Docstoc

external examiners - University of Derby

Document Sample
external examiners - University of Derby Powered By Docstoc
					   RIGHTS, RESPONSIBILITIES AND
  REGULATIONS FOR STUDENTS ON
      TAUGHT PROGRAMMES




EXTRACTS FOR EXTERNAL EXAMINERS




          September 2011
This document contains those sections of the University’s “Rights, Responsibilities and
Regulations for Students on Taught Programmes” that are regarded as most directly relevant
for External Examiners.

Please note that the full version of the document can be accessed at
www.derby.ac.uk/academic-regulations


 CONTENTS


 AWARDS OF THE UNIVERSITY

       A: Awards of the University…………………………………………….......                             3

 CREDIT FRAMEWORK

       B: Credit Framework for all Taught Programmes………………………...                       7

 ASSESSMENT
        I: General Assessment Procedures……………………………………….                              17
       J: Assessment Regulations for Undergraduate Programmes…………..                   21
       K: Assessment Regulations for Postgraduate Programmes……………                     36
       L: Internal Moderation……………………………………………………….                                   49
       N: Extenuating Circumstances……………………………………………..                                51
       O: Assessment Boards for Undergraduate Programmes……………….                       54
       P: Assessment Boards for Postgraduate Programmes………………….                       62

 EXTERNAL EXAMINERS

       S: External Examiners for Taught Programmes………………………….                         64

 APPENDICES

       4: Translation Policy…………………………………………………………                                    75




Awards of the University                              3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                       --2--                                 September 2011
A          AWARDS OF THE UNIVERSITY

A1         PRINCIPLES

A1.1       The University offers the major awards listed in section A2; other awards may be
           added as approved by Academic Board, and subject to programme validation.

A1.2       The University offers awards under licence from Edexcel and in partnership with
           professional bodies such as the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants
           (ACCA) and the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA).

A1.3       The University has the capacity to offer dual awards in conjunction with other
           institutions, or programmes leading entirely to awards of other institutions or
           awarding bodies, under specific validation arrangements,.

A1.4       Honorary awards are conferred in recognition of achievement by individuals of
           significant distinction. These awards are not and should not be compared to
           academic qualifications.
A2         MAJOR AWARDS


            Undergraduate Awards
            Bachelor of Arts                                                               BA
            Bachelor of Education                                                          BEd
            Bachelor of Engineering                                                        BEng
            Bachelor of Laws                                                               LLB
            Bachelor of Science                                                            BSc
            Bachelors Advanced Diploma                                                     BAdDip
            Certificate of Higher Education                                                CertHE
            Diploma of Higher Education                                                    DipHE
            Diploma of Higher Education in Legal Studies                                   DipHE
            Foundation Degree Arts                                                         FdA
            Foundation Degree Engineering                                                  FdEng
            Foundation Degree Science                                                      FdSc
            Professional Graduate Diploma                                                  PGrDip
            Professional Graduate Diploma in Teaching in the Lifelong Learning Sector      PGrDip
            Professional Diploma in Teaching in the Lifelong Learning Sector               PrDip
            Postgraduate Awards
            Postgraduate Certificate in Education (Primary)                                  PGCE
            Postgraduate Certificate                                                         PGCert
            Postgraduate Diploma                                                             PGDip
            Master of Arts                                                                   MA
            Master of Business Administration                                                MBA
            Master of Business Research Methods                                              MBRes
            Master of Design                                                                 MDes
            Master of Education                                                              MEd
            Master of Laws                                                                   LLM
            Master of Research                                                               MRes
            Master of Science                                                                MSc
            Master’s Advanced Diploma                                                        MAdvD
            Master of Practice                                                               MPr
            Doctor of Practice                                                               DPr
            Doctor of Education                                                              EdD
            Master of Philosophy                                                             MPhil
            Doctor of Philosophy                                                             PhD

Awards of the University                                      3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                            --3--                                    September 2011
            Higher Doctorate Awards
            Doctor of Letters                                                              DLitt
            Doctor of Laws                                                                 LLD
            Doctor of Science                                                              DSc
            Doctor of Technology                                                           DTech


A2.1       Students receive certification on completion of the full award for which they are
           registered. Where students terminate their studies or transfer to a different
           programme before they have completed, they may request certification for the
           highest intermediate award for which they qualify. Variations to this may be indicated
           in programme specifications.

A3         HONORARY AWARDS

            Honorary Master of Arts                                                   Hon MA
            Honorary Master of Business Administration                                Hon MBA
            Honorary Master of Science                                                Hon MSc
            Honorary Master of the University                                         Hon MUniv
            Honorary Doctor of Business Administration                                Hon DBA
            Honorary Doctor of Education                                              Hon EdD
            Honorary Doctor of Fine Art                                               Hon DFA
            Honorary Doctor of Laws                                                   Hon LLD
            Honorary Doctor of Letters                                                Hon DLitt
            Honorary Doctor of Music                                                  Hon DMus
            Honorary Doctor of Science                                                Hon DSc
            Honorary Doctor of Technology                                             Hon DTech
            Honorary Doctor of the University                                         Hon DUniv


A3.1       The following criteria are used in conferring honorary degrees in a specific discipline:

           (i)    Academic achievements which significantly advance human knowledge in the
                  disciplines represented in the University’s curriculum;
           (ii)   Creative achievements which significantly advance practice in the arts or
                  technology;
           (iii) Significant achievements in industrial, commercial or professional life;
           (iv) Educational achievements which exemplify the University’s mission;
           (v)    Social achievements which exemplify the values embedded in the University’s
                  mission or which significantly and positively enhance the context in which the
                  mission is pursued.

A3.2       An Honorary Doctor of the University award without specific discipline is conferred
           for outstanding achievement in the above criteria, including contributions to the
           University’s standing. Where the level of distinction is significant but not outstanding,
           an Honorary Master of the University may be awarded.




Awards of the University                                    3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                            --4--                                  September 2011
A4         OTHER AWARDS


            Minor Awards
            Certificate of Achievement
            University Foundation Certificate
            University Certificate
            University Diploma
            University Advanced Diploma
            Certificate in Professional Practice
            Diploma in Professional Practice
            International Foundation Certificate
            Under Licence from Edexcel
            Higher National Certificate (HNC)
            Higher National Diploma (HND) (classed as a Major Award)
            BTEC Advanced Professional Award/Certificate/Diploma
            BTEC Professional Award/Certificate/Diploma
            In Partnership with Professional Bodies
            Chartered Association of Certified Accountants Certificate (ACCA)
            Chartered Institute of Management Accountants Certificate (CIMA)
            Diploma in Acoustics and Noise


A5       AEGROTAT AWARDS

A5.1     An aegrotat award for incomplete study is an unclassified award that may be
         conferred in exceptional circumstances for the following programmes:

          Certificate of Higher Education
          Diploma of Higher Education
          Bachelor’s Degree
          Postgraduate Certificate
          Postgraduate Diploma
          Master’s Degree

A5.2     Assessment Boards may use discretion to confer or recommend conferment of an
         aegrotat award where the appropriate criteria have been met.

A6       POSTHUMOUS AWARDS

A6.1     Any award of the University may be conferred posthumously provided the normal
         conditions of the award are satisfied. Variations to this practice may only be sought
         through the approval of the University Assessment Board for Extenuating
         Circumstances (UABEC).

A7        RATIFICATION, CONFERMENT AND PRESENTATION OF AWARDS

A7.1     University awards and credit are ratified by the Academic Board through the following
         two bodies:


Awards of the University                                     3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                             --5--                                  September 2011
         (i)    University Quality Enhancement Committee (UQEC) considers
                recommendations made by assessment boards for taught programmes
                and from the University Research and Research Degrees Committee
                (URRDC) for research programmes.
         (ii)   University Honorary Awards Committee (UHAC) considers
                recommendations in respect of honorary awards.

A.7.2 University titles, e.g. professorships, readerships, are awarded by the University
      Conferments Committee.




Awards of the University                                3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                        --6--                                  September 2011
B         CREDIT FRAMEWORK FOR ALL TAUGHT PROGRAMMES

B1        PRINCIPLES

B1.1      Students receive academic credit in respect of their learning achievements as
          expressed in terms of learning outcomes.

B1.2      A credit value, specified in terms of the number of credits and the level, is ascribed to
          each module.

B1.3      Academic credit given in respect of successful fulfilment of the requirements of a
          module can be awarded only once and cannot be double-counted.

B1.4      Every programme of study has set aims and outcomes that provide an overall focus
          for its component modules, and conforms to the regulatory framework for the design,
          delivery and assessment of any broader scheme that it may be a part of.

B1.5      All taught programmes leading to University of Derby awards conform to the credit
          framework, with the exception of certain externally validated collaborative
          programmes.

B2        THE CREDIT FRAMEWORK

B2.1      The basic unit of credit relates to 10 hours of notional learning time; a standard
          module worth 15 credits represents 150 hours notional learning time.

B2.2      A standard academic year for a full-time undergraduate honours degree student
          equates to 120 credits (1200 notional hours) and for a full-time postgraduate student
          equates to 180 credits (1800 notional hours).

B2.3      The credits accrued as part of a programme may not be accredited towards any
          other award, unless the total exceeds the minimum requirement (e.g. 360 credits for
          an undergraduate award).

B3        MODULES

B3.1      All modules are credit rated and, in the interests of transferability, standard sizes
          have been developed as follows:

                                                                                               1
           Module Size           Notional Learning Time          HE Credits             ECTS Credits
               8x  standard                1200 hours              120 credits              60 credits
               6x  standard                 900 hours               90 credits              45 credits
               4x  standard                 600 hours               60 credits              30 credits
               3x  standard                 450 hours               45 credits            22.5 credits
               2x  standard                 300 hours               30 credits              15 credits
                   standard                 150 hours               15 credits             7.5 credits
               ½ x standard                  75 hours               7.5 credits           3.75 credits
           1
                    ECTS – European Credit Accumulation and Transfer System


          The University of Derby recognises however that other module sizes may be
          required for the effective delivery of learning and alternative sizes.

B3.2      Each module will specify a level that indicates the intellectual demand and rigour of
          academic study required to successfully complete the module. Levels are conceived
     Credit Framework for all Taught Programmes                       3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                  --7--                                      September 2011
     successionally, with increasing demands being placed upon learners as they
     undertake learning at higher levels.

     The University has adopted generic Credit Level Descriptors that are designed as
     guidance, to be used in the form of a template against which modules and their
     defined learning outcomes can be considered. Learning accredited at each level will
     reflect the ability to:


                           Entry Level
                           Employ, recall and demonstrate elementary comprehension in a narrow range of areas,
                           exercise basic skills within highly structured contexts and carry out directed activity
                           under close supervision
                           Level 1
                           Employ a narrow range of applied knowledge, skills and basic comprehension within a
                           limited range of predictable and structured contexts, including working with others under
       FURTHER EDUCATION




                           direct supervision but within a very limited degree of discretion and judgement about
                           possible action.
                           Level 2
                           Apply knowledge with underpinning comprehension in a number of areas and employ a
                           range of skills within a number of contexts, some of which may be non-routine;
                           undertake directed activities with a degree of autonomy within time constraints.
                           Level 3
                           Apply knowledge and skills in a range of complex activities demonstrating
                           comprehension of relevant theories; access and analyse information independently and
                           make reasoned judgements, selecting from a considerable choice of procedures in
                           familiar and unfamiliar contexts; directly own activities with some responsibility for the
                           output of others.

                           Level 4
                           Develop a rigorous approach to the acquisition of a broad knowledge base; employ a
                           range of specialised skills; evaluate information using it to plan and develop investigative
                           strategies and to determine solutions to a variety of unpredictable problems; operate in a
                           range of varied and specific contexts taking responsibility for the nature and quality of
                           outputs.
                           Level 5
       HIGHER EDUCATION




                           Generate ideas through the analysis of concepts at an abstract level with a command of
                           specialised skills and the formulation of responses to well defined and abstract problems;
                           analyse and evaluate information; exercise significant judgement across a broad range of
                           functions; accept responsibility for determining and achieving personal and/or group
                           outcomes.
                           Level 6
                           Critically review, consolidate and extend a systematic and coherent body of knowledge
                           utilising specialised skills across an area of study; critically evaluate new concepts and
                           evidence from a range of sources; transfer and apply diagnostic and creative skills and
                           exercise significant judgement in a range of situations; accept accountability for
                           determining and achieving personal and/or group outcomes


                           Level 7
                           Display mastery of a complex and specialised area of knowledge and skills, employing
                           advanced skills to conduct research or advanced technical and specialised activity; accept
                           accountability for related decision making including use of supervision; demonstrate a
                           deep understanding of the subject through independent modes of learning.
                           Level 8
                           Make a significant and original contribution to a specialised field of enquiry demonstrating
                           command of methodological issues and engaging in critical dialogue with peers; accept
                           full accountability for outcomes.



Credit Framework for all Taught Programmes                                        3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                          --8--                                          September 2011
B3.3    Modules are specified in accordance with the following definitions:

                 Module Type                                        Description
         Core module                                       Used for Specialist programmes; not
                                                            applicable to Joint Honours
                                                           Designed to serve as a fundamental role in
                                                            the delivery of the programme
                                                           Achievement of all credits attached to core
                                                            modules is essential for conferment of
                                                            the award

         Prescribed module                                 Used with Specialist and Joint
                                                            Honours programmes
                                                           Develops a significant area of the
                                                            curriculum
                                                           Students are required to take all
                                                            prescribed modules but failure to
                                                            achieve the credits does not, in
                                                            itself, prevent students from
                                                            qualifying for an award

         Optional module                                   Designed to be offered to students
                                                            as an element of choice
                                                           Optional modules may
                                                            complement core modules or
                                                            prescribed modules

         Pre-requisite module                              Provides specific preparation for
                                                            another named module
                                                           All students are expected to take
                                                            pre-requisite modules in the
                                                            designated order

         Mandatory Pre-requisite module                    Develops an understanding, skill or
                                                            competence that is indispensable
                                                            to the study of another named
                                                            module
                                                           Students must have achieved the
                                                            learning outcomes of a mandatory
                                                            pre-requisite module before being
                                                            allowed to continue to the module
                                                            that depends on it for preparation

         Co-requisite module                               Must be taken together, normally in
                                                            the same stage of the programme
                                                           The reasons for designating
                                                            modules as co-requisite may be
                                                            either academic or logistical


B3.4    Modules do not have intrinsic status as defined by the above types. They are
        designated as core or prescribed for example, in relation to a specific programme, so
        the same module may appear as core on one programme and optional in another.

B3.5    Programme leaders should consider the restrictions placed on students by
        designating modules as mandatory pre-requites, and if possible allow for greater
        flexibility for individual circumstances.

   Credit Framework for all Taught Programmes                          3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                --9--                                         September 2011
B4        PROGRAMMES

B4.1      Programmes of study are constructed to enable students to progress through the
          credit levels and, on achievement of the learning outcomes and credit requirements
          associated with each stage of study, to qualify for a University award.

B4.2      Stage indicates sub-division of a programme into major steps of progression; each
          of the three years of a standard full-time degree programme, for example, is a stage.
          Depending on the mode of study, a stage may be delivered in less or more than a
          single academic year e.g. accelerated degrees, part-time. Each stage provides a
          coherent learning experience and may be certified with an interim award. Normally
          all the module credits within a stage will be at the same level, but modules at
          different levels may appear in the same stage.

B4.3      In terms of programme design, the relationship between stages, final level, credits
          and the award is shown in the table below.

B4.4      The minimum levels of achievement for an award to be conferred are as specified in
          Section J9 (undergraduate) and Sections K7 to K12 (postgraduate).

                                                  Level     Level      Level   Level      Level
       Sector         Award         Stage                                                            Level 8
                                                    3         4          5       6          7
                  Doctor of
       Post
       grad
       uate




                  Professional                                                            180           360
                  Practice
                  Master of
                  Professional                                                            180
                  Practice
                  Taught
                                                                                          180
                  Master’s
                  Integrated
                                                             120       120       90       150
                  Master’s
                  Master’s
                  Advanced                                                                 60
                           1
                  Diploma
                  Postgraduate
                                                                                          120
                  Diploma

                  Postgraduate
                              2                                                 (15*)      60
                  Certificate

                  Bachelor’s
     adua
     Und
     ergr




                                                                   3      3           3
      te




                  Degree with          3                     120       120      120
                  Honours
                  Bachelor’s                                       3      3
                                                             120       120       60
                  Degree
                  Bachelor’s
                  Advanced                                                       60
                          1
                  Diploma
                  Foundation                                       3      3
                                       2                     120       120
                  Degree
                  Diploma of
                                                                   3      3
                  Higher                                     120       120
                  Education



     Credit Framework for all Taught Programmes                                3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                    - - 10 - -                                         September 2011
                  Certificate of
                                                                   3
                  Higher             1                    120
                  Education
                  Higher




                               awar
                               stag
                                No
                                                                   3        3




                                ds
       BTEC       National                                120          120




                                 e
                  Diploma
                  Higher
                  National                                    90       60
                  Certificate
                  University
   Awar
   Mino


    ds




                  Advanced                                                        60
     r




                  Diploma
                  University
                                                                       60
                  Diploma
                  University
                                                              60
                  Certificate
                  Foundation
                                                60
                  Certificate
                  Certificate of
                                                              Minimum of 30 credits at any level
                  Achievement
       1
            When taken as a separate stage 3 programme of study following completion of a full
            undergraduate or postgraduate award at the same level
       2
            15 credits at level 6 may be used to make the full 60 credit requirement at
            Postgraduate Certificate level.
       3
            Failure in modules to the value of 15 credits per level may be condoned where a mark
            of FM has been attained. See section J6.4.


B4.5       Minor awards augment the portfolio of intermediate and major awards and provide
           realistic first objectives for those beginning or returning to learning at HE level. The
           awards may be taken as target awards or they may be regarded as stepping-stones
           to intermediate or major awards. The minor awards are not intermediate stages of the
           University’s major awards. Consequently, a student who fails to satisfy the
           requirements for an intermediate or major award cannot be recommended for one of
           the University’s minor awards. However, a student who satisfactorily completes a
           minor award may subsequently register for an intermediate or major award and use
           the credits towards the credit requirements for that award if they are deemed
           appropriate either through credit transfer or by using the APL procedures. The five
           minor awards are:

            Certificate of Achievement: Minimum 30 credits at any level between 2 and 8.
            Foundation Certificate: 60 credits at level 3.
            University Certificate: 60 credits at level 4.
            University Diploma: 60 credits at level 5.
            University Advanced Diploma: 60 credits at level 6.

B4.6       Higher National Diploma [HND] programmes (offered under licence from Edexcel)
           are normally designed to progress from level 4 to level 5, accruing 120 credits at
           each level to a minimum of 240 credits. A mandatory or optional work placement
           (section B5) may be included as part of, or in addition to, the two stages of study.

           Higher National Certificate [HNC] programmes (offered under licence from
           Edexcel) are normally designed to progress from level 4 to level 5, accruing 90

   Credit Framework for all Taught Programmes                                   3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                 - - 11 - -                                             September 2011
        credits at level 4 and 60 credits at level 5 to a minimum of 150 credits. HNC
        programmes normally operate for students in employment and hence there is no
        work placement element.

B4.7    Foundation degree [FdA//FdEng/FdSc] programmes are normally designed to
        progress from level 4 to level 5, accruing 120 credits at each level to a minimum of
        240 credits and should comprise a major work based element. They are discrete
        awards that on completion may permit entry into level 6 of a Bachelor degree
        programme. Certificate of Higher Education (CertHE) may be awarded on
        achievement of the general credit requirements of the award.

B4.8    Bachelor’s degree with honours [BA, BEd, BSc, LLB] programmes are normally
        designed to progress from level 4 to level 6, accruing 120 credits at each level to a
        minimum total of 360 credits. Step off points on achievement of the general credit
        requirements at levels 4 and 5 may be awarded Certificate of Higher Education
        (CertHE) or Diploma of Higher Education (DipHE) respectively.

         From September 2009 Independent Study in the form of a module valued at
          30 credits at level 6 is no longer a mandatory component of an honours degree
          programme.
         A mandatory or optional work placement (section B5) may be included as part
          of, or in addition to, the three stages of study.
         Bachelor degree programmes will lead to the award of a BA or a BSc or to a
          more closely defined award restricted to certain subjects and type of
          programmes, for example Bachelor of Engineering (BEng) or Bachelor of
          Education.
         Bachelor of Arts (BA) is generally used in art and design, the arts and
          humanities and areas of social or business studies. The award of Bachelor of
          Science (BSc) is generally used in technology, science or mathematics and
          their applications. Exceptions to this convention may be only agreed at
          validation in light of evidence sufficient to justify different practice.
         Bachelor of Laws (LLB) is reserved for programmes of specialist study in law.

B4.9    Bachelor’s degree programmes are normally designed to progress from level 4 to
        level 6, accruing 120 credits at levels 4 and 5, and 60 credits at level 6 to a minimum
        total of 300 credits. Step off points on achievement of the general credit
        requirements at levels 4 and 5 may be awarded Certificate of Higher Education
        (CertHE) or Diploma of Higher Education (DipHE) respectively.

         A mandatory or optional work placement (section B5) may be included as part
          of, or in addition to, the three stages of study.

B4.10   Minimum Credit Requirements for Named Subjects in the Joint Honours
        Scheme: All Joint Honours programmes must conform to the general University
        Credit requirements for Undergraduate study. For each type of Pathway available in
        the Scheme, there is a minimum amount of credit that is required for each named
        Subject in that Pathway which is specified the tables below:

        Major/Minor Pathways

                                      Major Subject               Minor Subject        Minimum Total
                                                                                       Credit Required
        Level 4                                 60                     30                     90
        Level 5                                 60                     15                     90

   Credit Framework for all Taught Programmes                            3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                     - - 12 - -                                  September 2011
         Level 6                                  60                    15                      90
         Levels 5 & 6 overall                    165                    45                     225
         Levels 4, 5 & 6                         225                    75                     360
         overall

         Joint Pathways

                                          Subject A                  Subject B          Minimum Total
                                                                                        Credit Required
         Level 4                                  30                    30                     90
         Level 5                                  30                    30                     90
         Level 6                                  30                    30                     90
         Levels 5 & 6 overall                     90                    90                    225
         Levels 4, 5 & 6                         120                   120                    360
         overall

         Minor Pathways

                                       Subject A           Subject B     Subject C       Minimum Total
                                                                                         Credit Required
         Level 4                            30                  30           30                 90
         Level 5                            15                  15           15                 90
         Level 6                            15                  15           15                 90
         Levels 5 & 6 overall               45                  45           45                225
         Levels 4, 5 & 6                    75                  75           75                360
         overall

B4.10.1 Unattached Modules: The credit totals specified above are the minimum
        requirements in order for a Subject to be named in a Joint Honours degree. In order
        to meet the general credit requirements for an Honours award, Joint Honours
        students will be required to take additional credit above these minimum
        requirements. Additional credit may come from modules that are attached (as core,
        prescribed or optional) to the Subjects in their Pathway, or may come from
        ‘Unattached’ modules. At Levels 5 and 6 overall, ‘Unattached’ modules must not
        account for more than 30 credits of a students’ final award.

B4.10.2 Level 4 Modules: The tables above indicate the minimal amount of credit that should
        be studied for each Subject at Level 4. However, the Subjects named in the final
        degree shall be determined solely by the credit achieved at Levels 5 and 6.

B4.10.3 Prescribed Module Limits: A Subject may have a prescribed module diet that is in
        excess of the minimum requirements above, subject to the following limits:

           Major Subjects: 90 credits at any Level;
           Joint Subjects: 60 credits at any Level;
           Minor Subjects: 30 credits at any Level.

B4.10.4 Pathway Confirmation: A student is required to confirm their Pathway at the end of
        Stage 1. Subsequent Pathway changes may only be enacted with the express
        approval of the Joint Honours Scheme.

B4.10.5 Failure to meet Minimum Subject Credit Requirements: If, at the end of Stage 3, a
        student has failed to meet the minimum credit requirement for one of the Subjects in
        their Pathway, then the nomenclature ‘Combined Studies’ shall be substituted for
        that Subject.


    Credit Framework for all Taught Programmes                            3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                   - - 13 - -                                     September 2011
B4.10.6 Pass Degrees and Interim Awards: Pass Degrees shall have the nomenclature
        ‘Combined Studies’. The Subjects studied will not be named. Certificates and
        Diplomas of Higher Education shall have the nomenclature ‘in Combined Studies’.
        The Subjects studied will not be named.

B4.11    Integrated Master’s Degree [MDes] programmes are normally designed to
         progress from level 4 to level 7 accruing 120 credits at levels 4 and 5, 90 credits at
         level 6 and a minimum of 150 credits at level 7. (Normally 180 credits at level 7 are
         expected). Step-off awards of Certificate of Higher Education, Diploma of Higher
         Education, Bachelor’s degree and Bachelor’s degree with Honours are available.
         Stage 4 leads to the award of Master of Design with a minimum total of 480 credits.
         The Postgraduate Certificate and Postgraduate Diploma step-off awards may be
         available if the programme design is suitable.

B4.12    Master’s Degree [MA, MBA, MEd, MSc, LLM] programmes are normally designed
         to provide a minimum of 180 credits at level 7. Three postgraduate stages are
         recognised leading to the following awards: Stage 1 leads to the Postgraduate
         Certificate (PG Cert) with a minimum total of 60 credits; Stage 2 leads to the
         Postgraduate Diploma (PG Dip) with a minimum total of 120 credits; and Stage 3
         leads to the award of Master’s Degree with a minimum total of 180 credits.

              Independent Scholarship has a credit value of 60 credits at level 7.
               Exceptions to this position may be approved at programme validation.
              Master’s degrees may lead to the award of either MA or MSc or to a more
               closely defined award restricted to certain specific areas of study, for
               example Master of Engineering (MEng) or Master of Business Administration
               (MBA).
              Master of Arts (MA) is generally used in art and design, the arts and
               humanities and areas of social and business studies. The title Master of
               Science (MSc) is generally used in technology, science or mathematics and
               their applications. Exceptions to this convention may be agreed only at
               validation in the light of evidence sufficient to justify different practices.
              The award of Master of Laws (LLM) is reserved for programmes of specialist
               study in law.

B4.13    Master’s Advanced Diploma [MAdDip] award is available to master’s graduates
         who wish to take a further master’s level award in a closely allied discipline and
         where, as a consequence, the student has already satisfied the learning outcomes of
         the first (PgCert) and second stages (PgDip). The award requires 60 credits at level
         7 from the third stage (Master’s Degree) only.

B4.14    Master of Research Degree [MRes] programmes are normally designed to provide
         a minimum of 180 credits at level 7. Three postgraduate stages are recognised
         leading to the following awards. Stage 1 leads to the Postgraduate Certificate in
         Research Skills with a minimum of 60 credits; Stage 2 leads to a Postgraduate
         Diploma in Research with a minimum total of 120 credits; and Stage 3 leads to the
         award of Master of Research Degree with a minimum total of 180 credits. The
         generic structure of the Master of Research Degree is shown in the figure below.

              Independent Research has a credit value of 30 credits at level 7 for the
               award of Postgraduate Diploma and 90 credits at level 7 for the award of
               Master of Research Degree. Students embark on the independent research in
               Postgraduate Diploma stage.


    Credit Framework for all Taught Programmes                3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                 - - 14 - -                           September 2011
                 Award Title                                    Contribution

                Master of         Independent Research: 90 credits at level 7
                                                                                          2
                Research          Research Skills modules: at least 45 credits at level 7
                                                                                                    2
                Degree            Discipline related knowledge modules: up to 45 credits at level 7

                                  TOTAL: 180 credits
                PG Diploma in     Independent Research: 30 credits at level 7
                                                                                          2
                Research Skills   Research Skills modules: at least 45 credits at level 7
                                                                                                       2
                                  Discipline related knowledge modules: at least 15 credits at level 7

                                  TOTAL: 120 credits
                                                                                          1
                PG Certificate    Research Skills modules: at least 45 credits at level 7
                                                                                                       1
                in Research       Discipline related knowledge modules: at least 15 credits at level 7
                Skills
                                  TOTAL: 60 credits
            1
                Up to 15 credits in the taught modules may be at level 6
            2
                Up to 30 credits (total) in the taught module may be at level 6

B4.15       Master of Professional Practice [MPr] programmes are normally designed to
            provide a minimum of 180 credits at level 7. Three postgraduate stages are
            recognised leading to the following awards. Stage 1 leads to the Postgraduate
            Certificate in Professional Practice (PG Cert) with a minimum of 60 credits; Stage 2
            leads to a Postgraduate Diploma in Professional Practice (PG Dip) with a minimum
            total of 120 credits; Stage 3 leads to the award of Master of Professional Practice
            (MPr) with a minimum total of 180 credits. The generic structure of the Professional
            Master’s Degree is shown in the figure below.


                 Award Title                                    Contribution

                Master of         Independent Research into Practice: at least 90 credits but not
                Professional      exceeding 135 credits at level 7
                                                                                          2
                Practice          Research Skills modules: at least 45 credits at level 7
                                  Work based professional practice: up to 45 credits at level 7

                                  TOTAL: 180 credits
                PG Diploma in     Independent Research into Practice: 30 credits at level 7
                                                                                          2
                Professional      Research Skills modules: at least 45 credits at level 7
                Practice          Work based professional practice: up to 15 credits at level 7

                                  TOTAL: 120 credits
                PG Certificate    Independent Research into Practice: 30 credits at level 7
                                                                                 1
                in Professional   Research Skills modules: 30 credits at level 7
                Practice
                                  TOTAL: 60 credits
        1
            Up to 15 credits in the taught modules may be at level 6
        2
            Up to 30 credits (total) in the taught module may be at level 6



   Credit Framework for all Taught Programmes                           3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                   - - 15 - -                                   September 2011
B4.16     Doctor of Practice [DPr, DBA, EdD, DPharm, etc] programmes are normally
          designed to progress from level 7 to level 8 to a minimum total of 540 credits. At
          least 360 credits must be achieved through independent research at level 8. The
          remaining 180 credits should be achieved at level 7, with the exception that up to 30
          credits may be contributed from levels 5 or 6 where programme regulations permit.
          No credits may be contributed from levels lower than level 5. At least 45 credits at
          level 7 must be achieved in research skills. The generic structure of the Professional
          Doctorate Degree is shown in the table below.


                              Component                        Level        Minimum            Maximum
                                                                           Contribution       Contribution
            Theory for Practice:
            Research skills modules                             7            45 credits         90 credits
            Discipline-related philosophy/knowledge                              Nil           120 credits
            TOTAL CREDIT - Theory for Practice                  7            45 credits        180 credits
            Work based professional practice                    7                nil            120 credits
            Independent research into practice
            Practice based project or creative works            8           270 credits        315 credits
            Dissertation - critical reflection on practice      8            90 credits        135 credits
            TOTAL CREDIT – Independent research                             360 credits        450 credits
            Viva voce examination (essential)                             Credits not applicable
.
B5        WORK PLACEMENTS IN UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMMES

B5.1      Work placements can be mandatory or optional, and may vary from a year full-time
          placement to a single placement module. Work placements normally occur in the
          following categories:

               As an integral (mandatory) part of a University qualification, regulated
                by external (government or professional) requirements (e.g. teaching
                or nursing qualifications).
               As an integral part of a University qualification (i.e. when validated as
                one or more modules with the credit requirements of the programme).
               As part of a University programme with an additional and separate
                qualification such the University Diploma in Professional Practice
                (e.g. a sandwich year).
               As part of a University programme with no additional qualification (e.g.
                a shorter placement which does not merit, or for which the programme
                team elect not to offer, an additional qualification).

B5.2      The University Diploma in Professional Practice is a free-standing qualification
          (60 credits at level 5) that is awarded on successful completion of a one-year
          placement (a sandwich year) that is additional to the credit requirement of the
          validated programme.

B5.3      Where students are required to successfully complete a mandatory placement in
          order to achieve the award for which they are registered, they may also achieve the
          University Diploma in Professional Practice (if applicable). Any student who can
          demonstrate achievement of the learning outcomes of the placement through prior


     Credit Framework for all Taught Programmes                        3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                  - - 16 - -                                   September 2011
        experience may seek exemption from the placement, but will not be eligible to
        receive the additional award.

B5.4    The operation and management of work placements are detailed in the University’s
        Policy for Work Place Learning (2005).




   Credit Framework for all Taught Programmes                3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                - - 17 - -                           September 2011
I          GENERAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES

I1         LEGIBILITY OF WORK SUBMITTED FOR ASSESSMENT

I1.1       If handwritten coursework is judged by the examiners to be illegible the work will not
           be accepted for assessment and will receive a zero grade.

I2.1       In the event that examiners find their difficulties in reading an examination script
           affects their ability to assess the candidate's work, they may ask the candidate to
           produce a typed transcript of all or part of the work. In such cases the candidate will
           be required to work under supervised conditions using a copy of the relevant parts of
           the original script, and will normally be charged a fee to cover the additional
           administrative costs. This fee will be determined by the Registrar.

I2         THE NUMBER AND WEIGHTING OF ASSESSMENT COMPONENTS

           The number and weighting of assessment components is a matter for the Programme
           team, subject to approval at validation, and thereafter subject to minor modification.
           However, three assessment components are an absolute maximum, and assessment
           design should incorporate the smallest number of components compatible with valid
           assessment which maintains academic standards. The lowest weighting that can be
           applied to an assessment component is 10% and all other weightings must be
           expressed as a multiple of 10%. Also note that some modules, usually those needing
           to satisfy a professional body requirement, may have a pass/fail component weighted
           at 0%. Where this is the case, the pass/fail component will count as one of the
           maximum of three components of assessment.

I3         LATE WORK

I3.1       Work which is submitted after the designated deadline for a coursework assessment
           is deemed late.

I3.2       If serious circumstances beyond a student’s control affect their ability to complete an
           assessment they may submit a claim for Exceptional Extenuating Circumstances
           (EEC). This must be accompanied by evidence and the work done to date, by the
           original assessment submission deadline. This will be considered by an EEC panel.
           Details of the policy and procedure are in Part N of these regulations.

I3.3       If the submitted work is late but within 7 days of the deadline, the work is assessed
           but the highest mark available is the minimum pass grade D-. There is no entitlement
           to feedback although feedback may be offered.

I3.4       There is no entitlement to submit late after an agreed submission extension nor for
           submission of referred work.

I3.5       If the work is tendered more than 7 days after the deadline, it is not marked and an
           NS grade is recorded.

I3.6       Referred works submitted late are not marked and an NS grade is recorded (see
           sections J6.2 and K15).




       General Assessment Procedures                            3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                             - - 18 - -                                September 2011
I4         RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AWARDS IN THE EVENT OF EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES

I4.1       In the event of a student not completing assessment requirements as a result of
           accepted extenuating circumstances, the Assessment Board (including the UABEC)
           normally has the following options available to it:

           (i)     The Board may decide that the outcome is deferred pending completion of the
                   outstanding assessment.
           (ii)    In the case of a minimal failure to complete the assessment requirements, the
                   Board may use its discretion to decide that, on the basis of the evidence
                   available to it, the overall standard of the student's work is satisfactory.
           (iii)   When, for good and valid reasons acceptable to the Board, it is not possible, in
                   the Board’s opinion, for the student to complete outstanding assessments, the
                   Board can recommend one of the aegrotat awards identified in University
                   Awards (see section A5.1), providing it has sufficient evidence to warrant the
                   award.

I4.2       The student may decline the offer of an aegrotat award, in which case s/he will
           undertake the outstanding assessment requirements under arrangements for
           deferrals.

I4.3       If the student accepts the offer of an aegrotat award, that acceptance will entail the
           termination of registration, and the student may not request further reassessment for
           the award for which s/he was originally registered.

I4.4       Awards recommended in the event of extenuating circumstances are subject to
           ratification by or on behalf of Academic Board.

I4.5       In considering the case of a student who for valid, accepted reasons has not
           completed assessment requirements of a programme leading to a Bachelor’s Degree
           with Honours, the Assessment Board (including UABEC) should bear in mind the
           following guidelines:

           (i)     If the extenuating circumstances which gave rise to the non-completion no
                   longer remain, the Board will normally defer the outcome pending completion of
                   the outstanding assessment requirements.

           (ii)    Where the extenuating circumstances which gave rise to the non-completion
                   remain, and the outstanding assessment requirements cannot be attempted
                   before the expiry of the maximum registration period, the Board, exercising
                   reasonable judgement in particular cases, can consider the following options.

           (iii)   If the student has achieved at least 75 level 6 credits, and has a result profile
                   clearly indicative of a particular Honours category, and providing the student
                   has produced some satisfactory work in the uncompleted modules, then the
                   Assessment Board may recommend the award of a Bachelor’s Degree with
                   Honours in the appropriate class. This will not be an aegrotat award.

           (iv)    If the student has achieved at least 75 level 6 credits, and has a meritorious
                   profile indicative of the potential to complete an Honours award but not of a
                   particular Honours category, then the Board may recommend an aegrotat
                   Bachelor’s Degree with Honours. This honours award will not be in a particular
                   class.


       General Assessment Procedures                               3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                - - 19 - -                                September 2011
           (v)   If the student has a results profile which does not meet the credit requirements
                 for the award of a Bachelor’s Degree, providing the student has achieved at
                 least 30 credits at Level 6 the Board may recommend the award of an aegrotat
                 Bachelor’s Degree. Otherwise the student will be eligible for an intermediate
                 award.

I5         AUTHORISED BREAK FROM STUDY (INTERCALATION)

I5.1       If the extent of disruption caused by admissible extenuating circumstances means
           that it is not practical for a student to continue on the programme in the current
           academic year, s/he may be advised to take a break from study. The student may be
           advised to suspend her/his studies until such time as the circumstances affecting
           performance have passed, provided that the maximum period of registration for the
           programme is thereby not exceeded.

I5.2       The authorised break from study must be for a minimum of one semester and should
           not be for more than one year. Students may commence the break in study no later
           than one calendar month before the end of teaching on the modules involved.
           Thereafter the extenuating circumstances process applies, where appropriate.

I5.3       It is expected that the student will return to the same programme and stage of study.
           If a student wishes to return to a different programme, a programme transfer must be
           requested.

I5.4       Students who are on an authorised break from study are not registered with the
           University, i.e. a student is temporarily suspending their studies. This means that in
           normal circumstances the student does not have the right of access to certain
           University facilities.

I5.5       The authorised break from study normally commences on the date the University is
           formally notified by the student of their intention, unless the Programme Leader
           confirms an earlier last date of attendance. The commencement of the authorised
           break from study cannot normally be more that 6 weeks prior to the notification of
           intention. An authorised break from study must be endorsed by the student and
           Programme Leader.

I5.6       When students resume their studies they will restart their modules, and previous
           marks will be cancelled. If the module assessment has not changed they can
           resubmit work without revision. It must be understood that programmes and modules
           can be changed during the authorised break from study, and counselling will be
           important to identify the appropriate route for a returning student.

I6         VIVA VOCE EXAMINATIONS

I6.1       Students may be required to attend viva voce examinations under validated
           assessment regulations for the programme. Attendance at such examinations is
           obligatory and students must ensure that they make themselves available if called to
           attend.

I6.2       If students fail to attend, the Assessment Board will make its decision only on the
           evidence available, the student having foregone the opportunity to add to that
           evidence.




       General Assessment Procedures                            3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                             - - 20 - -                                September 2011
I7         FORMAL RELEASE OF RESULTS

I7.1       The University will release module and award results on-line through appropriate
           student systems, currently Student Centre. Students should therefore make
           themselves aware of publication dates as this will effect their rights under Section R3
           Making an Appeal. These results might still be subject to ratification by an
           assessment board on behalf of Academic Board.

I7.2       Students are expected to accept or reject referrals opportunities by the required
           deadline. Failure to do so may result in a referral examination not being scheduled.

I8         RESULTS PUBLICATION AND NOTIFICATION

I8.1       Students may view module results and classification outcome within the My Grades
           section of Student Centre. At the end of each stage of the programme of study a
           Statement of Achievement will be available to every student. This will take the form of
           a transcript listing all modules taken by the student which can count towards and
           undergraduate award, together with any modules (credits) approved through APL
           thereby showing the total number of credits at each level achieved to date.

I8.2       Upon gaining the undergraduate award a Higher Education Achievement Report will
           be issued electronically. This report provides the transcript of grades achieved, the
           final classified outcome, programme learning outcomes and any verified extra
           curricular activities undertaken throughout the period of study.

I9         FEEDBACK

           Students are entitled to feedback on assignments and this may be verbal, or in
           written or electronic form. Feedback on examinations is available on request from the
           marking tutor.




       General Assessment Procedures                            3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                             - - 21 - -                                September 2011
J        ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS FOR UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMMES

J1       GENERAL PRINCIPLES

J1.1     Explanation of Terms

         (i)     Assessment component - essays, presentations, groupwork activities, projects
                 or other assessments (commonly termed coursework), and seen or unseen
                 examinations. An assessment component may sometimes take the form of a
                 number of smaller submissions or elements e.g. lab reports or short in-class
                 tests. The mark for each assessment component is recorded in the student
                 record system with the appropriate weighting (see Section I2), and these are
                 used to calculate the overall module grade.

         (ii)    Assessment criteria - the requirements of an assessment, identified through
                 specific learning outcomes, used when marking a student's work. They are a
                 useful guide to the student to indicate the expected content or approach for an
                 assessment.

         (iii)   Deferral - an approved extension to the deadline date for an assessment,
                 agreed by the student and authorised staff. A deferred assessment will be
                 marked across the whole grade range, up to A+.

         (iv)    Referral - when a student does not pass an assessment component at the first
                 attempt they may be offered the opportunity to submit further work to achieve a
                 pass standard. If the referral work is pass standard the work will be graded at D.

J1.2     Awarding credit for learning achievements.

         Credits are awarded to students in recognition of their learning achievements, either
         within modules studied in their programme, or from accredited prior learning agreed
         at admission (Section F). Every module has a validated credit value, which is
         expressed as a number of credits at a specific level, see Section B2.1.

J1.3     What are learning outcomes?

         A learning outcome is a learning achievement, which may take the form of the
         acquisition of knowledge, understanding, an intellectual skill or a practical skill.
         Learning outcomes are the basis for the learning and assessment strategy in
         modules. Each module has a formally identified set of learning outcomes. The
         learning outcomes, credits, subject content and the level of the module together
         define the standard.

J1.4     What are assessments?

         Assessments are designed to enable students to demonstrate achievement of the
         learning outcomes. Up to three different assessment components (coursework and/or
         examinations) may be ascribed to a module. Each assessment component may carry
         one or more learning outcomes which will be assessed against assessment criteria.
         Students must be informed of the assessment criteria which are designed to test
         achievement of the learning outcomes of the module and indicate the level of
         performance required.




     Assessment Regulations for UG programmes                   3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                - - 22 - -                             September 2011
J1.5      Assessments and modules

          The combination of assessment components must test every stated learning outcome
          for a module. There are a maximum of three assessment components for any
          module, see Section I2. Some modules, usually those needing to satisfy a
          professional body requirement, may have a pass/fail component weighted at 0%.
          Where this is the case, the pass/fail component will count as one of the maximum of
          three components of assessment.

J2        STUDENT RESPONSIBILITIES

J2.1      Understanding what is expected

          It is the responsibility of the student to ensure that (s)he understands the assessment
          criteria and learning outcomes against which their work will be marked. Continual
          engagement with the delivery of the module is important to enable a student to gain
          this understanding (see the Student Participation Policy in Section H), and to fulfil
          their responsibility to the learning experience of fellow students.

J2.2      Academic offences

          Students must understand what constitutes an academic offence (Section Q),
          including plagiarism, collusion, breach of examination room regulations (Section M),
          and ensure that they do not commit such offences in their studies and assessments.

J2.3      Exceptional Extenuating Circumstances

          It is the responsibility of a student to submit a claim for exceptional extenuating
          circumstances (EEC) where an unexpected or unpreventable situation that will affect
          their performance in assessment arises. This must be submitted prior to the original
          submission deadline, with evidence and the work completed to date. See Section N
          for full details.

J2.4      Support plans

          If a student has a disability which affects their academic performance it is their
          responsibility to contact Student Advisory Service and discuss whether a support plan
          is appropriate. Support Plans identify a student's support needs, and are used to help
          a student engage fully with assessment.

J3.       OUTCOMES OF ASSESSMENT

J3.1      Judging academic performance in an assessment:

          In assessing a student's work, the tutor is required to judge the standard achieved in
          accordance with the criteria stated in Section J3.2. If the work demonstrates that the
          learning outcomes have been achieved, a grade is assigned on the basis of the grade
          descriptors in Section J3.2 and the level descriptors in Section B3.2. If the learning
          outcomes have not been met, the appropriate fail grade is given. In the case of an
          examination assessment, it is the overall grade which matters, not the grades given
          for individual answers or sections.




      Assessment Regulations for UG programmes                 3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                 - - 23 - -                           September 2011
J3.2   The Undergraduate Grading Scale

       This grading scale applies to Levels 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the University Credit Framework.
       The descriptors are typical characteristics of the standard of work associated with
       each grade, and are shown below by level. The descriptors are illustrative and for
       guidance only. They are not comprehensive. A grade of D- is regarded as a minimum
       pass. See Section B3.2 for level descriptors.

       Levels 3 & 4

       Grade
               Element           Descriptor

               Knowledge         Demonstrates exceptional coherence of ideas and a thorough knowledge and
                                 understanding of key concepts, albeit at a basic level. Work shows evidence
                                 of extensive wider reading.
               Criticality       There is good evidence of critical appraisal of ideas and concepts that is
                                 exceptional for level 4.
       A+
               Application       Work shows an appropriate and relevant attempt to place knowledge within an
                                 applied context.
               Evaluation        There is exceptional evidence of evaluation of concepts and/or applications.
               Communication     The work is communicated extremely clearly and effectively and referencing is
                                 entirely accurate.
               Knowledge         Demonstrates excellent coherence of ideas and a thorough knowledge and
                                 understanding of key concepts, albeit at a basic level. There is very good
                                 evidence of wider reading.
               Criticality       There is evidence of critical appraisal of ideas and concepts that is excellent
       A                         for level 4.
               Application       Work shows a good attempt to place knowledge within an applied context.
               Evaluation        There is excellent evidence of evaluation of concepts and/or applications.
               Communication     The work is communicated very clearly and effectively and referencing is
                                 almost entirely accurate.
               Knowledge         Demonstrates very good coherence of ideas and a thorough knowledge and
                                 understanding of key concepts, albeit at a basic level. There is very good
                                 evidence of wider reading.
               Criticality       There is some evidence of critical appraisal of ideas and concepts that is good
                                 for level 4.
       A-
               Application       Work shows a reasonable attempt to place knowledge within an applied
                                 context.
               Evaluation        There is very good evidence of evaluation of concepts and/or applications.
               Communication     The work is communicated clearly and effectively and referencing is fairly
                                 accurate.
               Knowledge         Demonstrates good knowledge and understanding of key concepts at a basic
                                 level. There is evidence of wider reading.
               Criticality       There is a little evidence of critical appraisal of ideas and concepts that is
       B+
                                 reasonable for level 4.
       B
               Application       Work shows some attempt to place knowledge within an applied context.
       B-
               Evaluation        There is good evidence of evaluation of concepts and/or applications.
               Communication     The work is communicated quite clearly and effectively and referencing is
                                 fairly accurate.
               Knowledge         Demonstrates reasonable evidence of knowledge and understanding of key
                                 concepts at a basic level. There is some evidence of wider reading.
               Criticality       There is a little evidence of critical appraisal of ideas and concepts that is
       C+
                                 acceptable for level 4.
       C
               Application       Work shows little attempt to place knowledge within an applied context.
       C-
               Evaluation        There is some reasonable evidence of evaluation of concepts and/or
                                 applications.
               Communication     The work is communicated fairly well and referencing is fairly accurate.
               Knowledge         Demonstrates a satisfactory level of knowledge and understanding of key
                                 concepts at a basic level. There is a little evidence of wider reading.
       D+      Criticality       There is little or no evidence of critical appraisal of ideas and concepts. Any
       D                         that is present is fairly rudimentary.
       D-      Application       Work shows a limited attempt to place knowledge within an applied context.
               Evaluation        There is a little evidence of evaluation of concepts and/or applications.
               Communication     The work is communicated quite poorly and referencing is not very accurate.

   Assessment Regulations for UG programmes                           3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                - - 24 - -                                   September 2011
            Knowledge         Demonstrates limited knowledge and understanding of key concepts even at a
                              basic level. There is minimal or no evidence of wider reading.
            Criticality       There is little or no evidence of critical appraisal of ideas and concepts. Any
    FM                        that is offered is extremely weak.
            Application       Work shows no attempt to place knowledge within an applied context.
            Evaluation        There is little or no evidence of evaluation of concepts and/or applications.
            Communication     The work is communicated poorly and/or referencing is inaccurate.
            Knowledge         Demonstrates extremely poor knowledge and a lack of understanding of key
                              concepts even at a basic level. There is no discernible evidence of wider
                              reading.
            Criticality       There is no evidence of critical appraisal of ideas and concepts.
    F
            Application       Work shows no attempt to place knowledge within an applied context.
            Evaluation        There is no evidence of evaluation of concepts and/or applications.
            Communication     The work is communicated extremely poorly and referencing is inaccurate or
                              absent.
    Z                         Nothing of merit in submitted work, or designates work where an academic
                              offence has occurred. Where no work has been submitted the NS notation will
                              apply.

    Level 5
    Grade   Element           Descriptor                                                              Class
            Knowledge         Demonstrates exceptional coherence of ideas and a thorough
                              knowledge and understanding of key concepts at an intermediate
                              level. There is a detailed understanding of the subject matter and
                              evidence of extensive wider reading some of which is from primary
                              sources.
            Criticality       There is an extremely high level critical analysis of issues and/or
                              problems and the work shows an appreciation of competing
    A+
                              perspectives.
            Application       There is an exceptional appreciation of how knowledge is applied to
                              real life contexts and where applied knowledge gaps exist.
            Evaluation        There is an exceptional ability to evaluate knowledge and to
                              recognise the quality of third party evaluations.
            Communication     The work is communicated with a very high degree of authority and
                              referencing is extremely accurate.
            Knowledge         Demonstrates excellent coherence of ideas and an excellent
                              knowledge and understanding of key concepts at an intermediate
                              level. There is a detailed understanding of the subject matter and
                              evidence of excellent wider reading some of which is from primary
                              sources.
            Criticality       There is a very good level of critical analysis of issues and/or
                              problems and the work shows some appreciation of competing               FIRST
    A                         perspectives.
            Application       There is an excellent appreciation of how knowledge is applied to
                              real life contexts and some understanding of where applied
                              knowledge gaps exist.
            Evaluation        There is an excellent ability to evaluate knowledge and to recognise
                              the quality of third party evaluations.
            Communication     The work is communicated with a high degree of authority and
                              referencing is extremely accurate.
            Knowledge         Demonstrates very good coherence of ideas and a very good
                              knowledge and understanding of key concepts at an intermediate
                              level. There is a good understanding of the subject matter and a fair
                              degree of evidence of extensive wider reading some of which is from
                              primary sources.
            Criticality       There is a good level of critical analysis of issues and/or problems
                              and the work shows some appreciation of competing perspectives.
    A-
            Application       There is a very good appreciation of how knowledge is applied to real
                              life contexts and a little understanding of where applied knowledge
                              gaps exist.
            Evaluation        There is a very good ability to evaluate knowledge and to recognise
                              the quality of third party evaluations.
            Communication     The work is communicated with some authority and referencing is
                              very accurate.
                                                                                                       O
                                                                                                       C

                                                                                                       N
                                                                                                       S
                                                                                                       E




    B+      Knowledge         Demonstrates good coherence of ideas and a good knowledge and

Assessment Regulations for UG programmes                           3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                             - - 25 - -                                   September 2011
    B                         understanding of key concepts at an intermediate level. There is an
    B-                        understanding of the subject matter and a degree of evidence of
                              extensive wider reading.
           Criticality        There is evidence of critical analysis of issues and/or problems and
                              the work shows some appreciation of competing perspectives.
           Application        There is a good appreciation of how knowledge is applied to real life
                              contexts and a little understanding of where applied knowledge gaps
                              exist.
           Evaluation         There is a good ability to evaluate knowledge and to recognise the
                              quality of third party evaluations.
           Communication      The work is communicated well and referencing is mostly accurate.
           Knowledge          Demonstrates coherence of ideas and a reasonable knowledge and




                                                                                                        SECOND DIV 2
                              understanding of key concepts at an intermediate level. There is
                              some evidence of wider reading.
           Criticality        There is a little critical analysis of issues and/or problems and the
                              work acknowledges that there are competing perspectives.
    C+
           Application        There is some appreciation of how knowledge is applied to real life
    C
                              contexts and, perhaps, a little understanding of where applied
    C-
                              knowledge gaps exist.
           Evaluation         There is a fair ability to evaluate knowledge and to recognise that
                              third party evaluations might exist.
           Communication      The work is communicated reasonably well and referencing is mostly
                              accurate.
           Knowledge          Demonstrates a little coherence of ideas and some knowledge and
                              understanding of key concepts at an intermediate level. There is a
                              little evidence of wider reading.




                                                                                                        THIRD
    D+     Criticality        There is a little critical analysis of issues and/or problems.
    D      Application        There is a little appreciation of how knowledge is applied to real life
    D-                        contexts and, perhaps, a little understanding of where applied
                              knowledge gaps exist.
           Evaluation         There is a little ability to evaluate knowledge.
           Communication      The work is communicated poorly and some referencing is accurate.
           Knowledge          Demonstrates limited coherence of ideas and little knowledge and
                              understanding of key concepts at an intermediate level. There is very
                              little evidence of wider reading.
           Criticality        There is very little critical analysis of issues and/or problems.
    FM     Application        There is very little appreciation of how knowledge is applied to real
                              life contexts.
           Evaluation         There is very little ability to evaluate knowledge.
           Communication      The work is communicated very poorly and little of the referencing is
                              accurate.
           Knowledge          Demonstrates virtually no coherence of ideas and no knowledge and
                              understanding of key concepts at an intermediate level. There             FAIL
                              virtually no evidence of wider reading.
           Criticality        There is no critical analysis of issues and/or problems.
    F      Application        There is virtually no appreciation of how knowledge is applied to real
                              life contexts.
           Evaluation         There is a little or no ability to evaluate knowledge.
           Communication      The work is communicated extremely poorly and if any referencing is
                              present it is largely inaccurate.
    Z                         Nothing of merit in submitted work, or designates work where an
                              academic offence has occurred. Where no work has been submitted
                              the NS notation will apply.




Assessment Regulations for UG programmes                            3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                             - - 26 - -                                    September 2011
    Level 6
    Grade   Element           Descriptor                                                                   Class
            Knowledge         The work is exceptional in that it is logically presented and error-free.
                              It is creative and illustrates an in-depth understanding of content as
                              well as issues and problems. There is evidence of extensive reading
                              of primary research literature.
            Criticality       The work shows an exceptional, critical engagement with complex
                              ideas and concepts. There is an outstanding appreciation of all of the
                              relevant competing perspectives.
    A+      Application       The work reflects an aptitude for applying knowledge in unusual
                              and/or novel circumstances as well as to more typical work-based
                              scenarios. Where appropriate, workable solutions to problems are
                              offered.
            Evaluation        The work shows a near professional level of evaluation and illustrates
                              solution-focused conclusions based on that evaluation.
            Communication     The work is communicated with an exceptional degree of authority
                              that comes close to that expected of a professional in the field.
            Knowledge         The work is excellent in that it is logically presented and almost error-
                              free. It illustrates a fairly in-depth understanding of content as well as
                              issues and problems. There is evidence of extensive reading of
                              mostly primary research literature.
            Criticality       The work shows an excellent, critical engagement with complex
                              ideas and concepts. There is an excellent appreciation of almost all
                              of the relevant competing perspectives.




                                                                                                           FIRST
            Application       The work reflects some aptitude for applying knowledge in unusual
    A
                              and/or novel circumstances as well as to more typical work-based
                              scenarios. Where appropriate, mostly workable solutions to problems
                              are offered.
            Evaluation        The work shows an advanced level of evaluation and illustrates some
                              solution-focused conclusions based on that evaluation.
            Communication     The work is communicated with an excellent degree of authority that
                              comes reasonably close to that expected of a professional in the
                              field.
            Knowledge         The work is very good in that it is logically presented and reasonably
                              error-free. It illustrates an advanced understanding of content as well
                              as issues and problems. There is evidence of some reading of
                              primary research literature.
            Criticality       The work shows a very good, critical engagement with complex ideas
                              and concepts. There is a very good appreciation of almost all of the
                              relevant competing perspectives.
            Application       The work reflects an attempt at applying knowledge in unusual and/or
    A-
                              novel circumstances as well as to more typical work-based
                              scenarios. Where appropriate, a few workable solutions to problems
                              are offered.
            Evaluation        The work shows a good level of evaluation and illustrates a few
                              solution-focused conclusions based on that evaluation.
            Communication     The work is communicated with a good degree of authority that
                              sometimes comes reasonably close to that expected of a
                              professional in the field.
            Knowledge         The work is good in that it is mainly logically presented and
                              reasonably error-free. It illustrates a good understanding of content
                                                                                                           SECOND DIV 1




                              as well as issues and problems. There is evidence of some reading
                              of primary research literature.
            Criticality       The work shows a good, critical engagement with complex ideas and
                              concepts. There is a good appreciation of some of the relevant
    B+                        competing perspectives.
    B       Application       The work reflects an attempt at applying knowledge in unusual and/or
    B-                        novel circumstances as well as to more typical work-based
                              scenarios.
            Evaluation        The work shows a fair level of evaluation and, perhaps, illustrates a
                              few solution-focused conclusions based on that evaluation.
            Communication     The work is communicated with an occasional glimpse of authority
                              that comes reasonably close to that expected of a professional in the
                              field.
                                                                                                           O
                                                                                                           C

                                                                                                           N
                                                                                                           S
                                                                                                           E




    C+      Knowledge         The work is reasonable in that there is an attempt to present it
Assessment Regulations for UG programmes                             3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                              - - 27 - -                                    September 2011
    C                         logically and it is reasonably error-free. It illustrates a fair
    C-                        understanding of content as well as issues and problems. There is a
                              little evidence of reading of primary research literature.
           Criticality        The work mostly lacks critical engagement with complex ideas and
                              concepts. There is a fair appreciation of some of the relevant
                              competing perspectives.
           Application        The work barely reflects an attempt at applying knowledge in unusual
                              and/or novel circumstances as well as to more typical work-based
                              scenarios.
           Evaluation         The work shows a little evaluation and, perhaps, illustrates a few
                              solution-focused conclusions based on that evaluation.
           Communication      The work is communicated without very much authority. It requires
                              development to come close to that expected of a professional in the
                              field.
           Knowledge          The work is poor in that it is not logically presented and has errors. It
                              illustrates little understanding of content as well as issues and
                              problems. There is, at best, a little evidence of reading of primary
                              research literature.
           Criticality        The work lacks critical engagement with complex ideas and




                                                                                                          THIRD
                              concepts. There is little appreciation of the relevant competing
    D+
                              perspectives.
    D
           Application        The work barely reflects any attempt at applying knowledge in
    D-
                              unusual and/or novel circumstances but is a little better concerning
                              more typical work-based scenarios.
           Evaluation         The work shows barely any evaluation and rarely illustrates any
                              solution-focused conclusions based on that evaluation.
           Communication      The work lacks authority. It does not come at all close to that
                              expected of a professional in the field.
           Knowledge          The work is very poor in that it is not logically presented and has
                              errors. It illustrates virtually no understanding of content or of issues
                              and problems. There is no evidence of any reading of primary
                              research literature.
           Criticality        The work lacks much critical engagement with any ideas and
                              concepts. There is virtually no appreciation of the relevant competing
                              perspectives.
    FM
           Application        The work barely reflects any attempt at applying knowledge in
                              unusual and/or novel circumstances and is little better concerning
                              more typical work-based scenarios.
           Evaluation         The work shows virtually no evaluation and does not refer to any
                              solution-focused conclusions based on that evaluation.
           Communication      The work is communicated poorly. It is far from that expected of a

                                                                                                          FAIL
                              professional in the field.
           Knowledge          The work is extremely poor in that it is poorly presented and has
                              errors. It illustrates no understanding of content or of issues and
                              problems. There is no evidence of any reading of primary research
                              literature.
           Criticality        The work lacks any critical engagement with ideas and concepts.
                              There is no appreciation of the relevant competing perspectives.
    F
           Application        The work makes little or no attempt at applying knowledge to any
                              work-based scenarios.
           Evaluation         The work shows no evaluation and does not refer to any conclusions
                              based around an evaluation.
           Communication      The work is communicated very poorly. It is not to any graduate
                              standard.
    Z                         Nothing of merit in submitted work, or designates work where an
                              academic offence has occurred. Where no work has been submitted
                              the NS notation will apply.




Assessment Regulations for UG programmes                             3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                              - - 28 - -                                    September 2011
J3.3     Assessment component grades

         (i)     The Undergraduate Grading Scale applies to individual assessment
                 components undertaken by students of modules at Levels 3, 4, 5 and 6 in
                 undergraduate programmes. The examiner identifies the grade descriptor which
                 most closely reflects the quality of the work and awards and records the
                 alphabetical report grade.
         (ii)    The numerical grade which directly corresponds to the report grade will be
                 automatically recorded and held for calculation purposes. These are:

                  A+   24.00         B+     17.00            C+   14.00        D+     12.00         Fm     8.00
                  A    22.00         B      16.00            C    13.00        D      11.00         F      5.00
                  A-   18.00         B-     15.00            C-   12.50        D-     10.00         Z      0.01

                 If the module involves two or more assessment components, a mathematical
                 weighting is applied to reflect the relative importance of each component. These
                 weightings will be used to compute the overall grade for the module.
         (iii)   All computations are recorded to the second decimal point. No rounding is
                 permitted. When the overall numerical grade for the module has been
                 calculated, the Undergraduate Grade Scale will determine the corresponding
                 alphabetical report grade.
         (iv)    In the case of Honours degree and Foundation degree programmes the
                 classifications shown on the scale (Section J3.2) are applied to the final award,
                 and are indicative only at module level. In the case of HND/C programmes the
                 classifications are applied to module results.

J3.4     Module grade

         (i)     The relative weightings are applied to the numerical grades achieved in each
                 component of assessment in order to calculate the overall module grade.
         (ii)    To pass a module, and therefore be awarded credit, the average of the marks
                 for the assessment components must be at least a D- and at least an Fm grade
                 must be achieved in each assessment component (see Section J3.2 for
                 available grades). Where this has not been achieved, credits are not awarded
                 and the referral regulations apply (see Section J6.2).
         (iii)   For some Professional Practice modules, where there is an external
                 requirement to fully satisfy the entire set of learning outcomes, the minimum
                 standard of performance is set at Grade D- for each component. Professional
                 Practice modules must be designated as such at the time of validation.
         (iv)    At level 6 only those modules graded D- or above can be used to satisfy the
                 minimum credit requirements at level 6 (Section B4.4).

J4       PASSING MODULES

J4.1     If a student passes a module, by achieving an average grade of at least D-, the credit
         is awarded by the Assessment Board. It is not possible to retake a module that has
         been passed, unless there is allowance made by an external body associated with
         the programme, explicitly stated in the programme specification.




     Assessment Regulations for UG programmes                             3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                    - - 29 - -                                   September 2011
J5       DEFERRAL

J5.1     Consideration in respect of illness, or other valid cause, is given only if the student
         concerned has submitted a formal written claim (EEC) with their work and has
         provided acceptable evidence according to the regulations in Section N. If the EEC
         panel decides to uphold a claim one of the remedies is to offer the opportunity for the
         student to resubmit the work by a revised deadline. This is a deferral.

J5.2     Deadlines for resubmission of work will usually be within the same academic year. In
         the case of examinations the student will normally be directed to take the assessment
         at the next available exam period.

J5.3     The full range of grades will be available provided the work is submitted in line with
         the approved deadline.

J5.4     If, following deferral, the assessment is not submitted by the stipulated date, the
         assessment is considered failed and the referral regulations apply (see Section J6.2).

J6       FAILING MODULES

J6.1     A module is failed if:

         (i)     The work submitted is not of a high enough standard to warrant an overall mark
                 of at least D- for the module.

         (ii)    Work has not been submitted for the module assessments. If a student fails to
                 submit an assignment a mark of NS will be recorded. There is no entitlement to
                 referral if no work has been submitted.

         (iii)   The student has committed academic offences and a penalty of failing the
                 module has been imposed (see Section Q).

         If a student fails a module, the appropriate option from the following will apply:

J6.2     Referral in an assessment component

         (a)     Entitlement to referral:

         (i)     Students who attain Fm in the overall module mark at the first attempt are
                 normally entitled to one referral opportunity in each of the assessment
                 components graded below D- provided the student has submitted work for
                 every element of assessment in the module.
         (ii)    If a student achieves a grade of F in the overall module mark and all elements
                 of assessment have been attempted a referral in the module is at the discretion
                 of the Assessment Board.
         (iii)   Any and all entitlements to referral can be removed following a proven
                 academic offence or a decision taken by the University Assessment Board for
                 Exceptional Circumstances (UABEC), or if special conditions apply to meet the
                 requirements of an external agency.

         (b)     The grade awarded for an assessment following referral:




     Assessment Regulations for UG programmes                  3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                - - 30 - -                            September 2011
         (i)     The highest grade that can be awarded for a referred assessment component is
                 D-. If that grade is achieved, it replaces the original fail grade on the student’s
                 marks profile.
         (ii)    A referral grade of less than D- will also replace the original grade unless it is
                 lower than the grade obtained at the first attempt.

         The student’s marks profile will show both the first and second attempt marks.

         (c)     Recalculation of the module grade following referral:

         (i)     Following re-assessment, the overall module grade is recalculated using the
                 grades recorded for the referred assessments (if higher than the first attempt
                 grade) and the standing grades in the assessment components which were
                 passed at the first attempt.
         (ii)    If a student fails the initial referral attempt (s)he normally has the opportunity to
                 retake the module in the next available session (Section J6.3)

J6.3     Retaking modules

         (i)     If a student has failed a module (grade below D-) at the first attempt, including
                 any referral opportunity, there is normally an entitlement to re-enrol for, and
                 retake, the module in full once more. Retaking necessitates attendance and
                 requires completion of all the assessments. Any assessment grades from the
                 previous attempt at the module cannot be carried forward.

         (ii)    If a student fails the module, including the referral opportunity on the second
                 attempt there is no automatic entitlement to a further attempt. The offer of a
                 third attempt is at the discretion of the Assessment Board, and will only be
                 made if there are compelling reasons to support that decision.

         (iii)   Students may only attempt a module in its entirety a maximum of three times,
                 subject to additional requirements of relevant professional bodies, external
                 agencies or UABEC.

         The maximum overall grade available for a retaken module is D-.

J6.4     Condonement

         Failure in modules with a value up to 15 credits per level may be condoned for an
         Honours award, providing the grade attained in these module(s) is Fm. Students must
         achieve a minimum of 315 credits at D- or above for the award of honours. The
         decision to offer condonement of credit may be taken by a Progress Board after a
         student has used up their rights of referral. Programmes with accreditation through
         Statutory Regulatory Bodies may have requirements that do not allow condonement.

J7       RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNDERGRADUATE ASSESSMENT BOARD

         The University operates a two tier system of Assessment Boards to consider 1)
         module and 2) programme/award results.

J7.1     Module/Subject Boards

         (i)     Following consideration of the evidence of student performance in assessment,
                 an Assessment Board may recommend that the student should pass, or be

     Assessment Regulations for UG programmes                      3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                - - 31 - -                                September 2011
                 referred, or be deferred or should fail a module. Where it is recommended that a
                 student should pass a module, the Assessment Board will confirm the number
                 of credits and the level of the credits to be awarded in respect of the module.
         (ii)    It is important to note that marks for all assessment components will be
                 considered at Assessment Boards, and only those marks will be accepted as
                 the formal marks for the module. Students will be deferred or referred in named
                 assessment components and will be required to resubmit work for the whole
                 component.
         (iii)   Exceptionally, following a ruling made by a panel in consideration of a proven
                 academic offence, a student may be required to take a module again.

J7.2     Progress Boards

         (i)     Following consideration of a student's profile of marks, and the progression
                 standards, the Assessment Board will recommend whether a student should
                 progress to the next stage of study, continue in the same stage, or have their
                 programme registration terminated.
         (ii)    At the conclusion of a student's programme of study, the Assessment Board will
                 consider the student's profile of marks and determine whether the profile
                 qualifies for an award, and at what classification. The criteria for these are set
                 out in Section J13.

J7.3     Professional Qualification Boards

         These operate according to requirements specific to the programme, as identified at
         validation.

J8       PROGRESSION STANDARDS: RECOMMENDATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS

J8.1     Progression through the levels

         Students may not normally attempt study at a higher level until they have attempted
         all elements of assessment in at least 120 credits at their current level and passed at
         least 105 credits, including a maximum of 15 credits for a condoned module. Serious
         consideration should be given to progression where core and pre-requisite modules
         have not been achieved. The maximum condonement and module retake credits
         available are shown in the table below.

          Level     Minimum credits at D- or    Maximum credits           Maximum credits to retake in
                    above                       condoned                  next stage of study
          4         90                          15                        15
          5         90                          15                        15
          6         105                         15                        0

         Students may not progress to Level 6 of the degree if Level 4 credit requirements
         have not been met.

         For extended undergraduate degrees there may be specific progression requirements
         due to the number of credits that are taken at the same level in different stages.

J8.2     Minimum performance

         (i)     The University reserves the right to restrict or redirect the studies, or terminate
                 the registration, of any student whose performance gives cause for serious
                 concern, as demonstrated by repeated or wholesale failure. A full-time student
     Assessment Regulations for UG programmes                     3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                 - - 32 - -                              September 2011
                must pass at least 45 credits in each year of study. Failure to achieve this will
                result in automatic failure and termination of registration for the programme. See
                Section O3.4(v).

J9       GENERAL CREDIT REQUIREMENTS

J9.1     Undergraduate Degree Programmes

         The table below indicates the minimum number of credits and the levels at which they
         must be achieved, that apply to all undergraduate degree programmes. Students
         wishing to exit their programme of study are advised to seek advice from the Student
         Support Centre.

         Guidance: The general credit requirements listed below specify the minimum levels
         of achievement for an award to be conferred.


          Award                    Number of         Minimum number of       Minimum              Minimum
                                   credits           credits required at     number of            number of
                                                                b
                                   required for      each level              credits required     credits required
                                             a
                                   the award                                 at levels 5 and 6    at level 7
                                                     Level 5    Level 6
          Cert HE                  120               -          -
          Dip HE                   240               105        -
          Foundation degree        240               105        -
          Bachelor’s degree        300               105        60
          Bachelor’s degree        360               105        105          225
          with honours
                                       c                                         d
          Integrated Master’s      480               105        105          225                  150
          degree
          a
            All credits must be at Level 4 and above.
          b
            These credits at levels 5 and 6 must be in modules graded D- or above, and may include one 15 credit
          module substituted from another level. Up to 15 credits at Fm may be condoned per level for levels 4, 5 &
          6 only (SectionJ6.4).
          c
            150 of the required 480 credits must be achieved at level 7. (See Section K7.4)
          d
            Dependent on programme design this may need to include credits from Level 7.

         Early exit qualification: Credits obtained at a higher level may substitute for those at a
         lower level if a student terminates their studies at the University prior to completion of
         the award for which they were registered, and substitution would enable the student
         to satisfy all specific credit requirements of an award associated with a lower level.

J9.2     Higher National awards

         The table below indicates the minimum number of credits and the levels at which they
         must be achieved, that apply to all HND/HNC programmes.

                         Minimum number of credits             Minimum number of credits at
              Award      required for the award
                                                1
                                                               Level 5

              HND          240                                 90
              HNC          150                                 45
              1
                All credits must be at Level 4 and above.



     Assessment Regulations for UG programmes                          3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                  - - 33 - -                                  September 2011
          The following classifications apply to HNC and HND module results only:

                A+     Distinction    B+     Distinction        C+   Merit            D+     Pass
                A      Distinction         B    Merit           C    Merit            D      Pass
                A-     Distinction         B- Merit             C-   Pass             D-     Pass

          Early exit qualification: If a student terminates studies at the University before having
          completed the general/specific credit requirements for a named HND/HNC award, the
          student may qualify for the award of Certificate of HE or Diploma of HE if the
          University’s general credit requirements for that award have been satisfied (or could
          be satisfied by allowing credits attained at level 5 to substitute for those at level 4).

J9.3      Minor Awards

          Minor awards are not intermediate stages of the University’s major awards. A student
          who fails to satisfy the requirements for an intermediate or major award cannot be
          recommended for one of the University’s minor awards. However, a student who
          satisfactorily completes a minor award may subsequently register for an intermediate
          or major award and use the credits towards the credit requirements for that award if
          they are deemed appropriate either through credit transfer or by using the APL
          procedures.

                         Minor Award                       Total Credits          Minimum number of Credits
                                                                                    Required for the Award
                 University Advanced Diploma           60 credits at level 6           45 credits at level 6
                      University Diploma               60 credits at level 5           45 credits at level 5
                     University Certificate            60 credits at level 4           60 credits at level 4
                    Foundation Certificate             60 credits at level 3           60 credits at level 3
                  Certificate of Achievement                            30 credits at any level


J10       QUALIFICATION FOR AN AWARD

J10.1 In order to qualify for an award the student must have satisfied both:

          (i)        The general credit requirements for the award; and
          (ii)       All the specific requirements defined in the intended learning outcomes for the
                     programme, for each of the stages leading to the award.

J11       CONFIRMATION OF AN AWARD

J11.1 Confirmation of the award terminates, automatically, the student's registration for that
      award and the credits attributed to it are considered to have been 'spent'. They
      cannot be used again to qualify for an alternative award at the same level but could
      be used to gain direct entry to a higher level programme.

J12       EXCEPTIONAL CASES

J12.1 If an Assessment Board or Programme Leader believes that the circumstances of a
      student are such that an injustice would be done by conferring an award only on the
      basis of credits and grades achieved, a case can be made for special consideration.
      If the appropriate action is considered to be beyond that which can be taken at
      module level (see Section J9), the supporting documentary evidence must be
      submitted by the Programme Leader to the Assessment and Awards Unit, where an
      initial judgment on the validity of the case will be made against set criteria with further
      Assessment Regulations for UG programmes                             3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                   - - 34 - -                                     September 2011
          information sought when necessary. All submissions that satisfy the criteria will be
          presented to the UABEC, for special consideration in respect of an award. The Board
          will be governed by the University's regulations on aegrotat (see Section A5) and
          other awards in the event of extenuating circumstances.

          Guidance: For guidance on the award of Bachelor’s Degrees with Honours for
          students with extenuating circumstances, please refer to Section I4.

J13       THE CLASSIFICATION OF AWARDS

J13.1 Bachelor’s Degree with Honours

          (i)     When a student's body of work has qualified for an honours degree award (see
                  Section 9.1 for credit requirements), and satisfies professional requirements
                  where applicable, the classification of the degree is decided at the Assessment
                  Board.
          (ii)    If the weighted average of the grades meets or exceeds the threshold mark, the
                  associated classification will be awarded.
          (iii)   If the weighted average of the grades falls into the borderline range, the final
                  year performance will be considered to determine the degree classification.

          The details of these criteria are shown below.

          Degree classification

          (i)     A weighted average of all graded credits at levels 5 and 6 is calculated:

                  Level 5 average x 0.2 + Level 6 average x 0.8

          (ii)    Where more than 120 credits have been achieved at a level, the highest graded
                  120 credits will be used for the calculation.
          (iii)   The weighted average will be compared with the threshold marks for each
                  classification (see classification table). If the weighted average mark is equal to
                  or greater than the threshold mark, the student's performance will be awarded
                  that classification. No other measures are considered unless the result falls
                  within the borderline range.

          Classification table

          Classification                  Threshold mark                   Borderline range
          First Class                     17.5                             17.0-17.49
          Second class division 1         14.5                             14.0-14.49
          Second class division 2         12.25                            11.75-12.24
          Third class                     Achievement of credit requirements for honours see Section J9

          Borderline consideration

          (i)     If the weighted average falls into the borderline range, the profile of marks will
                  be reviewed against a final level performance indicator (grade profile): at least
                  60 credits at level 6 must be at or above the threshold mark.
          (ii)    If the grade profile matches or exceeds the threshold mark, the student will be
                  awarded the higher classification.


      Assessment Regulations for UG programmes                      3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                 - - 35 - -                                September 2011
J13.2 Determination of Honours classification following Direct Entry or entry with Advanced
      Standing

       (i)     If the grade average for the penultimate level cannot be calculated, e.g.
               because the student was a direct entry to the final stage or the student studied
               abroad for the whole of stage 2, the grade average for the final level will serve
               as the overall performance indicator.
       (ii)    Note specifically that in the case of a student progressing from a Foundation
               degree to the final stage of an Honours degree, this constitutes direct entry to
               the latter and the honours classification will be based on level 6 credits only.
       (iii)   Whilst learning recognised by APL may enable a student to qualify for an
               honours award, for an average grade to be calculated at either of the final two
               levels the student must have achieved at least 60 graded credits at the level
               concerned, by study at the University. If the level concerned is the final level,
               the grade profile requirement is that more than half the number of credits
               achieved at the final level must be seen to match or exceed the class of
               honours awarded.

J13.3 Integrated Master’s Degree

       (i)     The normal undergraduate regulations for assessment apply to modules at
               Levels 4, 5 and 6 and the normal postgraduate regulations apply to modules at
               Level 7.
       (ii)    The calculation of the classification of Bachelor’s Degree with honours is
               conducted on completion of Stage 3 but is only certificated if there is no
               progression to Stage 4 or failure to complete the programme for the Integrated
               Master’s degree.
       (iii)   The calculation follows the normal rules for undergraduate degrees as stated
               above except that the overall performance will include level 7 credits, the final
               level characteristics average grade will be taken from the highest graded 90
               credits at levels 6 and 7. The grade profile will be taken from level 6 graded
               credits.
       (iv)    The calculation of the Master’s classification follows the rules set out in the
               Postgraduate Assessment regulations (Section K10).

J13.4 Foundation Degree

       (i)     When a student has qualified for a Foundation degree the classification of the
               award is based on the average of all the graded credits (up to a maximum of
               120) achieved at level 5. If more than 120 credits have been achieved at level 5
               the highest graded 120 will be selected for the calculation.

        Average Grade at Level 5                       Classification
        16.5 or above                                  Distinction
        12.75 or above                                 Merit
        Achievement of the credit requirements         Pass




   Assessment Regulations for UG programmes                        3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                              - - 36 - -                                  September 2011
K         ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS FOR POSTGRADUATE PROGRAMMES

K1        THE BASIS FOR THE AWARD OF CREDIT

K1.1      In order to gain the academic credit for a module, a student must satisfy all the
          designated learning outcomes for the module. A learning outcome is a fundamental
          achievement, which may take the form of the acquisition of knowledge,
          understanding, an intellectual skill or a practical skill. Learning outcomes are the
          basis for the learning and assessment strategy in modules. The learning outcomes
          and the level of the module together define the standard.

K1.2      Each assessment component is the vehicle for one or more learning outcomes. The
          assessor should provide the students with a list of the assessment criteria which will
          be applied in the assessment of the submitted work. If, in assessing the academic
          quality of the submitted work, the assessor judges that the student has satisfied the
          assessment criteria then the student should receive a pass grade. The actual pass
          grade awarded depends on the quality of the performance, and is decided by
          comparing the quality of performance with the postgraduate grade descriptors. In
          making this judgement, the level of the study, normally level 7 or level 8 should be
          taken into consideration (see section B3.2).

K2        MODES OF ASSESSMENT

K2.1      Assessment may take the form of essays, presentations, groupwork activities,
          projects or other assessments (termed coursework) and seen or unseen
          examinations.

K2.2      The relative weighting of the coursework and examination components is approved
          at validation and may only be varied through formal minor modifications procedures.
          Where the coursework comprises more than one assignment, the module tutor
          decides the relative weighting of each assignment. The relative weightings of
          coursework assignments may be adjusted without formal approval, but students
          must be informed of the weightings no later than the commencement of the module.

K2.3      The permitted relative weightings of coursework and examination components are:

           Coursework                 100%         70%       60%   50%    40%      30%      0%
           Examination                0%           30%       40%   50%    60%      70%      100%


K3        THE GRADING SYSTEM

K3.1      The Postgraduate Grading Scale (see section K3.2) only applies to individual
          coursework assessments and examination answers undertaken by students of
          modules at levels 7, which equate to master’s standard. The scale does not apply to
          level 8 modules, which are only assessed on a pass/fail basis or level 7 modules that
          have been validated to be assessed on a pass/fail basis.

K3.2      The Postgraduate Grading Scale has four main pass grades A, B, C and D and each
          is subdivided into three report grades (e.g. A+, A and A-). The assessor identifies the
          grade descriptor which most closely reflects the quality of the work and awards the
          alphabetical report grade. Where an assignment exhibits the characteristics of two or
          more grades, the assessor should give careful consideration to the relative
          importance of the applicable descriptors as indicated by the assessment criteria in
          deciding the overall standards of the work and the appropriate grade to be awarded.
     Assessment Regulations for PG programmes                       3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                - - 37 - -                                 September 2011
Postgraduate Grading Scale

                     Grade Descriptors




                                                                                                                 Report
                                                                                                                 Grade
                     These are typical characteristics of the quality of work associated with each
                     grade. The descriptors are illustrative only and for guidance only. They
                     are not comprehensive.

                     Excellent                                                                                  A+




                                                                                                                            DISTINCTION
                     Outstanding; high to very high standard; a high level of critical analysis and
                     evaluation, incisive original thinking; commendable originality; exceptionally             A
 THE LEARNING OUTCOMES HAVE BEEN




                     well researched; high quality presentation; exceptional clarity of ideas;
                     excellent coherence and logic. Trivial or very minor errors.                               A-
                     Very good                                                                                  B+
                     A very good standard; a very good level of critical analysis and evaluation;




                                                                                                                            MERIT
                     significant originality; well researched; a very good standard of                          B
                     presentation; pleasing clarity of ideas; thoughtful and effective
             SATISFIED




                     presentation; very good sense of coherence and logic; Minor errors only.                   B-
                     Good                                                                                       C+
                     A good standard; a fairly good level of critical analysis and evaluation;
                     some evidence of original thinking or originality; quite well researched; a                C
                     good standard of presentation; ideas generally clear and coherent, some
                     evidence of misunderstandings; some deficiencies in presentation.                          C-




                                                                                                                             PASS
                     Satisfactory
                     A sound standard of work; a fair level of critical analysis and evaluation;                D+
                     little evidence of original thinking or originality; adequately researched; a
                     sound standard of presentation; ideas fairly clear and coherent, some
                                                                                                                D
                     significant misunderstandings and errors; some weakness in style or
                     presentation but satisfactory overall.
                                                                                                                D-
                     Unsatisfactory
                     Overall marginally unsatisfactory; some sound aspects but some of the
                     following weaknesses are evident; inadequate critical analysis and
 LEARNING OUTCOMES




                     evaluation; little evidence of originality; not well researched; standard of               Fm
                     presentation unacceptable; ideas unclear and incoherent; some significant
                     errors and misunderstandings. Marginal fail.
      NOT MET




                                                                                                                              FAIL


                     Very poor
                     Well below the pass standard; a poor critical analysis and evaluation; no
                     evidence of originality; poorly researched; standard of presentation totally               F
                     unacceptable; ideas confused and incoherent, some serious
                     misunderstandings and errors. A clear fail well short of the pass standard.
                     Nothing of merit
                     Work not submitted or nothing of value is contained in the submitted work.
                     Nil Report grade.                                                                          NR

K3.3                               Where a module is assessed through one summative assignment, the grade for the
                                   assignment becomes the overall module grade. Where the module comprises two or
                                   more components of equal or differential weightings, the overall module grade may
                                   be determined from the grades awarded for the assessment components using a
                                   web-based calculator available to both staff and students.


                Assessment Regulations for PG programmes                            3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                                - - 38 - -                                 September 2011
K4       ASSESSMENT OF INDEPENDENT SCHOLARSHIP/RESEARCH

K4.1      For the standard Master’s Degree [MA, MSc, MEd, MBA, LLM], the Integrated
          Master’s [MDes] and the PG Diploma stage of the Master of Research [MRes] the
          submitted works of independent scholarship/research are assessed independently
          by the supervisor and a second examiner before reaching an agreed grade. In the
          event that they are unable to agree a grade, a third internal assessor is invited to
          assess the work. The three assessors then come forward with a recommended
          grade. This assessment is subject to moderation by the Programme External
          Examiner.

K4.2      The independent research for the Master of Research [MRes] is submitted and
          assessed by a process consistent with those used by Postgraduate Research
          students. The submitted works of independent research are assessed by two
          examiners who are independent of the supervision of the research. The independent
          research is graded and a viva voce examination conducted by the two independent
          examiners forms part of the assessment.

K4.3      For the PG Certificate and PG Diploma of Professional Practice the submitted
          works of independent research are assessed independently by the director of studies
          and second supervisor before reaching an agreed grade. In the event that they are
          unable to agree a grade, a third internal assessor is invited to assess the work. The
          three assessors then come forward with a recommended grade. This assessment is
          subject to moderation by the Programme External Examiner.

K4.4      For the Master of Professional Practice [MPr] and the Doctor of Professional
          Practice [DPr] the submitted works of the independent research for the professional
          master’s and professional doctorate are assessed by two examiners who are
          independent of the supervision of the research. The Faculty approves and appoints
          an external and internal examiner for each candidate. The independent research for
          the professional master’s award (level 7) is graded but the independent research for
          the professional doctorate (level 8) is assessed on a pass/fail basis. A viva voce
          examination forms part of the assessment.

K5       RESEARCH ETHICS: UNIVERSITY POLICY AND CODE OF PRACTICE

K5.1     University Policy

         As a reflection of its five core organisational values (Quality, Valuing People,
         Customer Focus, Challenge and Innovation, Opportunity and Openness) the
         University is concerned to protect the rights, dignity, safety and privacy of research
         subjects, the welfare of animals and the integrity of the environment. The University is
         also concerned to protect the health, safety and academic freedom of researchers
         and the reputation of the University as a centre for appropriately conducted high
         quality research. Underpinning the standards are the ethical imperatives of Do No
         Harm (non-malfeasance) and Do Good (beneficence).

K5.2     Code of Practice on Research Ethics

         Researchers are required to comply with the University’s Code of Practice on
         Research Ethics.




     Assessment Regulations for PG programmes                 3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                - - 39 - -                           September 2011
K6       PREPARATION FOR ENTRY TO POSTGRADUATE TAUGHT PROGRAMMES

         Students who are required to enrol on preparatory modules, usually at levels 4, 5 or
         6, are normally expected to complete these modules before progressing to Stage 1 of
         the postgraduate programme. However, the Assessment Board may use its powers
         of discretion to declare itself satisfied with the students’ participation and achievement
         in a preparatory module, and permit the student to progress without obtaining the
         formal academic credit. The Assessment Board cannot withhold a postgraduate
         award to a student who has qualified for that award by accumulating the necessary
         credits on the grounds that a preparatory module has not been passed.

K7       CREDIT STRUCTURE, STAGES AND AWARDS FOR THE MASTER’S DEGREE

K7.1     Stage 1: Postgraduate Certificate [PG Cert]:

         (i)    In order to qualify for the award of the Postgraduate Certificate [PG Cert],
                students are required to gain 60 credits of which at least 45 must be at level 7.
                Up to 15 credits may be at level 6 or 7 (see section K7.4). Normally
                supplementary modules do not contribute to the accumulation of credits towards
                the stage award. Students who have qualified for the stage award are entitled to
                progress to Stage 2 (but see section K12).
         (ii)   The Assessment Board may permit a student who has been referred in up to
                two standard modules (or equivalent) in this stage to progress to Stage 2.
                However, the student must redeem the failures in order to obtain the
                Postgraduate Certificate. Furthermore, the student is ineligible for the award of
                the Postgraduate Diploma until the Postgraduate Certificate has been achieved.

K7.2     Stage 2: Postgraduate Diploma [PG Dip]:

         (i)    In order to qualify for the award of Postgraduate Diploma, students are required
                to gain a total of 120 credits of which at least 90 credits must be at level 7. Up to
                30 credits may be obtained at level 6 (see section K7.4). Normally
                supplementary modules do not contribute to the accumulation of credits towards
                the stage award. Students who have qualified for the stage award are entitled to
                progress to Stage 3 (see section K12).
         (ii)   The Assessment Board may permit a student who has been referred in up to
                two standard modules (or equivalent) to progress to Stage 3. However, the
                student must redeem the failures in order to obtain the Postgraduate Diploma.
                Students shall not progress to Stage 3 if they have failed to satisfy the
                requirements of Stage 1. Students are ineligible for the award of the Master’s
                Degree until the Postgraduate Diploma has been achieved.

K7.3     Stage 3: Master’s Degree [MA, MSc, MEd, MBA, LLM] and the Integrated Master’s
         [MDes]

         In order to qualify for the award of the Master's Degree, students are required to gain
         a total of 180 credits of which at least 150 credits must be at level 7. Up to 30 credits
         may be at level 6 (see Section K7.4). Normally, Independent Scholarship has a credit
         value of 60 credits at level 7. Master’s degrees may be classified with Distinction or
         Merit for those students whose performance is outstanding (see Section K10).




     Assessment Regulations for PG programmes                    3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                - - 40 - -                              September 2011
K7.4      Credit Requirements for the Master’s Degree

 Stage          Award title             Credit requirements                    Total credits     Total
                                                                               per stage         credits
                                                                                                 overall
 1              PG Certificate          45 credits at Level 7                        60               60
                                                                   1
                                        15 credits at Level 6 or 7
 2              PG Diploma              45 credits at Level 7                        60              120
                                                                   1
                                        15 credits at Level 6 or 7
                                                                2
 3              Masters                 60 credits at Level 7                        60              180
                                                                                                           3
                Integrated Master’s     Minimum of 150 credits at Level 7           150              480
 1
     In the case of modern languages only these 15 credits may be at Level 5 or 6
 2
     Normally including at least 60 credits from Independent Scholarship.
 3
     Includes 120 credits level4, 120 credits level 5 and 90 credits level 6. See also Section J13.1


K8        CREDIT STRUCTURE, STAGES AND AWARDS FOR THE MASTER’S ADVANCED DIPLOMA

K8.1      Stage 3: Master’s Advanced Diploma [MAdDip]

          In order to qualify for the award of Master’s Advanced Diploma, students are required
          to gain 60 credits at level 7 (see section K8.2) from the third stage only of an existing
          master’s level award in a closely allied discipline. The student will have already
          satisfied the learning outcomes of the first and second stages.

K8.2      Credit Requirements for the Master’s Advanced Diploma

 Stage          Award title             Credit requirements             Total credits       Total credits
                                                                        per stage           overall
 3              Masters Advanced        60 credits at Level 7           60                  60
                       1
                Diploma
 1
  Students who already hold a Master’s Degree may take Stage 3 only in a closely related
 discipline and qualify for a Master’s Advanced Diploma (MAdDip)


K9        CREDIT STRUCTURE, STAGES AND AWARDS FOR THE MASTER OF RESEARCH DEGREE

K9.1      Stage 1: Postgraduate Certificate in Research Skills

          (i)     In order to qualify for the award of the Postgraduate Certificate in Research
                  Skills, students are required to gain 60 credits at level 7 of which at least 45
                  credits must be at level 7. Up to 15 credits in the taught modules may be at level
                  6 or 7 (see Section K9.4). Normally supplementary modules do not contribute to
                  the accumulation of credits towards the stage award. Students who have
                  qualified for the stage award are entitled to progress to Stage 2 (but see Section
                  K12).
         (ii)     The Assessment Board may permit a student who has referred in up to two
                  standard modules (or the equivalent of 30 credits) in this stage to progress to
                  Stage 2. However, the student must redeem the failures in order to obtain the
                  Postgraduate Certificate in Research Skills. Furthermore, the student is
                  ineligible for the award of Postgraduate Diploma in Research Skills until the
                  Postgraduate Certificate in Research Skills has been achieved.
      Assessment Regulations for PG programmes                         3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                 - - 41 - -                                   September 2011
K9.2      Stage 2: Postgraduate Diploma in Research Skills

          (i)   In order to qualify for the award of the Postgraduate Diploma in Research Skills,
                students are required to gain a total of 120 credits at level 7 of which at least 90
                credits must be at level 7. Up to 30 credits (total) in the taught modules may be
                at level 6 or 7 (see Section K9.4). Normally supplementary modules do not
                contribute to the accumulation of credits towards the stage award.
         (ii)   Students embark on the Independent Research in the Postgraduate Diploma
                stage. They must decide whether they intend to undertake a 30 credit study for
                the Postgraduate Diploma in Research Skills or a 90 credit study for the Master
                or Research Degree.

K9.3      Stage 3: Master of Research Degree [MRes]

          In order to qualify for the award of Master of Research, students are required to gain
          a total of 180 credits at level 7 of which at least 150 credits must be at level 7. Up to
          30 credits (total) in the taught modules may be at level 6 or 7 (see Section K9.4).
          Normally supplementary modules do not contribute to the accumulation of credits
          towards the stage award.

K9.4      Credit Requirements for the Master of Research Degree

        Award Title                                           Contribution

 Master of Research           Independent Research: 90 credits at level 7
                                                                                      2
 Degree                       Research Skills modules: at least 45 credits at level 7
                                                                                                2
                              Discipline related knowledge modules: up to 45 credits at level 7

                              TOTAL: 180 credits
 PG Diploma in                Independent Research: 30 credits at level 7
                                                                                      2
 Research Skills              Research Skills modules: at least 45 credits at level 7
                                                                                                   2
                              Discipline related knowledge modules: at least 15 credits at level 7

                              TOTAL: 120 credits
                                                                                      1
 PG Certificate in            Research Skills modules: at least 45 credits at level 7
                                                                                                   1
 Research Skills              Discipline related knowledge modules: at least 15 credits at level 7

                              TOTAL: 60 credits
  1
      Up to 15 credits in the taught modules may be at level 6
  2
      Up to 30 credits (total) in the taught module may be at level 6


K10       DETERMINING THE OVERALL CATEGORY OF MASTER’S DEGREE ACHIEVED

          (i)   Students whose performance is outstanding should be considered for the award
                of the Master’s Degree with Distinction. Students who perform very well should
                be considered for the award of the Master’s Degree with Merit. The award of
                these categories is based on the calculation of the average grade-points per
                credit and consideration of the grade profile of the full performance (all three
                stages) on the Master’s programme, as set out in Figures 1 and 2 respectively.
                Note: In the case of students who have joined the programme with APL a pro
                rata analysis is undertaken and some discretion may be necessary.


      Assessment Regulations for PG programmes                        3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                 - - 42 - -                                  September 2011
        (ii)   For the Master’s Advanced Diploma, the categories of Distinction and Merit do
               not apply.

Figure 1. The minimum performance profiles indicative of master’s with DISTINCTION
Each profile represents the grades attained in the full programme placed in rank order

1.             A       A       A      A            B         B   B    B           B      B       B       B
2.             A       A       A      A            A         B   B    B           B      B       C       C
3.             A       A       A      A            A         A   B    B           B      C       C       C
4.             A       A       A      A            A         A   B    B           B      B       C       D
5.             A       A       A      A            A         A   A    B           C      C       C       C
6.             A       A       A      A            A         A   A    B           B      C       C       D
7.             A       A       A      A            A         A   A    A           C      C       C       D
8.             A       A       A      A            A         A   A    A           B      B       D       D
9.             A       A       A      A            A         A   A    A           A      C       D       D
The indicative profiles above are based on 15-credit modules. An actual performance profile
can be compared visually against these profiles to see if a candidate has qualified for the
award of Master's degree with Distinction. However, it is recommended that the average
grade points per credit are calculated. This method accommodates modules of different
sizes. If a candidate has APL, the calculation is based on that part of the performance
carrying grades. The minimum requirement of 60 credits at Grade A applies to all candidates.

Guidance on how to carry out a manual check:
1. Check that the candidate has achieved 180 credits and qualifies for the Degree.
2. Count the number of credits achieved at grade A. If there are less than 60 credits at
   grade A the student does not qualify.
3. Count the number of credits at grades C and D. If there are more than 60 credits at grade
   C or more than 30 credits at grade D the student does not qualify.
4. If the profile satisfies the first three checks, calculate the average grade-points per credit
   as follows. Multiply the credits for each module by the grade points, when A=4, B=3, C=2
   and D=1. Sum the total credit-grade points and divide by the total number of credits.
5. If the candidate has an average of at least 3.25 grade points per credit and at least grade
   B for Independent Studies, s/he qualifies for Distinction, except in the circumstances
   below.

Exceptions:
1. If the candidate has only the minimum 60 credits at grade A, then s/he must achieve a
   grade A in the Independent Studies and an average of at least 3.33 grade-points per
   credit.
2. If the candidate has more than 15 credits at grade D, then s/he must achieve an average
   of at least 3.33 grade-points per credit.



     Assessment Regulations for PG programmes                        3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                - - 43 - -                                  September 2011
Figure 2. The minimum performance profiles indicative of master's with MERIT

Each profile represents the grades attained in the full programme placed in rank order


1.           B       B       B      B            B         B   B    B           B      C       C       C
2.           A       B       B      B            B         B   B    B           C      C       C       C
3.           A       B       B      B            B         B   B    B           B      C       C       D
4.           A       A       B      B            B         B   B    C           C      C       C       C
5.           A       A       B      B            B         B   B    B           C      C       C       D
6.           A       A       B      B            B         B   B    B           B      B       D       D
7.           A       A       A      B            B         B   C    C           C      C       C       C
8.           A       A       A      B            B         B   B    C           C      C       C       D
9.           A       A       A      B            B         B   B    B           B      C       D       D
10.          A       A       A      A            B         C   C    C           C      C       C       C
11.          A       A       A      A            B         B   C    C           C      C       C       D
12.          A       A       A      A            B         B   B    B           C      C       D       D
The indicative profiles above are based on 15-credit modules. An actual performance profile
can be compared visually against these profiles to see if a candidate has qualified for the
award of Master's degree with Merit. However, it is recommended that the average grade-
points per credit are calculated. This method accommodates modules of different sizes. If a
candidate has APL, the calculation is based on that part of the performance carrying grades.

Guidance on how to carry out a manual check:
1. Check that the candidate has achieved 180 credits and qualifies for the Degree.
2. Count the number of credits at grades C and D. If there are more than 105 credits at
   grade C or more than 30 credits at grade D the student does not qualify.
3. If the profile satisfies the two three checks, calculate the average grade-points per credit
   as follows. Multiply the credits for each module by the grade points, where A=4, B=3, C=2
   and D=1. Sum the total credit-grade points and divide by the total number of credits.
4. If the candidate has an average of at least 2.75 grade points per credit and at least grade
   C for Independent Studies, s/he qualifies for Merit, except in the circumstances below.

Exceptions:
1. If the candidate has more than 15 credits at grade D, then s/he must achieve an average
   of at least 2.83 grade-points per credit.




   Assessment Regulations for PG programmes                        3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                              - - 44 - -                                  September 2011
K11        CREDIT STRUCTURE, STAGES AND AWARDS FOR THE PROFESSIONAL MASTER’S DEGREE

K11.1 Stage 1: Postgraduate Certificate in Professional Practice [PG Cert]

           In order to qualify for the award of the Postgraduate Certificate in Professional
           Practice [PG Cert], students are required to gain 60 credits of which 45 must be at
           level 7. Up to 15 credits in the taught modules may be at level 6 (see Section K11.4).
           Normally supplementary modules do not contribute to the accumulation of credits
           towards the stage award.

K11.2 Stage 2: Postgraduate Diploma in Professional Practice [PG Dip]

           In order to qualify for the award of the Postgraduate Diploma in Professional Practice
           [PG Dip], students are required to gain a total of 120 credits of which 90 must be at
           level 7. Up to 30 credits in the taught modules may be at level 6 (see Section K11.4).
           Normally supplementary modules do not contribute to the accumulation of credits
           towards the stage award.

K11.3 Stage 3: Master of Professional Practice [MPr]

           In order to qualify for the award of the Master of Professional Practice [MPr], students
           are required to gain a total of 180 credits of which at least 150 must be at level 7. Up
           to 30 credits in the taught modules may be at level 67 (see Section K11.4). Normally
           supplementary modules do not contribute to the accumulation of credits towards the
           stage award.

K11.4 Credit Requirements for the Professional Master’s Degree

         Award Title                                           Contribution

  Master of                    Independent Research into Practice: at least 90 credits but not exceeding
  Professional Practice        135 credits at level 7
                                                                                       2
                               Research Skills modules: at least 45 credits at level 7
                               Work based professional practice: up to 45 credits at level 7

                               TOTAL: 180 credits
  PG Diploma in                Independent Research into Practice: 30 credits at level 7
                                                                                       2
  Professional Practice        Research Skills modules: at least 45 credits at level 7
                               Work based professional practice: up to 15 credits at level 7

                               TOTAL: 120 credits
  PG Certificate in            Independent Research into Practice: 30 credits at level 7
                                                                              1
  Professional Practice        Research Skills modules: 30 credits at level 7

                               TOTAL: 60 credits
   1
       Up to 15 credits in the taught modules may be at level 6
   2
       Up to 30 credits (total) in the taught module may be at level 6




       Assessment Regulations for PG programmes                       3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                  - - 45 - -                                 September 2011
K12    CREDIT STRUCTURE, STAGES AND AWARDS FOR THE PROFESSIONAL DOCTORATE DEGREE

K12.1 Stage 4: Doctor of Professional Practice [DPr]

       In order to qualify for the award of Doctor of Professional Practice [DPr], students are
       required to:

       (i)     Gain a total of 540 credits.
       (ii)    Achieve at least 360 credits at level 8 through Independent Research.
       (iii)   Achieve the remaining 180 credits at level 7, with the exception that up to 30
               credits may be contributed at level (5 or) 6 where programme regulation permit.

                  No credits may be contributed from levels lower than level 5.
                  At least 45 credits at level 7 must be achieved in research skill, which
                   encompass ethical and professional considerations, research planning,
                   organisation, management, research methods and presentation.

K12.2 Credit Requirements for the Doctor of Professional Practice:

                       Component                           Level        Minimum             Maximum
                                                                       Contribution        Contribution
  Theory for Practice:
  Research skills modules                                   7            45 credits          90 credits
  Discipline-related philosophy/knowledge                                    Nil            120 credits
  TOTAL - Theory for Practice                               7            45 credits         180 credits
  Work based professional practice                          7                nil            120 credits
  Independent research into practice
  Practice based project or creative works                  8           270 credits         315 credits
  Dissertation - critical reflection on practice            8            90 credits         135 credits
  TOTAL – Independent research into practice                            360 credits         450 credits
  Viva voce examination (essential)                                   Credits not applicable

K13    LATE WORK

K13.1 Work which is submitted after the designated deadline for a coursework assessment
      is deemed late.

K13.2 If serious circumstances beyond a student’s control affect their ability to complete an
      assessment they may submit a claim for Exceptional Extenuating Circumstances
      (EEC). This must be accompanied by evidence and the work done to date, by the
      original assessment submission deadline. This will be considered by an EEC panel.
      Details of the policy and procedure are in Part N of these regulations.

K13.3 If the submitted work is late but within 7 days of the deadline, the work is assessed
      but the highest mark available is the minimum pass grade D-. There is no entitlement
      to feedback although feedback may be offered.

K13.4 If the work is tendered more than 7 days after the deadline, it is not marked and a NS
      grade is recorded. The referral regulations apply (see Section K15)


   Assessment Regulations for PG programmes                        3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                              - - 46 - -                                  September 2011
K13.5 Referred assessments must be submitted on time. Referred works submitted late are
      not marked and a NS grade is recorded (see Section K15).

K14    RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE POSTGRADUATE ASSESSMENT BOARD

K14.1 Following consideration of the evidence of student performance in assessment, an
      Assessment Board may recommend that the student should pass, or be referred, or
      be deferred or should fail a module. Where it is recommended that a student should
      pass a module, the Assessment Board will confirm the number of credits and the
      level of the credits to be awarded in respect of the module.

K14.2 It is important to note that marks for all assessment components will be considered at
      Assessment Boards, and only those marks will be accepted as the formal marks for
      the module. Students will be deferred or referred in named assessment components
      and will be required to resubmit work for the whole component.

K14.3 Exceptionally, following a ruling made by a panel in consideration of a proven
      academic offence, a student may be required to take a module again.

K15    REFERRAL

K15.1 Entitlement to referral:

       (i)     If after the first attempt the overall grade for the module is below D- , or where
               the minimum pass grade of D- has not been reached in any one of the
               assessment components contributing to the module, credits are not awarded
               and the student is normally offered a referral opportunity in each of the
               assessment components graded below D-.
       (ii)    If a student achieves less than a grade of Fm in the overall module mark a
               referral in the module is at the discretion of the Assessment Board. In such
               cases, the student is deemed to have failed the module.
       (iii)   Any entitlement to referral can be removed following a proven academic offence
               or if special conditions apply to meet the requirements of an external agency.

K15.2 The Grade Awarded for an Assessment Following Referral:

       (i)     The highest grade that can be awarded for a referred assessment component is
               D-. If that grade is achieved, it replaces the original fail grade on the student’s
               marks profile.
       (ii)    A referral grade of less than D- will also supplant the original grade unless it is
               lower than the grade obtained at the first attempt.
       (iii)   The student’s marks profile will show both the first and second attempt marks.

K15.3 Recalculation of the Module Grade Following Referral

       (i)     Following re-assessment, the overall module grade is recalculated using the
               grades recorded for the referred assessment (see Section K15.2) and the
               standing grades in the assessment components which were passed at the first
               attempt.
       (ii)    If the referral is unsuccessful, the student is deemed to have failed the module
               and the formal grade recorded is F.


   Assessment Regulations for PG programmes                     3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                              - - 47 - -                               September 2011
K16     RETAKING MODULES

K16.1 If a student has passed a module (grade D- or above in all the assessment
      components), it cannot be retaken in order to improve the grade.

K16.2 If a student is unsuccessful in a referred assessment for a module (grade below D- in
      one or all the assessment components), there is normally an entitlement to re-enrol
      for, and retake, the module in full. Retaking necessitates attendance and required
      completion of all assessments. Any assessment grades from the previous attempt at
      the module cannot be carried forward.

K16.3 There is no formal restriction to the number of times a student may retake a failed
      module but the entitlement may be restricted or removed if special conditions apply to
      meet the requirements of an external agency.

K17     DEFERRALS

K17.1 A student who is unable to complete the assessment for a module or whose
      performance is impaired as a result of approved extenuating circumstances, may be
      offered a deferral permitting the assessment to be taken on a future occasion and
      graded as a first attempt.

K17.2 If, following deferral, the assessment is not submitted by the stipulated date, the
      assessment is considered failed and the referral regulations apply (see Section K15).

K17.3 A student may be offered the benefit of deferral only once in respect of an
      assessment. Deferral may be given in relation to a first attempt (deferred first attempt)
      or a referral (deferred referral) but not both. Only in exceptional circumstances may
      the Assessment Board extend the time allowed for an existing deferral in relation to a
      particular assessment.

K18     FAILURE IN INDEPENDENT SCHOLARSHIP/RESEARCH AND THE VIVA VOCE EXAMINATION

K18.1 There is only one opportunity to make good initial failure. When a student does not
      satisfy the requirements of the Independent Scholarship/Research at the first attempt,
      the student is referred. The revision required is indicated in a written report prepared
      by the examiners. The examiners will also recommend the time available for the
      revision. This is normally between one and three months. Minor revision may be
      checked and approved by one examiner but major revision should be checked and
      approved by both examiners. The characteristics of minor and major revisions are
      described on the examination proforma. If the resubmitted work satisfies the
      requirements, the student is awarded a grade D-.

K18.2 If the resubmitted work still does not satisfy the requirements, then the Independent
      Scholarship/Research is confirmed as a fail and there is no further opportunity to
      make good the failure for the registered award. The Programme Leader may advise
      the student to re-register for a lower award and to submit a revised version of the
      Independent Scholarship/Research towards this lower award.

K18.3 If a student for the master’s [MRes and MPr] or doctorate [DPr] awards fails to satisfy
      the examiners in the viva voce examination, they may require the student to
      undertake a second viva voce examination. In these circumstances the Programme
      Leader will normally appoint an appropriately qualified and experienced member of
      staff to act as chair. If the second viva voce examination is also unsatisfactory [fail]

    Assessment Regulations for PG programmes                3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                               - - 48 - -                          September 2011
        then the student does not gain a pass in Independent Scholarship/Research for the
        registered award.

K19     ACTION TO BE TAKEN IN THE EVENT OF POOR PERFORMANCE

K19.1 If at any given time (normally at a meeting of the Assessment Board) a student has
      two or more standard modules (30 credits) in a referred/failed condition (that is failed
      and not yet redeemed), then the profile is regarded as indicating significant concern.

K19.2 In these circumstances the Assessment Board may ask the Programme Leader to
      issue a written warning to the candidate on behalf of the Board, expressing concern
      about the performance. The Assessment Board may wish to indicate the risk of
      termination of registration unless remedial action is effective within a specified
      timescale.




    Assessment Regulations for PG programmes                3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                               - - 49 - -                          September 2011
L        INTERNAL MODERATION

L1       INTRODUCTION

L1.1     The University needs to be assured that robust, effective and consistent internal
         moderation processes are taking place in all subject areas across all Faculties.

L1.2     The detailed processes are likely to vary according to local circumstances. However,
         it is necessary the moderation systems of all Faculties are based on a “minimum
         threshold” definition of internal moderation, standard roles and standard processes as
         outlined below.

L2       DEFINITION

L2.1     “To moderate” is to regulate or adjust within norms or against predetermined criteria.
         In practice, internal moderation with respect to assessment involves a process to
         ensure that the marking has taken place in a way which ensures maintenance of
         standards, consistency of marking and fairness to students. It does not necessarily
         entail a second allocation of marks (second marking), but where second marking is
         practised, for example with reference to Independent Studies, this may be viewed as
         a test of marking as outlined in the procedures below.

L3       POLICY

L3.1     All assessed work submitted for credit in programmes leading to University of Derby
         awards shall be subject to a process of internal moderation. This policy extends to all
         modes of assessment and all delivery locations. Where assessed work is not in
         written form, every effort should be made to apply some appropriate form of
         moderation.

L3.2     When assessment is undertaken by collaborative partners, internal moderation must
         be carried out by University staff in accordance with the procedures below.
         Moderation already carried out by the collaborative partner's staff through locally
         determined mechanisms is to be encouraged as good practice but is not sufficient to
         satisfy the University's requirements. When there is no direct equivalent University
         programme, internal moderation must be carried out by a designated member of staff
         of the University's most cognate programme. Where assessment is in a language
         other than English, sufficient translations must be obtained to enable the University
         moderation to be of the specified sample size.

L4       PROCEDURES

L4.1     Procedures for all modules/programmes:

         (i)     First mark all completed assessments. Evidence of marking and an indication of
                 how marks have been awarded should be shown on all assessments
                 (coursework and examination).

         (ii)    The moderator (a member of staff other than the first marker) should

         (a)    Test mark samples from every delivery location (home and collaborative
                provision, as specified in the Operational Manual) and every mode of study (full
                time, part time, online and distributed learning). Each sample should:

     Internal Moderation                                       3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                         - - 50 - -                                   September 2011
                     Be drawn from, and reflect, the whole mark range;
                    Be of appropriate size related to cohort (the square root of total assessment
                     with a minimum of five should be seen as the minimum sample;
                     Encompass all the components of assessment used in the module e.g.
                      assignment; examination.

         (b)     Form a firm view of the appropriateness of marks allocated to students:

                     If there is disagreement between the first marker and the moderator in
                      relation to the marks attributed, the work is referred to an academic staff
                      member from the same team who will act as second moderator and
                      negotiate a resolution.

         (c)     Prepare a brief module moderation report (which should be retained) using the
                 University template on:

                     The basis of marking including the use, where appropriate, of marking
                      schemes and whether marking utilised schemes well and applied
                      assessment criteria;
                     How the moderation process was carried out;
                     Marks gained, for example, highlighting questions that have been poorly
                      answered or not attempted, where marks vary between examination and in-
                      course assessment etc.;
                     Problems encountered and how they were resolved, including suggestions
                      about any problems relating to form and content of assessment to be
                      addressed in the following year.

         (iii)   The moderator report should be incorporated into programme reports, and
                 copies of moderator reports should be sent to External Examiners.

         (iv)    For collaborative programmes, the production of the internal moderator's report,
                 and subsequent action, will be monitored by the member of staff at the
                 University with designated responsibility for the partnership.

L5       TIMING OF MODERATION ACTIVITY

         Moderation of coursework may take place after the return of work to students in order
         that it does not hinder the timely return of work to students (on the basis that
         feedback to students always informs them that marks are subject to moderation). In
         all cases the moderation report should be completed in time to inform programme
         annual monitoring reports. It should be noted that the sample of work that is
         moderated is the same sample sent to the External Examiner, and this may be
         archived for use in external audit and review.




     Internal Moderation                                          3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                           - - 51 - -                                    September 2011
N        EXCEPTIONAL EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES

N1       EXCEPTIONAL EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES POLICY

N1.1     The policy is built around the following key principles.

         (i)     All students are given a fair opportunity to demonstrate their learning
                 achievements through assessment.
         (ii)    In the event of a significant incident, not of the student’s own making, which
                 results in the student not being able to complete an assessment or the
                 performance of the student is adversely affected, there shall be a process by
                 which the University will be able to give the student a further opportunity to
                 complete the assessment.
         (iii) No student should gain an unfair advantage over other students through the
               exceptional extenuating circumstance process. The grade and outcome should
               be no more and no less than is merited through the student’s performance in
               normal circumstances.
         (iv)    As a consequence of this policy, the standards of the University’s awards are
                 safeguarded, for the benefit of current and prospective students, employers and
                 public agencies.

N1.2     Where circumstances beyond a student’s control impact negatively on an
         assessment opportunity the student may submit a claim for exceptional extenuating
         circumstances. If approved, such a claim will normally result in the student being
         given a further opportunity to undertake the assessment without penalty. Successful
         exceptional extenuating circumstances claims, however, cannot be used as an
         alternative to completing assessment and achieving the required learning outcomes.

N1.3     Exceptional extenuating circumstances may apply in one of the following
         circumstances:

         (i)     Where severe circumstances prevent a student from taking or completing a
                 module properly.
         (ii)    Where a student is unable to attend a formal examination due to exceptional
                 extenuating circumstances.
         (iii)   Where exceptional extenuating circumstances can be shown to have affected a
                 student’s performance in assessment.
         In such circumstances, the policy allows for one of the following solutions, as
         appropriate:
         a       the student is allowed to repeat the module
         b       a deferred examination is allowed
         c       a further opportunity to undertake the assessment is offered
         d       In exceptional cases for students completing their studies in that academic year
                 it may be appropriate to discount the affected assessment in the student’s
                 overall profile.

N1.4     This policy does not apply where a student has a disability or ongoing medical
         condition as this should be reported to the Student Wellbeing Service at application
         stage, on enrolment, or as soon as possible thereafter, so that it can be properly
         recorded and appropriate arrangements to support the student put in place to ensure
         that the student is not disadvantaged. It does, however, apply to a claim for a
         circumstance not covered by their support plan.
     Extenuating Circumstances                                   3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                               - - 52 - -                               September 2011
N1.5     Claims for exceptional extenuating circumstances will not normally be approved if
         they arise from matters which are evidently for them to control:

         (i)     A student’s failure to organise her/his time appropriately;
         (ii)    A student’s own negligence or carelessness;
         (iii)   Circumstances for which a student has had ample opportunity to plan;
         (iv)    Circumstances which a student did not disclose at the appropriate time (unless
                 they were unable to do so due to circumstance e.g. their mental capacity was
                 impaired).
         (i)     Circumstances already addressed in a student's support plan.
         (ii)    Any failure of computer related equipment.

N1.6     All claims for exceptional extenuating circumstances must be submitted on the
         appropriate form, which must be completed in full by the student and accompanied by
         the required evidence. In relation to coursework, claims must normally be submitted
         in advance of the handing-in date. In some cases a claim may be accepted no later
         than seven days after that date, provided there is a good reason why it could not be
         submitted prior to the handing in date. In relation to examinations, claims must be
         submitted no later than seven days after the date of the examination. In all cases it is
         the student’s responsibility to submit the form by the specified deadline.

N 1.7 All evidence must be provided by a professional who has specialist knowledge of the
      circumstance.

N1.8     When a claim for exceptional extenuating circumstances is submitted against
         coursework, it is the responsibility of the student to hand in, by the submission
         deadline for the module assessment, any work (part-completed coursework, notes,
         etc.) that has been completed to date. If no work is submitted then the mark recorded
         will be a non-submission and the appropriate penalty will be applied. In the event that
         the claim is unsuccessful, the submitted work will be marked as a completed
         submission. Exceptions to this will only apply where it would have been impossible to
         hand in any work by the deadline. Examples may include: Student in hospital; unable
         to return to country through flight disruption; students mental capacity is impaired.

N1.9     Where the claim is upheld, the work submitted by the original deadline will be marked
         as normal. The student will be informed of the grade that the work received and given
         the opportunity to either accept that grade or to take up the offer of resubmitting the
         work. If the latter option is taken, the student will be informed of a new assessment
         deadline and the new work will be marked as if it had been submitted at the original
         deadline. The new deadline will be the next available assessment opportunity. Where
         the panel reject the claim, no opportunity to resubmit the work will be given to the
         student and the original mark will stand.

N1.10 Students will have the right to appeal against a decision within 10 working days of
      being notified of that decision. The appeal will go to an arbiter outside of the student’s
      Faculty/JHS/UDC for a decision.

N2       EXCEPTIONAL EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES PROCEDURE (NON-COLLABORATIVES)

N2.1     In order to submit a claim against exceptional extenuating circumstances, a student
         must use form EEC1 and the claim must be submitted within the time periods
         permitted under N1.6 of the policy. The claim must be supported by appropriate
         evidence.
     Extenuating Circumstances                                   3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                               - - 53 - -                               September 2011
N2.2   It is appreciated that it may be necessary, on occasions to submit a claim whilst
       waiting for the supporting evidence to become available. Where the evidence is not
       yet available, the appropriate claims form (EEC1) must still be submitted by the
       appropriate time and the evidence then submitted as soon as it becomes available
       using the appropriate form (EEC1a).

N2.3   Once a claim has been submitted, it will be forwarded to a panel for consideration.
       Each Faculty/JHS/UDC panel will consist of appropriate academics from within the
       Faculty/JHS/UDC together with one panel member from outside of the
       Faculty/JHS/UDC. Panels will meet according to a schedule published at the
       beginning of each academic year. The frequency of meetings will be determined by
       the panel to take into account the timing of submitted work for programmes within its
       remit so as to ensure that no students are kept waiting for a decision for an
       unreasonable period of time. The panel will be required to provide a judgement on
       each claim within 5 working days of its meeting. Their decision as to whether or not
       the claim is upheld will be entered onto the system. It is the responsibility of the
       exceptional extenuating circumstances claims panel to ensure that any claim that is
       upheld is appropriate and the evidence is sufficient and relevant.

N2.4   It will be the responsibility of the Chair of the panel to ensure that the student is
       notified of the decision.

N2.5   Each Faculty will appoint one arbiter who will be a senior academic and who will not
       review claims in the first instance. S/he will review appeals from students from other
       panels.

N2.6   A student will not normally be permitted to submit a claim for the same incidence and
       reason on more than one occasion. Recurring problems must be dealt with by a
       support plan, a change of mode of study (e.g. from full time to part time) or by the
       student taking an authorised break of study for an agreed period.

N2.7   Each programme team will provide a system of help to students to advise them about
       whether or not their claim is likely to succeed. It is, however, ultimately the student’s
       decision about whether or not to submit the claim and the advisor is in no way
       responsible for the outcome of the claim.

N2.8   If it is identified on a student’s support plan that their disability necessitates
       extensions to deadlines, these extensions will be authorised through the Disabled
       Students’ Extension to Deadlines Procedure and the student will not be required to
       submit an exceptional extenuating circumstances claim.

       EXCEPTIONAL EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES PROCEDURE (COLLABORATIVES)

N2.9 Collaborative partners are required to act within the requirements of the policy.
     However, it is recognised that local procedures will need to be utilised to ensure the
     efficient processing of claims under the EEC policy. Where appropriate, the
     University’s forms should be used.

N2.10 Local arrangements will be written into the Operations Manual for the collaborative
      partner and ratified by the University.




   Extenuating Circumstances                                  3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                            - - 54 - -                               September 2011
O       ASSESSMENT BOARDS FOR UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMMES

O1      INTRODUCTION

O1.1    The arrangements for Assessment Boards for programmes operating in the
        undergraduate sector are based on a two tier system. Undergraduate Subject Boards
        carry full responsibility for considering the performance of students and individual
        modules and determining module outcomes. Progression and awards follow
        automatically based on the credits and grades confirmed by Assessment Boards.
        There is a review of the full profile of programme results undertaken by the Progress
        Board. There is provision for programmes which need to satisfy any requirements
        imposed by a professional body or other external agency to hold a Professional
        Qualifications Board at programme level. In addition there is a University Assessment
        Board for Exceptional Circumstances (UABEC) which serves to ensure the fair and
        consistent treatment of all undergraduate students whose overall performance
        requires special consideration.

O1.2    Undergraduate Assessment Boards run in the second semester only. Autumn
        semester grades are subject to internal and external moderation before marks are
        released to students. These grades will be ratified at the second semester board.
        There is a requirement for a pre board, so the sequence of board meetings run: Pre
        Board, Subject Board and finally Progress Board. Existing Professional Qualification
        Boards (PQBs) will continue to operate with no change.

O1.3    The assessment process flow diagram (see section O3.5) presents the sequence of
        actions that are required. Marking, moderation and unconfirmed results publication
        deadlines exist for semester 1, the compilation and confirmation of results will take
        place through the Board process in semester 2. Grades release and progression
        boards will also take place in September for Spring semester resits. Arrangements
        are in place to process results for those students eligible for awards in January.

O1.4    Pre-Boards are pivotal in the process, providing the first and main opportunity for
        module leaders to consider the completeness of results. Sufficient time between the
        Pre and Subject Boards will be allowed to ensure accurate and full submissions to
        minimise corrections and additions needed at the Subject Board. It is recommended
        that a pre-board should be held prior to Progression boards where feasible. There is
        an option to determine that a Subject Board could, if representative of a discreet set
        of programme results, act as both Subject and Progress Board.

O2      SUBJECT BOARDS

O2.1    Composition:
        (i)     Chair: A Senior Academic Manager of the Faculty independent of the Subject(s)
                under consideration
        (ii)    The Programme/Subject Leader
        (iii)   At least one External Examiner
        (iv)    The leader, or her/his representative, of each module whose results are under
                consideration
        (v)     Representative(s) of franchised partner institution(s) providing the programme
                or part-programme
        (vi)    Secretary to the Assessment Board

Assessment Boards for Undergraduate Programmes                    3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                 - - 55 - -                              September 2011
        The following have right of attendance, but without right to vote: Other members of
        staff who have participated in the assessment of modules under consideration;

        (i)     The Chair of Academic Board or nominee.

O2.2    Terms of Reference:

        To confirm assessment outcomes for modules within a subject(s), in accordance with
        the University's Academic Regulations and the regulations validated for specific
        programmes (if any). It does so with particular regard to the maintenance of
        standards and the fairness and consistency of the assessment process. Meetings of
        the Board constitute the final stage of the process which includes the setting of
        assessments and examinations; the identification of the assessment criteria to be
        applied; the initial grading of assessed work; its internal moderation; its moderation by
        External Examiners; and the provisional agreement of grades in pre-meetings.

        (i)     To confirm, at the end of the assessment process, that the standards achieved
                in the modules under consideration are being maintained.
        (ii)    To ensure that the decisions made by the Assessment Board are fair and
                consistent, and in accordance with the Assessment Regulations for
                Undergraduate Programmes (see section J).
        (iii)   To determine the appropriate outcome for each student in each module, taking
                into account any extenuating circumstances which have been approved. If the
                circumstances are so exceptional that the appropriate action is considered to be
                beyond that which can be taken at module level the Board should submit a case
                for special consideration in accordance with the procedures for Verification in
                Exceptional Circumstances (see section J12).
        (iv)    To confirm the assessment to be undertaken by students who have been either
                referred or deferred, and to require that arrangements be put in place for
                students to receive the information they need to complete any referred or
                deferred assessments.
        (v)     To delegate to the Chair, advised by an identified sub-group, responsibility for
                confirmation of the outcomes of referred and deferred assessments. Such
                confirmation is subject to ratification by the Board at its next meeting.
        (vi)    To act in accordance with the outcome of any appeals, made through the
                Appeals Procedure, which may have been upheld.
        (vii) To implement, on the basis of the information provided through the procedures
              for Academic Offences, the penalty which is appropriate in the event of it being
              established that a student has committed an academic offence.
        (viii) Using information derived from the latest available Profile Reports, to consider
               any reports submitted by the Programme/Subject Leader on students who have
               not responded to guidance and who are continuing to perform at a level that
               gives cause for such serious concern that a formal restriction or redirection of
               their studies is now in the student's best educational interest. Any
               recommendations must be submitted through the Assessment and Awards Unit
               to the UABEC (see section O5).
        (ix)    To meet any additional requirements of the professional body or other external
                agency.




Assessment Boards for Undergraduate Programmes                     3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                 - - 56 - -                               September 2011
O3      PROGRESS BOARDS AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATION BOARDS

O3.1    The final stage of the process is the Progress Board. The terms of reference that
        follow draw upon the previous Verification Panels and Programme Team Review
        meetings. It may be possible to cluster programmes where appropriate to operate a
        combined Progress Board for practical and efficiency purposes.

O3.2    A small number of Progress Boards will be held after semester 1 to process results
        for those students who will be eligible for awards at this point (January starters).
        These Boards will deal with a number of programmes that are cognitively linked;
        some programmes will only have one or two students under consideration. These
        Boards will run at School level.

O3.3    Composition:
        (i)     Chair: A senior academic manager of the Faculty independent of the
                programme under consideration.
        (ii)    Programme Leader(s)
        (iii)   At least one External Examiner
        (iv)    Relevant Heads of Subject (or their nominee).
        (v)     Programme leader from franchised partner institution(s) delivering the
                programme.
        (vi)    Secretary to the Assessment Board

        The following have right of attendance:
        (i)     Chair of Academic Board or nominee
        (ii)    Registrar or nominee

O3.4    Terms of Reference:

        To undertake a performance review of module and student results across the entirety
        of the programme:

        (i)     To oversee assessment procedures operating at programme level, to confirm
                assessment outcomes are in accordance with the regulations validated for
                specific programmes (if applicable).
        (ii)    To review the way in which standards achieved at programme level are being
                maintained.
        (iii)   To confirm the award and progression results for individual students with regard
                to award and credit requirements.
        (iv)    To receive exceptional written requests from the Programme Team of any
                outstanding results requiring acceptance and approval with reasons for late
                submission or change.
        (v)     To consider those students whose overall performance has been affected by
                the cumulative effect of documented extenuating circumstances. A Progression
                Board may consider that a full-time student who has achieved less than 45
                credits should not be automatically failed and terminated in the light of their
                known circumstances. In such cases, the Board may recommend to UABEC
                that the fail/terminate outcome be rescinded. All such recommendations must
                be fully evidenced.

Assessment Boards for Undergraduate Programmes                    3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                 - - 57 - -                              September 2011
        (vi)   To consider those students (part-time or full-time) who are performing at a level
               that gives cause for concern. In the first instance, such students should normally
               receive a formal notification from the Programme Leader that their progress
               gives cause for concern and be provided with guidance on remediating this.
               Students who do not respond to guidance and continue to perform at such a
               level may be recommended to UABEC for a formal restriction or redirection of
               studies (except where the Board is a Professional Qualification Board).
        (vii) To identify the deficiencies in student profiles that prevent
              progression/completion and to record appropriate action for academic
              counselling advice and guidance.
        (viii) To act in accordance with the outcome of any appeals which may have been
               upheld
        (ix)   To implement recommended academic offence outcomes as determined
               through the procedures for academic offences.
        (x)    To complete the board report declaration to formally approve the
               recommendations on behalf of Academic Board.

        Professional Qualification Boards only:

        (xi)   To meet any additional requirements of the professional body or other external
               agency.

        In accordance with the policy for programmes and modules owned by one Faculty
        and delivered by or in another Faculty, Assessment Boards will take place under the
        auspices of the parent Faculty.




Assessment Boards for Undergraduate Programmes                    3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                 - - 58 - -                              September 2011
O3.5    Assessment Process Flowchart for standard UG Boards




Assessment Boards for Undergraduate Programmes                3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                 - - 59 - -                          September 2011
O4      PUBLICATION OF RESULTS

O4.1    Semester 1: Provisional module results, subject to final confirmation at the second
        semester Boards, will be posted on UDo to a deadline in accordance with the
        internal/external moderation marking schedules as indicated in the assessment
        calendar. PQBs will operate as normal and a small number of Progress Boards will
        operate at the Faculty/School level to determine final results for January completing
        students.

O4.2    Semester 2: Module results will be posted to UDo within 3 working days of the
        Subject Assessment Boards. Stage results and classification awards will be posted to
        UDo following the completion of the Progress Boards.

O4.3    Frequency of Meetings: Progress Boards, with the exception of PQBs and those
        considering students due to complete in January will meet at the end of the second
        semester following the examinations and marking period followed by further boards in
        September to confirm Spring semester resit progression.

O5      THE UNIVERSITY ASSESSMENT BOARD FOR EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES (UABEC)

O5.1    Membership is by Academic Board appointment for a period of between 2/4 years.

O5.2    Composition
        (i)     Chair: Dean of Faculty or other senior manager with appropriate experience
        (ii)    A serving External Examiner
        (iii)   A Faculty Quality Manager
        (iv)    Two members of the teaching staff with extensive experience of learner
                guidance and support
        (v)     Two members of Quality Enhancement Committee (QEC)
        (vi)    A permanent secretary (A senior administrative manager carrying responsibility
                for the organisation and management of the Board)

        Standing invitation:
        (i)     The Dean of Learning Enhancement and Innovation
        (ii)    The Head of the Joint Honours Scheme
        (iii)   The Chair of the BTEC Forum

        In attendance:
        (i)     The Registrar or nominee

O5.3    Terms of reference

        The remit of the Board is to consider submissions on individual students which have
        been established by the Assessment and Awards Unit as having satisfied the criteria
        for special consideration.

        (i)     To assess the evidence presented on students whose performance may have
                been depressed by extenuating circumstances that could not be taken into
                account through the powers available to Undergraduate Assessment Boards,
                and to determine the appropriate outcome.

Assessment Boards for Undergraduate Programmes                   3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                 - - 60 - -                             September 2011
        (ii)    To consider those students who have been recommended by a Progress Board
                for an automatic fail/terminate outcome to be rescinded. UABEC may either
                uphold the recommendation of the Progress Board or confirm the fail/terminate
                outcome.
        (iii)   To assess the evidence presented on students whose performance has given
                cause for serious concern and who have not responded to the advice offered by
                the programme team. If, in the Board's opinion, the evidence indicates that the
                best educational interest of the student would be served by the issue of a formal
                instruction, the Board may determine that the student's studies are restricted or
                redirected, or that the student's registration is terminated.
        (iv)    To establish over time, as case-law accumulates, generic guidelines for the
                consideration of special case students.

        Guidance: For guidance on the award of Bachelor’s Degrees with Honours in the
        event of extenuating circumstances, please see section I2.

O5.4    Frequency of meetings:

        The Board will meet within 28 days of the release of Autumn semester results and
        within 14 days of the last Undergraduate Board meeting at the end of the spring
        semester. It will also meet in late October to consider any outstanding cases.

O6      REPORTS FOLLOWING THE MEETINGS OF ASSESSMENT BOARDS

O6.1    The following reports are made available to programme teams following each round
        of assessments and the verification of awards. The purpose is to enable the progress
        and achievement of individual students to be monitored, and to facilitate an
        evaluation of the overall outcomes and standards on the programme.

O6.2    Reports on individual students

        At any point in time, those advising individual students or monitoring their progress
        are able to access the most recent version of the student's profile

O6.3    Programme reports

        Following completion of each round of assessments and the verification of awards,
        the following reports are available to programme teams. These reports are normally
        made available to the Programme Leader at the end of the summer vacation (Spring
        semester data) and at the end of the Easter vacation (Autumn semester data).
O6.4    The awards claimed and verified in the previous semester:

        (i)     Certificate of HE - list of the students who qualified
        (ii)    Diploma of HE - list of the students who qualified
        (iii)   Foundation Degree - list of the students who qualified in each classification
                which confirms the grades achieved in all the modules contributing to the award
                at level 5
        (iv)    Bachelor's degree - list of the students who qualified
        (v)     Bachelor's degree with honours - list of the students who qualified in each
                honours class which confirms, for each student:
                   The grades achieved in all the modules contributing to the award at level 5

Assessment Boards for Undergraduate Programmes                       3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                 - - 61 - -                                 September 2011
                   The grades achieved in all the modules contributing to the award at level 6
                   The overall performance indicator
                   The average of the highest graded 90 credits at level 6

O6.5    Satisfactory progression

        Students enrolled full-time (grouped by year of entry):

        (i)     A list of the students who completed at least 90 credits in the previous year of
                study, showing credits achieved/credits attempted
        (ii)    A list of the students who failed to complete at least 90 credits in the previous
                year of study, showing credits achieved/credits attempted

        Students enrolled part-time (grouped by year of entry):

        (i)     A list of the students showing credits achieved/credits attempted

O6.6    Programme statistical information

        Appropriate programme statistical information to enable External Examiners to report
        at programme level will be provided following each Assessment Board.

O6.7    Suspension or termination of study

        (i)     A list of the students who are recorded as intercalating in the previous semester
        (ii)    A list of the students who are recorded as undertaking a work placement in the
                previous semester
        (iii)   A list of the students who are recorded as having withdrawn in the previous
                semester
        (iv)    A list of students who are recorded as having transferred to a different
                programme in the previous semester
        (v)     A list of the students who were expected to continue but did not.

O6.8    Maximum period of registration

        A list of students whose period of registration is within two years of the maximum
        allowed on the programme against which they are registered.




Assessment Boards for Undergraduate Programmes                      3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                 - - 62 - -                                September 2011
P        ASSESSMENT BOARDS FOR POSTGRADUATE PROGRAMMES

P1       PROGRAMME ASSESSMENT BOARDS

         The performances of specialist postgraduate programme students are
         considered at the Programme Assessment Board which has responsibility for
         their programme. The Boards may follow a single tier system or adopt the two
         tier system as operated for Undergraduate students (see Section O).

P1.1     Composition of Programme Assessment Boards:

         (i)     Chair: A Senior Manager of the Faculty independent of the
                 programme(s) under consideration
         (ii)    Programme Leader
         (iii)   Module Leaders
         (iv)    External Examiner(s)
         (v)     Independent Research External Examiners1
         (vi)    Dean of Faculty (ex officio)
         (vii) Faculty Quality Manager (ex officio)
         (viii) Representative(s) from collaborative partner institution(s) (where
                appropriate)
         (ix)    Secretary to the Assessment Board
         1
           The Independent Research External Examiners do not normally attend
         meetings of the Programme Assessment Board unless there are particular
         circumstances which they would wish to report or they also have membership
         in a different capacity.

         Standing invitations: The Academic Registrar, Dean of Learning
         Enhancement and Innovation and other staff teaching on the programme.

         Programme Leaders are responsible for nominating external examiners for
         appointment by the University in accordance with University Regulations. The
         External Examiners are asked to advise on the appropriateness of the
         academic standards being applied at module and the award level. They are
         also requested to comment on the fairness and the efficacy of the
         assessment process.

P1.2     Responsibilities:

         (i)     To use their academic judgement to ensure that appropriate standards
                 of assessment are maintained.
         (ii)    To ensure that their assessment decisions are fair and consistent, in
                 accordance with the validated regulations of the programme.
         (iii)   To consider and determine the extent to which students have satisfied
                 the learning outcomes of the modules which they have attempted.
         (iv)    To consider the quality of the students' performance, as evidenced by
                 the assessments, and determine the grades to be awarded.

External Examiners                                         3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                - 75 -                            September 2011
         (v)    To make recommendations with regard to the progression of students
                and to programme awards, as appropriate. The Assessment Board is
                entitled to agree means of obtaining further evidence if it is not satisfied
                that it has sufficient evidence upon which to make a decision.
         (vi)   To act in accordance with the outcome of any Appeals which have been
                upheld by the University Appeals Panel
         (vii) To determine, on the basis of information provided through the
               procedures for Academic Offences, the penalty which is appropriate in
               the event of it being established that a student has committed an
               academic offence.
         (viii) To oversee assessment procedures operating in the programme within
                the remit of the Board.
         (ix)   To consider the recommendations of the External and Internal Research
                Examiners with regard to Independent Research and viva voce
                performance.
         (x)    To consider the overall performance profile of individual students and to
                decide on the appropriate outcomes in terms of failure, deferral, referral,
                progression and award.

P1.3     Publication of the Provisional Results Lists:

         (i)    At meetings of Assessment Boards where recommendations for awards
                have been made, it is a requirement that the Chair of the Assessment
                Board and the External Examiners present should sign the declaration
                recording the recommendations for the conferment of programme
                awards on behalf of Academic Board. Following the Board, module and
                award results will be released to students on UDo and the Secretary will
                produce a passlist, cross-checked to the original board papers, a copy
                of which will be forwarded to the Programme Leader and to the
                Assessment and Awards Unit within 5 days of the meeting. The
                deliberations and provisional outcomes of Assessment Boards are
                strictly confidential to members and to other academic and
                administrative staff with legitimate access to them, and on no account
                may the recommended results be conveyed to students prior to formal
                release by the Secretary of the Board.




External Examiners                                           3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                               - 76 -                               September 2011
S        EXTERNAL EXAMINERS FOR TAUGHT PROGRAMMES

S1       INTRODUCTION

S1.1     These regulations apply to External Examiners appointed for taught
         programmes and subjects leading to awards of the University. External
         Examiners appointed to other programmes operate in accordance with
         separate regulations established by the University or by an awarding body.
         Where appointments are joint appointments with an external validating
         agency or professional body, or are made under a licence agreement with
         such an agency or professional body, the External Examiners appointed are
         subject to the University of Derby's regulations.

S2       PRINCIPLES OF APPOINTMENT

S2.1     The University regards External Examiners as a key element of its system of
         quality assurance and enhancement.

S2.2     It is a requirement that at least one External Examiner should be appointed in
         respect of each programme or subject leading to an award of the University or
         a Professional Body. Programmes or subjects with large numbers of students
         or comprising more than one subject will require the appropriate number of
         External Examiners to cover their size and scope.

         Guidance: External Examiners will normally be expected to consider no more
         than 250 pieces of work at any one assessment point. The simultaneous
         appointment of External Moderators (see section S4.6 and S9) may also be
         taken into account in determining the workload.

S2.3     Within any external examining team at least half of the examiners must
         normally be academics with appropriate UK higher education experience.
         Where the team also includes professional practitioners a mentoring
         arrangement will be established to enable the sharing of academic expertise
         across the team.

S3       RESPONSIBILITIES

S3.1     The principal responsibilities of External Examiners are:

         (i)     To verify that the University's standards are appropriate to awards for
                 which they have a responsibility, taking account of the level descriptors
                 in the University credit framework and any relevant national subject
                 benchmarks;
         (ii)    To assist the University in the maintenance of academic standards by a
                 comparison of student performance with that of students on similar
                 types of programme at the same level in other institutions;
         (iii)   To assist the University in ensuring that the assessment process is valid
                 and fair.

S3.2     External Examiners may also be requested to advise on proposed
         amendments to the programme or programmes leading to the award for


External Examiners                                          3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                              - 77 -                               September 2011
         which they are responsible, and to comment on new short courses and
         learning contracts which fall within their area of subject expertise.

S3.3     If any External Examiner feels concern about any practice or decision which
         militates against the maintenance of academic standards or the fairness of
         assessment processes or outcomes, it is the responsibility of that External
         Examiner to bring the matter in the first instance to the attention of the
         relevant Assessment Board and subsequently, as necessary, to the Vice-
         Chancellor in her/his capacity as Chair of Academic Board.

S4       CATEGORIES

S4.1     The University appoints External Examiners in three categories: Subject
         Examiners, Programme/Award Examiners and Chief Examiners. External
         Examiners may be appointed to more than one of these categories
         simultaneously.

S4.2     Programme/Award Examiners for the undergraduate sector exercise these
         responsibilities in relation to a named programme or award and in addition
         normally have responsibility for a number of programme/award modules.
         Programme/Award External Examiners are expected to attend Undergraduate
         Assessment Boards to consider the results for all students taking the modules
         for which they have responsibility.

         Guidance: With effect from academic year 2006/7 Undergraduate
         Assessment Boards will run in the second semester only. The sequence of
         board meetings will run: Pre Board, Subject Board and finally Progress Board.
         External Examiners are expected to attend Subject Boards and may also be
         requested to attend a Progress Board. The dates and times that attendance is
         required will be confirmed by the Faculty. There is the option to determine
         that a Subject Board could, if representative of a discreet set of programme
         results, act as both Subject and Progress Board. There will also be the option
         to cluster programmes where appropriate to operate a combined Progress
         Board for practical and efficiency purposes.

         In a minority of cases there is a need for a Professional Qualifications
         Assessment Board (PQB) in addition to the Undergraduate Assessment
         Board. In such cases, the Programme/Award Examiner is expected to attend
         this board.

         Appropriate statistical information will be provided to enable External
         Examiners to report at programme level following the Assessment Boards.
         This information will detail student progression across the levels of the
         programme and the achievement of interim and final awards.

S4.3     The postgraduate sector operates a system of Programme Assessment
         Boards for all programmes at which the Programme/Award Examiner is
         expected to attend.

S4.4     Where a programme has more than one Programme/Award Examiner, a
         Chief Examiner may be identified, with responsibility for coordinating the
         contributions of the various members of the examining team. In such a case
         the Chief Examiner must be (one of) the academic examiner(s) within the
         team.

External Examiners                                       3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                           - 78 -                               September 2011
S4.5     Subject Examiners exercise the above responsibilities solely in relation to a
         number of modules in a subject area, and are expected to attend
         Undergraduate Assessment Boards to consider the results for all students
         taking the modules for which they have responsibility.

S4.6     In certain situations, External Moderators may also be appointed (see section
         S9).


S5       THE POWERS OF EXTERNAL EXAMINERS

S5.1     It is a requirement that an Assessment Board should give full consideration to
         the advice of an External Examiner(s) in resolving the recommendations
         which are to come forward. Responsibility for such recommendations lies with
         the Assessment Board but it is expected that the recommendations carry the
         formal assent of the External Examiner(s) appointed to serve the subject or
         programme.

S5.2     The formal assent of External Examiners to the recommendations of an
         Assessment Board is evidenced by their signing the results list(s) approved
         by the Board. In the event of any disagreement with those recommendations
         by one or more External Examiners, the matter should be decided by a vote
         of the members of the Board. If, following such a vote, the External Examiner
         does not agree to sign the results list(s), the matter must be reported to the
         University Quality Enhancement Committee (UQEC) before its ratification of
         the results.

S5.3     In the case of a disagreement as identified in S5.2, UQEC may resolve to
         ratify the result list(s), refer them back to the Assessment Board for further
         consideration, or in extreme cases, may recommend to Academic Board the
         annulment of the disputed assessment results and a reconsideration of the
         assessment in question by an appropriate Assessment Board. Academic
         Board has the power to appoint new examiners, internal or external to the
         University, to the Assessment Board which is required to reconsider the
         disputed results.

S6       SPECIFIC DUTIES AND RIGHTS

S6.1     External Examiners have the right to consider the form and content of
         coursework assignments and examination papers which are to be used to
         assess students, and to provide feedback on them. External Examiners
         should be provided with all coursework briefs and are required to provide
         feedback on the design and appropriateness of the assignment task(s) in
         order to influence future assessment. The timing and form of this provision
         should be determined by agreement between the Programme/Module leader
         and the External Examiner, and this agreement should be recorded and
         retained in the Programme File(s) and/or Module Boxes. If appropriate the
         feedback from the External Examiner may be included within her/his annual
         report.

S6.2     External Examiners have the right of access to all assessed work relating to
         their area of responsibility and to call for such evidence as will assist them in


External Examiners                                         3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                             - 79 -                               September 2011
         the conduct of their duties, so that they may form valid judgements of the
         relative quality of performance of different students.

S6.3     External Examiners must be advised of any proposed changes to the
         assessment strategy or methods of assessment in the programme/modules
         for which they have responsibility, and are normally expected to indicate their
         agreement (or otherwise) to such changes.

S6.4     External Examiners have the duty to attend meetings of the Assessment
         Board(s) for the programme/modules for which they have responsibility, and
         to contribute to the determination of results and/or awards.

S6.5     External Examiners have the duty to review student progression and
         achievement on the programmes for which they are responsible.

S6.6     External Examiners have the right to attend a meeting with the Programme
         Team to discuss issues arising.

S6.7     External Examiners are required to submit electronically an annual report to
         the Institute for Learning Enhancement and Innovation (LEI), for consideration
         by the Vice-Chancellor, within four weeks of the Assessment Board(s) at the
         end of the academic session (or of the Programme or Stage) or within four
         weeks of the receipt of further data (undergraduate programmes only).

S6.8     External Examiners have the right of access to evidence used in the
         assessment of APL claims. They do not have the authority to change
         individual APL decisions, but may wish to comment on matters of academic
         standards, policy and procedure in their reports.

S6.9     External Examiners have a duty to moderate the standard of work submitted
         for assessment by students, having agreed with the Subject/Programme
         Leader the size and scope of the representative sample of coursework and
         examination scripts to be submitted for external moderation.
         It is expected that the sample of work sent to External Examiners for
         moderation will:

         (i)     Include all modes of assessment in all modules contributing to the
                 calculation of the award or its classification. Where a mode of
                 assessment does not lend itself to normal scrutiny, e.g. oral
                 presentation, the programme leader will negotiate appropriate
                 processes, e.g. video, with the External Examiner;
         (ii)    Include all new modules or new modes of assessment, regardless of the
                 stage of the programme in which they occur;
         (iii)   Include work from a number of students equivalent to approximately the
                 square-root of the total number of students undertaking the assessment,
                 subject to a minimum of 5 (or the total number of students if less);
         (iv)    Reflect the full range of grades awarded;
         (v)     Include samples from every delivery location (home provision and
                 collaborative provision) and mode of study (full time, part time, online
                 and distributed learning), as detailed in the University’s Internal
                 Moderation Policy (Section L).


External Examiners                                           3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                               - 80 -                               September 2011
S6.10 External Examiners have the duty to make recommendations to the
      Assessment Board on the appropriateness of the allocation of grades within
      the regulations and grading system approved for the programme. External
      Examiners may not alter individual grades. However, as a result of
      moderation, it may be appropriate to recommend a review of all the grades in
      particular grade categories.

S6.11 External Examiners have the right to receive, after initial internal assessment,
      draft results list(s) for all the students being assessed in the module(s) for
      which they are responsible, together with the provisional mean module grade
      and standard deviation.

S6.12 External Examiners have the right to be informed on and inducted into their
      role, with particular respect to University Regulations. External Examiners
      who are professional practitioners will also receive appropriate advice and
      guidance regarding academic standards, assessment, credit levels etc.

S6.13 External Examiners have the right to communicate directly with staff and
      students in order to determine whether a programme is meeting the standard
      required for an award or whether the treatment of students in the assessment
      process is consistent and fair.
S6.14 External Examiners who have responsibilities for Collaborative Provision are
      expected to visit partner institutions. The nature and frequency of external
      examiner visits should be determined by panels convened for the purpose of
      approving the collaborative arrangements for a partnership. The agreed
      arrangements should be incorporated within the Operational Manual. In
      determining the requirement for any proposed collaboration, panels should
      adhere to the following guidelines:

         (i)     For programmes leading to major awards that are validated by the
                 University, there should normally be one external examiner visit in any
                 one year. In the case of partnerships with organisations that deliver
                 several such programmes, the annual visit can be undertaken for all
                 programmes by a single member of the team of external examiners.
                 This is subject to the proviso that the external examiner possesses
                 sufficient expertise to make a judgement on the full range of subject
                 specific learning and staffing resources.
         (ii)    For franchised programmes that lead to a major award, and for all
                 accredited programmes that generate in excess of 60 credits at Levels 5
                 to 7, there should be an external examiner visit at least once in every
                 four years. This visit should normally take place in the second year of
                 the programme’s operation.
         (iii)   The following categories should be exempt from the external examiner
                 visiting requirements: programmes delivered off-campus by University
                 staff; articulation arrangements and accredited provision of 60 credits or
                 less.

S6.15 External Examiners are provided with the opportunity to report on the quality
      of students’ learning opportunities.

S6.16 External Examiners will liaise with, and as appropriate direct the work of, any
      External Moderators appointed to the programme(s)/modules for which they
      have responsibility.

External Examiners                                          3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                               - 81 -                              September 2011
S7       ADDITIONAL DUTIES OF A CHIEF EXAMINER

S7.1     Chief External Examiners have additional roles and responsibilities:

         (i)     To confirm, by negotiation with other External Examiners in the team,
                 that a consistent and acceptable standard is being maintained across
                 the programme(s).
         (ii)    To coordinate the work of the team of External Examiners and to liaise
                 as appropriate with the Programme Team(s).
         (iii)   To act as mentor for new and/or inexperienced External Examiners.

S8       UNIVERSITY ASSESSMENT BOARD FOR EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES

S8.1     There is a requirement for an External Examiner to be a member of the
         board. This person will normally be nominated by fellow External Examiners
         at an annual External Examiners Forum.

S9       THE APPOINTMENT AND ROLE OF EXTERNAL MODERATORS

S9.1     External Moderators may be appointed to assist the External Examiner(s)
         either where assessment is conducted in a language other than English, or in
         those curriculum areas where there is a demonstrable difficulty in recruiting
         External Examiners who can meet criterion (v) in S12.1.
S9.2     With the exception of criterion (v) in S12.1, External Moderators will normally
         meet the University’s criteria for the appointment of External Examiners. The
         appointment of External Moderators to programmes assessed in a language
         other than English will be subject to the additional criterion of possessing a
         high level of proficiency in both English and the language(s) in which students
         are taught and assessed.

S9.3     In all cases, the External Examiners Sub-Committee will need to be assured
         that there is an External Examiner with sufficient cognate expertise to
         discharge, on the advice of the proposed External Moderator(s), the
         responsibilities set out in Sections S3 and S6.

S9.4     External Moderators operate in support and under the direction of the
         External Examiner with the following roles and responsibilities:

         (i)     To undergo appropriate induction and/or training;
         (ii)    In liaison with the designated External Examiner to establish a clear
                 understanding of factors affecting academic standards;
         (iii)   To liaise as necessary, and as agreed by the External Examiner, with
                 the programme/module leader;
         (iv)    To review the marking of a range of samples of student work submitted
                 in its original form, dealing particularly with examination scripts;
         (v)     To report to the External Examiner on the quality of work seen for each
                 mode of assessment in each module sampled, in accordance with an
                 agreed pro-forma, the External Moderator report pro-forma can be found
                 here:
                 http://www.derby.ac.uk/cfq/external-examiners

External Examiners                                          3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                              - 82 -                               September 2011
         (vi)   To submit a summary report, in an agreed format, to the designated
                External Examiner and to the University, following each assessment
                period.

         Guidance: External Moderators who are appointed to assist the External
         Examiner(s) where assessment is conducted in a language other than
         English will also be required to monitor the translation of examination papers
         and assignment titles.

S9.5     In exceptional cases the External Moderator may wish to draw particular
         issues to the direct attention of the University, in which case an appropriate
         report may be submitted to LEI who will forward it as necessary to the Dean
         of Learning Enhancement and Innovation or the Vice-Chancellor.

S9.6    Except as set out in S9.2 all other procedures within these regulations relate
        to External Moderators as for External Examiners.

S10      EXTERNAL EXAMINERS’ REPORTS

S10.1 External Examiners are required to report, in a format determined by
      Academic Board. The External Examiner report pro-forma can be accessed
      here:
         http://www.derby.ac.uk/cfq/external-examiners

S10.2 The report should be submitted electronically to LEI who will register its
      receipt, check that it conforms to University requirements and forward it to the
      Vice Chancellor and other relevant colleagues. The Dean of Learning
      Enhancement and Innovation will consider any matters of significant concern
      with the Vice Chancellor. The Dean of Learning Enhancement and Innovation
      will be responsible for responding to External Examiners on University-level
      issues.
S10.3 Faculties will be responsible for establishing procedures to ensure that each
      External Examiner report is considered by the relevant Programme/Subject
      Committee and/or by Faculty Quality Enhancement Committee (FQEC), and
      for submitting a response to the External Examiner and LEI detailing actions
      taken (or to be taken) by the Faculty in relation to issues identified in the
      report.

S11      THE APPOINTMENT OF EXTERNAL EXAMINERS

S11.1 External Examiners must be in post before the commencement of delivery of
      the programme(s)/modules for which they are responsible. Applications for
      the approval of an External Examiner should therefore be submitted to LEI at
      least three months before the Examiner is due to commence duties.

         Guidance: Although the formal process of appointment cannot begin prior to
         validation of a programme, Faculties should give some thought to suitable
         nominees during the programme development process. The University’s
         Validation and Approval (VA) procedures specify that External Examiner
         arrangements are considered at the Validation Panel and confirmed via VA
         Annex I (of the Handbook for the Validation and Approval of Non-
         Collaborative Provision).


External Examiners                                        3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                            - 83 -                               September 2011
         Similarly when an examiner is approaching the end of her/his period of
         appointment steps should be taken to ensure that a new examiner is
         approved in good time to ensure continuity of responsibility.

S11.2 The normal period of appointment is either four academic years or that period
      which is stipulated by an external validating agency or professional body. In
      exceptional circumstances, for example where several Programme/Award
      External Examiners are scheduled to retire at the same time, the period of
      appointment may be varied.

S11.3 Applications for extensions of the period of appointment should be submitted
      to LEI, in accordance with these procedures. Only in exceptional
      circumstances may the total period of appointment for an External Examiner
      exceed five years. Similarly application may be made to vary the scope of
      responsibility of an External Examiner without varying the period of
      appointment.

         Guidance: When several External Examiners commence duties in the same
         academic year their period of tenure may vary between 3-5 years to ensure
         some continuity between existing and replacement External Examiners.

S11.4 The appointment process is summarised below:

         (i)     A nomination for a new External Examiner, or for an extension of duties
                 of an existing Examiner, is made by the Programme/Subject Leader,
                 and the appropriate nomination form is completed.
         (ii)    Faculties will determine their own internal procedures for consideration
                 of such nominations, but these must culminate in approval by the
                 FQEC, against the agreed criteria (see section S12). Faculty will inform
                 the External Examiner of approval.
         (iii)   The nomination form, signed by the proposed External Examiner and by
                 the Chair of the FQEC, is submitted to LEI. LEI will contact the Faculty if
                 there are problems with the nomination form which need addressing.
         (iv)    The nomination will be submitted for approval by the External
                 Examiners Sub-Committee (EESC), acting on behalf of Academic
                 Board. Nominations will be considered in the context of the
                 requirements of the programme, the experience and expertise of the
                 nominee, and the University’s criteria for the appointment of External
                 Examiners or External Moderators. EESC will approve or reject the
                 proposal.
         (v)     A proposal for extension of duties of an External Examiner is considered
                 by the Chair of EESC, who may seek advice as necessary.

S12      APPOINTMENT CRITERIA

S12.1 External Examiners are appointed by the University and are responsible to
      the Academic Board. For an External Examiner to be appointed, it must be
      confirmed that:

         (i)     The programme or subject has not engaged other examiners from the
                 same institution as the nominee in the last four years;


External Examiners                                           3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                               - 84 -                               September 2011
         (ii)    The nominee has not previously had close connections with the
                 University which would impair her/his ability to perform the role
                 impartially;
         (iii)   The nominee is not from an institution where a member of University
                 staff in the same or a closely related subject area has a current
                 appointment as an External Examiner;
         (iv)    The nominee has a good knowledge of the subject matter at a depth
                 appropriate to the examinership;
         (v)     The nominee has relevant academic and/or professional experience,
                 normally including experience as an internal assessor or an External
                 Examiner at the appropriate level in UK higher education;
         (vi)    The nominee would not have an excessive burden of assessment duty
                 resulting from her/his examinerships;
         (vii) The appointment of the nominee would result in an appropriately
               balanced team of External Examiners;
         (viii) There are no known grounds for concern about the appointment;
         (ix)    Additionally, the University may require confirmation that the nominee
                 would not incur unacceptably high costs through long distance travel.

         Guidance: Detailed guidance on the procedures for the approval of a new
         Examiner is available from the Faculty Offices and LEI.

S12.2 With regard to the criteria, it is important to check that the programme or
      subject, and cognate programmes or subjects, have not engaged examiners
      from the same institution in the last four years. The objective is to obtain a
      wide range of expertise. The candidate should not previously have had a
      close association with the University, for example as a governor, member of
      staff or a near relative of a member of staff on the programme.

S12.3 With regard to the criterion of ensuring that the External Examiner would not
      have an excessive burden, it is recommended that an External Examiner
      should have normally no more than two major external examinerships. Where
      a nominee lacks prior experience as an External Examiner, details of the
      support to be provided by the Faculty should be included with the submission.
      If a problem arises LEI should be consulted in the first instance.


S13      RESIGNATION, TERMINATION OF APPOINTMENT OR STANDING DOWN

S13.1 General Principles

         (i)     The distinction between resignation, termination of appointment and
                 standing down should be clearly understood.
         (ii)    Termination of Appointment of an External Examiner is regarded as
                 extremely serious and can only be authorised by Academic Board.
         (iii)   Initial responsibility for considering the contribution of External
                 Examiners and identifying any cause for concern, or for reviewing the
                 requirements of programmes in relation to the number of External
                 Examiners required or their duties, rests with the relevant Faculty.

External Examiners                                          3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                              - 85 -                               September 2011
S13.2 Resignation

         (i)     Other than in exceptional circumstances, e.g. serious illness, an
                 External Examiner is normally required to give six months notice of
                 resignation, in order to protect students on the programme and the
                 quality assurance arrangements associated with it. A resignation should
                 normally take effect at the end of an academic year.
         (ii)    An External Examiner who wishes to resign should write formally to the
                 Dean of Learning Enhancement and Innovation, stating her/his reason
                 for resigning, if this is anything other than personal circumstances, e.g.
                 because of concerns regarding the operation of the programme, the
                 University's regulations or any type of conflict with the
                 Faculty/Programme or the University.
         (iii)   The Dean of Learning Enhancement and Innovation will report such
                 resignations to Academic Board.
         (iv)    Following a resignation due only to personal circumstances, within a
                 normal period of appointment, an External Examiner may be re-
                 appointed for the remainder of the period if appropriate.

S13.3 Termination of Appointment

         (i)     Should a Faculty/Programme conclude that the appointment of an
                 External Examiner should be terminated, the Dean of Faculty, or Faculty
                 Quality Manager will present the reasons for this decision and
                 supporting evidence to the Dean of Learning Enhancement and
                 Innovation.
         (ii)    Grounds for the termination of appointment include:
                    Failure to properly carry out the duties and responsibilities of an
                     External Examiner;
                    Failure to produce an adequate report;
                    Conduct contrary to that required and expected of an External
                     Examiner of the University.
                    The Dean of Learning Enhancement and Innovation, having
                     considered the case and, if appropriate, corresponded with the
                     External Examiner, will make a recommendation to Academic
                     Board.
                    Academic Board's decision will be formally notified to the External
                     Examiner, and reported to the Dean of Learning Enhancement and
                     Innovation and the Dean of the relevant Faculty by the Secretary to
                     Academic Board.


S13.4 Standing Down

         (i)     In the event that the circumstances of a programme change (e.g.
                 discontinuation of a programme or a significant reduction in student
                 numbers) in such a way that an External Examiner, or part of an
                 external examining team, is no longer required, the Faculty/Programme
                 should notify the Dean of Learning Enhancement and Innovation of the
                 situation who will then inform the External Examiner.

External Examiners                                            3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                               - 86 -                                September 2011
         (ii)   The standing down of an External Examiner within the period of
                appointment will normally occur at the end of an academic year. Such
                action will reflect only the changed circumstances of the programme in
                question. An External Examiner who stands down in this way may be re-
                appointed at a future date, in accordance with the University's
                procedures.




External Examiners                                       3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                            - 87 -                              September 2011
A4        TRANSLATION POLICY

          The University acknowledges the importance of being able to exercise
          effectively its responsibility for academic standards when the delivery and/or
          assessment of programmes are conducted in a language other than English.
          This policy makes explicit existing good practice in the University and forms
          the basis of future practice.

1         AGREEMENTS AND CONTRACTS

          Agreements and contracts with overseas partner organisations should include
          provisions relating to the Operational Manual but specifically:

          (i)     The languages of assessment and delivery;
          (ii)    Responsibilities for the authoritative translation of documents into the
                  appropriate languages including the quality assurance of translations;
          (iii)   The financial implications of the costs of translation services, the volume
                  of work to be translated and the quality assurance of translations;
          (iv)    A capacity to provide translation facilities of an appropriate standard.

2         TRANSLATION REQUIREMENTS

2.1       Where the collaborative partnership is operating primarily in another
          language, and students on the programmes do not have a working knowledge
          of English, translation will be required of a set of core documentation for
          operational and quality assurance purposes. This includes:

          (i)     Publicity/marketing material (on a sampling basis only and in line with
                  the published marketing protocol);
          (ii)    Claims for APL;
          (iii)   Programme handbooks and other key information for students designed
                  by the partner organisation;
          (iv)    The 3Rs and other documentation for students designed by UoD;
          (v)     Minutes of programme committees and any other key committees;
          (vi)    Material required for monitoring e.g. analyses of student feedback;
          (vii) Appropriate sample of student work - both coursework and examination.

          Guidance: Where a programme is delivered in English but there is potential
          for marketing materials to be prepared in a language other than English, then
          this element of the Policy applies.

3         ASSESSMENT

3.1       Where assessment takes place in a language other than English, the policy of
          the University will be that work will be marked and moderated in the original
          language whenever possible. This is seen to provide the fairest and most
          economical approach to assessment/moderation in another language.
          Therefore the appointment of External Examiners/Moderators, and staff of the
          University to carry out internal moderation, who have both appropriate subject
Translation Policy                                            3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                                - 75 -                               September 2011
          expertise and a professional working knowledge of the language of submitted
          assessment, is to be encouraged. However this is often not possible, and in
          such cases there is a clear requirement for translation.
          Appropriate action should be taken to provide moderation in circumstances
          where assessed work is not written, for example, where oral presentations
          are part of summative assessment. Programme leaders should ensure that
          appropriate measures are in place, either by the presence of internal/external
          moderators at a sample of such assessments, or by the provision of written
          evidence by assessors of the rigour of such processes.

3.2       Assessment Boards will at all times be conducted by the University in English.

4         EXTERNAL EXAMINERS

4.1       Normally External Examiners and External Moderators will have a good
          working knowledge of the language of assessment. Within a team of
          examiners it may be appropriate to have an external without language
          expertise if, for example, they are to compare the work of students on the
          same programme submitting in different languages from different
          partnerships. In such circumstances, care should be taken regarding the
          sample of work that is moderated in translated form. At all times approval of
          appointments of External Examiners should take into account language
          expertise.

4.2       As well as moderating student work, the External Examiners should also be
          responsible for checking assignment briefs and examination papers in both
          original and translated versions, to ensure that they are able to carry out their
          responsibilities regarding the approval of assessment design.

4.3       The continuity of supply of external examiners with appropriate language,
          subject expertise and experience of UK Higher Education should be a key
          factor in any decision to approve a new collaborative arrangement using a
          language other than English.

5         INTERNAL MODERATION

5.1       The Internal Moderation policy of the University ensures that all work on all
          modules and at all locations is sampled and internally moderated by
          University of Derby staff. The implications of this are that an appropriate
          sample of student work (as prescribed in the policy) is translated for the
          purposes of internal moderation, even where the language expertise of
          External Examiners/Moderators means that no translations are required for
          External moderation.

5.2       A University of Derby internal moderator with appropriate language expertise
          will be used wherever possible, providing that the moderator possesses
          sufficient subject expertise. Where translation takes place the internal
          moderator's report will include comment on the quality of translations.

6         QUALITY ASSURANCE AND TRANSLATION

6.1       Within the range of material which requires translation, it is the translation of
          student work which is most important and which most requires careful quality
Translation Policy                                          3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                              - 76 -                               September 2011
          management. As student work is both subject-specialist and sometimes
          hand-written, the use of a high quality translation service is essential.
          Coursework should therefore be submitted in word-processed form, in order
          to minimise the amount of hand-written material to be translated.
6.2       Translations are undertaken at the expense of the partner and within
          approved quality assurance arrangements set out in the Operational Manual.

6.3       The University has set up systems to provide independent quality control of
          translations. A sample of student work from specific modules, selected by the
          University, should be sent to the UK in the original and with an English
          translation provided by the partner. Such control translations are undertaken
          to provide the University with a view on the appropriateness (accuracy,
          register, meaning) of the translations by comparing them with the original in
          the first language. The activity does not produce a further translation but
          instead a report on each piece of work for consideration by tutors in the
          University.

6.4       Where the report indicates that the translation is not of the necessary
          standard for staff in the University to undertake internal moderation effectively
          then the partner is required as a minimum to warn the particular
          translator/agency and to make further checks on work. Alternatively, the
          University may take immediate action to require that another agency be
          employed.

6.5       Over time and on an agreed and approved schedule work on all modules and
          of all translators is covered.

7         AWARDS

7.1       Certificates and/or transcripts should record the name of the Partner
          Organisation and the language of delivery. Where the language of
          assessment is not the same as the language of delivery this should also be
          recorded on the certificate and/or transcripts.




Translation Policy                                         3Rs for Students on Taught Programmes
                                              - 77 -                              September 2011

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:11
posted:3/12/2012
language:English
pages:78