Assessment policy for taught provision Academic Year 2025/26

1. Introduction

   1. Preamble

      1. As well as being the principal mechanism for setting and maintaining academic standards and measuring student achievement, assessment is a key component of student learning. The aims of this Policy are to provide a framework for Schools to manage approaches to assessment and feedback in ways that:

         • are ‘robust, valid, and reliable and that the award of qualifications and credit are based on the achievement of the intended learning outcomes’ (UK Quality Code);
         • are consistent across the University;
         • promote learning;
         • support student achievement; and
         • are inclusive.

         The Policy is aligned with the University’s Curriculum Design Principles and the expectations described in the Quality Assurance Agency’s (QAA) UK Quality Code for Higher Education.

   2. Applicability

      1. The Policy applies to all elements of taught provision (programmes and modules), both undergraduate and postgraduate, that lead to the award of a degree, credit bearing award, credit by the University, or accreditation of learning by the University.
      2. Any deviation from the expectations detailed in the Policy must be for compelling reasons and proposals must be agreed by School Boards and at the level of the University through formal approval by the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee (QAEC) reporting to the University Senate (The University’s Emergency Powers process may be used under exceptional circumstances.). Specific exceptions to the normal expectations described in this Policy are detailed in Appendix 2 (Appendix 2 will be updated on each occasion where there is QAEC approval of specific exceptions to the Policy. This Policy is a publicly available document which is published on the University website.).

   3. Responsibilities

      The Policy assumes the following basic allocation of responsibilities:

      1. 1.3.1 Academic staff have responsibilities to:
         • design and implement assessment as in section 1.5.1 below;
         • make reasonable adjustments to the design and conduct of assessments to meet disabled students' individual needs;
         • grade and provide constructive feedback on assessed work to students; and
         • review assessment methods as part of annual and periodic quality assurance procedures.
      2. 1.3.2 Boards of Examiners, moderated by External Examiners and reporting to Senate through the relevant School Boards, have the primary responsibility for assuring the academic standards of awards and the effectiveness of assessment in the subject.
      3. School Learning and Teaching Committees, reporting to School Boards, have the responsibility to oversee all aspects of assessment including where relevant, liaising with external professional, statutory and regulatory bodies (PSRBs) to seek clarification of competence standards for academic programmes (in line with the requirements of the Equality Act 2010, which places duties on qualification-awarding bodies to review competence standards and to determine the extent of flexibility to accommodate disabled students' needs).
      4. The Senate Learning and Teaching Committee (LTC) has the responsibility to maintain and develop this Policy, and to oversee its implementation across the University including consideration of compliance with the Equality Act 2010.
      5. School Associate Deans (Education and Student Experience) and School Managers have overall responsibility for ensuring that relevant information about assessment is included in module or programme handbooks (see the University’s Module and Programme Handbook Policy and Guidelines).
      6. Students have the responsibility to engage effectively with assessment as a key component of their learning and to comply, with integrity, with this policy and relevant programme regulations in relation to assessment.

   4. Awarding qualifications

      1. Qualifications should be awarded on the basis of achievement of clearly defined learning outcomes at the appropriate level and volume of credit. Where a candidate does not meet the learning outcomes for an intended award, a lower award can only be made where the candidate has met the learning outcomes for that lower award.

   5. General principles of assessment

      1. Assessment is an important part of learning and teaching. In addition to providing a measure of the achievement of students on academic programmes, it also provides information that guides students and academic staff in their learning and teaching respectively. To contribute usefully in both of these areas, it is important that assessment:
         • is fair, in that students are entitled to parity of treatment and comparable assessment demands in modules of equal level and credit;
         • is reliable, in that the assessment criteria would support independent markers to reach the same judgment on a piece of work;
         • is constructively aligned, in that the assessment relates to the intended learning outcomes of the modules;
         • measures student achievement effectively with reference to stated intended learning outcomes and PSRB requirements where relevant;
         • is transparent, in that the level, criteria and methods by which students’ work is being judged is clear to students, staff and examiners. This is particularly important for the purpose of determining the reasonableness of any adjustments to the design and conduct of the assessment;
         • includes appropriate student involvement in the assessment design; and
         • recognises and respects equality and diversity and is inclusive by design.

   6. Types of assessment

      1. Whilst assessment tasks within higher education can take a wide variety of forms, they are commonly understood to serve distinct functions: formative or summative.
         • Formative assessment: Assessment with a developmental purpose, designed to help learners learn more effectively by giving them feedback on their performance and how it can be improved and/or maintained. Reflective practice by students sometimes contributes to formative assessment.
         • Summative assessment: Used to indicate the extent of a learner’s success in meeting the assessment criteria aligned with the intended learning outcomes of a module or course. Typically, within summative assessment, the grades awarded count towards the final grade of the course/module/award.
      2. Although these describe quite different functions of assessment, in practice, any assessment task may serve more than one function.

2. Conduct of assessment

   1. Language of assessment

      1. All assessment of modules or programmes leading to an academic award of the University must be in the English language, apart from the following exceptions:
         • students whose primary language is British Sign Language if this is deemed a reasonable adjustment;
         • foreign-language modules provided by the University's School of Humanities, Social Sciences and Law;
         • modules or equivalent provided and assessed by another university associated with a student exchange approved by the relevant School Board;
         • provision within another higher education organisation that contributes to a University award under an approved collaborative partnership.

   2. Appropriateness of assessment

      1. Assessment should be constructively aligned to the intended learning outcomes of the module (For non-modular programmes, assessments should align to the outcomes of the learning opportunity provided (e.g., programme, short course), which in turn should take account of:
         • the principles outlined in section 1.5.1 above and;
         • the intended learning outcomes of the programme;
         • relevant QAA subject benchmark statements;
         • the relevant level descriptors of the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF)

   3. Scheduling and amount of assessment

      1. The student workload associated with assessment, both for completion of coursework assignments and for preparation for examinations, should be considered in relation to the credit rating of the module and associated notional student effort.
      2. Scheduling of assessment, in particular coursework assignments, should take account of students' overall workload in the context of the programme structure.
      3. Students must be provided with clear, accessible information regarding the scheduling of all assessment, including submission dates for coursework etc., normally before the commencement of teaching. Information must be presented in the virtual learning environment (VLE) Assessment and Feedback section in line with the Dundee Module Baseline. Programme and module leaders should assist students to time-manage their assessment workload through effective induction, publicity, reminders and where possible, by liaison between Schools.
      4. Changes to published assessments should only be proposed in exceptional circumstances and in consultation with affected students and in consideration of impact on other modules and programmes. Such changes must have approval from SQASC or QAEC (as appropriate).
      5. Wherever possible, assessments should be scheduled so that students receive timely feedback that they can take into account in preparing for subsequent assessments.

   4. Marking criteria

      1. Criteria for assessment must be explicit and available to students and examiners before the beginning of the module. This should include the following:
         • explanation of the University's grade descriptors (excellent, very good etc., see Appendix 1) in the context of the subject and the level of study;
         • explanation of the assessment weighting and criteria to be applied for each module; and explanation of the weighting and criteria to be applied to each separate component of assessment (e.g., coursework assignment, or examination paper).

   5. Reassessment, resubmission and resitting

      1. Students have the right to one attempt to retrieve a failed module with the following exceptions:
         • Where the nature of the assessment is predicated upon longitudinal performance and participation (e.g., some laboratory-based modules and personal academic study skills modules). Schools may approve a module specification which explicitly excludes a resit or resubmission opportunity.
         • Where a School has set criteria that students must fulfil in order to qualify for a retrieval attempt. Students must be provided with clear information for each module regarding the opportunities and requirements for reassessment including resubmission of coursework and resitting examinations.
         • Where PSRBs do not permit reassessment.
      2. Students who pass (i.e., attain a grade of D3 or above) a resit of a previously failed module will receive a capped grade of D3 for that module. Transcripts of achievement on work undertaken at the University will also indicate whether or not the module grade was achieved at the first attempt. Capping at D3 applies to the reported module grades, and not to individual elements of assessment.
      3. Where a module or set of modules are retaken in full (or where a credit deficit is retrieved by taking a different module or set of modules), module grades will not normally be capped unless it is a requirement of a PSRB for a particular qualification. Any such requirements should be made clear in student handbooks.

   6. Disabled Students

      1. The curriculum, including assessment and examination policies, practices and procedures should be designed to:
         • proactively consider accessibility for disabled students in the design and conduct of the assessment to remove any barriers for disabled students; and
         • anticipate reasonable adjustments to provide disabled students with the same opportunity as their peers to demonstrate achievement of learning outcomes. This may involve making adjustments to the type, scheduling or marking of the assessment in the context of maintenance of academic standards.
      2. Reasonable adjustments to assessment practices should:
         • recognise the needs of disabled students with a range of impairments, including physical and mobility difficulties, hearing loss, visual impairments, hidden disabilities, including neurodivergence, medical conditions and mental health problems;
         • be widely publicised in an accessible format and easy for students to follow;
         • operate with minimum delay;
         • allow flexibility in the conduct of the assessment;
         • not be dependent on students' individual funding arrangements; and be agreed with individual disabled students and all appropriate parties. Identification of reasonable adjustments to meet a disabled student’s individual needs is dependent on working with Student Support Services to undertake a needs assessment and develop an agreed learning support plan with the student and their School(s).

   7. Plagiarism and academic dishonesty

      1. Matters concerning plagiarism and academic dishonesty are addressed in the University's Code of Practice on Academic Misconduct by Students.

   8. Anonymised marking

      1. Anonymised marking must be carried out for all written examination papers. Whilst this does not extend to other forms of assessment such as coursework, laboratory or clinical assessments, anonymised marking should be carried out wherever this is compatible with the nature of the assessment.

   9. Feedback to students

      1. Students should be provided with appropriate, accessible and timely feedback on all forms of assessed work, including, where appropriate, examination, in ways that promote learning and facilitate improvement.
      2. Through the Assessment & Feedback section of modules in the Virtual Learning Environment, students should be given clear, accessible information about opportunities for receiving feedback.
      3. Feedback needs to be provided to students within a timeframe which permits the student to make profitable use of the feedback in preparing for and completing subsequent assessment tasks. Specifically, students should receive grades (with an explicit statement that they are provisional, as described in Section 3.5) and feedback on coursework no later than three working weeks after the submission deadline for the work. An exception to this requirement is for capstone projects/dissertations or other final pieces of assessed work, and students should be informed about the timeframe for receiving grades and feedback where applicable. If there are unavoidable circumstances that will result in a delay in the return of marked work beyond the set timeframe, a clear and timely explanation should be provided to affected students.
      4. Students should be provided with the opportunity for feedback on examination performance. Feedback opportunities should be given for all forms of examination, whether written, oral, practical or OSCE (Objective Structured Clinical Examination). The only exception to this is final degree exams. Schools should decide on the means by which students are provided with feedback on their performance in each diet of examinations. This may include the opportunity for supervised review of completed examination scripts.

   10. Academic appeals

       1. Appeals are dealt with in accordance with the University's appeal procedures.

   11. Retention and disposal of assessed work 

       1. Schools should ensure that all assessed work is securely retained for a time period sufficient to:
          • facilitate internal moderation and moderation by External Examiners; and
          • be available as evidence in case of a student appeal.
       2. The normal expectation is that assessed work (The term ‘assessed work’ used here mainly applies to written assignments and does not apply to certain creative works or situations that involve assessment of competency standards for work on live subjects.) for the entire study period should be retained for a minimum of one calendar year following the date of the Board of Examiners at which the award was decided (Where required, advice should be sought from Records Management Services on the secure disposition of assessed work.).
       3. Schools should ensure that assessed work is disposed of in an appropriate manner (note that some PSRBs may require a longer retention period for assessed work) according to the University’s Data Protection Policy.

   12. Extension Requests

       1. Students are expected to monitor their workload, to be aware of all submission deadlines, and be able to organise themselves and their work accordingly. However, it is recognised that there may be occasions where students are impacted by circumstances that genuinely affect their ability to complete coursework on time. In such circumstances a student may request an extension to the coursework submission deadline.
       2. Extension requests must be submitted before the submission deadline. Extension requests submitted after the submission deadline will not typically be considered. Schools must determine when extension requests may be submitted and ensure this information is made available to their students.
       3. Schools must identify appropriate individuals to consider and approve extension requests. It is recommended that requests are reviewed and approved by two members of staff, at least one of whom holds an academic position. If only one individual makes the decision, they must be a member of academic staff. Typically, approvers would be an Associate Dean Education and Student Experience or the School Associate Dean Quality Assurance and Enhancement, Senior Adviser of Studies or the relevant programme leader or an appropriate administrative lead. For the purposes of this policy these individuals are designated the ‘Approver’.
       4. Extension requests should be made in the format required by the School (published in the Assessment and Feedback area of the VLE and on the University website). At the Approver’s discretion a verbal request may be considered.
       5. A reason for the request should be given, and evidence to support the request provided. Where a student already has in place adjustments that were agreed by Disability Services or Student Support Services (i.e., recurring circumstances support plan) that allow for flexibility in meeting deadlines the student does not need to resubmit the evidence previously considered by Disability Services or Student Support Services.
       6. The extension request decision should be confirmed, in writing (by email), to the requester within 5 working days, or prior to the original coursework deadline whichever is the sooner. Where the extension is approved, the new submission date must be confirmed.
       7. The outcome of requests must be recorded by the School and monitored to ensure repeated requests, which may indicate a student is experiencing difficulties with their studies or elsewhere, are followed up appropriately. Consideration must be given to how the extension request records can inform consideration of mitigating and recurring circumstances.
       8. The length of any extension granted is at the discretion of the Approver, and consideration should be given to; the circumstances that have led to the request being made, weight of the coursework, credit volume of the module, the type of assessment, students mode of study, any additional requirements outlined in the students record, the schedule for the release of the marked assessment and feedback, impact on the student’s ability to meet module and programme learning outcomes (which may include time management), impact on board of examiner meetings or award decisions, visa timelines etc. Standard coursework submission dates would, normally, be extended by a maximum of 7 days. For the purpose of this policy, a day is defined as each 24-hour period following the prescribed submission deadline including weekends and holidays.
       9. At the discretion of the Approver (in consultation with appropriate colleagues) a longer period of extension may be given.
       10. If the student is unable to meet the new extended deadline, the student should then use the relevant mitigating or recurring circumstances procedure.
       11. Where a student fails to submit their coursework by the new extended deadline, and where mitigating or recurring circumstances are not known to the School, late penalties will be applied in the usual manner (see section 3.16).
       12. Schools must make clear to their students the following information:
           • By when extension requests can be made;
           • How extension requests should be submitted, and to whom; and
           • The timeframe by which they can expect a decision.

3. Marking and reporting on assessment

   1. Principles

      2. The principles guiding assessment reporting include:
         • maintaining a system of reporting that is clear and straightforward for students and other interested parties to understand;
         • ensuring that assessment reports are fair, consistent and broadly comparable across different subject areas; and
         • having clear descriptions of the range of discriminations between grades so that these are manageable, meaningful and transparent.
      3. The nature of the assessment methods for any particular module or programme is considered as part of the normal University approval process for credit-bearing taught provision. The effectiveness and quality of the approach to assessment is reviewed annually and periodically as part of the University programme review process.
      4. The University operates a single alphanumeric (literal) reporting scale, which should be used to report the outcomes of assessment of all taught programmes for all forms of assessment. This scale, as set out in Appendix 1, is the only scale that can be used to inform students of the outcome of their assessment. Programme teams are therefore expected to use the alphanumeric reporting scale. Students should not receive grades for assessed work (whether coursework or exam) using any other scale.
      5. Schools should ensure that all assessment grades are held on the Student Management System (SITS).

   2. Use of assessment marking scales

      1. Students’ work should normally be assessed using the alphanumeric reporting scale described in Appendix 1. It is, however, recognised that for some elements of assessment the alphanumerical ranking of student achievement may require an underlying calculation based on percentages (for example where students’ knowledge and understanding is being assessed through multiple choice questions or the ability to solve specific problems with ‘right or wrong’ answers). In such cases a percentage marking scale may be used to calculate the grades, although grades must always be reported to students in the form of the alphanumeric reporting scale described in Appendix 1. Under those specific circumstances where percentage marking must be used, the relationship between the percentage scale and the alphanumeric scale must be made clear to students, e.g., through publication on the School website, in student handbooks and/or on the VLE.
      2. School Learning and Teaching Committees have ultimate responsibility for decisions on the approach to marking each assessment element, and deciding on any particular circumstances where it is essential to use a percentage scale for the underlying calculation of grades. Wherever possible, Schools should use the alphanumeric reporting scale as their primary approach to marking.

   3. Aggregation of part-assessment grades

      1. Where the overall assessment of a module takes into account more than one piece of students’ work:
         • aggregation should take account of weightings that the individual assignments have within a module assessment scheme; and
         • aggregation should be carried out using the numerical assignments to the specific elements of the alphanumeric reporting scale (Appendix 1).

   4. Assessment reporting scales

      1. All assessment results must be reported to students using the alphanumeric reporting scale described in Appendix 1 unless only pass/fail is being considered (see below).
      2. Under certain circumstances (e.g., where there are specific requirements from PSRBs for accreditation of programmes) a simple pass/fail system of marking may be used. This approach to marking should only be applied where students are required to pass a range of pre-specified areas of competence and/or where more detailed grading is for very good reason, judged unsuitable. Where pass/fail judgements are solely used to describe and report on student learning achievements, assessment on a pass/fail basis cannot be used to contribute to the discrimination of performance that would contribute to honours classifications or distinctions and merits for non-honours and taught postgraduate programmes.
   5. 3.5 Disclosure of provisional grades and results
      1. Guidelines published by the Registry should be followed in relation to the release of assessment grades. Any information on grades or performance that is provided to students (e.g., for formative purposes) prior to approval by Boards of Examiners must include an explicit statement that the grades are provisional, and subject to change by moderation, and the decision of the Board of Examiners. When an individual student's grade or grades have been released on a provisional basis and are later adjusted on intervention of the Board of Examiners, that student has the right to ask the relevant School to provide the relevant extract from the minute of the Board of Examiners.

   6. Stages of assessment for undergraduate degrees

      1. For the purposes of this Assessment Policy, the SHE levels that contribute to undergraduate degrees are considered as stages. Stages 3 and 4 represent SHE levels 3 and 4 respectively. Stage 5 describes the final year of integrated undergraduate masters programmes.

   7. (Honours) Undergraduate degree classifications—general principles

      1. Each School should establish more detailed descriptors additional to the basic University descriptors for the award of grades. This information should be available to students at the start of their honours programme.
      2. Honours classifications should be determined using a stage-weighted grade average based on performance at stages 3 and 4 (and 5 for integrated undergraduate masters programmes) as the primary determinant, with grade preponderance being considered as a secondary measure for borderline cases (see Section 3.8 below). SHE levels 1 and 2 do not count towards honours classifications unless specific exception has been approved by the Quality and Enhancement Committee (QAEC) via the programme regulations and communicated to students.
      3. For standard honours programmes (i.e., where students graduate after completion of SHE level 4), the degree class should normally be determined using a combined average of the module grades from stages 3 and 4 weighted 40:60. Note that the stage weighting is based on the year of study and not the SCQF level. For example, an SCQF level 10 module taken at stage 3 would be weighted as 40, and an SCQF level 9 module taken at stage 4 would be weighted as 60.
      4. For integrated undergraduate masters programmes, the degree class should normally be determined using a combined average of the module grades from stages 3, 4 and 5 (Where one of the stages is a year abroad or an industrial placement, passed credit would be recognised but the grades achieved would not normally contribute to the degree classification (see also paragraph 3.7.12). The stage weightings for specific integrated masters programmes are shown in Appendix 2.
      5. For all honours degree programmes (including integrated undergraduate masters programmes), candidates must achieve a minimum pass grade of D3 for 75% (90 credits) of each of the stages that contribute to the award. This minimum requirement is in place to allow a certain level of condoned failure or compensation for marginal failure (See also 3.12 Compensation and condonement.).
      6. The maximum amount of condonement and compensation permitted is 25% (30 credits) for each of the stages that contribute to the honours classification. Condoned modules and assessments are not graded and do not contribute to the final degree classification. Where compensation is applied, the compensated mark will contribute to the final degree classification. A degree with honours cannot be awarded where there are failed modules that have not been condoned or where compensation has not been applied.
      7. In cases where candidates do not meet the minimum requirements for their intended standard honours degree (i.e., where students graduate after completion of SHE level 4), an ordinary degree may be awarded where at least 50% of the stage 3 and 4 modules (i.e., 120 credits) have been graded at D3 or above.
      8. For integrated undergraduate masters programmes, a bachelors degree with honours may be awarded where a candidate has failed stage 5 modules. In such cases, the degree classification should be based on performance in stages 3 and 4 using the classification methods for standard honours programmes described in this Policy.
      9. For candidates who enter a 4-year honours programme at stage 4 through recognition of prior learning from other institutions or through local ‘year out’ transfer arrangements from vocational programmes such as medicine and dentistry (i.e., the BMSc), honours classifications will be based solely on performance at stage 4, with the grade average at stage 4 being the primary determinant of the degree classification.
      10. In cases where programmes are aligned with PSRB requirements, compensation or condonement recommendations may not be permitted depending upon the nature of the requirements of the PSRB. Any such PSRB requirements must be clearly communicated to students and the Board of Examiners.
      11. Where modules that contribute to stages 3, 4 or 5 have been taken and assessed through an external body (e.g., as part of a student exchange programme), the outcomes will not contribute to the weightings for honours degree classifications. Whilst the grades given by an external body will not count towards the final degree classification, they will be appropriately recorded in transcripts of the student’s achievements. The credit achieved through study elsewhere (as an approved part of a specific honours degree programme) will be recognised and awarded by the University, but the classification of honours will only be based on work that has been set and assessed by the University of Dundee. Where a student fails a module undertaken and assessed by an external institution, credit will not be granted by the University unless the Board of Examiners decides that there is a case for compensation. Boards of Examiners may also consider condonement for a failed module taken and assessed outside the University.
      12. In circumstances where there is credit overload (i.e., where students take a non- compulsory additional SCQF level 9 or 10 module over and above the required 120 credits for any stage that contributes to the honours classification), a higher grade achieved for such an additional module may be used to substitute for a lower grade achieved for an optional module within the compulsory 120 credits for the relevant stage prescribed in the degree regulations. Substitution of grades may only be made between modules taken and assessed at the same level. Grades achieved for credit overload modules cannot substitute for failed core modules.

   8. Honours classifications - borderline cases

      1. For classification grade borderline cases, there should be an automatic ‘rounding up’ where the stage-weighted grade average is at or within 0.5 of a numeric grade from the next upper degree classification grade boundary (for example, a stage-weighted grade average of 18.5 would automatically be rounded up to 19, which would be a first class award).
      2. Where the stage-weighted grade average is at or within one numeric grade from the next upper degree classification boundary (i.e., 18, 15, 12 or 9), the preponderance of module grades will be used as the next measure to consider the final degree classification. In these circumstances, where students have achieved the upper degree classification for at least half of the contributing stage 3 and 4 modules, the degree classification will be awarded at that upper level (For standard honours programmes where all of the modules are taken and assessed by the University of Dundee, this would equate to 120 credits. Where modules are excluded from the weighting (e.g., for study abroad), grade preponderance as a secondary measure will be calculated from the weighted grades so that if half of the weighted credits are at the upper degree classification, the degree will be awarded at that level.). Where programmes have a range of credit ratings for modules at levels 3 and 4, care should be taken to ensure that the preponderance principle takes into account the different module sizes. For example, for a student with a borderline mark of 18.4 with a 60 credit module at grade A alongside two 30 credit modules at A, a first class degree would be awarded.
      3. The principles of automatic rounding up and grade preponderance should also be applied to the classification of integrated undergraduate masters programmes. There will be an automatic ‘rounding up’ where the stage-weighted grade average is at or within 0.5 of a numeric grade from the next upper degree classification grade boundary. Where the grade average is at or within one numeric grade from the classification boundary, the preponderance principle described in paragraph 3.8.2 above will be applied as follows:
         • Where students have achieved the upper degree classification in at least half of the contributing stage 4 and 5 modules, the degree will be awarded at that upper level. Where programmes have a range of credit ratings for modules at levels 4 and 5, care should be taken to ensure that the preponderance takes into account the different module sizes as described in 3.8.2 above.
      4. Grade preponderance cannot be used to downgrade a degree classification initially determined by the stage-weighted grade average.
      5. Viva voce examinations (face-to face interviews that test knowledge and understanding) may be used as part of the assessment schedule for a particular module. In addition, Vivas following another assessment can be used to test knowledge and understanding for all taught provision but should not be used to facilitate the determination of the classification of honours degrees for borderline cases.

   9. Non-honours undergraduate degrees—definition of merit and distinction

      1. The standard definitions for awards of all non-honours (ordinary) undergraduate degrees with merits or distinctions (with the exception of the MBChB, BDS, BSc (Oral Health Sciences) and LLB degrees) are as follows:
         • For the award of distinction, candidates must have attained a grade average of 19 or above in all the modules taken at stage 3 and at level 3 and above.
         • For the award of merit, candidates must have attained a grade average of 16 or above in all the modules taken at stage 3 and at level 3 and above.
         • Where the grade average is within 0.5 of the upper band, the grade average will be automatically rounded up to the higher band.
         • Where the grade average is within 1 grade point of the upper band, i.e., 18 or 15, the Examinations Board should consider the balance of module grades, weighted by credit; if the candidate has 50% or more of module credits at A, and a grade average of 18 or above, the degree will be awarded with distinction; and if the candidate has 50% or more of module credits at B or above, and a grade average of 15 or above, the degree will be awarded with merit. Care should be taken to ensure that the preponderance principle takes into account the different module credit weightings.
         • Students will not be eligible for an award ‘with distinction’ or ‘with merit’ where there have been failed modules that have been retrieved through resubmissions or resits, unless there have been documented extenuating circumstances that have been considered and approved by the relevant Mitigating Circumstances Committee.
      2. Students on honours degree programmes who exit with an ordinary degree are eligible for an award with distinction or merit using the criteria described above.

   10. Role of Boards of Examiners

       
       (See also 5 Conduct of examination boards)

       1. Boards of Examiners should make recommendations on all degree classifications based on consideration of the regulations described in this Assessment Policy. Boards of Examiners have the authority to exercise their judgment on all degree classifications, and their judgement supersedes the preliminary classifications generated by SITS. Boards of Examiners may also make recommendations for compensation or condonement where this is judged to be appropriate. Any such decisions by Boards of Examiners must be based on reasons that are fair, justifiable and equitable, and give due consideration to the maintenance of academic standards, and whether specific groups or individuals could be advantaged or disadvantaged. Such decisions must be recorded in the minutes of the Board of Examiners.
       2. Boards of Examiners should consider reports from Mitigating Circumstances Committees, and also make judgements on the appropriateness of any other adjustments (such as grade scaling) that might be applied to any particular assignments or modules.

   11. Assessment of taught postgraduate courses

       1. Assessment of taught postgraduate courses should follow the principles and procedures described in this Policy and should be reported using the alphanumeric scale. As for undergraduate programmes and modules, a simple pass/fail scheme is permitted where there is a compelling reason to use this.
       2. Schools should decide what resit and/or resubmission options are appropriate, taking special account of the needs of international students, for whom resit opportunities are clearly important, especially in one-year programmes.

   12. Merit and distinction awards for taught postgraduate programmes

       1. For the award of distinction, candidates must have attained a grade average of 19 or above in all the modules taken that contribute to the classification of the award.
       2. For the award of merit, candidates must have attained a grade average of 16 or above in all the modules taken that contribute to the classification of the award.
       3. Where the grade average is within 0.5 of the upper band, the GPA will be automatically rounded up to the higher band.
       4. Where the grade average is within 1 grade point of the upper band, i.e., 18 or 15, the Examinations Board should consider the balance of module grades, weighted by the credit; if the candidate has 50% or more of module credits at B or above, and a grade average of 15 or above, the degree will be awarded with merit. Care should be taken to ensure that the preponderance principle takes into account the different module credit weightings.
       5. Students shall not be eligible for an award ‘with distinction’ or ‘with merit’ where there have been failed modules that have been retrieved through resubmissions or resits, unless there are documented extenuating circumstances that have been considered and approved by the relevant Mitigating Circumstances Committee.

   13. Aegrotat degrees 

       An aegrotat award is an award, without classification, that may be made if a candidate is prevented from completing their studies and/or assessments by illness, death, or other cause accepted by the Senate. The Senate may award an aegrotat degree where there is sufficient evidence that the candidate would have satisfied the standard required for the award, had they been able to continue their studies. It is important to note that an aegrotat award can be made posthumously. A posthumous award may be considered where a student has died and has either: 

       a. completed the programme of study, including the required assessments, and has satisfied the requirements for the award, or;

       b. has not completed the programme of study but could be eligible for an aegrotat award.

   14. Reporting results of resits or resubmissions

       1. If a module is not passed at first attempt, the student transcript will show the number of attempts at the module. Resits or resubmissions will be marked as normal, but the module grade will be reported as a maximum of D3.

   15. Compensation and condonement

       See also 3.7. Honours classifications—general principles.

       1. The University definitions and interpretations of the terms 'compensation' and 'condonement' are noted below.
          • Compensation is the process by which a Board of Examiners may decide that a strong performance by a student in one part of the curriculum may be used as the basis for the award of credit in respect of marginal failure elsewhere.
          • Condonement is the process by which a Board of Examiners, in consideration of the overall performance of a student, decides that without incurring a penalty, a part of the programme that has been failed need not be redeemed.
       2. Compensation for a failed module or assessment is distinct from a mark adjustment to D3 or above on the decision of a Mitigating Circumstances Committee. Where there is a compensated failure, the mark that has been compensated will still contribute to the overall grade or degree classification.
       3. Compensation or condonement should not normally be used where there are opportunities for resitting exams, resubmission of failed work or repeating periods of study.
       4. Boards of Examiners may only make recommendations for compensation or condonement based on anonymised data. All instances where the performance of an individual student may have been affected by extenuating circumstances must be considered by a Mitigating Circumstances Committee who will make decisions to the Board of Examiners.
       5. Mitigating Circumstances Committees, which are sub-committees of Boards of Examiners (see also Conduct of Examination Boards below), may make decisions to Boards of Examiners on compensation or condonement based on discretion informed by professional judgment and specific information relating to individual cases. The following procedures must be applied in any case of compensation or condonement that is based on mitigating circumstances:
          • Each case must be considered on an individual basis.
          • Individual decisions, and the basis of justification, must be recorded in the minutes of the Mitigating Circumstances Committee. A separate note of the meeting, where students are not identified by name, should be provided for the Board of Examiners.
          • The ‘original’ grade (i.e., the mark allocated to the module prior to any discussion of compensation or condonement) will be reported to the Registry, with a suffix ‘flag’ indicating compensation/condonement.
       6. The student's transcript will show the 'original' grade plus suffix 'flag', and the award of credit for the relevant module, with a footnote explaining that credit was awarded by compensation/condonement within the University's Assessment Policy.
       7. In considering approaches to compensation and condonement, Boards of Examiners should also consider any accreditation requirements of relevant professional or statutory bodies (PSRBs) regarding compensation or condonement. These may, for example:
          • restrict or prevent application of compensation or condonement; or
          • require additional procedures, e.g., submission of additional, specific information to the Board of Examiners.
       8. For individual candidates, the combined amount of compensation and condonement should not exceed 25% for both undergraduate and postgraduate awards. Compensation may only be applied to marginal failure (M1-M3, described in Appendix 1).
       9. The extent and nature of compensation and condonement will be monitored annually, as part of annual programme review procedures.

   16. Application of penalties

       1. Students should not normally be penalised for non-attendance at lectures and tutorials by preventing them from sitting examinations or submitting coursework for assessment. Exceptions to this are where there are specific PSRB requirements for attendance, or where the assessment is based on participation in a specific activity that requires attendance. Penalties for non-participation or non-attendance must be clearly described in student handbooks and degree regulations.
       2. Depending on the nature of the taught provision in the individual Schools, mitigating circumstances that result in late submissions of assignments may be considered prospectively (i.e., so that extensions to submission deadlines are authorised in advance (see section 2.12) and/or retrospectively through the formal meetings of Mitigating Circumstances Committees. Where Schools wish to permit the prospective consideration of mitigating circumstances and the authorisation of extensions to deadlines for individual candidates, the applications must be considered by a subgroup of the relevant Mitigating Circumstances Committee. The membership of the subgroup must include the Associate Dean Quality Assurance and Enhancement or their nominee. The subgroup will report all authorisation of extensions to deadlines to the Mitigating Circumstances Committee. Schools must ensure that the approach to consideration of mitigating circumstances for late submissions of assignments, whether prospective or retrospective, is clearly communicated to students through student handbooks and other appropriate media.
       3. All unauthorised late submissions of coursework will be penalised by one numeric point on the 23-point marking scale per day up to a maximum of 5 days late. For the purpose of this policy, a day is defined as each 24-hour period following the prescribed submission deadline including weekends and holidays. Assignments submitted more than 5 days after the agreed deadline will receive a zero mark, with ‘LS (late submission)’ being noted as part of the student record of achievement. For late submissions of resubmitted work, note that grade capping for resubmissions is at the level of the module and not the individual element of assessment.
       4. For coursework that is assessed through a pass/fail system without grading, unauthorised late submissions will normally receive a zero mark, with ‘AB (unauthorised absence or non-submission)’ being noted as part of the student record of achievement.
       5. Unauthorised late submissions of coursework should be marked as normal, with a penalty applied, and individual mark deductions will be confirmed or waived following meetings of Mitigating Circumstances Committees.
       6. Penalties will be applied for instances of academic misconduct as described in the University Code of Practice on Academic Misconduct by Students.
       7. Schools should be proactive in ensuring that students understand the University policies on penalties and academic misconduct, and student handbooks must include a description of how penalties will be applied, referring to this Assessment Policy and the University Code of Practice on Academic Misconduct by Students.
       8. Students have the right to appeal about penalty decisions. Such appeals should be considered at the local level (i.e., by the relevant School) in the first instance as detailed in Undergraduate appeals procedure regulations.
       9. Information about all instances where the application of penalties is being considered should be provided to Mitigating Circumstances Committees. Boards of Examiners should be provided with reports on decisions of Mitigating Circumstances Committees and decisions on academic misconduct. 

4. Quality assurance of assessment

   1. Context and definitions

      1. Quality assurance of assessment should take place during assessment/examination preparation and after the assessment/examination has been completed by students to ensure the appropriateness of the assessment/examination and the accuracy of marking, respectively.
      2. This section of the policy applies to all summative assessments but not formative assessments.

   2. Principles

      1. Quality assurance of assessment is referred to as pre- and post-assessment scrutiny and completion of these activities should be coordinated by the relevant Associate Dean for Education and Student Experience Teaching / Associate Dean Quality Assurance and Enhancement supported by their admin teams.

   3. Pre-assessment scrutiny

      1. Refers to the process of internal and external review of assessments during the preparation stage and prior to release to students. Internal and external review of assessments should be completed by an independent academic staff member or other appropriate representative.
      2. All draft coursework assessments and examinations should be prepared in sufficient time to permit pre-assessment scrutiny.
      3. All Schools should prepare assessment templates that permit academic staff to clearly outline all elements subject to review by internal and external pre-assessment scrutiny.
      4. Pre-assessment scrutiny should be constructive and developmental. Besides being an element of assurance of standards and quality, it should be seen as both a form of peer support and staff development for academic staff.
      5. All draft assessments, any associated marking rubric/grade descriptors and associated model answers for written assessments which contribute to the final degree classification (credit rated assessment) or those which are worth 10% or more of module weighting should be reviewed by either the module team, an appropriate academic panel or an appropriate academic staff member, and where appropriate an External Examiner, to ensure:
         • The assessment reflects the intended learning outcomes of the programme and module;
         • The assessment reflects relevant QAA subject benchmarks statements;
         • The assessment reflects the relevant level descriptors of the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF);
         • The assessment meets any relevant PSRB requirements;
         • The assessment promotes and encourages learning;
         • The fairness and clarity of assessment; and
         • That appropriate arrangements are in place to provide useful and constructive feedback to students.

   4. Professional statutory regulatory bodies (PSRBs)

      1. Programmes which are subject to requirements by PSRBs, or accrediting bodies may have additional requirements for pre-assessment scrutiny, and these take precedence over those principles outlined in this policy.

   5. Post-assessment scrutiny

      1. Refers to the process of internal and external review of coursework assessments, examinations or portfolio assessments after they have been completed by students to ensure the accuracy of marking and the appropriateness of the assessment or examination. The principles of post-assessment scrutiny for written and computer-marked assessments/examinations differ.
      2. Any academic contributing to post-assessment scrutiny should be identified during assessment preparation and provided with the relevant coursework assessment or examination, any associated marking rubric and any associated model answers.
      3. All Schools should prepare a list of assessments to be subject to post-assessment scrutiny and provide report templates for post-assessment scrutiny activities to be recorded, to allow accurate records of quality assurance of assessment to be documented.
      4. As a minimum, tutor marked assessments or examinations which contribute to the final degree classification (credit rated assessments) or any modules at any level in which the provisional grade distribution is anomalous must be subject to post-assessment scrutiny.

   6. Sampling 

      1. Sampling of assessments for post-assessment scrutiny should sample a spread of scripts from across the alphanumeric grades and all provisional marginal fails. As a guide, the minimum sample is 10% or 10 (whichever is larger) but it is likely to be more to satisfy the conditions of the spread of submissions.
      2. Where there are assessments in which the grade distribution has been unexpectedly skewed, sample size may need to be higher and should be decided in consultation with the Associate Dean for Education and Student Experience / Associate Dean Quality Assurance and Enhancement or their nominated representative.

   7. Internal post-assessment scrutiny – tutor-marked assessments and examinations

      1. Internal post-assessment scrutiny of tutor-marked assessments or examinations will take one of the following forms:
         • Second marking; or
         • Internal moderation
      2. Internal post-assessment scrutiny should be completed prior to disclosure of provisional grades to students, however, as described in section 3.5.1, if this is not possible, any published grades must include an explicit statement that those grades are provisional and subject to change.
      3. Whilst there is an expectation that all elements of assessment that make a substantive contribution to module grades (i.e., discrete units of assessment that contribute more than 10% towards module grades) will be subject to post-assessment scrutiny, Schools have a level of flexibility to adopt different approaches in this area, depending on the type of assessment, the volume of assessment and also whether there are specific requirements by PSRBs. This may range from sampling of representative pieces of assessed work to second marking (open or blind) of all pieces of assessed work. Second marking of all pieces of assessed work should routinely be carried out when:
         • the cohort size is 10 or less;
         • it is a requirement of a relevant PSRB;
         • the first marking has been undertaken by an inexperienced internal examiner, or where the internal examiner is examining outside their main field of expertise; or

         • a single assessment, such as an honours dissertation, represents 30 credits or more.

           Second marking of all pieces of assessed work would not normally be carried out for assessment tasks which involve a limited range of right answers and which can be objectively assessed.

   8. Internal moderation

      1. A sample of written assessments, examinations and portfolio assessments should be reviewed by an independent academic who did not contribute to marking of the question and/or script being moderated. Internal moderation should ensure:
         • That the marking has been fair and rigorous and reflects the assessment rubric at all levels of the alphanumeric reporting scale, and
         • that where written assessments or examinations are being marked by multiple academics, that their marking is consistent.
      2. Internal moderators should not change grades of written assessments or examinations sampled for internal moderation. However, if they identify a systemic error in marking, the internal moderator should contact the Associate Dean for Education and Student Experience / Associate Dean Quality Assurance and Enhancement or an appropriate representative who should assign a new, independent non-informed marker to re-mark all affected questions and/or scripts in that cohort.
      3. Where markers wish to flag specific scripts for review by internal moderation, for example where they were unsure or require a second opinion on first marking, they should do so. However, these scripts will be considered separately and in addition to those scripts sampled for post-assessment scrutiny.

   9. Second marking

      1. Second marking will take one of the following forms:
         • Non-informed second marking
           Where assessments are marked by two independent markers who cannot see the grades or feedback provided by one another.
         • Informed second marking
           Where assessments are marked consecutively by two markers the second of whom can see the grades and feedback provided by the first.

   10. Collating grades and reaching a decision

       1. If the two markers award different grades and cannot reach agreement, the Associate Dean for Education and Student Experience, Associate Dean Quality Assurance and Enhancement or their nominated representative will appoint a third, independent academic who will mark the affected scripts on the same basis as the second marker (i.e. non-informed, or informed). The final provisional grade will be the agreed mark between all markers, or the average of the grades of the third marker and the closest primary marker on the alphanumeric scale if no agreement can be reached.

   11. Practical assessments, practical and oral assessments

       1. Where practical assessments, practical examinations (for example, objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs)) or oral assessments take place, internal calibration, second marking, internal moderation or External Examiner oversight should take place during the assessment and/or by video review post assessment. The expectations of second marking and/or internal moderation, or External Examiner oversight described in sections 4.9 and 4.12 apply in these contexts.

   12. Post-assessment scrutiny – computer marked assessments (CMAs)

       1. All results of computer marked assessments which contribute to the final degree classification (credit rated assessment) should be reviewed internally to ensure:
          • The grade distribution is as expected for the same cohort in other assessments in that level
          • All questions have performed as expected (for example, review all questions in which all students have scored full marks or zero marks)
       2. Where issues are identified, this should be raised with the Associate Dean for Education and Student Experience / Associate Dean Quality Assurance and Enhancement, or an appropriate representative who can decide on an appropriate approach course of action.

   13. Post-assessment scrutiny – external moderation

       1. Where appropriate, a sample of assessments should be reviewed by the relevant External Examiner. The scope of post-assessment scrutiny by External Examiners is described in External Examining of Taught Programmes Policy.

   14. Arithmetic review

       1. All assessments, whether tutor- or computer-marked, should be subject to arithmetic review prior to disclosure of provisional grades or results. This is to ensure that all questions have been marked and that the addition of marks and final grade are accurate. This work must happen once marking is complete and is the responsibility of the module lead. Arithmetic review should include all, and not a sample of, assessments and examinations.

5. External examining

   1. University policy

      1. The policy and guidelines for external examining are covered by a separate External Examining of Taught Programmes Policy.

6. Conduct of Boards of Examiners

   1. Membership and quoracy

      1. A Board of Examiners should be supported by a designated administrator and comprise the following members:
         • a named Convener who is a member of University staff. The Convener will normally act as the Chair of the Board of Examiners and will work closely with the administrator to ensure that the Board is conducted in accordance with the relevant regulations and policies;
         • members of academic staff to represent each of the modules and programmes being considered by the Board (Where Boards of Examiners are considering joint honours programmes at a separate meeting, there should be an appropriate balance of representation for each of the subjects.);
         • External Examiner(s) for the programme and constituent modules;
         • the Chair or representative of the Mitigating Circumstances Committee.
      2. A Board of Examiners is quorate when the Chair is satisfied that there is an appropriate spokesperson for each of the modules and programmes under consideration.

   2. Meetings of Boards of Examiners

      1. External Examiners should be invited to all meetings of the Boards of Examiners for the modules or programmes which they examine. They are expected to attend the main meeting of the Board of Examiners for each programme.
      2. In the case of meetings of Boards of Examiners where final awards are being considered at ordinary, honours or taught postgraduate levels, the final decisions about the awards may not take place unless an External Examiner is present, in person or online. Any notification of assessment results to students before a Board of Examiners must include the warning that "This result is provisional and may be changed following moderation by the Board of Examiners, after which final results will be notified to students".
      3. For the degrees of MBChB and BDS, where contributing subjects have been assessed by a Board comprising internal and External Examiners, the final assessment may be made at a meeting of the Board of Examiners in the absence of an External Examiner. Wherever possible, however, it is highly desirable that at least one External Examiner should be present, in person or online.

   3. Conduct of the meetings of Boards of Examiners

      1. A formal minute of the meeting of the Board of Examiners must be kept. The minute should include:
         • a note of members present;
         • a record of any declaration by those members of any personal interest, involvement or relationship with a student being assessed;
         • the final decisions taken;
         • the extent to which medical evidence or extenuating circumstances were taken into account by the Mitigating Circumstances Committee;
         • any general comments made by External Examiners; and
         • in the case of Examination Boards for joint honours programmes, a record of the final decision on honours degree classifications, which states that all of the External Examiners involved in that programme are in agreement.
      2. All information to Boards of Examiners should be anonymised. Individual identification should be by matriculation number only. The Chair of the Board of Examiners, the Board Secretary and the Chair of the Mitigating Circumstances Committee should hold the information about each candidate, but discussions with the Board about the grades to be awarded should not identify individuals. All issues potentially affecting the performance of individual candidates should be considered by Mitigating Circumstances Committees (see below). Boards of Examiners are expected to implement the decisions of Mitigating Circumstances Committees on mark adjustments, retrievals, compensation and condonement (see Section 7), whilst retaining discretion to go beyond them, if this benefits the student. Anonymity should be lifted once the Board of Examiners has reached its decisions on the grades of all candidates being considered.
      3. Other than where there are cases for compensation or condonement of failed assessments that are based on anonymised data, Boards of Examiners should not normally change the grades achieved by individual students unless recommended by Mitigating Circumstances Committees. Under certain circumstances, grade adjustments may be made for cohorts (whilst ensuring that the learning outcomes of the programme have been met and academic standards have been maintained). Such circumstances include:
         • where defects or irregularities in the examination process have been identified;
         • where the Board of Examiners has judged that marking is out of line with the expected standards;
         • where a University no detriment policy is being applied.
      4. In addition to confirming grades and awards for the candidates, the Board of Examiners should also consider good practice and areas for development for the programme and its constituent modules.
      5. Boards of examiners may agree to delegate authority to the convenor to act on their behalf. Any actions taken in this way must be reported to the next Board of Examiners
   4. Inquoracy of Boards of Examiners due to unforeseen circumstances
      1. If a Board of Examiners is inquorate due to illness or any other unforeseen circumstance, the relevant School Associate Dean in consultation with the Director of Quality Assurance and Enhancement, should agree on arrangements to ensure that there is appropriate external and internal oversight of assessment for the programme in question. Such arrangements may include the appointment of a replacement External Examiner.

7. Mitigating circumstances and recurring circumstances

   1. Definition of mitigating circumstances

      1. Mitigating circumstances are circumstances beyond a student’s control which have adversely affected their performance in summative assessments. Mitigating circumstances are temporary, rather than ongoing. Such situations include temporary illness affecting the student, a significant personal or family crisis (e.g. bereavement or a serious illness affecting a close family member), or unforeseeable, unpreventable events (e.g. being a victim of a criminal act, natural disaster, such as severe weather affecting travel, and military service).

      2. Definition of recurring circumstances

         Recurring circumstances are circumstances beyond a student’s control which have adversely affected their performance in summative assessments. Such circumstances are ongoing, rather than temporary. Such circumstances include gender-based violence, being a carer (this does not include looking after children), being estranged from family/carers/support networks, continuing legal proceedings, terminal illness, disabilities that have a fluctuating impact, physical illness or mental health difficulties (where a medical diagnosis cannot be evidenced, this is based on the definition of disability under the Equality Act).

   2. Processes for dealing with mitigating circumstances as they occur, and reporting to the relevant Mitigating Circumstances Committee

      1. It is the responsibility of individual students to apply for consideration to be given to mitigating and/or recurring circumstances that have affected their performance in assessed work. - Nevertheless, students are under no obligation to disclose that they have recurring circumstances to the University. Schools are responsible for providing clear guidance to students on how they should apply for consideration of mitigating and/or recurring circumstances, when they should submit their application, how their request will be considered and what types of circumstances constitute mitigating circumstances or recurring circumstances. Students should familiarise themselves with the Guidance Notes on Mitigating and Recurring Circumstances and the Student Guide to Mitigating and/or Recurring Circumstances. All requests for consideration of mitigating circumstances must be made using the standard University form.
      2. In the case of acute illness, mitigating circumstances applications should normally be accompanied by a medical certificate that covers the period of time where candidates were affected.  For acute illnesses affecting a student for longer than 7 calendar days, a medical certificate would be required.
      3. All requests for consideration for recurring circumstances should be made via the Student Support Team or if recurring circumstance is related to a disability, the request for consideration should be made via Disability Services.

   3. Composition and roles of Mitigating Circumstances Committees

      1. Mitigating Circumstances Committees are sub-committees of Boards of Examiners and are responsible for reviewing confidential information on instances where the performance of individual candidates may have been adversely affected by specific circumstances.
      2. Mitigating Circumstances Committees hold delegated authority from the Board of Examiners to make decisions on whether to uphold individual applications and to decide on any relevant outcomes for individual students. All decisions must be reported to the Board of Examiners.

      3. Given the confidential nature of the student information that is being considered, Mitigating Circumstances Committees should normally comprise the minimum number of individuals whose input is essential to make appropriate judgements with due recognition of the safeguarding of academic standards (Whilst it is important that Mitigating Circumstances Committees should comprise as small a number of individuals as possible, appropriate diversity in composition should be sought where possible.). Mitigating Circumstances Committees should normally comprise:

         • the School Associate Dean (Education and Student Experience) or the School Associate Dean (Quality Assurance and Enhancement) or their nominee;
         • an appropriate representative for each programme (this may be the Adviser of Studies);
         • the convener of the Board of Examiners; and
         • the School lead for equality and diversity

         The Committee should be supported by a designated Secretary (whose role is to verify that the supporting data is correct, provide input about the process, and make a record of the outcome of the considerations and judgement of the Mitigating Circumstances Committee to be reported to the Board of Examiners).

      4. External Examiners are not expected to be part of the mitigating circumstances committee or be involved in individual decisions being made, though they may be consulted as required, e.g. in complex cases, and will be able to view the decisions made.

   4. Consideration of mitigating circumstances

      1. When considering a request the Mitigating Circumstances Committee should take into account the following four criteria:

         1) The evidence. If the request does not provide objective supporting evidence, or the evidence fails to satisfy the Committee, the application will normally be rejected. The authenticity of documentary evidence will also be considered, taking into account the author of the document, the level of detail about the effect of the events, and the dates corresponding to the period of the claim.

         2) The effect of the event. Consideration will be given to whether the event described in the request and supporting documents is likely to have affected the ability to study for, or take an assessment. The effect will be rated on a scale:

         Stage 3—where the event described would have a very major impact on the ability to study and participate in any assessment. This would include the inability to take part in some or all of the components of assessment in a module.

         Stage 2—the event is likely to have had some effect on the performance in an assessment. This would include the situation where a student is able to participate in the assessment, but at a level below what is normally expected based on past performance.

         Stage 1—there is likely to have been some, but probably only a small impact on the level of performance. 

         Stage 0—the event is not likely to have affected performance in any way.

         3) The timing of the event. Consideration will be given to when the reported event occurred in relation to the assessment. For example, a major medical condition which occurs and is reported at the time where an assessment is due would have more impact than one that is experienced (after which a full recovery is made) several weeks before an assessment is due.

         4) The performance in the assessment. The actual grade received in the assessment should be compared to grades in the affected module and other modules to determine whether it shows any possible drop in performance. The general trajectory of grades during the time at the University should also be taken into account when considering performance. If there is a steady performance at a particular level, but this is seen to drop at the time of the reported event, then it would be expected that performance would continue at the previous level. When there is evidence of an improving performance over time, this general trend of improvement would be anticipated to continue had the event not taken place.

      2. Students are not normally expected to attend any meeting of a Mitigating Circumstances Committee to consider their case, except under exceptional circumstances, in which case they should have the opportunity to be accompanied by another appropriate individual such as a DUSA sabbatical officer or the School President.

   5. Reporting to Boards of Examiners

      1. The Mitigating Circumstances Committee should reach a decision based on the information provided by the student in relation to the specific assignments and modules where the student’s performance was affected. This decision will be based on the evidence, effect, timing and performance criteria. The decision must be confidential, and not release any of the personal circumstances related to the event in question to the Board of Examiners. In reporting to the Board of Examiners the information provided should be the matriculation number of the student, a list of the assessments affected, and the decision for each assessment. The decisions can be:
         • The application is rejected because it fails to meet the criteria for consideration;
         • no change—the grade and assessment should not change;
         • additional opportunity—the student should be given another opportunity to take the assessment, but any normal penalties such as the capping of components would apply;
         • first attempt—reassessment should be considered as a first attempt, with no penalty applied;
         • an opportunity to improve the grade in a second attempt at the assessment;
         • condonement or compensation—a failed module or assessment may be condoned (where the element of assessment should not contribute to the calculation of the degree classification or to the award of distinctions or merits) or compensated (where credit is awarded for a marginal fail of a module or assessment);
         • mark adjustment – a mark in an assessment or module affected by a relevant event may be raised to match the trajectory of other grades in this or previous years. This adjustment would not normally be more than three numeric grades, e.g. C1 to a B1;
         • credit should be awarded, but with the relevant mark being excluded from consideration of the overall module grade or degree classification; or
         • the offer of a discounted year.
      2. Approved recurring circumstances will be recorded by the Mitigating Circumstances Committee. Where assessment adjustments are made due to Recurring Circumstances these will be reported to the Board of Examiners by the Mitigating Circumstances Committee.
      3. For programmes subject to requirements by PSRBs the scope of decisions the Mitigating Circumstances Committee can make to the Board of Examiners may be limited.

      4. The Board of Examiners will use the decision(s) of the Mitigating Circumstances Committee to form a decision on the students’ overall performance on their programme.

          

8. Recognition of prior learning

   1. University policy

      1. Recognition of prior learning is described in a separate University Policy and Guidance on Recognition of Prior Learning.

9. Development, review and enhancement of assessment

   1. Staff training and development

      1. Staff training and development at University and School levels should provide comprehensive development support and opportunities related to assessment. This should include:
         • Best practice and innovative approaches;
         • assessment approaches for specific situations and categories including on-line assessment; assessment for flexible and distributed learning; assessment for disabled students; and
         • training for specific groups of staff, in particular recently appointed or staff with limited experience of assessment.

   2. Enhancement of assessment

      1. Schools and individual staff are encouraged to enhance approaches to assessment, by reference to reported effective practice both internally and externally, and by innovation. Innovative approaches may involve risk. These risks should be managed in ways that protect students' interests, e.g., by initial small-scale pilots, and by discussing proposed approaches with other staff (within the School or from the University's support services). All innovative approaches to assessment must be reviewed to appraise validity, reproducibility, feasibility, educational effect and acceptability.

   3. Monitoring and reviewing the effectiveness of assessment

      1. The effectiveness of assessment should be reviewed by analysis of assessment validity as, a minimum, on an annual basis, through consideration of External Examiners’ Reports, annual review of modules and programmes, and periodic programme review.

Appendix 1

The literal reporting scale for assessment

* QF indicates that a student has not met the conditions required to have obtained an overall pass. Any queries should be directed to the School concerned.

** Relevant descriptor selected from: CA (Certified Absence); AB (Unauthorised Absence); MC (Medical Certificate); WD (Withdrawn); DC (Discounted); ST (Stopped); NM (Not Marked— generally used where penalties have been applied for plagiarism); LS (Late Submission- a zero grade due to submission penalty)

Appendix 2

Exceptions to the Assessment Policy

Stage weighting for the classification of integrated undergraduate masters' degrees

1. MEng. The degree class is determined using a combined average of the module grades from stages 3, 4 and 5 weighted 15:42.5:42.5.
2. MSci. Physics, MSci Mathematics and Physics and MMath. The degree class is determined using a combined average of the module grades from stages 3, 4 and 5 weighted 30:30:40.
3. MArch. The degree class is determined using a combined average of the module grades from stages 4 and 5 weighted 40:60.

4. Feedback to students

   1. Grades and feedback to students for certain modules with single elements of assessment may be dealt with within a longer timeframe than the recommended period of 3 weeks stated within this policy. Exceptions to the policy, detailed below, have been permitted where feedforward is not an essential part of the assessment.
   2. The School of Health Sciences. Marking and feedback to students for the following modules will take place within 4 weeks from the submission date:
      • Non-Medical Prescribing (NB30005 and PN50057)
      • Advanced Clinical Assessment and Decision Making (PN50150)
   3. School of Humanities, Social Sciences and Law. Marking and feedback to students for the following module will take place within 6 weeks from the submission date:
      • Research and the Teacher (ED41001)
   4. The School of Medicine. Marking and feedback to students for the following module will take place within 4 weeks from the submission date:
      • MMEd Dissertation Module (CM50151)

5. Merits and distinctions

   1. School of Humanities, Social Sciences and Law. Merit and distinction awards for the Professional Graduate Diploma in Education  and for the Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE)
      To be considered for merit or distinction students must successfully complete Level 10 modules ED41072 and ED42075 for the PGDE and Level 11 modules ED51072 and ED52075 for the PGCE. Where students have completed one module at Level 10 and one at Level 11, the qualification awarded is PGDE.

• For the award of distinction, candidates must have attained grades of at least A5 or above for each of the graded modules (i.e. 60 credits of the 120-credit programme). Credit for successfully completing the professional practice placement modules will not be counted towards a distinction as these are assessed at SCQF Level 10 and as ‘Pass/Fail’.
• For the award of merit, candidates must have attained grades of at least B3 or above for each of the graded modules (i.e. 60 credits of the 120-credit programme). Credit for successfully completing the professional practice placement modules will not be counted towards merit as these are assessed at SCQF Level 10 and as ‘Pass/Fail’.
  • School of Medicine. Classification for the Master’s in Medical Education and associated PG Certificate and PG Diploma for students first matriculating on current award prior to Trimester 1 2025.
• Postgraduate Certificate in Medical Education, Postgraduate Certificate in Medical Education (Anaesthetics), Postgraduate Certificate in Medical Education (Dentistry), Postgraduate Certificate in Medical Education (General Practice), Postgraduate Certificate in Medical Education (Oncology) Postgraduate Certificate in Medical Education (Radiology) Postgraduate Certificate in Medical Education (Simulation) Postgraduate Certificates in Medical Education (Surgery) and Postgraduate Diploma in Medical Education, Postgraduate Diploma in Medical Education (Dentistry) and Postgraduate Diploma in Medical Education (Simulation) will be classified as pass fail only. The transcript for modules commenced before Trimester 1 2025 will show Distinction, Pass, P2, Fail for each module.
• For the award of distinction for Master of Medical Education, Master of Medical Education (Dental) and Master of Medical Education (Simulation) candidates must have attained Distinction or A5 or above for their final 60 credits. If not, they will be classified as Pass or Fail.
• For students matriculating trimester 1 2025 onwards or re-enrolling for Diploma or Master’s their degree classification will be in line with the current assessment policy.

1. Classification of undergraduate degrees
   1. School of Humanities, Social Sciences and Law. For the BA (Hons) Community Education, BA (Hons) Social Work, MA (Hons) Education Programmes (where students graduate after completion of SHE level 4):
      • students will be permitted to resit modules at stage 4 for the purposes of Professional Registration. The honours degree classification will be determined using the module grades attained at the first attempt
      • students will be required to achieve a minimum 75% of all credit attained as opposed to 75% of graded credit at stage 4.
   2. BA Architecture. The degree class is based on module grades from stage 4 only.