Managing Assessment Boards Why are we here - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 37
About This Presentation

Managing Assessment Boards Why are we here


Title: PowerPoint Presentation Author: Computing and Information Services Last modified by: Computing & Information Services Created Date: 5/28/2003 8:31:31 AM – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:40
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 38
Provided by: Computing115


Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Managing Assessment Boards Why are we here

Managing Assessment BoardsWhy are we here UMF
Review Phase 2
  • Overview Julie Hargreaves
  • Key Principles Marie Ward
  • The Role of the Chair Peter Steer
  • Administrative processes Brenda Williams / Anne
  • The Regulatory Framework Wayne Turnbull
  • Feedback session Monica Mason

Key Principles
Internal Drivers
  • Fairness to the student body as a whole, as well
    as fairness to individual students in light of
    their contextual circumstances
  • Consistency of treatment for students
  • Maintenance of agreed academic standards
  • Transparency of procedures and outcomes

Internal drivers
  • Consider students with regard to
  • Mitigating circumstances
  • penalties for academic impropriety
  • Progression / awards / classifications
  • Identify issues of principle for further
    consideration and referral as appropriate
  • Fully record all decisions
  • Notification of outcomes to students and other
    sources as appropriate.

External Drivers
  • QAA Codes of Practice
  • HEFCE funding relationship / student
  • Office of the Independent Adjudicator
  • Collaborative partner relationships
  • Professional accreditation / recognition of

External Drivers
  • Legal responsibilities anti-discrimination,
    confidentiality, Data Protection etc
  • Timely efficient processing of business
  • License to practice issues
  • Duty of care to
  • students
  • the wider community

Recording and dissemination of decisions /
  • All assessment related procedures must be
    conducted in a timely and efficient manner, with
    due consideration to the students status.
  • Students should be notified of the outcome(s) as
  • Decisions reached must be fully substantiated,
    clear, unambiguous and auditable with reference
    to published minutes of each stage of the process
    as appropriate
  • Decisions should always refer to the relevant
    element of the appropriate regulatory framework
    - particularly where the Board has exercised

  • The minutes must transparently confirm that the
    regulations have been followed
  • Minutes must be presented in such a way that they
    can be read and understood de novo
  • Students have a right of access to all
    information on them held by the University -
    including minutes of any meetings which relate to
    them. Such information may later be used in
    internal / external proceedings

The role of the Chair
Overall principles
  • Equity for students, which depends on full and
    accurate information coupled with informed
  • Transparent decision-making coupled with clear
    documentation of decisions and reasons for
    decisions, where discretion has been applied

Overall principles
  • Peer decision-making where all Board members may
    input on all aspects
  • Being quorate matters, including the attendance
    of external examiners
  • Consistency both within the meeting over all
    students and over time is an important part of an
    effective process.

Key Challenges
  • The role of the external examiner one among
    equals? power of veto? can change individual
    marks? can change borderline marks without
    changing the rest?
  • International students can they be given special
    dispensation for lack of language skills?
  • Getting agreement on difficult areas are votes
    to be encouraged? are they necessary?
  • The use of Chairs action

Link Tutors
  • Link tutors do not have to be at all assessment
    boards but attendance at least one per academic
    year is part of the job
  • Link Tutors advise on UMF regulations and check
    for quoracy (see Link Tutor Guide role 10)
  • If you cannot attend all assessment boards it is
    useful to select the most important one(s)

Link Tutors
  • Link tutors do not duplicate the role of the
    external examiner or an internal moderator
  • The link tutor role at assessment boards is
    generally similar to that of a University
    representative on internal boards
  • Active but low key participation in the board is
    useful, asking for points of clarification,
    offering suggestions

Link Tutors
  • Link Tutors do have a particular role if
    validation requirements, for instance UMF
    regulations, are not being followed
  • In the above case the Link Tutor has to right to
    intervene until the issue is resolved
  • The point above may require the Link Tutor to
    have UMF and validation documents to hand

Any Questions?
  • The points made under the heading of key
    challenges reflect some of the differences in
    viewpoint that are found across the sector.
  • What are your experiences?
  • They also indicate the need for as much
    consistency in approach over time as possible

Administrative processes
Session outline
  • Overview of the student life cycle and management
    information system (Oracle)
  • The relationship between LJMU and its Partners in
    preparing for the assessment process

The Student Lifecycle
  • Programme Set-up
  • Admission
  • Enrolment
  • Module Registration
  • Ongoing Assessment Activities
  • Progression
  • Reports
  • Awards Graduation

Programme Set-up
  • Validation documents
  • Offerings
  • Calendars

  • Valid programme?
  • Patterns of study correct?
  • Student acceptance received?
  • Correct Calendar?
  • Correct Offering?

Enrolment / Registration
  • Confirmation / Roll-forward
  • Log arrival
  • Core Option units confirmed
  • Check number of credits registered
  • Completion year and period confirmed

Ongoing Assessment Activities
  • Assessment
  • Coursework submission
  • Mark entry
  • Mark aggregration
  • PMCs, Extensions, Waivers
  • School Investigatory Panels
  • Information to MAB(s)
  • Advanced Standing

Unit Attempt Outcomes
  • Student Attempted Final Assessment Grade
  • and Failed F Actual Mark or 0
  • Competency Failure XF Actual Mark or 0
  • PMC submitted, mark less than 40 DF Actual
  • Confirmed Academic misconduct penalty XF
    Actual Mark
  • Student NOT Attempted Final Assessment
  • No PMC submitted NCF Leave Blank
  • Submitted PMC, deferral approved by MAB NCDF
    Leave Blank
  • No Mark Awarded for Module
  • Pass or Fail module P or F Leave Blank
  • (including dummy sandwich modules)

  • Module Assessment Boards
  • Moderate module marks
  • Determine requirements for Referral
  • Programme Assessment Boards
  • Examine individual assessment profiles
  • Make decisions on
  • Level Completion
  • Award Completion / Fallback Awards
  • Compensation
  • Trailing
  • Does not change marks

Working Together LJMU and Partners
  • Communication
  • Keeping LJMU informed
  • changes at programme level, modular level
  • impact on Assessment boards
  • Relevant documentation supporting changes

Working Together
  • Data accuracy incorrect data in, results in
    incorrect data out
  • Data format has to be manageable n.b. name
    formats, use of LJMU OSS numbers

Working Together
  • Link tutor role transfer of information
  • Link administrator?
  • Suggestions for improvement or items of good

The Regulatory Framework
  • UMF regulation and assessment board discretion

MAB activities / outcomes
  • Mark finalisation
  • PMC consideration
  • Determining re-assessment requirements
  • Applying penalties
  • Complete mark list
  • Full record of outcomes
  • Record of nature and timing of all re-assessment
  • Clearly worded outcome (sanction or escalation)

PAB activities / outcomes
  • Review student profiles
  • Awards
  • Applying penalties
  • Determine progression / completion status with a
    record of all decisions regarding compensation
    credit, trailing, re-registration
  • Full list of awards (inc fallback)
  • Clearly worded outcome (sanction or escalation)

PMC consideration
  • MAB
  • Receives PMC Committee recommendations
  • Verify no prior mitigation for evidenced claims
  • Either defer in the event of failure
  • Or refer case to PAB where impact judged severe
  • PAB
  • PMCs considered when reviewing student profiles /
    determining awards
  • Module marks may not be altered
  • Students should not benefit from secondary
  • Opportunity to review inconsistencies in practice
    between MABs

MAB role in facilitating progression
  • MABs determine nature and timing of referral /
    deferral requirements, noting that
  • Student may be required to re-attend
  • The form of referred/deferred assessment may vary
    from the initial assessment
  • Referred mark capped at minimum pass threshold
  • Failed modules at levels 0, 1 2 normally
    referred in the same academic year as failure
  • Failed modules at levels 3 M normally
    referred when the module is next scheduled to be

PAB role in facilitating progression
  • Progression with trailing may be permitted
  • Students may be permitted to re-register upon a
    module which has been failed (both initial and
    referral attempts)
  • Compensation of failure in light of good overall
    performance is permitted
  • Module mark in range 30-39
  • Qualifying level mark gt 45
  • Max 20 of credit per level

Awards Classification
  • PAB judges whether a student has attained
    required credits for their target award
  • Classification of honours degrees determined by
    PAB, based upon the Award Mark and upon Academic
    Judgement in the case of borderline candidates
  • very close to higher band (normally within 1)
  • majority of L3 credits in higher band (exit
  • C7.6
  • Alternative exits
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)