91¿´Æ¬

• Consider student effort hours when designing each assignment and use assessment equivalency guidance (see below) to design assessments (useful for consistency across modules and schools as well as when considering choice of mode of submission).
• Plan and monitor student assessment workload across each module, each semester and each programme.
• Use the assessment landscape to identify and limit assessment bunching.
• Use the assessment landscape to plan marking time and feedback release, ensuring the assessment burden for any member of staff is not excessive.
• Encourage colleagues to schedule marking time within their diaries.
• Plan marking calibration and moderation requirements have been considered within assessment timelines, so feedback release is not delayed.
• Communicate the marking and feedback process and timelines for feedback release clearly to students.
• Review the module and programme learning outcomes to see that learning outcomes are not being assessed in multiple situations.
• Consider using marking rubrics directly linked to grading criteria, or different marking techniques (e.g., video (e.g., video/audio feedback) which may be more efficient yet still effective for identified assessments.

When designing and setting assignments staff should have some concept of the notional time required by a student to complete the assignment.

Previous discussions have tended to focus on word limits as a measure of assessment load, however this is an inappropriate measure. For example, a 2000-word essay may be identified as being more work than a 500-word summary of a research article, however, the knowledge, understanding and student effort required to summarise a research article may be the same, if not greater, than the student effort required to write a 2000-word essay.

The following guidelines are therefore based on student effort as a measure of assessment volume (indicated by an estimation of the time required by a typical student to produce the work) enabling a more appropriate quantification of student workload and therefore enabling equivalence across modules.

When considering a 15 credit point module, the total hours associated with the module is 150hrs. The contact time for the module must be considered:

e.g.     Class contact = 44hrs

Independent study = 106 hrs

If the module is weighted 50% exam:50% coursework, then the independent study associated with each component should be divided between the two elements i.e., 53 hrs each.

For the coursework, we can consider that half the independent study time is related to reading and understanding leaving approximately 25 hrs devoted to directed coursework assignments.

For example, the module described above may have 2 assignments worth 20% each and a progress test worth 10%. The time guidance regarding student effort could be 10hrs for each of the assignments and 5 hrs for the test.

The following table has been produced to give examples of assessment loading.

Table 1: Assessment loading

The above table provides examples of assessment loads for 15 credit point modules. It is to be used as a guide to aid in the development of module assessment. There will obviously be debate as to whether one student would spend 10 hrs doing an assignment whereas another student may only spend 3 hrs and we recognise the diversity of the student body. However, we are trying to provide guidance to students to give them an indication of how long we think an assignment should take. Module teams should agree on appropriate time expectations for assignments which should then be stated within the assignment information on module sites.

e.g. “We would normally expect you to spend approximately 10hours on this assignment in addition to your regular independent study on this module”

In addition to summative assessment, formative assessment should be incorporated into the module and could be in the form of quizzes, progress tests, writing exercises. The time taken for formative assessments should be considered when determining the student effort for the whole assessment diet.

The marking of student work is important for two key points:

1. To identify the degree to which the student has met the identified learning outcomes/met the required standards
2. To provide feedback to the student so they understand the strengths and areas for development, in relation to the learning outcomes/required standards.

Marking requirements are identified with the University’s Policies and Regulations (UPR AS12).

Internal Moderation

Blind Double Marking

In-module retrieval can, in principle, help to maximise student opportunities for progression when it is possible for another attempt to be made at a coursework, practical or test prior to the exam board.

We believe that there is a straight-forward pedagogic argument for in-module retrieval; a retrieval can be closer to the time of the original learning than a referral, and it encourages students to learn from their mistakes and to use feedback productively. In-module retrieval particularly has potential when failure on an individual assessment triggers an automatic referral because it assesses unique learning outcome/s. If In-Module Retrieval (IMR) is used here, then it may be possible to avoid a referral altogether. In-module retrieval could also play an important part in improving first-sit pass rates, therefore contributing to the improvement of continuation rates and reduction in the awarding gap. Where skills are gradually developed, the need to promptly assess and pass before moving on in terms of sequential learning is important for example in the case of technical or practical skills. IMR will also support our move to more authentic assessment as there will be a move away from assessment product to assessment process, with IMR using the feedback and encouraging students to be more reflective. We also believe that providing timely feedback should encourage students to act on it in a timely fashion.

Schools have been given an opportunity to consider and comment on a range of prompts:

• When might we positively encourage or permit this?
• When might we not allow it?
• How would requirements be communicated to students?
• What are the assurance mechanisms needed to do this appropriately?

We believe it will be useful to define IMR in UPRs, and to be clear that it isn’t a referral as currently only the Board can approve a referral opportunity. If an IMR opportunity is not successful, then it progresses to referral. It is not an attempt, in terms of our current rules about first / second sit. The UPR will need to clearly state that students don't have a right to IMR on all assessments or modules, only when it is possible and appropriate to schedule, although it must be available to all students on a module and information about IMR expressly stated in the assignment brief.

• IMR needs to be capped in line with referral, and if it results in a lower grade than a first assessment, then the higher mark stands.
• Formal examinations are not available for IMR.
• IMR is only possible for assignments which are awarded a fail grade at first attempt, it is not open for students with a pass mark to improve grades.
• IMR is not permitted on referral assessments.
• IMR is permitted on deferral assessments where practically possible in terms of scale, timescales and logistics – for example for practical’s where there is time for an additional attempt or a multiple-choice test using a question bank that can be offered within a short window.

Within these boundaries, decisions to permit IMR must be made by the programme leader (recognising modules can span multiple programmes). IMR can be permitted within partner organisations, with appropriate approval from the Collaborative Partnership Leader. For programmes at the Consortium Colleges, approval must be sought from the HE Manager. Where a module is offered more than once a year, it is important to consider whether the practicalities of offering IMR are the same in each semester. This could result in IMR being possible in one semester, but not another, and if this is the offered then this must be a clear part of the communication to students.

We would positively encourage IMR in cases where assessments that are marked on the day (presentations, OSCEs, MCQs etc) – it may be less resource intensive to allow time at the end of a series of practical assessments for any students eligible for an IMR attempt. Any assessment which is competency based, or marked pass / fail may be ideal for IMR particularly where the delay to a referral period may cause an unnecessary disruption in the flow of skills development.

When do we not advise it?

• Assessments due in the last 4 weeks of the module (except where marking / feedback is immediate) will typically be unsuitable for IMR, as there is insufficient time to provide useful feedback to a student that could be used to assist a retrieval
• Where it is not practical to repeat an assessment, e.g. practical group work/performance
• Where there are Professional, Statutory or Regulatory Body requirements which would prevent early retrieval.
• Where the student has not made a first attempt (non-submission/ non-attendance).
• If a student is under investigation for academic misconduct in relation to that assignment.

How would requirements be communicated to students?

• Some common wording should be included in programme sites being clear that it may not apply to all assessments / modules. This includes academic advice for students to support their decision making as to whether an opportunity for IMR should be taken up or not. There should also be wording to help students understand that different practices are not necessarily inconsistent or unfair, and we need to be clear why it is allowed when it is (and the reverse).
• If IMR is permitted, it must be communicated with all the assessment information at the start of the module, with clear dates to align with the requirements for feedback turnaround times and deadlines for submitting marks to the exam board.
• Feedback on first submissions / attempts should provide clear feed forward so that a retrieval attempt is meaningful.

What pragmatic arrangements must be in place?

• No extensions should be permitted on IMR deadlines, normal lateness penalties apply and IMR is not eligible for an Exceptional Circumstances’ application.
• If a student has several failed assignments in the same period, advice should be sought from the programme leader or personal tutor to support their decisions about attempting IMR or not.
• Where IMR is available, the retrieval attempt must be submitted through the same assignment portal as their previous attempt for that assignment.  Applicable students should be set up on the assignment as if they had an extension with a new due date.  A new assignment portal must not be created either in the same or a different assessment group.
• There is no need for IMR to be indicated on a DMD, and indeed we believe that this may be too restrictive in allowing for a flexible assessment approach year on year.
• Where an assignment is at more risk of plagiarism, we would advise module leaders to ensure that both the original assessment and the IMR are set up to have a Turnitin submission, so that they can check both submissions. Module leaders should consider asking students to include a short self-reflection on how the feedback from the original submission was acted on.
• IMR assessments would only require review if the format of the assessment was different to the original attempt. If required, the assessment should be internally reviewed in advance, but the external examiner could review the assessment in parallel with their external moderation of marked student work.