Role of the

Assessment
Officer
Heather Knight
Director , Student
Administration and Support
Sheila Jones
Academic Compliance
Manager, SAS
Outline
• Role of the Assessment Officer
• The Code of Practice on Assessment
• Development of policies and procedures
• Mitigating Circumstances
• Progress
• Degree classification
• Taught Postgraduate Model
• Assessment Appeals
• Completion of Procedures
• Academic Compliance Manager
• Advice available
• Questions
Role of the Examinations Officer
• Liaises with the SAS Examinations Team on all aspects of
examination administration;
• Ensures that examination papers in ‘camera-ready’ format are
delivered to SAS by the relevant due date (2nd semester
2009/10 is 16th April 2010);
• Supplies SAS with information on examinations that have to run
concurrently;
• Ensures that all marks are entered onto Spider by the due date
(1st semester is 26th February 2010, 2nd semester is 23rd June
2010) and that signed pass lists are returned to SAS by 1 st July
2010.
Role of the Assessment Officer (1)
• Heads of Department are required to ensure that all of their staff
responsible for carrying out assessments fully understand the
University’s policies, rules and procedures on assessment as
summarised in the Code of Practice on Assessment (COPA).
• To assist them the HOD should appoint an Assessment Officer:
 to be a point of contact with the central administration on all matters
relating to assessment;
 to be a source of advice to staff and students on assessment
issues;
 to be responsible to the HOD for the implementation of the COPA
including changes as they are approved.
• To be the source of advice and information for staff and students
in the department on assessment issues.
• To investigate allegations of major plagiarism, collusion
and fabrication of data with examiners.
Role of Assessment Officer (2)
• To liaise with the Faculty representative on the Assessment
Working Group;
• To ensure that appropriate information about assessment is
made available to staff and students in the
departmental/programme handbooks;
• To encourage reflection on assessment issues and the sharing
of good practice within the department;
• To ensure that assessment strategies are drawn up and
monitored and reviewed by the Boards of Studies;
• To draw up and monitor the implementation of the departmental
assessment feedback policy;
• To ensure that staff are supported in carrying out their duties in
relation to assessment and, if necessary, receive appropriate
training.
Assessment Working Group
Professor J Belchem Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Learning and
Teaching
Miss CM Jones Academic Secretary
Mrs H Knight Director of SAS
Professor CJ Tuplin Humanities and Social Science
Dr G Fletcher Humanities and Social Science
Professor RG Bowers Science and Engineering
Dr M Volk Science and Engineering
Professor I Owen Science and Engineering
Mrs K Burgess Health and Life Sciences
Ms J Strivens Centre for Lifelong Learning
Dr F Coenen Computer Science/Laureate
Mr E Moloney Deputy President, Guild of Students
Ms E McAleer/Mrs MM Rushforth Teaching Quality Support Division
Tbc Chair FAQSC Humanities and Social
Science
Miss E Thornton Chair FAQSC Health and Life Sciences
Dr K Johnson Chair FAQSC Science and Engineering
Code of Practice on Assessment
This is available at:

http://www.liv.ac.uk/tqsd/pol_strat_cop/cop_assess/cop_assess.doc

Contains several appendices – see handout.

Mitigating Circumstances
• Policy and Guidelines for staff and students
• Mitigating circumstances might include:
• Illness
• Bereavement
• Serious illness affecting a close family member
• Unforeseeable or unpreventable events
• Must be verified by independent documentary evidence such as
medical certificates;
• Policy lists what would not be considered as mitigating
circumstances.
• Students make an application for mitigating circumstances using
a pre-defined form.
• Academic judgement is used to determine the likely impact of
circumstances on a student’s performance
Mitigating circumstances - procedure
• The information is considered by the Mitigating Circumstances
Committee, which is a sub-committee of the Board of
Examiners, comprising of at least three members of the Board
of Examiners;
• Matters are treated in strictest confidence
• MCC reports to the Board of Examiners the likely impact of the
circumstances on the student’s performance and makes a
recommendation;
• MCC should minute the rationale behind any recommendation;
• Documentation is not sent to the Board of Examiners by the
MCC
• Ideally the External Examiner should be present at both
meetings and if this is not possible, he/she should have access
to the full MCC meeting minutes.
Process for consideration
The mitigating circumstances policy states:

“It will not be possible for mitigating circumstances to be taken into

account after the Board of Examiners meets to discuss the results, nor
may you appeal against the decision of the Board of Examiners if you
failed to report mitigating circumstances that may have affected their
final decision.”

• However where there is good reason why the student could not have
brought forward information on the mitigating circumstances prior to the
Board, it may be possible for the student to introduce the evidence later
either to a progress committee or as part of an assessment appeal.
• A claim cannot be delayed nor evidence related to it be delayed on the
grounds of sensitive, personal, family or cultural reasons.
What can be done?
• Re-sit the failed examination or assessment as a ‘first attempt’
• If, in any year of study which contributes to the final degree
classification (except the final year) a student has passed the module
as a whole but has failed/missed any component the BoE can allow the
student either to re-take the relevant component or keep the mark and
take account of the mitigating circumstances when the degree
classification is determined.
• If a student has their mitigating circumstances accepted in their final
year (UG), the BoE will decide if there is enough work assessed to
determine an award (usually 60 credits) if the learning outcomes have
been met. If so, an award will be made including the classification and
the student will be given the option of either accepting the award or
opting to re-sit the failed modules at the next ordinary sitting. If no, the
BoE will award an aegrotat degree or allow the student to re-sit at the
next ordinary sitting.
What cannot be done
• Increase the mark – this can only be done by the student re-
taking the module or assessment
• Permit progression to the next year of programme carrying
failed credit
• Offer an award with insufficient credit.
Progress - UG
• Progress Procedures were revised and introduced for academic
year 2008/9 and available at:

http://www.liv.ac.uk/students/exams/results/progress_of_students.pdf

Key changes include:

• Board of Examiners have the authority to terminate a student’s
studies or deem a student withdrawn (previously could only
recommend to Faculty Progress Committee)
• Faculty Progress Committee only convened to hear progress
appeals.
• Establishment of Progress Panels acting on behalf of the BoE
can meet during the year to consider students’ academic
progress.
Progress Appeals
• If a student wishes to appeal against the decision of the Board of Examiners to
terminate studies or deem them withdrawn they can request an appeal from the
Faculty Progress Committee;
• Students can present new evidence of mitigating circumstances if there is good
reason why they did not divulge it to the Board of Examiners;
• Faculty Progress Committees can uphold the student’s appeal or it can reject it.
It is able to set out any conditions of a student’s continuation on the programme
of study;
• Students may request a re-hearing of the Faculty Progress Committee but
usually only on the grounds that there is further evidence which should have
been submitted, which for good reason, could not have been submitted at the
original progress hearing. The Chair and the Secretary decide whether or not
the student has a ‘prima facie’ case for their further appeal to be heard by the
Faculty Progress Committee.
• Students can appeal against decisions made by the Faculty Progress
Committee to the Senate Committee on the Progress of Students, on the
grounds that they did not receive a fair hearing because of some procedural
irregularity.
Progression notwithstanding regulations
• Where a student has not passed sufficient credit to progress to
the next year of the programme there has been a mechanism
for approval to be granted for them to progress by the PVC
Student Experience (formerly L &T). The conditions (approved
in 2008/9) are:
• Failed credit in the re-sit period (August) and mitigating
circumstances accepted for this period;
• Achieved overall average of >=50% of passed modules
• Failed no more than 15 credits
• In years 0 or 1, progressing to year 2 (no year 2 to year 3
progression NWS permitted).
• Only permitted by PVC and cases made by the department to
the Faculty and on to Director of SAS.
• There is no appeal procedure for decisions taken
notwithstanding the regulations – they are discretionary and
exceptional
UG Degree Classification
• Since 2004/5 academic year, the University has operated an
algorithmic classification system where the degree class is
determined from the honours average in years 2 and 3 (30:70)
respectively;
• The classification of UG degrees is done in Spider and the
program run by SAS, unless a student has a ‘complicated’
academic history;
• Appendices I and J detail the classification system for students
on 3 and 4-year UG non-clinical programmes
Degree Classification Timetable 2009/10
• Classification lists are provided by SAS for collection by
Assessment Officers from noon on 24th June 2010
• Classifications can be added or changed for one of two
reasons:
• classification not automatically listed
• student’s performance affected by mitigating circumstances
• Lists must be returned to SAS by noon on 1st July 2010 so that
students can attend the graduations ceremonies which will take
place during w/c 19th July 2010.
Postgraduate Taught Model (Ordinance 40)
• Non-clinical taught postgraduate programmes have been
‘standardised’ through the University Framework for Modular
Postgraduate Programmes
• Two frameworks:
• applies to all cohorts commencing in 2006/7 or earlier
• applies to all cohorts commencing from 2007/8
• Master’s – 180 credits
• Postgraduate Diploma – 120 credits
• Postgraduate Certificate – 60 credits
• Pass mark is 50% in all modules
• Students are permitted to re-sit failed modules on one further
occasion only
• Provision where the average of the marks in all modules is 50%
or above for a mark of 40-49% to be deemed compensatable in
taught modules totally up to 15 credits.
PGT – award of Distinction
• All Distinction requirements have to be achieved at first sitting
(ie without re-sits except those due to approved mitigating
circumstances)
• Master’s:
• Achieve marks of at least 70% in modules accounting for at least half the
credit of the overall award, including the Dissertation, and an overall
average score of at least 65%.
• PG Diploma:
• Achievement of marks of at least 70% in modules accounting to at least half
the credit of the overall award and an overall average score of at least 65%.
• PG Certificate:
• Achievement of an overall average of at least 70%.
• Re-sit marks will be recorded as the actual mark and indicated
on the transcript as achieved at a second or subsequent
attempt.
Periods of registration - PGT
• Full-time PGT registration is for 12 months, ie 1st October to 30th
September
• Re-sits should normally be taken within the registration period
• Extensions beyond the normal period of registration should be
approved by the PVC Student Experience
• A failed dissertation may be re-submitted on one further
occasion and for full-time students should be re-submitted within
two years of the date of the first registration
• Maximum period of registration is six years and full-time
students should normally complete within one year
Assessment Appeals – UG and PGT
• Appendix F of the COPA
• Two sections:
• Section 1 – appeals against module or assessment marks
• Section 2 – following final decisions of the Boards of Examiners on awards
and degree classifications.
• Section 1
• Two grounds:
• There was an administrative error in recording or calculating the mark or
result;
• There was a procedural error in the conduct of assessment
• Students should request the Board of Examiners to check the
mark. In practice they should do this in writing to the Chair of
the Board of Examiners.
• Demonstrate that the matter is considered by the BoE using
minutes and formally tell the student of the outcome.
Assessment Appeals – Section 2
The circumstances in which a student may appeal under
Section 2 are:

• The non-award of a degree, diploma or certificate whether that

award was the final award concerned or an intermediate award
for the stage of the course;
• The classification or other mark of differentiation of a degree,
diploma or certificate;
• The decision to make a different award from that which the
student was attempting to qualify at that point of the course.
Assessment Appeals
Grounds
• That performance was adversely affected by illness or other
significant factors which for valid reasons the student was
unable to divulge before the Board of Examiners reached its
decision;
• There has been a material administrative error;
• The assessments were not conducted in accordance with the
current regulations governing the course of study;
• Some other material irregularity has occurred.

• Cannot challenge the academic judgement of the examiners

• Cannot appeal on grounds already considered by the Board of
Examiners.
Procedures
• Consult with the Chair of the Board of Examiners in the first instance
• Indicate to the Director of SAS within 10 days of the results being
published that they intend to appeal
• Submit a full written statement of appeal within 14 days
• Cannot proceed to graduation
• Director of SAS in consultation with the Academic Secretary decides
whether or not the student has a prima facie case for their appeal to be
heard by the Assessment Appeals Committee
• Student has a further right of appeal against this decision considered by
a member of the Assessment Appeals Committee
• If a student’s appeal is heard by the Assessment Appeals Committee
and it is not upheld, the student can appeal to the Committee for the
Award of Degrees, Diplomas and Certificates against this decision but
only on the grounds that they did not have a fair hearing as a
consequence of some procedural irregularity.
Completion of Procedures
• Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education
(OIA) is an independent body which reviews students’
complaints.
• Set up following a requirement in the Higher Education Act 2004
• Students are able to complain to the OIA after they have
exhausted the institution’s internal appeals or complaints
procedures
• A Completion of Procedures letter has to be issued by the
institution at the end of the internal procedures
• Section 1 of the Assessment Appeals Procedure requires a
COP sent from the Department – template and advice available
from SAS.
• The OIA have wide-ranging powers including the authority to
overturn an institution’s decision or award compensation.
Academic Compliance Manager (SAS)
• New role based in SAS to support increased numbers of
complaints and appeals including complaints received by the
OIA.
• Key functions:
• central handling of appeals and complaints
• provision of advice to students and staff
• development of University policies and procedures
• quality assurance activities related to documentation based
in and communications from SAS
Advice available
Director of Student Administration and Support
Heather Knight – [email protected] (x 42038)

Academic Compliance Manager (SAS)

Sheila Jones – [email protected] (x 54306)

Examinations Manager (SAS)

Les Nevin – [email protected] (x 42046)

Head of Student Administrative Services (SAS)

Phil Leonard – [email protected] (x 42067)