ASSESSMENT POLICY 2014-2015 - Fareham

Nigel Duncan Principal Nigel Duncan
Vincent Adams Director – Teaching and Learning Vincent Adams Review Date July 2013 Approval Date: 10-11-2010
Version 3 July 2014 Updated July 2013
Version4 Updated July 2014
Page 2 of 34
Contents
Information
The Assessment Policy contains important information to ensure that all staff comply
with the College’s requirements regarding the Assessing & Internal Verification of
qualifications.
Page
Points 5-6 Targets & Assessment Calendar 5
Points 7-8 Setting Assignments & Receipt of Assignments; Late
Submissions; Formative Assessment 6
Points 12-14 IV Moderation; External Verification; Students with
Special requirements; 8
Definitions 9
Appendix 1 Guidance for NVQ & VRQ Assessors & Verifiers 11
Appendix 2 External Verification Procedure 12
Appendix 3 EV Visits Flowchart 13
Appendix 4 Grading Criteria for EV Reports 15
Appendix 5 Internal Verification procedure 16
Appendix 6 Guidance for CTLs & IV’s + Health Check; Setting
Assignments guidance 18
Appendix 8 Late Submission of Work 20
Appendix 9 Guidance on Assignment Extensions 21
Appendix 10 Extension Application Form (Students use) 22
Appendix 11 Assignment & IV Documents for BTEC Course
(other courses may use these templates) 24
Appendix 12 Sample Tracking for Vocational & BTEC Qualifications 32
Assessment Policy
Page 3 of 34
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Fareham College aims to provide fair access to assessment for all learners on qualification-based programmes.
Assessment practice will be open and consistent with the codes of practice and regulations laid down by the relevant awarding and validation bodies.
2.0 AIMS
The aim of this policy and its related procedures is to:
Ensure that students receive accurate and useful information about their progress and attainment
Ensure that staff receive clear and effective advice on managing the assessment process
Ensure compliance with Award Body regulations on assessment and quality assurance
Support improvements in teaching effectiveness, student achievement and progression
3.0 SCOPE
4.0 PRINCIPLES
Course teams are expected to ensure that:
Assessment is conducted with rigour, fairness and in accordance with Awarding Body published criteria
Evidence for assessment is authentic, (the student’s own work), current (the student’s present competence), valid (relevant to the syllabus criteria) and sufficient (meets all relevant criteria)
The volume of formative assessment is consistent with an effective and appropriate measurement of the students’ achievement and/or progress
Appropriate feedback is provided to students on assessed work in a way that promotes learning and facilitates improvement
Assessment decisions are recorded and documented accurately and systematically, and in accordance with the requirements of awarding/validation bodies
There is a robust system for standardising and internally verifying assessment decisions and grades
The role of Lead Internal Verifier is appointed and succession planned for all BTEC qualifications
Appropriate Academic Assessment Boards are timetabled for HE Courses
Assessment is co-ordinated between lecturers and other course teams to ensure that workloads are staggered and manageable
Assessment information is kept secure and confidential
The College’s Academic Misconduct Policy is followed where it is established that students have cheated, ghosted or plagiarised the work of others
Assessment Policy
Page 4 of 34
The UK Quality Code for Higher Education In addition to Further Education regulations, this policy is designed to meet the requirements of Expectation 3.2 of Chapter A3 of the Quality Code: Securing academic standards and an outcomes-based approach to academic awards: The Expectation The Quality Code sets out the following Expectation about the assessment of learning outcomes, which degree-awarding bodies are required to meet. Degree-awarding bodies ensure that credit and qualifications are awarded only where: • the achievement of relevant learning outcomes (module learning outcomes in the case of credit and programme outcomes in the case of qualifications) has been demonstrated through assessment • both UK threshold standards and their own academic standards have been satisfied.
Assessment Policy
Page 5 of 34
5.0 TARGETS
The College has set the following annual targets for assessment in 2013/14:
All students should receive a copy of their assessment schedule for each course they are enrolled on
90% of EV reports are judged ‘good or better’
There should be no ‘inadequate’ EV reports
6.0 ASSESSMENT CALENDAR
September – October All learners are registered with appropriate Awarding Bodies
HoDs to check all learners are registered on correct qualifications in conjunction with Course Team Leaders (CTL’s)
Lead IV’s established and registered for new EDEXCEL requirements and where appropriate undertake training
HoDs to confirm by 18 th
October 2014 with appropriate Director of Faculty (DoF) registration is completed & records of meeting to be held
CTL’s IVs are established for all relevant courses with Assessment, Internal Verification and Standardisation meeting dates established within each Department
Formative and summative assessment deadlines issued to students
IV schedule (for assessment briefs and marked work) determined
All assignment briefs are internally verified (where appropriate) within each Department and CTL’s/Lead IV’s & HoDs to participate in a cross College IV standardisation meeting to be held by 30
th September 2014
HE course materials to be validated & approved by VP Curriculum & Quality & dates of Academic Assessment Boards agreed.
EV contact details to be sent to PA to DTL for updating on database
October - December EV confirms visit dates with Heads of Department
Where sampling is required - Units agreed for national sampling
Assessment & IV meetings are held & minutes recorded
Learners informed of visit dates + preparation requirements (if relevant)
Lead IV’s undertake appropriate training as required for EDEXCEL
Sampling visits continue to take place for some courses. E.g. Lead IV either not established or not completed appropriate training
EV’s visits
Sampling Visits continue to take place
EV reports are monitored
Lead IV’s start to audit completeness of Units
May - July HoDs/CTL’s & IV’s to finalise all course assessments and finalise IV before submission
SRF’s & other Awarding Body forms must be submitted by 20 th
June 2014
Assessment Policy
Page 6 of 34
7.0 SETTING ASSIGNMENTS
CTL’s should ensure that schemes of work contain details of all assignment deadlines and independent test dates prior to the beginning of the course. This should also include target dates for the completion of practical work
These assignment deadlines must be agreed by HoD
A copy of these sections of the scheme of work must be provided to the students at the start of their course
CTL’s should ensure that students understand the assignment grading criteria at the start of their course (e.g. the difference between a Pass, Merit and Distinction)
All assignments should be issued with a marking/grading sheet which identifies clear formative and summative assessment deadlines, as well as the date of issue, assignment title and relevant unit. Appendix 6 gives further guidance on setting assignments
The formative assessment deadline should be issued at least two weeks prior to the final submission date, to allow the lecturer to advise the student about how they might improve their work
Staff are not advised to change assessment dates unless it absolutely essential. Where changes are necessary, students should be given plenty of advanced notice.
All assignment briefs must be internally verified before being issued to students – see assessment calendar on page 4 - (unless these have been written by the Awarding Body)
CTL’s are expected to ensure that Lecturers set clear guidelines on how work should be submitted. Further guidance is provided in Appendix 8 – Late Submission of Work.
It is also considered to be good practice for course teams to work together to agree assessment schedules that are staggered across the year and provide students with an even spread of work
8.0 RECEIPT OF ASSIGNMENTS
The CTL is expected to set up a tracking system for recording the hand-in of work with agreement of the process by Head of Department and Director of Faculty. Students should have this system explained to them at the beginning of the course to avoid any misunderstanding and the processes for submitting work must be consistent with Awarding Body guidelines.
9.0 LATE SUBMISSIONS
Late submission is defined as receipt of an assignment after the final submission time/date. An assignment that is due by noon, for example, is considered late if it is submitted at 17.00 on the same day.
Actions taken by course teams to address late submission must always be in accordance with Award Body regulations.
The College operates a ‘Referral Procedure’ to address issues of late submission (of summative assessments) and non-completion of work. See Appendix 8 for further details of these procedures.
10.0 FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT
All assignments should have formative assessment dates that enable students to receive feedback on their work prior to final submission. Normally this will be two weeks prior to the final submission date.
Where student work has been submitted for formative assessment it should be marked with an estimated grade, indicating points of merit and suggestions for improvement.
When work is re-submitted, it should be treated automatically as a final submission for summative assessment.
Assessment Policy
Page 7 of 34
11.0 ASSESSMENT GRADING
The marking of assessments must comply with the requirements of the assessment criteria laid down by Award Bodies or other relevant assessment authorities.
Feedback should be as helpful as possible to the student, i.e. confirming what has gone well and giving clear guidance on what the student needs to do in order to improve on their performance.
Where an assignment is based on group work, students must receive an individual grade which reflects their personal contribution. The marking regime should be explained to students prior to assessment. Group assessment should comply with Award Body assessment regulations where these exist.
Allowances may need to be made for students with additional support needs. Please liaise with the Learning Services team for information on an individual case.
Where students have allowances – an Awarding Body will require a ‘Special Allowances’ form/document to be logged with them. Please refer to the Awarding Body guidelines and/or EV for compliance needs. Copies of forms for students with special dispensations will also need to be logged within the EXAMS OFFICE & held in CTL File (see also point 16)
Where there is a qualification requirement to hold internal standardisation meetings to discuss marking/grading practices, these must be documented and a copy placed in the course file.
Assessment grades must be internally verified before being returned to the students where this is an Awarding Body requirement.
All course teams are strongly encouraged to attend external standardisation events and relevant training courses to share current practice in assessment and grading.
12.0 RETURN OF WORK
Student written work should be marked and returned, with feedback, within three working weeks. Internal verification should be carried out before any work is returned to students
In the case of NVQ programmes, opportunities will be provided for candidates to prove competence within the duration of their course
13.0 EXTENSIONS
In exceptional cases (e.g. ill-health or learning difficulty or disability) an extension of up to three weeks may be authorised by the lecturer where appropriate evidence (e.g. a medical certificate) has been provided
Lecturers should ensure that students are aware of the procedures governing extensions at the start of their course
Students must apply for an extension in writing outlining the reasons for their request. Applications must be authorised by the lecturer BEFORE the final submission date. Lecturers are not obliged to grant an extension AFTER this deadline
Students should apply for an extension using the Extension Form in Appendix 10 this form will also be available on the Intranet: Quality - Documents - Forms
Where an application for extension is rejected, lecturers are directed to the College’s ‘Referral Procedure’
In respect of issues related to Additional Learning Support, lecturers should liaise with the Learning Services team
Further guidance on the use of extensions is presented in Appendix 9
Assessment Policy
Page 8 of 34
Principles:
All vocational and occupational programmes are subject to an internal verification or moderation procedure in order to assure standards and consistency. Assessment will be internally verified or moderated in line with the principles of assessment set out in this policy and in accordance with Award/Validation body regulations.
Procedure:
The College’s Internal Verification and Moderation procedure is set out under Appendix 5 Feedback:
It is vital that, having completed internal verification, the internal verifier gives personal feedback to the assessor(s) on their findings, and that this feedback is recorded. It is this discussion that forms the basis for the IV system and provides the opportunity to review practice.
Disagreements:
It can be a delicate process commenting on a colleague’s marking and assessment, and it needs to be handled with sensitivity and tact. In the event of a disagreement over grades awarded or decisions reached, it is important to try and reach a consensus. If, after discussion, an agreement cannot be reached, it should be referred to the Head of Department. After this, the matter should be referred to the EV.
Student Appeals Process:
Students who disagree with an assessment decision arising from the IV process should follow the Assessment Appeals process in Appendix 7
15.0 EXTERNAL VERIFICATION AND MODERATION
All vocational and occupational programmes are subject to external verification (EV), moderation (EM) or sampling (SV) in line with award/validating body requirements Appendix 2.
The College has a clear tracking system for monitoring EV reports and actions which is set out under Appendix 3.
The College uses a 1-4 grading scale for assessing the quality of a course’s assessment and verification practices based on the outcomes of the EV report.
16.0 ARRANGEMENTS FOR STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS
Assessment must be available to all those who have the potential to achieve the standards required for a particular qualification.
Where special arrangements need to be made to accommodate students with particular needs, care must be taken to ensure that the assessment measures are of an equal rigour and quality to those employed for ‘mainstream’ students.
Students may be identified as having particular assessment requirements in relation to, for example, learning difficulties, a visual or hearing impairment, a mental illness, or English as an additional language. This means they will need appropriate support to help them meet the required assessment standards such as:
Help with communication and number skills
Assessment Policy
Page 9 of 34
Extended assessment time
Confidence building
Note should be taken of existing QCA and awarding/validation body guidance in relation to special assessment requirements.
For external examinations and tests, the lecturer is advised to consult with the College Exams Officer and the Additional Learning Support Manager.
17.0 ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT
All incidences of academic misconduct, including cheating and plagiarism, are dealt with under the College’s Academic Misconduct Policy.
18.0 APPEALS
Students who have concerns about the outcome of an assessment should, in the first instance, discuss the matter with their subject lecturer or assessor. If they wish to take the matter further they should do so through the College’s Assessment Appeals Procedure in Appendix 7
The Assessment Appeals Process should be explained to all students at the start of their course
19.0 ACCOUNTABILITIES
All course teams are expected to refer to this policy and the relevant Award Body guidance when they plan their assessment strategy
Assessment guidance should be an integrated feature of student and subject inductions, and should be included in Course Handbooks
Course teams are expected to evaluate their assessment strategy at the end of each academic year as part of the course self-assessment process
The Head of Department is ultimately responsible for the management of assessment practices for courses in their charge, and for the implementation of actions arising from the internal and external verification processes
20.0 DEFINITIONS
Assignment This term is used to denote a SUMMATIVE Assessment
Summative
Assessment
A form of assessment that contributes to the student’s final
mark/award for the course
Formative Assessment A form of assessment designed to give the student feedback on how
to improve their work
Internal Verification A process that ensures that assignments are written, marked and
recorded in line with Award/Validation body regulations and criteria
Assessment Policy
Page 10 of 34
A process where an external specialist reviews the performance,
standards and quality assurance processes of the course in line with
Award/Validation body regulations
Lecturer A ‘lecturer’ in this document refers to anyone who teaches on a
course and is responsible for setting and marking assignments
Course Team Leader
(CTL)
A nominated staff member who monitors the progress and IV process
for a given course or set of courses
21.0 RELATED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
Teaching and Learning Policy
Page 11 of 34
APPENDIX 1
GUIDANCE FOR NVQ & VRQ ASSESSORS AND VERIFIERS NVQ Assessments must be carried out in the WORKPLACE whilst VRQ’S can be carried out in a ‘Realistic Work Environment’ (RWE). Whilst the assessments for VRQ’s can be simulated it should be assumed that all NVQ’s & VRQ’s comply with the assessment criteria in accordance to the following guidance:
Sampling Assessment Practice
1. Sampling should be conducted on both an interim and summative basis so that problems are picked up early and IV is not “end loaded”.
2. A clear strategy and sampling plan, which must be agreed with the EV, is required in order to ensure adequate IV.
3. The sampling strategy should take the following into account:
Size of sample needed to ensure reliability
Assessment methods used - so that all methods are verified
Assessors – number, occupational experience, qualifications, workload, location
Range of assessment sites
All units, particularly focussing on any problem units
Monitoring NVQ & VRQ Assessment Practice
The Course team leader & Head of Department are expected to monitor the assessment
process on a regular basis. This will normally involve:
Observing assessors over a period of 6-12 months
Checking that assessment procedures comply with national standards
Identifying problems or areas where advice or guidance is required, and provide constructive advice on how to improve assessment practice
Ensuring that candidates are aware of and satisfied with the process
Standardising NVQ & VRQ Assessment Judgements:
The purpose of standardisation is to ensure that assessors make valid and consistent
assessment decisions based on the evidence provided. This requirement can be met through
regular documented team meetings.
New Assessors or Standards:
When assessors or qualification standards change, the Internal Verifier should provide the
assessor with a copy of the standards, the latest QCDA NVQ Code of Practice, the College’s
assessment policy, details of the Award Body and External Verifier and requirements for
professional updating. It is expected that all Assessors & Internal Verifiers hold appropriate
qualifications. Those staff holding previous qualifications should make sure they are updated
to meet current standards.
Page 12 of 34
The Process of External Verification/Moderation:
The role of the EV is to review and to comment on the standards of a particular programme or group of programmes.
Heads of Department should ensure that the College’s EV database is updated with the most recent EV contact details, and ensure these are cascaded to the relevant Course Team Leaders, IV’s & Assessors.
The Head of Department, together with the Course Team Leader, agrees the units to be sampled and is expected to make the appropriate preparatory arrangements for the EV visit.
All lecturers on vocational/occupational programmes should make students aware that their work may be sent away to the Awarding Body should this be requested. This work may not be available to them again until the verification/ moderation process is complete.
When work is returned the moderation sheet should be retained in the course file as evidence of the procedure.
Heads of Department are responsible for ensuring that all actions designated in the EV Report are completed by the appropriate deadline. A record of these actions will be recorded on the College’s EV database.
Managing the External Verifier (EV)
1. EVs generally contact the college in the autumn term to arrange the sampling for the year according to awarding body protocols.
2. EVs mostly make contact with the Quality Nominee (DTL) but CTLs should notify him if direct contact is made.
3. All EV reports should be sent, in the first instance, to Annelies James (PA to DTL) who will log its receipt on the EV database.
4. All reports will receive a grade between 1 (Outstanding) and 4 (Inadequate) based on the findings and judgements contained within the report. Grades will be based on the criteria outlined in Appendix 4. Appeals against this grade should be directed in writing to the Director of Teaching and Learning.
5. Directors of Faculty and Heads of Department & CTL’s receive their own copy of the EV report, with attached copies of the action sheet.
6. Updated action sheets from Directors of Faculty and Heads of Department must be returned to Annelies James within the four week cycle, where they will be transferred to the EV database.
7. The EV database will record all EV activity, including contact details, visit dates, report grades and EV report actions, and is available to managers on the Collaborative Shared Quality Folder.
Assessment Policy
Page 13 of 34
EV contact details confirmed by HoDs & logged on the database
in collaborative file
Letter sent to EV by Annelies James outlining EV Visit
process and report submission procedures
EV Visits the College
When & by Whom
Page 14 of 34
Process
ORIGINAL EV Report is recieved by DTL PA. Logged on database,
assigned ID number, circulation slip & cover sheet
Report sent to DTL
for comments/actions. Returned to DTL PA and circulated to Principal
and VP's
Report returned to DTL PA and copied to DoF, HoD, CTL and exams. Action and comments recorded on
database
Original EV Report is filed with DTL master files
DoF reviews and updates action sheet with HoD and follows through
subsequent actions. HoD to follow up with CTL
DoF/HoD returns updated cover sheets to DTL PA. The EV database is
updated accordingly which are
monitored by DTL monthly
Page 15 of 34
GRADING CRITERIA FOR SV and EV REPORTS
The following grading criteria for SV and EV Reports will operate in
2012/13.
No weaknesses are identified
GOOD There is reference to good quality work being reviewed
There are some clear strengths
One or two areas could be improved
Some action required
but this is not consistent across the report
There is an even balance of strengths and weaknesses
A range of actions are required to improve the teaching and/or assessment practices of the team
INADEQUATE The report identifies serious deficiencies in the standard of work reviewed
No strengths are evidenced
There are some serious deficiencies in teaching and/or assessment practices of the team
Numerous actions are required to rectify the problems identified, and/or to ensure continued certification of the course
Assessment Policy
Page 16 of 34
Context:
Internal Verification (IV) is the process of monitoring assessment practice in order to ensure that assessment decisions meet national standards. It provides a continuous check on the consistency, quality and fairness of marking, grading and overall assessment of student’s work.
The term IV encompasses all activities that check and validate assessment including standardisation and moderation. This includes established systems of verification such as those proposed by Awarding Bodies, shared observation of student activities, second marking of students’ work, or team grading / assessment of students’ work.
Every course which uses internal assessment to mark student work, which then contributes to their final grade, must operate an IV or moderation process.
The aim of internal verification is:
o To ensure that students are assessed accurately, fairly and consistently o To satisfy the assessment requirements laid down by Award Bodies and other relevant
assessment authorities o To verify that assessors are correctly interpreting and applying the standards set out in
awarding body specifications o To ensure that assessment decisions are valid, authentic, reliable, current and
sufficient for all our students o Give staff essential feedback and support
Responsibilities
The Course Team Leader or LIV is responsible for monitoring the assessment and IV process for a particular course
The Internal Verifier is responsible for ensuring that each assessor’s decisions are fair and valid, and to ensure that adequate feedback is provided to the student about this decision
The Course Team Leader is responsible for planning the IV process for a course or set of courses and for advising assessors and Internal Verifiers on how to manage this activity
The Head of Department is responsible for the quality of IV practices that take place on courses in their charge, and for implementing all relevant EV actions
The Quality Improvement Manager is responsible for the overall quality and consistency of the College’s assessment and verification practices including the identification and dissemination of good practice
Internal Verifier Qualifications
All internal verifiers must possess the appropriate qualifications to undertake internal verification activities. For NVQ courses, this should be a V1 qualification. For non-NVQ courses, this should be a relevant teaching qualification. Staff who are working towards these qualifications can carry out IV under the supervision of a qualified Internal Verifier.
IVs are also expected to develop their subject expertise through relevant professional development activity. Please consult your Awarding Body for specific guidance on this matter.
Assessment Policy
Page 17 of 34
Procedure:
Heads of Department should ensure that, by September 30th, the nominated person is appointed to co-ordinate the IV process in the role of Course Team Leader across a course/set of courses, which includes the identification of appropriate assessors and internal verifiers.
The Course Team Leader is expected to draw up an IV Plan for a course at the start of the academic year in agreement with the Head of Department. The schedule should expect to cover the IV of (1) assignment briefs; and (2) when assessments/assignments occur (3) student assessment decisions. The Course Team Leader is expected to monitor progress against these Plans.
Each course should have at least two internal verifiers - IVs cannot assess and verify their own work - e.g. this may be the CTL & HoD.
The Course Team Leader should ensure that ALL assignment briefs are presented for internal verification before use. Where relevant, the assignment briefs should be sent off to the external verifier for initial scrutiny/approval. Where an assignment is set by the Award Body, it does NOT need to be internally verified.
All evidence submitted for assessment should be recorded using the appropriate forms for the Awarding Body; where none is specified, HoDs must agree the templates
The Course Team Leader should ensure that assessment decisions/grades are solely based on the assessment criteria targeted in the assignment brief. The IV should also check that feedback to the learner is constructive and contains actions for improvement.
Students on vocational/occupational programmes should not be issued with their final grade until internal verification of assignment marking is completed. Where this occurs, it is likely to contravene awarding/validation body assessment regulations.
Course Team Leaders are expected to hold meetings with the relevant assessors to discuss their findings. These meetings should be documented and used to share good practice.
The Course Team Leader in conjunction with the Head of Department is also responsible for organising cross-team/site internal verification and standardisation activities where more than one team is involved.
The Course Team Leader in conjunction with the Head of Department is responsible for liaising with the External Verifier.
IVs are responsible for signing off and dating all paperwork relevant to the IV process for a particular course, and for keeping suitable IV records in a secure place. The Course Team Leader is expected to monitor these arrangements throughout the year.
The Course Team Leader is expected to carry out a monitoring exercise at the end of the first term to verify that IVing is taking place.
The Assessment Policy, Assessment Appeals Procedure and Academic Misconduct Policy should be followed by all IV’s & Assessors.
Assessor records and IV records need to be kept for at least 3 years after certification for the purposes of External Verification and resolution of possible appeals.
Portfolios of candidates for whom certification has been claimed via Direct Claim Status must be kept in a secure location for up to six months and be available for the next EV visit.
Evaluation
The College’s IV procedures and practices are subject to annual review.
Assessment Policy
Quality Improvement – Assessment Policy – MJM August 2010 Page 18 of 34
APPENDIX 6
Further information regarding assessment and Internal Verification - Qualification and Curriculum Development Agency website www.qcda.gov.uk
Alternatively for all BTEC information please check website: www.edexcel.com
For NVQ’s IV’s and Assessors should be familiar with the NVQ Code of Practice www.qcda.gov.uk
Additional Policies that should also be considered: Distance Learning; Electronic Assessment
All parts of a qualification require Internal Verification – below example is a list of judgements that should be considered for all modules.
Module Checklist
Be vocationally relevant
Target specific grading criteria which are clearly identified to the learner
Only relate to the grading criteria printed in the assessment grading criteria for the unit(s) being assessed
Be appropriate in level and language
Be effectively scheduled across the programme to avoid work overload
Lecturers are expected to set clear guidelines on how work should be submitted and should consider the following aide memoir:
Is there a need for the assignment to be word-processed or handwritten?
Does it need a word limit?
What standard of referencing is expected?
In what format can students submit their work e.g. paper document, via the VLE, e-mail attachment? Can they have a choice?
Where and by when should students submit their work?
What system is being used to officially record the work as being received?
Checklist Checked
All IV’s hold correct qualification
Clear & explicit system in place to validate summative decisions by assessors
Written sampling strategy in place
Records of sampling including monitoring assessment practice are maintained
Able to process, agree and make judgements about candidates’ work meeting assessment criteria
Able to agree assessment specification and a range of methods for evidence of assessments
Able to validate the process confirming that work produced by candidate is authentic and produced under required conditions
Ensure IV’s have current / necessary CPD relating to the qualification
Able to monitor and support assessors as required
APPENDIX 7:
ASSESSMENT APPEALS PROCEDURE
In the first instance students who have concerns about the outcome of an assessment procedure or the procedure itself should discuss the matter fully with the assessor. If they continue to have concerns then they should follow this appeals procedure.
Stage One
Students wishing to appeal should do so in writing, to the Course Team Leader (CTL) of the particular course, within 5 working days of the receipt of their assessment;
The CTL will investigate the appeal by reviewing all relevant documentation (including any internal or external assessment policies), and will seek to resolve the matter at a meeting with the student;
The investigation should be instigated within seven working days of the Appeal being lodged;
In keeping with the requirements of certain validating bodies, this investigation may be carried out by the appropriate Internal Verifier;
The CTL should inform the student either in person or in writing of the outcome of the Appeal within two working days of the meeting. The formal letter detailing the decision should be cc’d to the PA to DTL; Director of Faculty; Head of Department.
The student should also be notified of the right of a further appeal to the Head of Department with responsibility for the relevant curriculum area.
The CTL and Personal Tutor should retain copies of all relevant documentation.
Stage Two
In the event of a further appeal to the Head of Department, s/he will investigate the matter, interview the student and others as necessary, and respond formally within ten working days of the second appeal being lodged.
The Head of Department will specify the reasons for their decision in writing. They will also inform the student of their right to appeal to the Director of Faculty within five working days.
Stage Three
The Director of Faculty will investigate the matter as for Stage Three and respond within five working days.
Stage Four
A final appeal may be made in writing to the Deputy Principal within five working days of the student being notified of the outcome of Stage Three.
The DTL will convene a sub-committee of the Staff Liaison Committee to consider the appeal. The sub-committee will be chaired by the Principal and membership will include a governing body representative. The sub-committee will meet within one half-term of the appeal being received. Their decision is the last internal stage before potential referral to the awarding body.
Guidance Notes
Where an appeal may lead to changes on an external awarding body’s formal student assessment record (e.g. Edexcel’s SRF) then the Examinations Officer should be informed immediately by the CTL, both about the lodging of the appeal and its ultimate outcome.
In instances where the appeal is against the assessment decision of a staff member with curriculum responsibility the DoF will nominate alternative staff in equivalent positions to hear the appeal.
A student making an appeal may be supported by a friend or parent at all meetings and interviews.
This policy complements any external validating body’s assessment appeals procedures as appropriate
Assessment Policy
APPENDIX 8
LATE SUBMISSION OF WORK
The College’s Late Submission Procedures are aimed at minimising the disruption caused by
students who fail to meet their assessment deadlines without a legitimate reason.
The College acknowledges that students who hand in work late:
Gain an unfair advantage on those who keep to deadlines and submit their work on time
Set a poor example to other students
Are less likely to meet their future assessment commitments
Are more likely to leave the course
Create additional workload for staff teams
For these reasons, the College operates a ‘Referral’ procedure (where compatible with
Awarding Body protocols) which is designed to assist staff in dealing with cases of late
submission.
The Referral Procedure:
1 The Referral Procedure is activated when a student submits work after the final summative deadline without prior authorisation from the lecturer.
2 Work that is submitted late is recorded as a ‘U’ (Unclassified) grade and receives no credit or mark. The lecturer is not obliged to mark the assignment.
3 The student is issued with a Stage 1 warning (which can be escalated on subsequent late submissions).
4 A ‘referral week’ is identified for the student to give them a second opportunity to pass the assignment. Normally, this is expected to take place at the end of the course year. It is for each course team to determine how to manage this referral period, and to inform students of this procedure at the start of their course.
5 The student is presented with a different assignment brief, which they complete and hand in at the end of the referral week. In the case of practical assignments, lecturers are expected to draw upon a range of contingency tasks that allow students to meet the assessment criteria without necessarily having to replicate the original activity. For example, a lecturer may elect to use an open-book exam, a one-to-one oral examination or a simulated practical activity to provide sufficient opportunity during the week for the student to meet the criteria. In considering such a ‘replacement’ activity, lecturers should consult with their Awarding Body.
6 If the student passes the assignment, the achieved grade replaces the original ‘U’ grade.
7 If the student fails the assignment, there is no compensation allowed therefore learners must pass all obligatory units to qualify for their qualification.
8 In the case of Assessment requirements students are likely to be at different stages in their level of competence and skill, and will vary according to their ability to meet specific evidence requirements for their portfolio. Lecturers are advised to devise and monitor individual targets for completion, and invoke the disciplinary procedure where the student consistently fails to meet these targets.
Assessment Policy
APPENDIX 9
GUIDANCE ON ASSIGNMENT EXTENSIONS
All extension requests by students should be made in writing on an applications basis and
must be formally approved and signed off by the lecturer BEFORE the summative assessment
deadline.
Granting an extension means that the student must normally submit their assignment no later
than three working weeks after the original summative assessment deadline. Variations to
this ‘contract’ are agreed by exception and a further application for extension must be
submitted in writing by the student to the lecturer, which they must sign off for approval.
An extension will NOT normally be permitted once the deadline for summative assessment has
passed.
Authorised Extensions
The following represent legitimate requests for an authorised extension to an assessment
deadline:
Bereavement or personal trauma
Accident that necessitates time-off from College or prevents the student from completing the assessment
Jury service
Serious illness of a family member that requires the person to take time-off
Other notified personal reasons that prevent the student from attending college and/or submitting their work by the assessment deadline
Diagnosed learning disability or difficulty
It is the responsibility of the individual student to inform their lecturer that they require an
authorised extension prior to the summative assessment deadline. The student present
appropriate evidence to justify their request – this is detailed on the Extension Application
Form.
Grounds to Reject an Application:
Lecturers are entitled to reject an application for extension where one or more of the following
criteria apply:
Uncertified illness
The student missed work because they were on holiday
The submitted work has been lost due to a problem with their PC, printer or any other hardware/software used in its publication
The student claims they didn’t know the assessment deadlines and/or procedure
Change of staffing
Personal relationship with staff member
Any other reason where there is insufficient evidence to support the request
Students should use the Extension Application Form to apply for an extension (see Appendix
10). This form can be downloaded from the intranet under Quality.
Assessment Policy
APPENDIX 10
EXTENSION APPLICATION FORM
Please complete this form if you need an extension to complete your assignment.
(Please note: Only complete this form if your assignment counts towards your final grade)
Name: Date:
Course Title:
Course Tutor:
Assignment Title:
Unit: Date of Submission:
An Extension will usually mean that you will be entitled to an additional amount of
time to complete your assignment up to a maximum of three weeks.
Applications for an extension will only be granted under the following reasons:
Please tick
EX03 Accident that necessitates time-off from College or prevents the
student from completing the assessment
EX04 Jury service
EX05 Serious illness of a family member that requires the person to take
time-off College
EX06 Other notified personal reasons that prevent the student from attending
college and/or meeting the deadline
EX07 Diagnosed learning disability or difficulty
I have attached appropriate evidence to support my application
Additional Comments:
Assessment Policy
Please note: Your application will be automatically rejected without the appropriate evidence attached
to this form. Examples of appropriate evidence are an Official Jury Summons, Statement of Disability,
Doctor’s Certificate on Headed Notepaper or Sick Certificate.
I confirm that the information I have given is accurate and complete.
Signature of Student: __________________________________________________________________
College Use Only
Reason:
Assessment Policy
APPENDIX 11
& may be used for all other courses
Assessment Policy
Assignment front sheet
Learner name Assessor name
Assignment title
In this assessment you will have opportunities to provide evidence against the following criteria.
Indicate the page numbers where the evidence can be found.
Unit number Criteria reference
To achieve the criteria the evidence must show that the learner is able to:
Task no.
Learner declaration
I certify that the work submitted for this assignment is my own and research sources are fully acknowledged.
Learner signature: Date:
Assessment Policy
Assignment brief
Task 2
Task 3
Evidence checklist
[Summarise evidence required, e.g. ‘leaflet’, ‘presentation notes’ etc.] [tick boxes]
Sources of information [insert useful publications, websites etc]
This brief has been verified as being fit for purpose
Internal verifier
Signature Date
Signature Date
Assessment Policy
Internal verification of assignment brief
Qualification
Are accurate programme details shown? Y/N*
Are accurate unit details shown? Y/N*
Are clear deadlines for assessment given? Y/N*
Is this assignment for whole or part of a unit? W/P
Are the assessment and grading criteria to be
addressed listed? Y/N*
addressed? Y/N*
Are these criteria actually addressed by the tasks? Y/N*
Is it clear what evidence the learner needs to generate? Y/N*
Are the activities appropriate? Y/N*
Is there a scenario or vocational context? Y/N*
Are the language and presentation appropriate? Y/N*
Is the timescale for the assignment appropriate? Y/N*
Overall is the assignment fit for purpose? Y/N*
* If “No” is recorded and the internal verifier recommends remedial action before the brief is issued, the assessor and the
internal verifier should confirm that the action has been undertaken.
Internal verifier
Signature Date
Action required:
Action taken:
Signature Date
Internal verifier
Signature Date
Assessment Policy
Assessor's comments
Unit number
Criteria reference
?
Assessment Policy
Internal verification of assessment decisions
Qualification
Pass
Merit
Distinction
Do the criteria awarded match those targeted by the assignment brief?
Y/N
Details
Y/N
Details
Is the feedback to the learner: Constructive? Linked to relevant
assessment and grading criteria?
Y/N
Details
Y/N
Details
Assessment Policy
Observation record
Learner name
Description of activity undertaken (please be as specific as possible)
Assessment and grading criteria
How the activity meets the requirements of the assessment and grading criteria
Assessor signature Date
Assessor name
Assessment Policy
Witness statement
Learner name
Description of activity undertaken (please be as specific as possible)
Assessment and grading criteria
How the activity meets the requirements of the assessment and grading criteria, including how and where the activity took place
Witness name
Job role
Assessment Policy
APPENDIX 12
Assessment Policy
TRACKING MATRIX FOR VOCATIONAL COURSES
Course Title: Course Code:
CTL:
Students Names Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5 Unit 6 Unit 7 Unit 8 Unit 9 Unit 10
Assessment Policy
UNIT GRADING CRITERIA TRACKING MATRIX for BTEC
Unit Title
Grading Criteria
Students name
P 3
P 4
P 5
P 6
P 7
P 8
M 1
M 2
M 3
M 4
M 5
M 6
M 7
M 8
M 9
D 1
D 2
D 3
D 4
D 5
D 6
D 7
D 8
Unit 2
Unit 3
Unit 4
Unit 5
Unit 6