Guide to the Code of Assessment 2024-25 – Introduction

Location of the Code

The Code of Assessment is published as Regulation 16 of the ‘University Fees and General Information’ chapter of the University Regulations. It contains most but not all of the regulations relating to assessment.

If in any case an explanation or illustration in this guide appears to contradict the terms of the Code itself, the Code takes precedence.

Key Changes for 2024-25

+++

Chapter 1 Marking and Moderation

Chapter 1 now includes the policy on marking and moderation. This is an updated version of guidelines previously available on the APG website, and covers practice in relation to (1) non-Honours and (2) Honours and PGT assessment, the processes to be followed where inconsistencies/disagreements arise, and the records that should be kept.

The following definitions are used:

Double marking

All assessments are independently marked by more than one marker; neither has access to the grades or the comments of the other.

Second marking

This involves independent marking of an assessment by more than one marker. The second marker will have access to the comments of the first marker and to the grades awarded by that marker.

Both double marking and second marking may require some additional procedures to be specified e.g. in respect of resolving differences between the grades assigned by each marker.

Moderation

This is a process of review to check consistency of grades awarded for an assessment, normally through sampling the assessment. This may involve some second marking of individual assessments and thus may require some additional procedures to be specified e.g. in respect of selecting the sample of assessments that are to be moderated, resolving differences between the grades assigned by the marker and moderator, and/or implementing procedures to address where grade differences are seen across a number of moderated scripts.

The Code now requires students to be advised of ‘the method of marking (e.g. single marking, blind double marking, second marking), [and] procedures for moderation of summative assessments’ (§16.3 (a)).

---

+++

Chapter 2 Results obtained from Study Abroad (§16.79)

A note has been added on the importance of advising students prior to the start of study abroad how the results that they achieve will contribute towards their Glasgow degree. The way that results are reported in MyCampus (as individual course results or as one aggregated grade for the semester or session as a whole) can have particular significance in those cases where grade profile is used to determine the student’s final classification.

---

+++

Chapter 3 Reassessment and PGT progression to the substantial independent work

§7.1 of the current Generic Regulations for Taught Masters Degrees sets out that, exceptionally, students may be permitted to progress to the substantial independent work where it is judged that their performance offers a reasonable prospect of them being able to reach the standard required for the award of the Masters Degree following any outstanding assessment opportunities. To aid transparency and objective decision making, Schools should publish, at the start of the academic session, the objective criteria by which they will judge whether a student has demonstrated that they have a reasonable prospect of meeting that standard. These criteria could include a maximum proportion of reassessment pending or a minimum current GPA, or other relevant criteria which should be met in order for any given student to be permitted to commence work on the substantial independent work. For example, the School might determine that it will not permit students to progress to the substantial independent work should there be more than 25% of taught assessment pending for that student.

---

+++

Chapter 4

A note has been added on the question ‘What is a submission?’ Schedule A of the Code of Assessment includes the credit-bearing grade ‘H’ which is described as ‘No convincing evidence of attainment of intended learning outcomes. Such treatment of the subject as is in evidence being directionless and fragmentary’. In other words, a very poor effort is still treated as a submission. Where there is no evidence of meaningful engagement with the task or assignment it should be treated as a non-submission. 

---

+++

Chapter 5 Guidance on the management of Good Cause claims

Chapter 5 includes a new section providing a broad framework of good practice in relation to the management of claims through a Good Cause committee. Schools should refer to this in the course of regular review of their local practice. The guidance covers:

  • committee membership;
  • the identification of decision makers;
  • limiting the sharing of the content of claims and supporting documentation submitted with claims;
  • information on Safeguarding; and
  • operation of the committee and consideration of claims.

Note, a Privacy Notice specific to information submitted in a Good Cause claim is in development and further information on this will follow in 2024-25, including implications for the retention of relevant data.

Outcome from a successful Good Cause claim

In relation to accepted Good Cause claims, an additional note has been included on the importance of all missed assessment being completed at a later diet:

‘…The University’s default expectation is that the student is required to complete all components of the assessment, even when such components carry a small weighting. This provides students with the fullest possible evidence base of their achievement as well as providing them with essential learning which takes place as part of their assessment. This may mean a new date for submitting the assessment, or the student being required to take the missed examination at a future diet. If retaking a missed examination at a set diet is not an option, the Head of School should consider a special replacement examination for the student. It would not normally be acceptable for significant amounts of reassessment to be removed from a candidate for reasons of assessment burden, and instead a route should be found for students to complete their assessment in a way which does not put them under undue time pressure. For example, should a Head of School consider a student would be unreasonably burdened by too much reassessment being offered, consideration should instead be given to whether the student requires a repeat year or other special arrangements. Before reaching such a decision the Head of School is entitled to consider the costs and practicalities.’

While special rules apply to students at the end of an Honours programme, meaning that some assessment may be set aside, the requirements for the award of the degree must be met by the end of the Senior Honours academic session.

---

+++

Chapter 6 Board of Examiners meetings

Normally Exam Board meetings take place synchronously, i.e. via a meeting held at a specific time in person, remotely or on a hybrid basis. The following has been added to §16.66 in relation to joint/combined Honours meetings:

Subject to the agreement of the conveners of both subject Boards of Examiners, and subject to the conditions set out in the Guide to the Code of Assessment being met, the decisions on classifications of joint or combined honours degrees for the programme can be taken via correspondence between the Boards of Examiners.

The relevant conditions are:

  • there are no complex Good Cause or other special circumstances to be discussed about any of the students;
  • there are no issues that have been raised by the External Examiners of the programme that require to be discussed;
  • there are no proposals under development for any changes to the Programme that would benefit from discussion at a synchronous meeting;
  • the conveners of both subject Boards of Examiners agree that an asynchronous Exam Board is appropriate.

It has also been clarified that a) the Head of School has overall responsibility for ensuring that the method of marking (e.g. single marking, blind double marking, second marking) and moderation procedures are made clear to students; and b) that the Assessment Officer is responsible for (amongst other things) ensuring that all Examiners are conversant with the agreed marking and moderation procedures to be followed.

---

A reminder of points highlighted in 2023-24

+++

1.  Online Examinations and Late Submission

The Code of Assessment now incorporates principles around the submission of online exams (§16.28), with supporting information and examples included in the Guide (Chapter 2).

This information was previously available as freestanding guidance and is unchanged in content.

---

+++

2.  Ratification of Course Results

Schools are reminded of §16.33:

Where there is provision for assessment to be split between examination diets, a Board of Examiners shall determine and report the results for the individual courses of the programme after each intermediate diet and the overall award after the final diet.

Provisional results should be released to students as soon as they are available but must be ratified by a Board of Examiners after each diet. In most cases, this means that there should be formal meetings of the Board of Examiners after semester 1 as well as after semester 2.

---

+++

3.  Grades used in addition to those set out in Schedules A and B

Chapter 2 of the Guide now includes a list and description of grades other than those set out in Schedules A and B, e.g. MV, CA, CW.

---

+++

4.  Eligibility and Timing of Reassessment

In response to changes in the kinds of assessment being used, Chapter 3 of the Guide now includes the following note:

Eligibility for reassessment depends on knowing the ratified overall course grade. Normally this means that resit exams will take place at the August diet and reassessment of coursework will take place over the summer. However, the format of assessment may, in some cases, mean that that timescale is not appropriate and that it would be preferable for the reassessment to take place before the overall course grade has been confirmed. For example, where a small component of a course’s assessment comprises a series of weekly class quizzes, it is acceptable to offer a second attempt at a quiz on a very short timescale in order to promote consolidation of the student’s learning. E.g. where a quiz is released on a weekly basis, to be submitted by noon on Monday, with the result issued on the Tuesday, the reassessment version of the quiz could be released for completion by noon on the Thursday. Students should be advised how their eligibility for the reassessment will be determined and how they will be informed that they should take that reassessment. Where any such non-standard arrangements apply in relation to small components or sub-components of assessment, those arrangements must be explained in the course handbook.

---

+++

5.  Good Cause

5.1  Affected performance in Honours or PGT independent work

Students experiencing adverse personal circumstances may claim Good Cause in relation to:

  • missed assessments; and
  • completed assessments where they believe their performance has been significantly impaired.

From 2023-24 onwards it is no longer possible to claim Good Cause in relation to significantly impaired performance in the independent work (dissertation/project) required for a classified Honours degree or a postgraduate taught masters degree (§16.45 (a) (ii)).

This reflects the fact that Good Cause is defined as relating to acute circumstances whereas the independent work takes place over a period of months. Over such a period, acute circumstances can be addressed through short extensions or, in exceptional cases, a longer deferred deadline (e.g. completion of an Honours dissertation in the summer). Schools are encouraged to highlight this point to students undertaking independent work, noting that where they encounter difficulties, they should alert staff in good time and, crucially, before the work is submitted.

5.2  Timing of Good Cause claims

A reminder that the timing of Good Cause claims is covered here:

§16.47 Where incomplete assessment may be the result of good cause, notification later than five working days after the examination, or after the date at which submission of the work for assessment was due, shall not be taken into account unless circumstances have prevented the candidate from submitting a claim within this time. A candidate may not retract a claim of good cause more than five working days after the examination or after the date at which submission of work for assessment was due, nor after the date of publication of the results (including provisional results) of the assessment, whichever date was earlier.

Any claim submitted after results have been released should not be considered. A student wishing to raise adverse circumstances at that stage would need to use the academic appeals process.

The Guide to the Code now includes a link to a diagram (Chapter 5, p.4) giving an example of the timeline applying to Good Cause claims. This shows (a) when a Good Cause claim is considered to be on time, (b) when a Good Cause claim is late and will only be considered where it is accepted that there are compelling grounds for the claim having been submitted late, and (c) when the claim is late and should not be considered. The diagram also shows the associated timeline for the submission of academic appeals.

5.3  Aggregation and course grade profile where assessment is missing due to Good Cause

Chapter 2 of the Guide includes an example showing the calculation of the final outcome where some components have been missed with Good Cause and there is no further opportunity for the student to complete those components. This covers aggregation to establish the final grade point average (GPA) and application of course grade profile.

---

Other Assessment Regulations

The ‘University Fees and General Information’ chapter of the University Regulations contains further Regulations relevant to assessment which are not part of the Code and are therefore not included in this Guide. These Regulations are:

  • Instructions to candidates on their conduct in written examinations (Regulation 17)
  • Use of a computer in an examination (Regulation 18)
  • Use of dictionaries by students in examinations (Regulation 19)
  • Use of electronic calculators by students in examinations (Regulation 20)
  • Invigilation (Regulation 21)
  • Rules of invigilation (Regulation 22)
  • Appointment of external examiners for taught courses at undergraduate and postgraduate level (Regulation 23)
  • Examination and other assessment arrangements for disabled students (Regulation 24)
  • Code of practice for exceptional international examination arrangements (Regulation 25)

The Essence of the Code

Assessment is an integral part of the process by which the University makes awards to students who have completed their programmes. The regulations which comprise the Code of Assessment are intended to deliver transparently fair and consistent outcomes in all student assessment. It is the pursuit of transparency which has imposed most demands on the design of the Code and on examiners.

If a student was to receive a mark of 67% for a very good essay, we may take for granted that this mark was fair and reflective of consistent standards. We therefore assume that students who had performed as well in previous years might also have got 67%, and, within this student’s own cohort, those students whose essays were less good were awarded less than 67% and those who had written better essays achieved marks higher than 67%. But this model of fairness and academic rigour has two weaknesses:

  • Its range of consistency is very limited – students in other subjects who had demonstrated as thorough a grasp of their course content might have scored 87% or even more.
  • It is meaningless beyond the function of ranking students – the essay was a very good one and yet it scored only two thirds of the way up the scale of 0 to 100.

The object of the Code of Assessment is to make assessment outcomes as consistent as possible across all taught disciplines within this University, and to provide a clear statement of the learning that each student has demonstrated.

Chapter 1 of this Guide discusses intended learning outcomes (ILOs). ILOs tell students what they are expected to learn, and all universities are required to publish these. One of the things the Code of Assessment does is make an explicit connection between ILOs and the assessment of each student’s performance. Thus employers (and anyone else) may determine what the grades reported in a student’s transcript actually mean.

Chapter 2 explains how this connection is made by a set of grade descriptors, in which each grade is described in terms of a student’s achievement of ILOs. What the examiner has to do is determine which grade descriptor best matches the student’s performance. The University’s main assessment schedule (Schedule A) uses eight grades, A to H, and the bands into which these grades are divided allow the marker 23 discrete scores from A1 to H. The chance awkwardness of this number confirms that a student’s performance is being assessed against grade descriptors, not as a ratio of right answers to questions asked.

University awards are not made on the basis of a single assessment. The Code must, therefore, provide a way of aggregating grades from all summative components. The simplest and most readily transparent method of combining grades is to convert them into numbers, and Chapter 2 explains how this should be done and how the final score should be translated to a course result or a classified degree.

Other Aspects of the Code

As noted, it is an objective of the Code to deliver fair and consistent outcomes in all student assessment. Consistency across the University requires regulation; fairness calls for sensitivity, on the one hand, to the individual student – recognising when their circumstances justify special provision – and, on the other, to the integrity of the University’s awards. These issues are never far from the surface in the rules governing reassessment (Chapter 3) and incomplete assessment resulting from Good Cause (Chapter 5). Course credits represent a transferable currency – this University will recognise credits gained by students in other institutions just as other institutions will recognise the value of credits awarded here – and students must accumulate course credits in order to qualify for a certificate, diploma or degree. Chapter 4 is concerned with setting minimum standards for the award of credits. Chapter 6 is about making the whole thing work, and sets out the responsibilities of Heads of Schools, assessment officers and examiners, both internal and external.

Any queries regarding the Code of Assessment (published in the University Regulations) or the Guide to the Code should be directed to APG-academic-regulations@glasgow.ac.uk.