Assessment Guide

f
SENATE
GUIDE
ASSESSMENT OF
TAUGHT COURSES:
DESIGN AND
FEEDBACK
This Guide supplements the Senate Handbook on Managing Taught Courses.

It includes information, advice and guidance to support staff in the development of taught courses and
modules: it does not include formal policies of Senate, and should be interpreted as advisory rather than
requirements to follow.
Version 1.1 August 2015
GUIDE TO ASSESSMENT OF TAUGHT COURSES
p. 1
Contents
Contents ...............................................................................................................................................2
1
Introduction to Assessment ...................................................................................................4

1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................4
1.2 Definitions ..........................................................................................................................5
2 Assessment Strategies for Taught Courses ..............................................................................6

2.1 Introduction: General Principles of Good Practice .........................................................6
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4
2.2
Why Assess Groups?

Group Size and Composition
Ways to Assess Groups
Why Assess Orally?
Considerations in Planning Oral Assessment
13
13
13
15
15
Individual Research Project Assessment ......................................................................16

2.6.1 General Strategy
2.6.2 Written Report: Thesis vs Paper
2.6.3 Oral presentations
2.6.4. Poster presentations
10
11
Oral Assessment .............................................................................................................14

2.5.1
2.5.2
2.6
Timetabling of assessments
Part-time Courses
Integrating Assessments ................................................................................................11

Group Assessments ........................................................................................................12
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.4.3
2.5
6
6
7
7
Impact of Course Structure and Duration .....................................................................10

2.2.1
2.2.2
2.3
2.4
Assessment Validity
Making assessment M-level
Assessment as learning
Developing an assessment strategy
16
16
17
17
Marking and Feedback...........................................................................................................18

3.1 Overview ..........................................................................................................................18
3.2 Rubrics, Marking Schemes and Model Answers ..........................................................18
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.3
3.4
Model answers
Marking schemes
University Qualitative Descriptors
Rubrics
18
18
18
19
Feedback for Learning.................................................................................................20

Efficiency in Marking and Feedback ..............................................................................20
3.4.1
3.4.2
3.4.3
3.4.4
3.4.5
3.4.6
3.4.7
3.4.8
Impact of assessment design

Use of marking schemes and rubrics
Statement banks
Electronic marking
Amount and detail of feedback: focus on performance
Timeliness of feedback
Different mechanisms for providing feedback
Self and Peer Assessment
20
20
21
21
21
21
22
22
4 Overcoming Perceived Problems with Assessment .............................................................23

4.1 Implications of Failure .....................................................................................................23
4.2 Plagiarism and Other Forms of Misconduct ..................................................................23
4.3 Planning to Avoid Problems ...........................................................................................23
Appendices ........................................................................................................................................25
Appendix 1: Assessment types with advantages and disadvantages................................25
Appendix 2: How do I write clear and appropriate intended learning outcomes? .............29
Appendix 3: Masters-Level Descriptors for Taught Courses ..............................................31
A.3.1 What is expected of a student taking a Masters degree?
Error! Bookmark not defined.
A.3.2 What is expected of a student taking a Postgraduate Diploma or Certificate?Error! Bookmark
not defined.
A.3.3 How does Masters-level study differ from undergraduate (honours) provision?
Error!
Bookmark not defined.
p. 2
Major changes to this document since version 1.0 September 2014:
Clarification of the difference between multi-part and independent assessments.

Updating of reassessment strategies to follow updates to the Assessment Rules.
p. 3
Introduction to Assessment
1.1
Overview
The purpose of this document is to offer advice and guidance to academic staff and to act as a
source of ideas for developing new approaches to assessment. It is not intended to be
prescriptive.
Before using this Guide, staff are advised to familiarise themselves with policies and procedures
in the following Senate Handbooks:
Senate Handbook on Managing Taught Courses

Senate Handbook on Setting Up a New Taught Course
Senate Handbook on Assessment Rules (Taught Courses)
Senate currently does not prescribe particular methods of assessment, nor any specific balance
of assessment types for a particular award. Senate emphasises a key principle that
assessments should correspond directly to the stated intended learning outcomes. Course
teams are encouraged, however, to have a clear assessment strategy for the award as a whole,
taking into account all of the modular and other assessments contributing to the final award.
This Guide contains useful information to help staff reflect on the design of the assessments of
their taught courses, and how such design can help facilitate providing feedback to students on
their performance and academic standards.
As context, it is worth remembering that the primary purposes of assessment are:
to ensure and demonstrate that the quality and standard(s) associated with the
intended learning outcomes of the institutions courses are met (by means of
summative assessment in particular);
to provide a mark or grade which helps provide an absolute and/or relative indicator of
achievement (for example for prospective employers);
to help students evaluate their own progress in the development of knowledge,
understanding abilities or skills (through the provision of definitive marks and grades
and/or a constructive commentary on their work).
The UK Quality Code for Higher Education1 sets out two general expectations relating to
assessment:
1) Higher education providers ensure that students have appropriate opportunities to show
they have achieved the intended learning outcomes for the award of a qualification or
credit.
2) Higher education providers ensure the assessment of students is robust, va lid and
reliable, and that the award of qualifications and credit are based on achievement of the
intended learning outcomes.
This Guide is intended to help those responsible for taught course assessments meet these
expectations.
p. 4
1.2
Definitions
Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)
what a student should be able to do after a unit of study

(lesson, module or programme). ILOs should be clear,
concise, and reflect the learning of the unit of study.
Diagnostic assessment
assessments used to assess attributes or skills and

suggest appropriate pathways of study, or identify
learning difficulties that require support and resolution.
These are usually:
Formative assessment
undertaken at the start of a course or module

not part of the formal assessment of the course
or module
assessments where the results are used primarily to

enhance learning. These are usually:
restricted to comments on the work and other

forms of qualitative feedback undertaken during a
course or module
not part of the formal assessment of the course
or module
and are
Summative assessment
likely to help a student to improve (or

demonstrate) aspects of work such as style/
structure/ referencing etc.
particularly useful as scaffolding, where a student
experiences a new type of learning and
submission of a small example can confirm (or
otherwise)
that
the
learning/concept
is
understood before a fuller, formal assessment is
submitted
useful for giving constructive feedback to a group
of students to ensure that they understand
requirements for a formal assessment
assessments where the results are used primarily to

inform the student of his or her performance in relation to
stated objectives and learning outcomes. These are
usually:
formal marks or grades, which count towards the

final award
undertaken at the end of a course or module
A list of assessment types and variations with associated advantages and disadvantages is
given in Appendix 1.
p. 5
2 Assessment Strategies for Taught Courses

2.1
Introduction: General Principles of Good Practice
2.1.1
Assessment Validity
An assessment is valid if it tests successfully the learning the examiners want it to test. Thus,
validity relies upon aligning the assessment method to well-constructed intended learning
outcomes (ILOs). Advice on writing ILOs is given in Appendix 2.
A well-constructed ILO should inherently indicate an appropriate mode of assessment. For
example, if the ILO refers to critical analysis of an issue, an assessment based on some form
of essay might be indicated; a written examination is unlikely to be a suitable form of
assessment for this type of ILO, especially if its questions encourage answers based on
recollection of facts, rather than answers based on critical analysis.
More generally:
written assessments are unlikely to be valid choices for assessment of practical skills;
time-constrained examinations are unlikely to demonstrate in-depth critical analysis
(often a key qualifier for Masters-level provision).
Case Study 1: Air crash investigation exercise in the Transport Theme

The MSc in Safety and Accident Investigation (Air Transport) has several ILOs relating to
developing the students ability to investigate the cause of an aircraft crash which include:
At the end of this course, a student should be able to:
- Plan, organise and conduct an accident investigation, on site, with regard to
personal safety, evidence preservation, ethics and rigour;
- Critically analyse evidence collected during an investigation, draw conclusions, and
make recommendations, that do not lay blame, are replicable, logical and of
sufficient scientific rigor.
Safety and Accident Investigation Course Summary 2012
These ILOs are taught via activities including a field exercise (reproduction of a crash and
the associated investigation exercise in supervised groups), and assessed (summatively) by
an individual accident report in the format used by the industry. This assessment requires
students to select relevant equipment and collect relevant data, as suggested by the ILOs,
in as real-life a scenario as possible, resulting in a well-aligned, valid teaching, learning and
assessment exercise.
2.1.2
Making assessment M-level
Appendix 3 outlines the Universitys position on the interpretation of the national level 7
(Masters-level) descriptors, as defined by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) in its Quality
Code. This describes qualities of a masters graduate, and includes language such as critical
evaluation, originality in the application of knowledge, and evaluation of methodologies. It would
therefore be expected that level 7 (Masters-level) assessment will be designed to test such
skills, knowledge and understanding, through their authentic use in novel situations.
Examples of innovative assessment at M-level can be found in a compendium of examples
generated through the Assimilate project at:
https://sites.google.com/a/teams.leedsmet.ac.uk/assimilate-2012/dissemination/compendium
p. 6
2.1.3
Assessment as learning
Many authors have noted how student learning is influenced by how they will, or how they think
they will be assessed. This is readily demonstrated how many times do students ask Will this
be on the exam??
This can be utilised as a source of motivation for students by sharing with them the intended
learning outcomes, of a course or module, relating these to the assessment strategy for the
course, and clearly communicating the criteria for success (see information on rubrics in section
3.2).
A good strategy is Introduce, Practice, Assess students should not be assessed on anything
that has not been clearly introduced to them, and they should have had the opportunity to
practice and receive feedback through a formative assessment on their performance in
relation to skills and attributes required for a final summative assessment. Formative
assessments may be structured or provided by you as part of the course, or outlined as
suggestions for self-directed or group learning.
2.1.4
Developing an assessment strategy
All course teams are encouraged to outline their overall strategy for the assessment of the
course as a whole. It is important to design a varied and balanced set of assessments, and
should be considered as an integral part of the overall course design.
Variety in assessment can encourage development of a well-rounded individual by directing
their learning into the development of a range of skills necessary to complete those
assessments. By contrast, an assessment strategy based heavily on a single mode of
assessment may hinder development and indirectly bias the course towards a particular
learning style (e.g. relying wholly on traditional written methods such as essays and
examinations is likely only to develop skills in writing essays and recalling information).
Questions to consider when designing an assessment strategy:

1) How much assessment is appropriate?
Senate Regulations make no reference to the number and length of assessments for creditbearing components of a programme. However, there is a general expectation that there
should be no more than one summative assessment per ten-credit module. Use of more
than one summative assessment is not considered good practice and will require a clear
rationale at the course approval stage. Senates Education Committee also encourages the
use of one assessment for more than one module (see section 2.3). Where there is concern
that a single summative assessment is insufficient to demonstrate students have met the
ILOs, consideration should be given to using formative assessment to address this.
p. 7
Where more than one piece of assessment is used, Course Teams should consider whether
the assessments are independent or elements of a multi-part assessment. The impact on
failure is different as outlined below:
Independent assessments
3 separate assessments, outlined in the
course specification as:
Multi-part assessment
3 assessments, but outlined in the course
specification as:
A
B
C
assignment
assignment
assignment
assignment
25%
25%
50%
A
25%
25%
50%
25
mar
ks
25
11/25
6/25
Example 1:
marks obtained
100%
3
50
Example 1:
45%
25%
55%
marks obtained
27/50
outcome: overall mark of 45%.

Module minimum mark appears to
be attained but assessment B
must be re-sat.
Example 2:

Module minimum mark attained
assessment 2 does not need to be
re-sat.
Example 2:
marks obtained
marks obtained
45%
25%
42%
11/25
6/25
21/50
outcome: overall mark of 38.5%.

Module not passed but only
assessment B must be re-sat.

Module not passed and all
assessments must be re-sat.
Failure to submit one or more of the three

assignments would count as one instance of a
failure to complete the assessment, and the
one opportunity to be allowed to re-sit the
assessment(s).
Failure to submit one or more of the three

assignments would not require remedial
action if the absence of the marks for that
assignment still result in a pass mark for the
assessment (whether 40 or 50% as
appropriate).
Appropriate for interrelated assessments e.g:
where an experiment to obtain data is part
1 and presenting the data and referencing
other cases is part 2.
where design is part 1, part 2 is testing and
part 3 is evaluation.
Appropriate for:
group work projects where the product of
the group work results in a mark equally
applied to all group members and there is
also an individual assessment to test
individual learning from the event (such as
a viva or individual presentation) so that an
individual mark can be attributed
when one assessment measures subject
knowledge and a practical exercise
measures application.
2) What skills should we be assessing?
These will include both subject-specific and transferable skills such as written and oral
communication skills. An assessment strategy should aim to allow students to demonstrate
their written and oral skills in different ways and contexts, and consideration should be paid
to both teaching methodologies and assessment of more practical skills such as use of
specific equipment or computer software, and how these can be assessed practically if
possible. If hands-on assessment of practical skills is not feasible, consider use of reporting
methods such as posters, oral presentations, or a report in the style of a journal paper.
p. 8
3) Is assessment of knowledge (as opposed to practical skills) important?

This will depend on the context. The answer may be yes, in which case you may wish to
select written assessments such as essays, reports, on-line examinations or unseen written
examinations. If either the ability to find information or to apply information is more
important than having the information immediately to hand, this is a good reason to consider
options for coursework rather than examinations which constrain this.
4) Are there any issues relating to disabilities and learning difficulties?
In the process of designing assessments, you should consider whether students with
particular disabilities might encounter barriers due to the tasks required by the assessment,
and devise an alternative if possible. Any alternative assessment provided should be
equally rigorous academic standards should not be compromised.
For specific cases, you should be aware of the Universitys disability policy, which includes
information on making reasonable adjustments:
https://intranet.cranfield.ac.uk/hrd/polsprocsforms/Pages/diversitypol.aspx
The most common learning difficulty is dyslexia. Students with dyslexia may find formal,
written examinations problematic, and the University has established procedures for
accommodating the needs of dyslexic students: see Learning Support Officer for advice;
whose names are listed at:
https://intranet.cranfield.ac.uk/hrd/diversity/Pages/default.aspx
5) Are there any issues relating to culture and language differences?
Some students from outside the UK may be unfamiliar with some assessment types, for
example many do not necessarily understand the requirements of an essay. This
emphasises the importance of providing clear instructions and marking criteria to students
when the assessment is set.
Students should also be given access to previous work of students, where possible and
appropriate, to aid understanding of the styles and formats expected of them. All students
admitted to the University should have a certain standard of English, but those setting
assessments should remember to give clear instructions to students in plain English, both
orally and in writing where possible.
Further guidance on this subject is included in the Cultural Inclusivity booklet, available in
hard copy from L&D or online at:
https://intranet.cranfield.ac.uk/hrd/diversity/Documents/CulturalInclusivityBooklet.pdf .
6) Are there any issues relating to mode of study / off-site students?
Full-time students who are based on site have a wider range of resources at their disposal
which will make it easier to find help and do group work if required. If you have students
who are off-site or studying part-time, consider the difficulties they may have in accessing
help, resources and other students if group work is required. Encourage them to plan
ahead, and make them aware of the library SOS service, web conferencing tools, and
contact points if assistance is required.
p. 9
7) How can we clearly communicate the requirements of an assessment and its marking
criteria to students from the outset?
It is considered good practice to provide students with as much information as possible
about how an assessment will be marked when it is set. In addition to a mark breakdown for
specific sections, or aspects such as presentation, this should include an indication of the
quality of work required to generate a given mark (See section 3).
Other considerations to take into account when developing an assessment strategy can be
found at:
https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/A_Marked_Improvement.pdf
More Higher Education Academys Assessment Resources can be accessed via
https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/search/site/Assessment?f[0]=im_field_theme:2767
8) What is an appropriate re-assessment strategy?
Where students fail an assessment (i.e, they do not achieve the minimum mark for the work),
course teams are asked to consider whether the permitted re-assessment should be either:
a new piece of work (of the same type as the original assessment); or
an opportunity to revise and represent the original piece of work.
The re-assessment method should be communicated to students in advance through the

assignment specification and course handbooks.
Revise and represent where appropriate will support transformational learning of experience,
critical reflection and rational discourse.
Senate has agreed that the opportunity to revise the original piece of work would not be
appropriate where:
there is a clear and single model answer; and/or
the assessment learning outcomes relate primarily to the process of completing the work
rather than the output submitted by the student (e.g. where the assignment includes
primary data collection or research, and where the marks are allocated for that purpose
rather than the interpretation and/or presentation of the results).
2.2
Impact of Course Structure and Duration
2.2.1
Timetabling of assessments
Within the taught course, assessment deadlines should be carefully coordinated to avoid
clashes, or bunching of deadlines. Particular care should be made where elements of your
course are shared with or borrowed from other courses. Students should also be given time to
act on the feedback from one assessment before being required to submit the next, to avoid
making repeated errors such as presentational or referencing requirements.
A programme will typically consist of ILOs which are translated into specific outcomes for
components of the taught course or the research project. Students are generally expected to be
more self-directed in their learning during research projects than during the taught components
that often precede the research project, so it is worthwhile considering whether aspects of the
taught course and its assessment can be used to develop skills required for individual or group
research projects. This may help to alleviate the pressure on assessment overall within the
course.
p. 10
2.2.2
Part-time Courses
For part-time students, the same assessment criteria will generally apply as for their full-time
colleagues, but extra support or assistance may be required, especially if an element of group
work is required to be carried out outside normal contact time.
For students on courses specifically designed to be part-time, which may be compressed into a
shorter week with longer days, it may be useful to ensure there is contact time specifically
designated to discussing needs of the assignment so there is time for students to reflect and
gain advice if required before they leave the site.
Senate permits full-time and part-time submission dates for the same assessment to be no
more than 10 working days apart (to provide time for marking for all assessments so that
feedback is not returned to some students prior to the submission of the work of others). Where
this is not practicable, submissions dates of more than 10 working days apart can be set,
providing that different assessments be issued for full-time and part-time students.
2.3
Integrating Assessments
In order to reduce assessment points and make for a more coherent learning experience, it may
be possible to develop an integrating assessment. An integrating assessment is often more
representative of real-life in that it requires students to draw upon knowledge and skills gained
from multiple parts of a programme.
p. 11
Examples of integrating assessments include:
an assessment of two or more modules through a single piece of coursework. Thought

should be given as to whether it would be more appropriate to amend the course
structure to have a 20-credit module rather than two 10-credit modules.
an examination for which the questions are designed to draw together information from a
number of modules. These can be based on case studies or journal articles which are
read in the exam, or distributed in advance.
A separate timetabled module with specific credits, in which the contact hours and
assessment are utilised to encourage students to address a range of ILOs from across
the programme, and which has its own assessment.
Case Study 2: Integrating Module in Advanced Biosciences Programme

Awards in the Advanced Biosciences Programme have a Core Principles Integration
Module, of 20 credits, which aims to address the following ILOs:
By the end of this course, students should be able to
- Link relevant aspects of medical diagnostics (or other named award subject focus
area) into a coherent holistic concept
- Demonstrate the integration of technical, social, and practical elements of the taught
modules
Advanced Biosciences Course Summary (PgDip/PgCert in Medical Diagnostics)
One exercise used to teach and assess this module has been an intellectual property court
case scenario, where groups of students act as legal teams, where individuals have to make
presentations to each other based on summaries of information from lectures. In addition to
integrating knowledge from different course aspects, this exercise develops skills in verbal
communication, teamwork, commercial awareness, analysis and investigation, written
communication, planning and organisation, and time management.
The summative assessment of this exercise is based equally on two elements:
i)
ii)
2.4
Performance, as a group, on the ability to present their case coherently including

background contextualisation, ability to select appropriate witnesses to call and
question, and response to cross-questions. This assesses oral presentation
skills, planning and preparation in terms of both expected and unexpected
requirements.
An individual written critique of a case presented by another group, including
what was good, what was not so good, and whether they would have presented
the case and acted differently. This assesses written communication skills and
critical evaluation.
Group Assessments
The ability to work effectively in groups is a highly desirable skill which has translated into ILOs
in most of our courses. There are a number of benefits and problems associated with group
work and its assessment, mostly associated with wha t constitutes a fair way to assess and mark
the process. This section draws heavily on a review by Graham Gibbs 1 which draws together a
range of published literature on the issue.
http://www.brookes.ac.uk/aske/Groupwork%20Assessment/
p. 12
2.4.1
Why Assess Groups?
Group work has the potential to engage students, increase the complexity of the tasks and
challenges they can work on, and allow them to gain experience of collaborative working. From
an institutional perspective, this may also reduce the number of resources required for an
exercise, and offer the possibility of greatly reduced marking loads.
2.4.2
Group Size and Composition
If groups are too large, individual motivation and effort can be less than if students had worked
alone. Students often lack the group management skills required for larger numbers, and the
possibility of free-loading increases. Four to six in a group is recommended. 2
Mixed ability groups are also recommended. A group mark may often be predicted by the ability
of the highest achieving member, and it is accepted that low achieving students have the most
to gain. If students are allowed to self-select groups, the impact will usually be that high ability
students will end up together to the detriment of the lower ability groups. The fairest option is
therefore seen to be to ensure mixed ability groups with a marking scheme that enables those
giving the greatest contribution to be recognised.
Culturally heterogeneous groups can gain lower marks on short tasks, presumably because a
homogenous group will get to work more quickly. However, the longer the task, the less this
has an effect, which is reported to disappear completely at 4 months.
2.4.3
Ways to Assess Groups
Group work with group output and group mark

This is the simplest scenario, but there will often be claims of free-loading (a student gaining a
higher mark then they deserve according to their input). It can also result in higher ability
students reducing their effort to avoid being taken advantage of.
Group work with individual output and individual mark
In this scenario, there may be a requirement for a group output, such as a written report or
presentation, but the actual mark gained will be as the result of an individual report. This may
be perceived to be fairer, but usually results in a higher marking load. If there is a group mark
and an individual mark, consideration to whether it should be compulsory to pass both elements
be given, again as a way to help prevent free-loading.
Group work with group and individual marks
This may be applicable if discrete tasks can be identified. It may then be possible to allocate
part of the mark (say 50%) to the individual component, and the rest of the mark to the joint
group output.
Staff-moderated group mark
In some instances it may be possible for staff to gain an impression of the effort made by
individuals, and moderate the mark accordingly. This should be facilitated by additional
evidence e.g. a student log that reveals individual engagement and effort, or a brief viva with
individual students about their input.
p. 13
Student-moderated group mark

In this scenario, students are required to report on or rank each others input and this
information be used to moderate a group mark. While some authors claim a positive effect on
group behaviour, others note concerns about reliability and a demonstrable objectivity in the
award of marks.
Case Study 3: Group Project management and assessment in the Manufacturing Theme
The Manufacturing Masters Programme includes a 40-credit group project, where each
group of 4-8 students works for a company on a current issue requiring resolution. The
students have to run and manage the project, including liaison with the client and arranging
meetings. Each group produces a report, a poster and a presentation to an audience of
over 100.
The mark students receive consists of two parts: 80% are allocated to a group mark where
all students receive the same mark (based on the report, poster and presentation). The
remaining 20% is an individual mark based on student performance which takes into
account abilities such as team working, communications, leadership, problem solving,
personal reflection and improvement. For each category, good and not so good
behaviours are described and issued both to students and the staff who will give this mark.
This approach has been particularly successful where coaching is included for every
student: The input for the first coaching session is peer feedback, and the second includes
a self-generated report of the students own performance which identifies strengths and
areas for improvement. This is carried out at points in the project when the student has time
to make improvements to their behaviour which may in turn impact on their individual mark.
A fuller description of this case study (pages 6-7) was published in:
https://sites.google.com/a/teams.leedsmet.ac.uk/assimilate2012/dissemination/compendium
2.5
Oral Assessment
Oral assessment includes any assessment, wholly or in part, by word of mouth. Similar to the
ability to work in a group, the ability to communicate effectively by this route is a desirable skill
and one required by many of our courses. This section draws heavily upon a guide produced
by Leeds Metropolitan University (Gordon Joughin, 2010)3. Examples of oral assessment may
include:
presentations, which may be supplemented with resources such as posters or PowerPoint

presentations;
interrogations, such as the format utilised by viva voce;
simulations, where the student may be required to present or answer questions upon a
specific object.
p. 14
2.5.1
Why Assess Orally?
Reasons for using oral assessment include:
it helps assess inter and intra-personal skills, problem solving skills, and offers insight into
the students cognitive processes;
it allows probing of the depth and extent of students knowledge;
some students may be able to express themselves better orally rather than in writing;
it offers opportunity for clarification if questions (or answers) are unclear;
it guarantees that the work is the students own.
Disadvantages to consider include:
It may cause stress and anxiety;

It may be disadvantageous for particular groups (e.g. the hard of hearing, students with
speech impediments, or non-native English speakers);
there is a lack of anonymity and therefore the possibility of inadvertent bias;
examiners may mistake articulateness for knowledge;
there is likely to be a weaker audit trail in the event of an appeal from the student about his
or her marks, unless the assessment is recorded (with all participants permission).
2.5.2
Considerations in Planning Oral Assessment
The following questions are valuable to consider at the planning stages:

1. What is being assessed?
On deciding upon the focus of an oral assessment, think about whether you want to judge
knowledge, problem solving, communication skills (including answering questions), and/or
presentation skills. Once the purpose has been decided, is the oral assessment which has
been planned a valid way of assessing these skills?
2. How much interaction should there be?
Interaction brings an assessment to life and brings greater challenge than a presentation
with no interaction. Interaction should always be planned so that students know what to
expect (how long for questions, who will ask them), and examiners can plan their questions
to probe understanding sufficiently.
3. Is the assessment authentic?
To make assessments more real life, you could consider mock panels, role plays or
simulated interviews.
4. Who assesses?
In the first instance, assessments are carried out by Academic Staff, but external examiners
may also be present. Oral assessments may have an audience which may include student
peers, and it may be desirable to allow peers to contribute to the assessment process,
enabling them to develop their capacity for professional judgement and ability to provide
feedback.
5. Is the assessment reliable?
Steps that may be taken to increase the reliability of oral assessments include having a
panel of assessors and a clear rubric and marking guide.
p. 15
6. Should the assessment be recorded?

Increasingly, both students and examiners request the facility to record the oral examination:
this has advantages in supporting student learning, and providing stronger evidence to
support any marking decision, but may be disadvantageous if it affects the way in which
either the student or examiners might behave. The Universitys advice on this is that, if a
recording is to be made, it must be with the written consent of all parties involved: it is
preferable for the recording to be made by the examiners, and then released to the student.
2.6
Individual Research Project Assessment
2.6.1
General Strategy
A strategy for individual research project assessment may focus upon the outputs (typically a
thesis/dissertation, plus additional elements which may take the form of a poster or oral
presentation), but may also look to award marks for personal effort in the process (application
and initiative or effort and application). Weightings between these aspects and the sections
within them may vary, but it would be expected that effort-related marks would be a minor
component due to difficulties in reliably assessing such a quality.
An example of different weightings within the thesis might be:
Component
Introduction and Literature Review
Aims and Objectives
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusions / Suggestions for further work
Presentation and writing style
Weighting (%)
20
10
15
15
20
10
10
An alternative scheme is to outline structure, style, research approach, analysis and discussion.
Whatever the strategy, it should be clear to students what the expectations are for each
component, communicated via the student handbook, with reminders of the marking criteria at
appropriate points before and during the research project. When deciding on a strategy, course
teams and/or examiners are advised to consider carefully the balance between marking loads,
transparency and the risks of marks being challenged.
2.6.2
Written Report: Thesis vs Paper
In The Lecturers Toolkit Phil Race4 notes the following challenges which arise as a result of
project work:
projects may be very individual in nature;

they are often double or triple marked, so assessment takes a lot of staff time and may be
very subjective, especially if there are not clearly agreed expectations and standards;
style, structure and presentation may detract from the quality of the work carried out;
some students have better projects than others, and this may affect the quality of the end
product.
Presentation of individual project work in a peer-reviewed paper/research article format could

lessen some of these challenges. By allowing students (or the supervisor) to select a journal
that the work would be targeted for (accepting that in most instances actual submission is
Race, P. (1998) An education and training toolkit for the new millennium. Innovations in Education
and Teaching International. 35 (3) p262
p. 16
unlikely), journal guidelines can be employed to help convey clear expectations to students (and
markers) about style, presentation and content. Examples from the journal selected can act as
exemplars, although care would need to be taken with weaker students and projects to ensure
that they do not see the end product as unachievable.
It may also be argued that paper/research article format has additional advantages:
they are generally considerably shorter in word count than a thesis or dissertation;
with the exception of those students going on to a PhD, graduates are more likely to make
use of paper-writing skills than the skills used in writing a long thesis.
2.6.3
Oral presentations
An oral presentation of the outcomes of the individual research project with an outline of project
rationale and methods used is often part of the assessment structure. Please refer back to
Section 2.5 on considerations for oral assessment.
2.6.4. Poster presentations
Poster presentations are often used at conferences and exhibitions to disseminate research
findings, so use skills many of our students will employ after graduation, and therefore are a
good to include in an assessment strategy. The poster production can be complimented with a
poster round where authors are asked to give an oral overview of their work and/or respond to
questions. Used at a presentation day or other event, such displays can generate a buzz and
interest in others work. Exemplars from previous years or posters generated by more
experienced researchers are often readily available for students and markers to view. However,
some students may be unfamiliar with this format, and in a similar manner to oral assessments
(see Section 2.5) there should be careful consideration of the marking criteria and how these
can be clearly communicated to students.
p. 17
Marking and Feedback
3.1
Overview
The University is committed to developing high-quality and articulate graduates, who leave
Cranfield with a positive view of the student learning experience, and the engagement they had
with staff and other students. Critical to this impression is the quality of the feedback provided
by staff on their learning and examination performance.
It is accepted good practice and a QAA expectation that we provide appropriate and timely
feedback to students on assessed work in a way that promotes learning and facilitates
improvement. The QAA also notes the importance of timing; feedback has most benefit when
provided during the learning process, enabling students to reflect on their performance, and
where necessary make changes that can influence further marks.
Course teams should ensure that all student-focused course documentation is clear on:
who is responsible for providing feedback to students;

how and when this will happen (noting that feedback should be provided as soon as
practicable and no later than 20 working days after the submission deadline);
to whom students should raise concerns with about the timeliness or quality of their
feedback.
3.2
Rubrics, Marking Schemes and Model Answers
For all assessments, either some sort of marking scheme and/or model answer should be
defined before the assessment is taken by students. While the integrity of the assessment
process should not be compromised, the purpose of the assessment is not to trick the student
into giving the wrong answer. There is much information that could and should be shared with
students, to aid them in their learning and to give them the best possible chance of being able to
attain all the marks that may be awarded.
3.2.1
Model answers
Model answers are useful where there is a definitive right answer, for example for examination
questions which involve a calculation, and for which there is only one possible outcome. Model
answers for previous assessments can be a useful guide to students.
3.2.2
Marking schemes
These show a point by point allocation of where and how marks can be achieved. Typical
categories which may be given specific mark weightings may include content, discussion,
quality of materials referenced and presentation. Again, marking schemes (with specific
answers) for previous assessments can be a useful guide to students.
3.2.3
University Qualitative Descriptors
The Qualitative Descriptors document, shown in Appendix 4, attempts to describe the quality of
work which would attract a given mark range, for example good work defined at 60-69% with
statements about how the work has met and exceeded learning outcomes, and demonstrates
good knowledge and understanding of the subject and subfields. The disadvantage of this
document is that is still open to interpretation where qualities which are good, very good or
excellent are difficult to define in such a generic document. These descriptors are also included
in the Senate Handbook on Assessment Rules (Taught Courses).
p. 18
3.2.4
Rubrics
An assessment rubric combines a marking scheme with elements of a qualitative descriptor. It

defines the criteria against which a mark is given, providing a scale (for example poor to
excellent), and a description of how each element of the assessment would meet each point in
that scale. Rubrics can be particularly useful if students appeal against an assessment result.
Example:
For simplicity, this rubric uses only four scale categories and four assessment criteria with very
generic language. A rubric will be more effective for both marker reliability and transparency to
students if language specific to the subject and its assessment are used with the six-point scale
in the University Qualitative Descriptor. The more detail which can (reasonably) be added, the
more use the rubric will be to assist both students and markers through reduction of the risk of
subjectivity.
Content
(40 marks)
Argument
(40 marks)
Fluency of
writing
(10 marks)
Presentation
(10 marks)
Fail
(0-49%)
Pass/
Satisfactory
(50-59%)
Good
(60-69%)
Excellent
(70-100%)
Demonstrates
inadequate
knowledge of the
subject
Absence of critique
of
the
subject
matter
A poorly structured
and communicated
piece of work
Demonstrates
sufficient
knowledge
to
address ILOs
Some critique of
the subject matter
Demonstration of
knowledge meets
all and exceeds
some ILOs
Good capacity for
critical evaluation
Demonstration of
knowledge
exceeds
many
ILOs
High capacity for
critical evaluation
Simple
structure
with
adequate
communication
skills
Most spelling and
grammar
is
correct;
other
presentational
aspects generally
correctly applied
Well-structured
work with good
communication
skills
Minor errors
Well-structured
work with excellent
communication
skills
No mistakes in
spelling
or
grammar;
references
correctly
and
consistently cited;
appropriate use of
titles and subtitles;
creative use of
figures and tables
to complement the
text
and
are
correctly labelled
and referred to.
A large number of
spelling, grammar
errors; references
incorrectly cited;
Poor or no use of
titles,
subtitles,
figures,
tables.
Lack of legends
and labelling.
Tips for rubric development
Think about the pass category first what must the student do to be worthy of a pass
mark?
Think about excellent category what would the perfect assignment look like? It should
theoretically be possible to get 100%!
Fill in other categories to fit with above, using language that will not give the answer, but
describes what is expected.
Develop with colleagues to help ensure they are clear and subjectivity is reduced
Keep to one side of A4, but try to give as much information as you can in this space
p. 19
Tips for rubric use
Give to students when the assignment is set to aid their understanding of what is required
Use in marking to highlight the category that the work falls into
If set up in Turnitin (Grademark), settings can also be used to generate a mark for you
3.3
Feedback for Learning
The influence of feedback on learning should not be underestimated:
Feedback is one of the most powerful influences on learning and achievement

(Hattie & Timperley, 2007) 5.
The problem with focusing feedback on that provided after a summative assessment is that
there is a reduced impact on the ability for that feedback to influence performance on the next
piece of assessed work, especially when it has been provided after, or close to, the next
assessment deadline.
It is good practice to enable students to practice skills on which they will be summatively
assessed in a safe environment in which they can receive rapid feedback on their performance.
Ways in which this can be done include (but are not limited to):
Short tests (in class or set up on the VLE)

Discussions and debates
Problem solving exercises
Brain storming
Peer review / assessment
Discussion of exam questions and model answers
Marking exercises, where students are provided with a mock good or poor answer and are
invited to allocate a mark, or discuss the differences.
3.4
Efficiency in Marking and Feedback
3.4.1
Impact of assessment design
It is stating the obvious, but long written assignments will require a lot of marking time, yet this is
one of the most common reasons why staff feel overloaded with marking or may miss feedback
deadlines. If the ability to produce long written reports is important to the aims of the course,
then consider avoiding such assignments at the beginning of a course where rapid feedback will
be of particular value to students.
3.4.2
Use of marking schemes and rubrics
As already indicated in Section 3.2.4, marking rubrics can offer a lot of information to students
about expectations, and help markers by giving a rapid vehicle for feedback. The relevant
section of a rubric can be highlighted quickly to provide an instant statement to the student
about the quality of their work, and this can be seen in context of the requirements for the work
to have gained a higher mark.
Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007) The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77 (1)
pp81-112.
p. 20
3.4.3
Statement banks
Many staff will find themselves writing or typing the same statements to students again and
again when assessing work. Statement banks can be generated in word processing packages
or spreadsheets, grouping statements of a similar nature, and either copying and pasting on to a
mark sheet or using a coding system to alert students to the relevant statement. See also the
next section on electronic marking.
3.4.4
Electronic marking
While it is possible to add comments to word-processed documents and pdf files, greater
efficiencies are to be gained using packages such as Grademark in Turnitin. This has the
advantage of providing a plagiarism detection tool with the ability to set up rubrics specific to the
assignment, and statement banks specific to the marker. Settings can be used to decide when
marks and comments can be viewed by students, and students can access the submitted file
with all its comments without the need to send anything to them.
Grademark also offers the marker the opportunity to record a short audio file, which some
markers may find useful, since most people speak quicker than they write or type.
A disadvantage to be aware of is that if blind second marking is required, additional copies of
the submission need to be made.
3.4.5
Amount and detail of feedback: focus on performance
Feedback should be given in sufficient detail for a student to understand why they have been
given a numerical mark and provide them with information on how they can improve their
performance in the future. Statements should make reference to the intended learning
outcomes of the assignment. It is recommended that feedback has positive elements, and
relates first to the strengths of the work, and what the student should continue to do in the
future. It is recommended that attention is then turned to weaknesses and suggestions for
improvement.
It is important that comments should be made about the piece of work, rather than relating to
attributes or characteristics of the individual student.
3.4.6
Timeliness of feedback
It has already been noted in section 3.1 that feedback should be provided as soon as
practicable and no later than 20 working days after the submission deadline. For some
assessment types, such as oral presentations, assessment rubrics and comments may be
completed and given to the student immediately, and or supplemented with a written record
later. For longer, more complex assignments, other mechanisms may be considered to offer
some feedback to students when it is likely that individual written comments will take a
significant period of time to prepare (section 3.4.8). Course teams should bear this in mind
when reviewing the assessment strategy for the course, to ensure that they are not burdening
themselves with unrealistic timescale targets.
p. 21
3.4.7
Different mechanisms for providing feedback
If individual written feedback cannot be provided rapidly, some of the following may be
considered, especially when an exam or other assessment deadline falls before full feedback
can be given:
Oral feedback: to communicate the outcome and main feedback points for an oral
presentation, debate, or poster presentation. Oral feedback may also act as a useful
supplement to clarify written feedback, especially for students with learning difficulties or
English as an additional language.
Group feedback: may be appropriate for group work, but also to communicate commonly
encountered strengths and weaknesses on individual assignments in a setting which will
allow students to ask questions and seek clarification where necessary. This can be done in
specific sessions, by making use of web-conferencing tools, or as an introductory session to
a later module, if time allows.
Summaries: are another way of sharing common strengths and weaknesses identified on
assignments, and could be shared via a group e-mail or VLE post.
Preliminary sample marking for shared feedback: for larger classes, with a long written
assignment, rapid feedback can be generated by marking a sample and sharing some
strengths and weaknesses identified without indicating to students whose assignments have
been marked. When the feedback is received (either as a summary or in a group session)
soon after the submission deadline, students can consider the comments against the
standard of their submitted work, and can also use the feedback to improve their next
assignment.
3.4.8
Self and Peer Assessment
The QAAs Quality Code for Higher Education (Chapter B6) 6 suggests that sound practice in
developing assessment literacy includes engagement in dialogue between staff and students to
share an understanding of making academic judgements.
Use of examples and/or self and peer assessment activities may be particularly appropriate in
the context of formative assessment and enable students to experience the complex nature of
professional judgment, where standards and expectations are derived from their course
descriptions. An NUS consultation on feedback recommended that feedback from peers, and
self-assessment can play a powerful role in learning by encouraging reassessment of personal
beliefs and interpretations.7
Peer and self-assessment exercises require production of clear marking criteria (as noted in
Section 3.2). These can be used with problem solving exercises in class, to help students
prepare drafts for summative assessment. This supports student learning without increasing
staff marking loads.
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Documents/B6.pdf
http://www.nus.org.uk/en/advice/course-reps/feedback-what-you-can-expect-/
p. 22
4 Overcoming Perceived Problems with Assessment

A number of problems have already been alluded to with respect to the mode of study,
background of the students, language issues and learning difficulties. Some additional
problems are noted here.
Many problems, however, can be reduced or avoided by ensuring expectations relating to
assessment and feedback are made clear to students as early as possible in their course, with
regular reminders about expected standards, using mechanisms such as rubrics.
4.1
Implications of Failure
Many of our students may not have experienced failure before, so it is useful to consider that
different emotional responses may occur to bad marks, or those which are perceived by the
student to be bad. For some students, a mark considered good by us may impact on studies
in their home country, the ability to progress to particular careers or further studies, or may
simply be perceived as a poor performance for which they may lose face to family or sponsors.
In the first instance it is good practice to help the student identify how they can reach the
desired outcome on subsequent assignments, but will also be useful to be aware of (and use):
procedures for complaints and appeals;

resit policies for exceptional circumstances;
services for student support, including the Library and the Student Advice Centre.
4.2
Plagiarism and Other Forms of Misconduct
The Senate Handbook on Academic Misconduct8 should serve as the main point of reference
for definitions and procedures. The main problems encountered are:
plagiarism: attempting to use another persons work as ones own or failing to use correct
referencing;
cheating: including copying or theft of another students work, collusion, falsification of
results or using a third party to complete an assignment.
Strategies to help students avoid misconduct include setting appropriate expectations and
alerting students to information regarding academic misconduct at the start of the course,
providing guidance on good assessment practice including referencing from the outset and
providing reminders when assignments are set.
4.3
Planning to Avoid Problems
Problems encountered by students related to assessment, in addition to failure and misconduct,

may include overloading caused by bunching of assignments and their deadlines, and lack of
feedback in time to impact on performance of the next assignment. These problems should be
alleviated by planning at the course level which ensures:
the components of each course (modules, projects and assessments) collectively address
the course level ILOs in a logical progression;
the assessment of a course includes variation (to promote development and assessment of
a variety of skills), and includes methods which lend themselves to rapid feedback where
appropriate (for example the first summative assessment may have had several feedback
sessions after short formative assessments so that there are opportunities for students to
improve their work, or presentations made in advance of a long written piece may ensure
that students understand new concepts before applying them in their assessments);
https://intranet.cranfield.ac.uk/AcademicServices/Pages/AddressingStudentBehaviour.aspx
p. 23
hand-in dates, feedback dates and any other examination dates are carefully planned
through the year to ensure feedback is received in time to have an impact on the next
assignment, and hand-in dates (or exam dates) are not too close together.
Staff should be encouraged to enter submission dates and feedback dates into their work
calendars and block out sufficient time to do marking and feedback.
p. 24
Appendices
Appendix 1: Assessment types with advantages and disadvantages
(taken from Phil Race (2006) The Lecturers Toolkit: A practical guide to assessment, teaching and learning, Taylor and Francis; Oxford Brookes University
Selecting Methods of Assessment at http://www.brookes.ac.uk/services/ocsld/resources/methods.html; HEA Different forms of assessment at
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/subjects/swap/different-forms-assessment)
*Design and marking tips are also available in The Lecturers Toolkit
Assessment
type
S = summative
F = formative
Formal written
examinations*
(S)
Good for assessing

ability to:
Demonstrate
knowledge
Advantages
Disadvantages
Time efficient
Cost-effective
Less plagiarism
Equality of opportunity within a timeframe
Essay*(S)
Develop arguments;
evaluate;
assess;
judge; communicate
effectively in writing
Allows student individuality

Can demonstrate understanding of a topic
area
Assesses writing style
p. 25
Students try to predict questions

Individual feedback typically low
Generally handwritten
Time consuming to mark
May be problematic for students with learning
difficulties or medical conditions
May disadvantage students for whom English is not
native language
Exam technique affects results
If closed book, places undue reliance on memory
and is not real world
May be difficult to demonstrate assessment at
Masters-level (if the exam is too focussed on
knowledge retrieval)
Some students may be unfamiliar with this
assessment
Requires very clear communication of requirements
Time consuming to write
Marking may be subjective
Assessment
type
S = summative
F = formative
Integrating
Assessments
(S)
Good for assessing

ability to:
Advantages
Assimilate information
from different parts of
a
course;
demonstrating
a
range of M-level skills
Open Book or
Open
Note
Exams*(S)
Structured
Exams or class
tests such as
Multiple Choice*
(S or F)
Reviews
and
Annotated
Bibliographies*
(S)
Reports (S)
Disadvantages
Flexibility in assessment as scenarios do not

have to be restricted to a particular module
Lend themselves to a variety of formats,
which may mimic real-life scenarios
Retrieve appropriate
information
Less reliance on memory

Measurement of retrieval skills
Demonstrate
knowledge
Easy and fast to mark, quickly tests learning

Can be done online / at desk, timed etc
Multiple choice can work well as a formative
assessment
Critical evaluation
Encourages students to think deeply about a

book or survey a range of sources
Useful for revision, and practicing for
research writing
Can be tailored to real-life scenario
Perform procedures;
evaluate;
assess;
judge; communicate
effectively in writing;
skills
relevant
to
many jobs
p. 26
Need to be timed to allow part-time students to

complete
Students may be unclear what is expected of them
Design and marking may be restricted to staff with
good understanding of whole course, e.g. Course
Director.
May not have enough books!
May need bigger desks!
Students may need practice at this type of exam
May be difficult to demonstrate assessment at
Masters-level (if the exam is too focussed on
knowledge retrieval)
Rarely test M-level skills
Possible to guess the right answer (the role of
chance)
May be problematic if books or other resources are

limited.
Work produced is very individual, so may cause
marking difficulties
Requires very clear communication of requirements
Time consuming to write
Issues of plagiarism or collusion if many similar reports
generated
Assessment
type
S = summative
F = formative
Debate (S or F)
Good for assessing

ability to:
Advantages
Communicate
verbally; develop and
defend and argument;
Generating a body of
work with a common
theme
Oral
exam Communicating
(viva)* (S)
verbally; responding
to questions
Oral
Communicating
presentation*(S
verbally; using visual
or F)
aids
Portfolio* (S)
Practical
work*(S or F)
Practical skills; use of

equipment
or
practical techniques
Experimental
design (S or F)
Describe
the
requirements
/
process
of
an
experiment
Proposal or bid Describe
the
(S or F)
requirements of a
project in terms of
time,
cost
and
resources
Disadvantages
Can draw out values and attitudes in issues

such as ethical dilemmas
May be a useful formative assessment
Can reflect development, attitudes and
values as well as knowledge
Good for assessing depth of knowledge and

understanding
Good practice for job interviews
There is no doubt who is giving the
presentation
Students tend to take presentations seriously
Students
can
learn
from
others
performances
Can work well as a formative assessment
High value for technical disciplines
Experimental design often a programme level

ILO, so good to practice and assess
Can be used formatively students can
apply their design and see if it works
Ability to propose projects may be a
programme level ILO so good to practice and
assess.
p. 27
Can be difficult to mark

May be more difficult for non-native English
speakers
Time consuming and difficult to mark
Ownership of evidence may be questionable
Commercial confidentiality
Interim assessment opportunities should be built in
Nerves, or cultural issues may result in
underperformance
Cant be anonymous so may be affected by bias
Doing a number of presentations takes a long time
Students may be nervous which affects performance
Cant be anonymous, so may involve bias
Expensive if externals are used
May have to assess the end product rather than the

skill in its own right
Students may not perform well while being observed
Difficult for students with no experience so important
to provide formative activities first
Difficult for students with no experience so important

to provide formative activities first
Assessment
type
S = summative
F = formative
Project
work*
(S)
Written analysis
of cases (WAC)
(S)
Research paper
(S)
Poster
presentation* (S
or F)
Good for assessing

ability to:
Advantages
Carry out a variety of

skills
Problem analysis and
recommendations;
communicating
in
writing; working to
time (if timed WAC)
Communicate
writing
Communicating
concepts visually
in
Disadvantages
Can be integrative
Can identify the best students
Authentic (real life)) assessment
Opportunity to demonstrate
critical thinking,
application of theoretical knowledge,
integration of complex systems,
decision-making
evaluation
synthesis
For many, research paper writing skills will be
useful after graduation
A nice change from standard written
assessments!
A skill of use to those continuing in academia
/ research
Can include peer learning / assessment
p. 28
Usually assessed indirectly

Generally involve a lot of marking
May challenge conventional solutions
Marker may require high level of expertise to
consider viability of innovative/creative responses
Needs clear marking guidance (e.g.. if one mistake
is compounded)
Subjectivity
may
creep
into
assessment
(presentation versus content)
Students may not perform well while being observed
Appendix 2: How do I write clear and appropriate intended learning outcomes?

(replicated from Appendix 2 of the Senate Handbook on Setting Up a New Taught Course)
Intended learning outcomes (ILOs) should provide course designers, teachers and students with
a clear and shared statement of the scope and level of learning which a diligent student is
expected to have acquired by the end of the module or course. The design of the course, the
teaching activities, and the assessment should all be aligned so that the ILOs are transparently
and effectively achieved. At award level, the ILOs are articulated in the tables provided in the
course specification, and provide a broad perspective on the expected capabilities of a graduate
of the course. At module level, the ILOs should be detailed in a module descriptor and relate
more specifically to the intended syllabus of that module.
Effective ILOs should therefore be expressed in terms of what a student will be able to do as a
result of the course, module, lesson, or whatever. Assessment should test that capability
accurately, and formative assessment should be aimed specifically at helping the student to
develop it.
ILOs should be expressed using active verbs, and be presented in a specific context and
define the nature of the object, to show learning that can be measured at the appropriate level.
Framing ILOs in this way will help to ensure transparency for both teachers and students.
Example:
By the end of this course a diligent student should be able to
Analyse experimental data from a clinical trial
Verb
object
context
Verbs should be carefully selected to represent the type of activity which would be expected of
graduates of the course, indicate the level of learning required (see Blooms Taxonomy of
Educational Objectives below), and assessable. Verbs such as understand and appreciate
are considered a poor choice for ILOs as they are difficult to measure and assess directly.
p. 29
Blooms Taxonomy of Educational Objectives

more Masters level
Active verbs
Knowledge
define
repeat
record
list
recall
name
relate
underline
Comprehension
translate
restate
discuss
describe
recognise
explain
express
identify
locate
report
review
tell
Application
interpret
apply
employ
use
demonstrate
dramatise
practice
illustrate
operate
schedule
sketch
Analysis
distinguish
analyse
differentiate
experiment
test
compare
contrast
criticise
diagram
inspect
debate
question
relate
solve
examine
categorise
appraise
calculate
Synthesis
compose
plan
propose
design
formulate
arrange
assemble
collect
construct
create
set up
organise
manage
prepare
Evaluation
judge
appraise
evaluate
rate
revise
assess
estimate
p. 30
Appendix 3: Masters-Level Descriptors for Taught Courses

(replicated from Appendix 3 of the Senate Handbook on Setting Up a New Taught Course)
A.3.1 What is expected of a student taking a Masters degree?

All taught courses leading to awards at Cranfield University are delivered at Masters level (level
7 in the national Framework for Higher Education Qualifications outlined by the Quality
Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA)).
The QAA descriptors for Masters provision9 are:
Master's degrees are awarded to students who have demonstrated:
a systematic understanding of knowledge, and a critical awareness of current problems and/or new
insights, much of which is at, or informed by, the forefront of their academic discipline, field of study or
area of professional practice;
a comprehensive understanding of techniques applicable to their own research or advanced
scholarship;
originality in the application of knowledge, together with a practical understanding of how established
techniques of research and enquiry are used to create and interpret knowledge in the discipline;
conceptual understanding that enables the student:
to evaluate critically current research and advanced scholarship in the discipline;

to evaluate methodologies and develop critiques of them and, where appropriate, to propose new
hypotheses.
Typically, holders of the qualification will be able to:
deal with complex issues both systematically and creatively, make sound judgements in the absence
of complete data, and communicate their conclusions clearly to specialist and non-specialist
audiences;
demonstrate self-direction and originality in tackling and solving problems, and act autonomously in
planning and implementing tasks at a professional or equivalent level;
continue to advance their knowledge and understanding, and to develop new skills to a high level;
and holders will have the qualities and transferable skills necessary for employment requiring:
the exercise of initiative and personal responsibility;

decision-making in complex and unpredictable situations;
the independent learning ability required for continuing professional development.
A.3.2 What is expected of a student taking a Postgraduate Diploma or

Certificate?
The above descriptors should apply in full for any student graduating with a Masters degree,
and are achieved on the basis of study equivalent to at least one full-time calendar year. They
are distinguished from other qualifications at this level (Postgraduate Diplomas and Certificates)
by an increased complexity and length of study. In particular, Masters degrees include
individual research activity, which accounts for the learning outcomes relating to the contribution
to original knowledge above.
extracted from the QAA Framework for Higher Education Qualifications:

www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/FHEQ/EWNI08/default.asp#p4.4
p. 31
The Postgraduate Diploma and Postgraduate Certificate is usually awarded therefore to

students who have successfully completed an approved taught programme of study and
demonstrated all the above characteristics save those associated with completion of an
individual project or piece of research.
Postgraduate Diplomas and Certificates are awarded to students either where a student has
initially registered for an approved course leading to that award, or where a student has initially
registered for an MSc course, which has a legitimate PgDip or PgCert exit route and has
satisfied all the academic requirements associated with that specific award.
Senate defines the standard minimum and maximum durations for all taught programmes of
study, including different durations depending on the mode of study.
Intended award
MTech
MSc
MDes
MBA
PgDip
PgCert
Standard durations of periods of study

for taught programmes of study
Full-time study
Part-time study
Min
Max
Min
Max
22 months
2.5 years
2.5 years
5 years
10 months
13 months
13 months
5 years
10 months
1 year
12 months
5 years
10 months
1.5 years
18 months
5 years
6 months
1 year
10 months
4 years
3 months
1 year
6 months
3 years
Generally, it is expected that 20 learning credits requires approximately 1 month of full-time

study.
The University Executive agreed that all part-time student registrations for Masters
courses will be 3 years at the outset (with 2 years for PgDip and PgCert registrations).10
For programmes of supervised research, no student is registered for a period of study of more
than eight years unless exceptional permission is granted by Senate. The period of study for
each individual student is subject to confirmation from the Academic Registrar, including the
period of study agreed at the point of initial registration and any further periods approved after
that date.
A.3.3 How does Masters-level study differ from undergraduate (honours)

provision?
All Cranfield courses should provide students with a clearly-structured education in one or more
subjects directly related to the Universitys mainstream research activities. The learning
experience of students should build on a first degree or equivalent prior knowledge and/or
training and/or learning through employment.
Some examples of where Masters provision builds on honours provision include:
Knowledge and understanding
Masters graduates should expect to have a full and comprehensive knowledge of their
subject area (rather than just key aspects);
10
Courses developed for the MOD are an exception to this, with registration periods of Masters: 5 years, PgDip 4
years and PgCert 3 years.
p. 32
Masters graduates should have a critical awareness of current issues and new
developments (rather than just being aware of them);
A significant proportion of the teaching material should be at the forefront of the discipline
(rather than just one or two examples to illustrate current trends);
Masters graduates should be able to discern and select appropriate techniques to apply to
a given problem (rather than just being able to apply one that has been highlighted to them),
and be fully aware of the limitations of the variety of research techniques available to them;
Masters graduates should have a practical understanding of how established research
techniques can be applied to create knowledge or advance understanding;
Masters graduates should therefore be contributing to the body of knowledge in the field
through original research or new insights and/or application of existing knowledge (rather
than just reviewing and summarising existing knowledge);
Masters graduates should be able to identify and evaluate critically current research and
advanced scholarship (rather than just describe and comment on articles and items
presented to them);
Masters graduates should be able to make confidently sound judgements in the absence of
complete data (rather than just be aware of the limitations and ambiguity of knowledge).
Personal development skills
Masters graduates should be able to manage and expand their learning, without continuous
supervision (rather than just apply and consolidate);
Masters graduates should be able to reflect upon the scope of research projects and
identify by themselves new avenues to explore (rather than just undertake a defined
project);
Masters graduates should be able to communicate their conclusions, including their
assumptions and methodologies, to both specialist and non-specialist audiences (rather
than just communicating the outcomes of any research);
Masters graduates should have advanced skills in furthering their own personal
development, and be able to identify their own strengths and weaknesses to a sophisticated
level (rather than just be able to continue to develop skills as appropriate);
Masters graduates should be able to make clear decisions in complex and unpredictable
situations (rather than just in situations where there are elements of complexity or
unpredictability).
All courses will be expected to demonstrate that the provision of teaching and standards of
student learning are clearly above honours level provision.
p. 33
(replicated from the Senate Handbook on Assessment Rules (Taught Courses)

Mark Range &
Standard
80% - 100%
Excellent
70% - 79%
Very Good
60% - 69%
Good
50% - 59%
Satisfactory
40% - 49%
Poor
0% - 39%
Very Poor
Criteria / Descriptor
(N.B. not all may apply for each piece of work or type of assessment)
Demonstrating a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the subject and subfields.
All stated intended learning outcomes exceeded.
High capacity for critical evaluation.
Novel application of the subject matter to a specific context.
Requiring a student to have:
Undertaken extensive further reading.
Produced a well-structured piece of work.
Demonstrated excellent communication skills.
Exercised a high level of original thought.
Demonstrating an extensive knowledge and understanding of the subject and subfields.
Many stated intended learning outcomes exceeded.
Very good capacity for critical evaluation.
Effective application of the subject matter to a specific context.
Undertaken substantial further reading.
Demonstrated very good communication skills.
Exercised a significant level of original thought.
Demonstrating a good knowledge and understanding of the subject and subfields.
All stated intended learning outcomes met, with some exceeded.
Good capacity for critical evaluation.
Competent application of the subject matter to a specific context.
Undertaken some further reading.
Demonstrated good communication skills.
Demonstrating a satisfactory knowledge and understanding of the subject and subfields.
All stated intended learning outcomes met.
Standard critique of the subject matter.
Adequate application of the subject matter to a specific context.
Undertaken adequate further reading.
Produced an adequately-structured piece of work.
Demonstrated basic but satisfactory communication skills.
Demonstrating an inadequate knowledge and understanding of the subject and subfields.
Most stated intended learning outcomes met.
Lacking critique of the subject matter.
Limited application of the subject matter to a specific context.
Undertaken some relevant reading.
Produced a piece of work with a simple structure.
Demonstrated marginal communication skills
Demonstrating a lack of knowledge and understanding of the subject and subfields.
Many stated intended learning outcomes not met.
Absence of critique of the subject matter.
Lacking application of the subject matter to a specific context.
Undertaken inadequate reading.
Produced a poorly-structured piece of work.
Demonstrated poor communication skills.
p. 34
Owner
Department
Implementation date
Approval by and date
Version number and date of last review
Next review by
Academic Registrar
Education Services
1 August 2015
Academic Registrar July 2015
Version 1.1, August 2015
July 2016
p. 35

Assessment Guide

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Assessment Guide

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

f

This Guide supplements the Senate Handbook on Managing Taught Courses.

Version 1.1 August 2015

GUIDE TO ASSESSMENT OF TAUGHT COURSES

Introduction to Assessment ...................................................................................................4

2 Assessment Strategies for Taught Courses ..............................................................................6

Why Assess Groups?

Individual Research Project Assessment ......................................................................16

Oral Assessment .............................................................................................................14

Integrating Assessments ................................................................................................11

Impact of Course Structure and Duration .....................................................................10

Marking and Feedback...........................................................................................................18

Feedback for Learning.................................................................................................20

Impact of assessment design

4 Overcoming Perceived Problems with Assessment .............................................................23

Version 1.1 August 2015

GUIDE TO ASSESSMENT OF TAUGHT COURSES

Major changes to this document since version 1.0 September 2014:

Clarification of the difference between multi-part and independent assessments.

Version 1.1 August 2015

GUIDE TO ASSESSMENT OF TAUGHT COURSES

Senate Handbook on Managing Taught Courses

Version 1.1 August 2015

GUIDE TO ASSESSMENT OF TAUGHT COURSES

Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)

what a student should be able to do after a unit of study

assessments used to assess attributes or skills and

undertaken at the start of a course or module

assessments where the results are used primarily to

restricted to comments on the work and other

likely to help a student to improve (or

assessments where the results are used primarily to

formal marks or grades, which count towards the

Version 1.1 August 2015

GUIDE TO ASSESSMENT OF TAUGHT COURSES

2 Assessment Strategies for Taught Courses

Introduction: General Principles of Good Practice

Case Study 1: Air crash investigation exercise in the Transport Theme

Making assessment M-level

Version 1.1 August 2015

GUIDE TO ASSESSMENT OF TAUGHT COURSES

Developing an assessment strategy

Questions to consider when designing an assessment strategy:

Version 1.1 August 2015

GUIDE TO ASSESSMENT OF TAUGHT COURSES

outcome: overall mark of 45%.

outcome: overall mark of 44%.

outcome: overall mark of 38.5%.

outcome: overall mark of 38%.

Failure to submit one or more of the three

Failure to submit one or more of the three

GUIDE TO ASSESSMENT OF TAUGHT COURSES

3) Is assessment of knowledge (as opposed to practical skills) important?

Version 1.1 August 2015

GUIDE TO ASSESSMENT OF TAUGHT COURSES

The re-assessment method should be communicated to students in advance through the

Impact of Course Structure and Duration

Version 1.1 August 2015

GUIDE TO ASSESSMENT OF TAUGHT COURSES

Version 1.1 August 2015

GUIDE TO ASSESSMENT OF TAUGHT COURSES

Examples of integrating assessments include:

an assessment of two or more modules through a single piece of coursework. Thought

Case Study 2: Integrating Module in Advanced Biosciences Programme