest level is the level of the qualification

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

(Back to top)

Credit points

Shared teaching between undergraduates and postgraduates

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

3.26 The levels of study and relevant qualification descriptors laid down by the QAA can be found in their national qualifications framework document.

(Back to top)

4. Undergraduate Modular Programmes

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

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

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

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

4.5 The Foundation Degree is not awarded with honours.

Student choice

4.6 In order to support the principle of students being given the opportunity to broaden their education within the programme of study, all full time students on undergraduate degree programmes will normally have the opportunity to take units outside of their subject discipline (i.e. ‘open units’) worth at least 20 credit points, except where this is not practicable due to professional accreditation reasons.

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

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

4.9 Students are not required to take open units. If they wish, and subject to the programme structure and practical constraints described in 4.8, they can take the 20 credit points set aside for open units in their honours subject(s).

(Back to top)

 

C.  ADMISSION AND STUDY

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

(Back to top)

6.   Taught Postgraduate Programmes

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

(Back to top)

7. Student Absence due to Illness or Other Cause – in all taught programmes

During the Teaching Period

7.1 If a student is absent due to illness or other cause for up to and including 7 consecutive days in the teaching period during term-time, he or she should inform their home school as soon as possible and complete a self-certificate for absence form (available from www.bristol.ac.uk/academicregistry/policies.html).

7.2 If a student is absent due to illness or other cause for more than 7 consecutive days in the teaching period during term-time, he or she should inform their home school as soon as possible and complete a self-certificate for absence form. Additional evidence for the absence may be required, e.g. if the absence is due to illness the student should also attend an appointment with a Medical Practitioner (GP) (with the completed self-certificate form) to obtain a medical certificate (‘sick-note’). Both documents must then be submitted to a school or faculty representative.

7.3 If an absence from the teaching period means a student is unable to submit a summative coursework assignment by the agreed deadline, the student should contact the relevant school and request an extension before the assignment deadline, and follow the procedure outlined in 7.1 and 7.2.

Students who are ill for a period of time during the teaching period, whether close to the deadline or not, must submit work on time unless an extension has been agreed by the School. Schools will not accept late submission without penalty where no extension has been granted.

During the Examination Period

7.4 Students who are unable to attend a summative examination/s must inform the school of their non-attendance as soon as possible and, if the absence is due to illness, attend an appointment with a GP prior to, or on the day of, the summative examination. In such cases the student should complete the University’s extenuating circumstances form (available from www.bristol.ac.uk/academicregistry/policies.html) and submit it along with appropriate certification, for example a ‘sick-note’ from a GP, to the relevant faculty or school representative.

7.5 For further information on the process for notifying the University of any Extenuating Circumstances during the examination period, see section 20.

7.6 Students should also ensure they meet any school or programme requirements concerning notification of absence.

7.7 The information provided in the forms will be held by the University and processed by staff in schools and Faculty Offices in order to keep a record of student absence.  Schools will monitor the frequency of self-certified absences and will inform students of their procedures to follow up multiple instances. A Head of School may request that the student provides medical certification in multiple and sustained instances of self-certified illness. Information will be recorded and processed in accordance with the Data Protection Act.

7.8 The Faculty will decide if it is necessary to notify a student’s absence to their LEA, sponsor or UK Border Agency, as appropriate.

7.9 In all cases of absence, the completed forms should be submitted by the student to the student’s school within TWO working days of the end of the period of absence.

(Back to top)

8. Suspension of Study – for all taught programmes

(Back to top)

 

D.   FORMS AND CONDUCT OF ASSESSMENT – in all taught programmes

Introduction

Assessment is defined as “a generic term for a set of processes that measure the outcomes of students’ learning, in terms of knowledge acquired, understanding developed, and skills gained”. 

Assessment serves many purposes:

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

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

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

9. Types of Assessment

9.1 The assessment methods that might be expected in taught programmes are provided at www.bristol.ac.uk/esu/assessment/annex/annex-formsofassessment.html. The list is not exhaustive, but covers types of assessment that are appropriate for evaluating students’ performance across a range of intended learning outcomes. Most can be used for both formative and summative purposes, as appropriate. Where there is a strong predilection towards one purpose or the other, this is noted in the ‘comments’ column; otherwise there is no attempt to differentiate between suitability for formative or summative assessment.

9.2 Assessment may be:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9.5 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) embodied in the programme and unit or element intended learning outcomes, to be appropriately assessed individually or cumulatively. The following principles should be applied wherever possible in assessing student work:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assuring assessment criteria and intended learning outcomes at unit level

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

9.7 Unit specifications must provide sufficient information about the assessment in relation to the intended learning outcomes. This should be accomplished by reference to the university common generic marking criteria and marking scales (see section 13) as well as the subject-specific marking criteria.

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

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

Setting assessment tasks

9.10 It is the responsibility of the head of school and the relevant programme director to ensure that processes are in place for conducting assessment (see Guidelines for Programme Directors at annex 10). A school examinations officer(s) is generally responsible for the conduct of assessment in the school (see section 18).

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

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

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

(Back to top)

10. Conduct of Assessments

Formal unseen written examinations

10.1 The procedures under which the University requires unseen written examinations to be conducted are set out in the University’s Examination Regulations (annex 6). Should any divergence from these procedures be requested, the chair of the relevant board of examiners must be consulted. S/he may act on behalf of the board, but should first consult the undergraduate or graduate Education Director.

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

*NEW* Students requesting to take summative examinations outside of the United Kingdom

10.3  All students taking first-sit or re-sit examinations are expected to take their scheduled examinations in venues arranged by the central University of Bristol Examinations Office or by their School.  However, in exceptional cases, approval may be sought for permission to take an examination at an approved institution outside the United Kingdom (UK).

10.4  The sitting of an examination outside the UK is not an automatic entitlement and permission will only be given where it is determined that a student has good cause/reason why they should not sit the examination in the UK, subject to programme requirements and providing an arrangement can be made which conforms to University policy as set out in this Code.  This judgement is at the discretion of the Faculty.  

A student being on holiday or working overseas at the time of the examination will not be considered a good reason for taking the examination outside the UK. Authorisation to sit an examination outside the UK will not be given where the request is made on medical grounds as students should only be taking examinations when fit to do so.  Students who have medical issues should speak to their School about their options. 

10.5   Students on the MBChB, BDS and BVSc programmes, and some other professional programmes, will not be permitted to take examinations outside the UK, due to professional body requirements.  Other areas of the University have a policy of never allowing students to sit examinations outside of the UK.  If a student is unsure whether or not to seek approval, they should contact administrative staff in the School.

10.6  A student will only be permitted to sit an examination outside the UK in institutions that are approved by the University of Bristol.

10.7  The examination will either be taken at the same time as the examination is taken in Bristol, or there must be some overlap between one ending and the other beginning. 

10.8  The same procedures apply where the requirements of a distance learning programme necessitate students taking their written summative examinations outside the UK.  Consideration should be given during the design stage of distance learning programmes as to whether alternative forms of assessment are more appropriate. 

Information on the procedure to request to sit a summative examination outside of the UK is available from the Examinations Office website.

Coursework and similar forms of written summative assessment

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

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

10.10 Clear statements about how a student should apply for an extension to the original deadline and the penalties for late submission must also be provided (see section 17). Academic misconduct associated with continuously assessed assignments should be dealt with as a disciplinary offence.

10.11 Formative feedback on coursework, including summative assignments, should be provided to students. The work and the feedback should be returned promptly, in sufficient time to help the student’s work on subsequent assignments. Student-led forms of feedback should also be undertaken prior to any subsequent assignments (see section 12).

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

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

E-assessment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10.20 Reasonable and appropriate adjustments must be made for students with disabilities that could put them at a disadvantage due to the format of the examination. Students who have made a case for special arrangements must be offered an alternative to the e-assessment e.g. a paper based assessment (see section 11 for further information on assessment and disability).

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

10.22 The outcomes of e-examinations must be electronically recorded for quality assurance purposes, in line with the policy for archiving summative assessment (see section 15). This is the responsibility of the relevant school.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

e) Negative marking should be allowed only if consistent with the purposes of the assessment (see section 14).

Oral examinations of individual students

This guidance relates directly to summative oral examinations, though is also applicable to formatively assessed examinations (e.g. class presentation).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Back to top)

11. Assessment and Student Circumstances

Disability

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

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

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

11.4 If after discussions with Disability Services it is still unclear what might constitute a reasonable adjustment to an assessment event, staff are advised to contact the Organisational Development Manager (Diversity) in Human Resources to obtain expert legal advice and assistance (contact details are provided in annex 11).

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

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

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

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

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

Discrimination by association

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

The protected characteristics for higher education are: age; disability; gender reassignment; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; and sexual orientation. More information on the protected characteristics can be accessed at: https://www.bris.ac.uk/equalityanddiversity/secure/act/.

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

11.12 Further information and guidance on competence standards and the practical aspect of making reasonable adjustments to assessment because of disability is provided in annex 11. The University’s policy on Student Mental Health is available at: www.bristol.ac.uk/equalityanddiversity/mhealth/studentmhealth/. 

Religious observances

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

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

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

Pregnancy/maternity or paternity

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

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

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

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

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

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

11.22 Further guidance for staff on student pregnancy, maternity and paternity is available from: https://www.bris.ac.uk/equalityanddiversity/act/protected/pregandmat/.

(Back to top)

12. Formative Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.11 See www.bristol.ac.uk/esu/assessment/annex/annex-deliveringformativefeedback.html for further information on approaches to providing formative feedback for a number of different assessment practices.

(Back to top)

 

E.   MARKING OF ASSESSMENTS AND THE PROCESSING OF MARKS  – in all taught programmes

13. Marking Criteria

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

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

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

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

University generic marking criteria (to be fully implemented by 2013-14)

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

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

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

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

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

Marking Scales

Assessment of qualitative work

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

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

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

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

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

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

Must pass competency assessments

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

Reaching the ‘Unit Mark’ (see also section 15)

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

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

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

• Dissertation (25%),
• Unseen written exam (35%),
• MCQ (25%)
• Oral presentation (15%).

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

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

* calculated to one decimal place

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

13.20 The final programme mark for a taught programme will be calculated by applying the agreed algorithm for the programme to the percentage unit marks (see section 26).

TABLE 1:   GENERIC MARKING CRITERIA ON THE 21 POINT SCALE

QAA Level of Study				Generic Descriptors of Assessment Criteria for an individual piece of student work. (All levels subsume the positive attributes of the level below them)
4 (C)	5 (I)	6 (H)	7 (M)
			20 19 18	Subject specific assessment criteria are satisfied to the very highest standard with no areas of weakness. Very extensive and detailed knowledge with impressive conceptual understanding. Extensive evidence of coherence, creativity, originality, autonomy, imagination and the ability to deal with complexity, contradictions or gaps in the knowledge base and ability to synthesise appropriate principles by reference to primary sources and knowledge at the forefront of the discipline. Answer very well organised, accurate and very well presented and may be of publishable standard.
		20 19 18	17 16	Subject specific assessment criteria are satisfied to a high standard with no areas of weakness. Excellent knowledge and understanding; clear evidence of coherence, creativity, originality and the ability to deal with complexity, contradictions or gaps in the knowledge base and ability to synthesise appropriate principles by reference to primary sources and knowledge at the forefront of the discipline.. Answer very well organised, accurate and very well presented and may be close to publishable standard.
	20 19 18	17 16	15 14	Subject specific assessment criteria are satisfied to a high standard with very few areas of weakness. Demonstrates excellent knowledge and understanding; clear evidence of analysis, coherence, creativity, originality and the ability to synthesise appropriate principles by reference, where appropriate, to primary sources and knowledge at the forefront of the discipline. Answer very well organised, accurate and very well presented.
20 19 18	17 16	15 14	13 12	Subject specific assessment criteria are satisfied to a good standard with few areas of weakness. Displays good knowledge and understanding with clear evidence of analysis, coherence, and the ability to synthesise materials from other modules, from primary sources and knowledge at the forefront of the discipline. Answer well organised, accurate and very well presented.
17 16	15 14	13 12	11 10	Subject specific assessment criteria are satisfied with few errors Displays good knowledge and understanding with few errors and some evidence of analysis and the ability to synthesise material from the teaching programme and from wider reading, including primary reference sources, and /or from practical experience. Answer well organised, accurate and well presented
15 14	13 12	11 10	9 8	Subject specific assessment criteria are satisfied with no significant errors Good knowledge and understanding, with no significant errors and evidence of the ability to select, apply and analyse information from teaching programme and information gained from wider reading which includes primary reference sources and/or from practical experience.   At M level, demonstration of independent study should be informed by primary sources and knowledge at the forefront of the discipline. Answer well organised and well presented
13 12	11 10	9 8	7 6	1 Most subject specific assessment criteria are satisfied No major fundamental errors (except at M level). Reasonable knowledge and understanding of key concepts, no major fundamental errors but significant subject specific criteria are omitted.  Demonstrates some ability to select, apply and analyses information derived from teaching programme, but fails to demonstrate evidence of independent study. Answer well organised
11 10	9 8	7 6	5	Most subject specific assessment criteria are satisfied, except at M level. Shows knowledge of most of the important elements and some understanding, but patchy and contains some major errors and omissions and little evidence of critical analysis. Answer is organised and presented just about satisfactorily
9 8	7 6	5	4 3	Some relevant knowledge of more important elements, but limited understanding.  No major misconceptions but several omissions. Answer is of limited quality but is just acceptable.
7 6	5	4 3	2 1	Deficient attainment of intended learning outcomes  for all except  level 4 of study Inadequate knowledge and understanding and major misconceptions, but at least basic awareness of some aspects of the area. Answer incomplete, poorly organised and presented
5	4 3	2 1	0	Appreciably deficient attainment of intended learning outcomes for any level of study Serious lack of any relevant knowledge and understanding of fundamental aspects of subject, Answer incomplete, poorly organised and presented.
4 3	2 1	0	_	Seriously deficient attainment of intended learning outcomes. Poor quality work well below the appropriate standards required for the level of study Very minimal knowledge; no understanding; fundamental  misconceptions, unacceptable presentation
2 1 0	0	-	-	No understanding or any relevant knowledge, fundamental misconceptions. Fails in all respects to provide any assessable answer to the question Work not worthy of marking or not submitted

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

 

TABLE 2:   GENERIC MARKING CRITERIA ON THE 101 POINT SCALE

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

Key:

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

• The BLUE shaded boxes indicate the lower second class borderline

• The PINK shaded boxes indicate the upper second class borderline

• The YELLOW shaded boxes indicate the first class borderline

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

 

TABLE 3: Relationship between the 21 and 101 point scale

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

(Back to top)

14. Treatment of Marks

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

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

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

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

14.5 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. Such information, along with details on the University’s procedure for handling the final programme mark within the borderline of classifications (see section 26), should be available to students (e.g. in the student handbook).

14.7 The less prescriptive the assessment (i.e. the lower the expectation of conformity to a model answer), the more necessary it is to ensure an effective moderation strategy. The types of moderation and how they may or may not be applied for assessments within the University of Bristol are outlined in 14.8-14.17.

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

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

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

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

(Back to top)

15. Processing and Recording Marks

The unit mark

See also sections 13.16 - 13.20 and annex 19.

16. Anonymity

(Back to top)

17. Penalties

For academic misconduct

The University’s Examination Regulations (annex 6) contain full details of the regulations and procedures to be followed in respect of academic misconduct, including plagiarism.

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

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

For the late submission of summative coursework

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

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

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

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

c) Coursework that is submitted after a deadline should be subject to some penalty, unless an extension has been agreed by the School, prior to the deadline, or late submission is justified by reason of illness or other validated extenuating circumstance (see sections 7 and 20);

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

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

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

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

See faculty policies:

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

For exceeding the size limit in summative coursework

17.5 Faculties’ policies for defining the size limit of summative coursework, by assessment type, and the penalty for exceeding the defined limit, for its taught programmes, should be in accordance with the following:

a) That it includes:

• Whether specific forms of coursework are subject to a size limit, and if so:
• Whether the size limit is defined by reference to the number of pages (with font size, line spacing, margin size, and page orientation requirements), by a word / character limit or other defined limit.
• The penalty where the defined limit is exceeded.

b) Students must be informed in writing, at or before the date of issue of the coursework, the size limit and the penalty for exceeding the limit, if any, which shall accord with the approved unit specification. This information should also be provided on the cover sheet for the submission of the coursework.

c) The policy of the faculty that owns the unit will apply. It is important for students whose home programme is based in a different faculty are made fully aware that the policy applied in the submission of coursework for a unit may be different than the policy of their home faculty.

d) It is the responsibility of the student to ensure that the work complies with the defined size limit prior to submission and to certify the size (word or page length or other defined limit) on the front cover sheet when submitting the work.

e) The student in question must be informed of the decision to apply the penalty for exceeding the defined size limit.

(Back to top)

 

F.   ARRANGEMENTS AND PROCESSES FOR DETERMINING PROGRESSION AND AWARDS – in all taught programmes

18. Bodies and Roles Responsible for Determining Progression and Awards

Faculty Education Directors

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

Personal Tutors

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

18.3 Personal Tutors and students should be familiar with the University’s student support and advice services.

Programme Directors

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

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

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

Internal examiners

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

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

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

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

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

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

School examinations officer(s)

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

18.13 School examinations officer(s) should be the principal line of communication with the Faculty and to the University Examinations Office (Academic Registry). Information on the roles and responsibility of the Academic Registry in the examinations process is available at: www.bristol.ac.uk/esu/assessment/annex/annex-respsacregexamsprocess.html.

External examiners

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18.21 Annex 12 – the University’s Code of Practice for the External Examining of Taught Programmes provides full details of the University’s external examining processes.

Programme (or school) examination boards

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

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

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

18.25 Discussions held at the programme or school examination board are confidential. The procedure for disclosing marks and results to students is outlined in section 21.

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

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

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

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

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

18.31 Boards of examiners should assure themselves that elements of formative work that is also used for summative purposes should be subject to moderation and should establish a mechanism to verify the authenticity of that work (i.e. that it is the student’s own work and it is as it was originally submitted). See section 14 for details on internal verification / moderation.

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

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

18.34 A Faculty Education Director, or nominee, may attend school examination boards in order to aid interpretation of the new policy for progression and classification and provide insight on particularly complex cases.

Faculty examination boards

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

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

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

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

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

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

18.39 Discussions held at the Faculty Examination Board are confidential. The procedure for disclosing marks and results to students is outlined in section 21.

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

(Back to top)

19. Pass Mark

(Back to top)

20. Extenuating circumstances

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

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

10.1 Procedure for consideration of Extenuating Circumstances

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

10.2 Evidence

If a student wishes a board of examiners to take any such matters into account, s/he must complete and submit the relevant form before the meeting of the board at which the student's examination performance is to be considered. A written record must be kept of such matters.  Any such matters which could have been raised before the meeting of the board, but, without good reason, were not raised, will not be considered in the event of an appeal.

The committee may require a student to submit such other evidence as it deems necessary to substantiate any matter raised by the student.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

e) The special circumstances committee should determine:

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

f) The committee should note the reasons underlying its decisions and these notes, along with information on the period of time in which the circumstances affected the student and the assessments / forms of learning that were affected, should form its report to the Board of Examiners.

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

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

i) The candidate should  be informed where a Board of Examiners has considered extenuating circumstances and made a discretionary decision (including not to take any action), as outlined in 20.8. A written response giving reasons for the decision should be available on request.

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

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

• to take no action;
• the award of credit notwithstanding a fail mark;
• allowing the student to re-attempt the assessment without penalty (a supplementary assessment –“as for the first time”- see annex 1 for definition)
• to allow the student to re-attempt the year or for undergraduate students only to undertake a supplementary year “as for the first time”;
• disregarding the affected mark for the purposes of progression;
• awarding a classified degree where the student is prevented by illness or other substantial cause from completing a minor part of the assessment and the Board is unable to make an academic award under any other of the University’s regulations (see annex 14 on the application of Ordinance 18 at the undergraduate level);
• allowing the re-submission of the dissertation in taught postgraduate programmes where the student has achieved a mark less than 45 out of 100 (see 24.16).

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

Annex 15 outlines the options available to Boards of Examiners by level and year of study where extenuating circumstances are present.

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

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

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

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

20.13 Guidance on student absence during the teaching period due to illness or other cause is provided at section 7.

(Back to top)

21. Treatment and Publication of Results

Disclosure of marks and results

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

Transcripts

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

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

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

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

Retention of Student Work

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

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

(Back to top)

22. Appeals against decisions of Boards of Examiners

22.1 All information concerning the University’s regulations for appeals against the decisions of Boards of examiners is contained in annex 6, the University’s Examination Regulations.

22.2 It is essential to address a student’s representation against a decision of a board of examiners as early as possible, and initially within the respective school and faculty. Students must be made aware of section 11 of the Examination Regulations (annex 6) governing appeals, with particular attention drawn to the 15 working day deadline from the date of notification of the decision for submitting a formal appeal. Students should also be reminded that a degree cannot be conferred whilst an appeal is ongoing.

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

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

(Back to top)

 

G.   REGULATIONS AND POLICIES FOR DETERMINING PROGRESSION AND AWARDS

23. Student Progression and Completion in Undergraduate Modular Programmes

This section refers to the regulations and policies for student progression and completion of students on undergraduate modular programmes newly registered from the 2011-12 academic year. Students newly registered before the 2011-12 academic year are covered by the previous regulations, which are available at annex 16.

A flow diagram of the options available for the progression of students on taught programmes is available at annex 17.

(Back to top)

24. Student Progression and Completion in Taught Postgraduate Modular Programmes

A flow diagram of the options available for the progression of students on taught programmes is available at annex 17.

(Back to top)

25. Student Progression and Completion in Non-Modular Undergraduate Programmes (MB,ChB, BDS  and BVSc)

* Additional criteria may include: regularly attending any prescribed activity; undertaking or attending a prescribed assessment; reaching a satisfactory standard in any work which is deemed essential to understanding the academic discipline the student is studying; demonstrating the ability to manage a workload appropriate to the time available; satisfying professionalism and/or fitness to practice requirements.

(Back to top)

26. Awards: for Undergraduate Modular Programmes

(Back to top)

27. Awards: for Taught Postgraduate Modular Programmes

(Back to top)

28. Awards: Non-modular Undergraduate Programmes

 

(Back to top)

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

• Approved by Senate, 7 May 2008
• Amendments for 2009-10: approved by Senate, 15 June 2009 and under vacation powers, August 2009.
• Amendments for 2010-11: approved by Senate, May and June 2010
• Amendments for 2011-12: approved by Senate, December 2010, May and June 2011 and under vacation powers, August 2011.
• Amendments for 2012-13, approved by Senate, February, May and June 2012 and under vacation powers, August 2011.