Managing Assessments

We have rules within the University Policy and Regulations (UPRs) to ensure, fairness, rigor and validity in assessment processes. Good assessment design should take in to account these elements to enable assessment which supports student learning rather than just tests student learning.

Assessments should be set up correctly within module sites with explicit information about the assessment tasks, the learning outcomes being assessed, the submission details and deadlines, the assessment criteria, the marking and moderation processes as well as details as to when feedback will be provided.

One element of assessment management is the consideration of student and staff effort - good assignments will demand an appropriate amount of student effort, and good assessment design will ensure the distribution of the students’ effort across the study-period with no very close/overlapping assessment deadlines, known as assignment 'bunching'. Students and staff should not be overloaded by assessments and good assessment design also takes into account staff time to provide quality feedback that supports student learning.

What can staff do to consider student and staff effort?
- Consider student effort hours when designing each assignment and use assessment equivalency guidance (see below) to design assessments (useful for consistency across modules and schools as well as when considering choice of mode of submission).
- Plan and monitor student assessment workload across each module, each semester and each programme.
- Use the assessment landscape to identify and limit assessment bunching.
- Use the assessment landscape to plan marking time and feedback release, ensuring the assessment burden for any member of staff is not excessive.
- Encourage colleagues to schedule marking time within their diaries.
- Plan marking calibration and moderation requirements have been considered within assessment timelines, so feedback release is not delayed.
- Communicate the marking and feedback process and timelines for feedback release clearly to students.
- Review the module and programme learning outcomes to see that learning outcomes are not being assessed in multiple situations.
- Consider using marking rubrics directly linked to grading criteria, or different marking techniques (e.g., video (e.g., video/audio feedback) which may be more efficient yet still effective for identified assessments.

Assessment equivalency guidance

When designing and setting assignments staff should have some concept of the notional time required by a student to complete the assignment.

Previous discussions have tended to focus on word limits as a measure of assessment load, however this is an inappropriate measure. For example, a 2000-word essay may be identified as being more work than a 500-word summary of a research article, however, the knowledge, understanding and student effort required to summarise a research article may be the same, if not greater, than the student effort required to write a 2000-word essay.

The following guidelines are therefore based on student effort as a measure of assessment volume (indicated by an estimation of the time required by a typical student to produce the work) enabling a more appropriate quantification of student workload and therefore enabling equivalence across modules.

When considering a 15 credit point module, the total hours associated with the module is 150hrs. The contact time for the module must be considered:

e.g. Class contact = 44hrs

Independent study = 106 hrs

If the module is weighted 50% exam:50% coursework, then the independent study associated with each component should be divided between the two elements i.e., 53 hrs each.

For the coursework, we can consider that half the independent study time is related to reading and understanding leaving approximately 25 hrs devoted to directed coursework assignments.

For example, the module described above may have 2 assignments worth 20% each and a progress test worth 10%. The time guidance regarding student effort could be 10hrs for each of the assignments and 5 hrs for the test.

The following table has been produced to give examples of assessment loading.

Table 1: Assessment loading

Module (cp)	15	15
Weighting ratio (Coursework: Exam)	50:50	100:0
Total Hours	150	150
Contact Hours	44	44
Independent Study Hours	106	106
Hours related to Exam	53	0
Hours related to CW	53 – half of which is directed	53 - all of which is directed
Coursework element (Weighting % of module)	2 assignments (20% each); 1 test (10%)	Assignments 10 hrs each; Test 5 hrs
Time allocated to coursework elements	2 assignments (40% each) 1 test (20%)	Assignments 20 hrs each; Test 10 hrs

The above table provides examples of assessment loads for 15 credit point modules. It is to be used as a guide to aid in the development of module assessment. There will obviously be debate as to whether one student would spend 10 hrs doing an assignment whereas another student may only spend 3 hrs and we recognise the diversity of the student body. However, we are trying to provide guidance to students to give them an indication of how long we think an assignment should take. Module teams should agree on appropriate time expectations for assignments which should then be stated within the assignment information on module sites.

e.g. “We would normally expect you to spend approximately 10hours on this assignment in addition to your regular independent study on this module”

In addition to summative assessment, formative assessment should be incorporated into the module and could be in the form of quizzes, progress tests, writing exercises. The time taken for formative assessments should be considered when determining the student effort for the whole assessment diet.

Marking and Moderation
The marking of student work is important for two key points:
1. To identify the degree to which the student has met the identified learning outcomes/met the required standards
2. To provide feedback to the student so they understand the strengths and areas for development, in relation to the learning outcomes/required standards.
Marking requirements are identified with the University’s Policies and Regulations (UPR AS12).
Internal Moderation
Internal moderation is a process separate from that of marking and provides assurance of the quality of marking and feedback. The process of internal moderation involves checking that the marks have been awarded fairly and consistently and at an academic standard which is in accordance with the assessment criteria. The process also provides the opportunity to inform the enhancement of assessment and feedback practices. Moderation focuses on the marks awarded to the full set of assessed work for the task, module or programme, in the context of the academic standards for the award. It is, therefore, not about making changes to an individual student’s marks.
All summative assessments must be internally moderated, with the exception of those assessments that have been blind double marked (see below) and assessments that have undergone objective marking including by a computer. Student work from each assessment in a module should be sampled. The following flow diagram provides an overview of the internal moderation process and should be used as a supplement with UPR AS12.
If you require an accessible version of this diagram, please contact telsupport@herts.ac.uk
Blind Double Marking
Internal moderation is a process separate from that of marking and provides assurance of the quality of marking and feedback. The process of internal moderation involves checking that the marks have been awarded fairly and consistently and at an academic standard which is in accordance with the assessment criteria. The process also provides the opportunity to inform the enhancement of assessment and feedback practices. Moderation focuses on the marks awarded to the full set of assessed work for the task, module or programme, in the context of the academic standards for the award. It is, therefore, not about making changes to an individual student’s marks.
All summative assessments must be internally moderated, with the exception of those assessments that have been blind double marked (see below) and assessments that have undergone objective marking including by a computer. Student work from each assessment in a module should be sampled. The following flow diagram provides an overview of the internal moderation process and should be used as a supplement with UPR AS12.
If you require an accessible version of this diagram, please contact telsupport@herts.ac.uk
External Examiners
External examiners are appointed to provide impartial and independent advice, as well as informative comment on the standards and student achievement in relation to those standards at module and programme level. Appropriate samples of marked student work should be reviewed by external examiners, selected from across the range of grades awarded. They indicate if the standards and quality of a courses are consistent with the relevant national qualification frameworks, Subject Benchmark Statements, Characteristics Statements and any relevant professional or other requirements.

Managing Assessments

Internal Moderation

Blind Double Marking

External Examiners