Quality Handbook Section 15: Requirements for Assessment Management and Operation

Requirement:

Course and module teams must publish and disseminate clear assessment briefs and criteria for all tasks.

Assessment criteria must be aligned to the University’s Grade Based Assessment (GBA) descriptors (See QH Supplement 15A: The Grade Based Marking Descriptors).

How this will be evidenced:

There should be consistency in the use of the articulation of the assessment and in the terminology used to ensure clarity and transparency. This must be provided to students via an assessment grid or grading matrix and available in the NOW module learning room.

The NTU GBA descriptors represent a set of common characteristics expected of work at each of the different grade bands and will be contextualised to disciplines and tasks by Schools and/or Academic Teams. The assessment criteria must align to these descriptors and made available to students in the NOW module learning room via an assessment grid or grading matrix.

Requirement:

Course and module teams must proactively consider what adjustments might be reasonable in advance of a potential request for reasonable adjustments being made, where this is permissible within PSRB requirements and, where applicable, competence standards can still be met.

How this will be evidenced:

The approach to the consideration of request for reasonable adjustments and/or alternative inclusive approaches to assessment must be set out in the course assessment strategy (as indicated in QH Section 12: Course Design Requirements).

Requirement:

All courses must include the relevant and appropriate assessment of technical proficiency of English language.

How this will be evidenced:

The assessment of technical proficiency of English language will be evidenced, where relevant, in the appropriate assessment criteria on NOW.

Requirements:

AI expectations must be clearly communicated at module level. Each module must include a clear and accessible statement explaining what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate use of AI. This should normally be set out in assessment briefs and/or module guides.

Further information:

• The guidance must make clear what kinds of AI use are and are not permitted at different stages of academic work, such as interpreting the task, carrying out research, structuring ideas, drafting, and checking. It should avoid generic statements and give students clear, practical direction.

How the requirement will be evidenced:

Module-level AI expectations are communicated through assessment briefs and module information on NOW. These are reviewed through existing review mechanisms.

Requirement:

4.1 Course teams must have processes in place to ensure the following:

• Validity of assessment
• Standardisation
• Grading and feedback

4.2 These processes must be consistently operated by all members of the course team involved in the assessment process as this assures fairness in assessment and grading.

4.3 Where colleagues are new to grading, unfamiliar with the assessment, or where an assessment is new or has undergone significant change, the course leader must ensure that colleagues are provided with bespoke support throughout the assessment and grading process. This is to ensure consistent application of the grading criteria and alignment in the quality and focus of feedback provided.

4.4 Course teams must communicate their approach to consistency and fairness in assessment and grading to students.

Details:

4.5 Validity: the assessment measures what it is intended to measure (aligned to the learning outcomes).

4.6 Standardisation: calibrating and agreeing the grades of student work prior to starting the grading process.

4.7 Grading: awarding a grade and providing feedback to student work.

How this will be evidenced:

4.8 The course approach to ensure validity of assessment, standardisation, and grading and feedback, as well as the support provided to colleagues who are new to grading or unfamiliar with the assessment, is articulated in the course assessment strategy in CourseLoop.

4.9 Communication to students about the course’s approach to fairness in assessment and grading must be provided in NOW learning rooms and associated course information documents.

Requirement:

Course teams must ensure that assessments continue to be valid. To ensure the ongoing validity of the assessments, course and module teams must:

• Ensure that the assessment is aligned to the module learning outcomes
• Where the assessment contributes to the classification of the final award, consult with the external examiner with regards to the suitability of the assessment task.
• Assessments must be designed in a way which promotes academic integrity.

Details:

Assessments must be subject to a structured peer-review process that involve evaluating:

1. the alignment of assessment with the relevant learning outcomes and PSRB standards as appropriate, using a mapping exercise;
2. the clarity of the task description;
3. the clarity of any additional rubric or guidance notes accompanying the tasks;
4. the criteria by which it is intended to mark the assessment;
5. the available guidance for markers, e.g. model answers;
6. the academic challenge of the tasks in relationship to the level;
7. overlap and coverage with regard to all assessment tasks within a level;
8. the workload or time requirements of the assessment tasks.

How this will be evidenced:

Alignment to relevant industry standards at appropriate level is articulated as part of the course information in CourseLoop.

Records relating to the outcome of the consultation with external examiners must be kept and overseen by the course leader.

Requirement:

Calibration of grading must take place to enable agreement to be reached regarding the standard of student work and the focus of feedback. This ensures a shared understanding of, and consistency in applying, the grading criteria and consistent grading judgement and feedback.

This approach does not preclude the use of some light touch sample checking following the grading process, however this cannot extend the 15 working day feedback window.

At levels which contribute to the final award, the external examiner must be able to monitor the standardisation process.

Details:

A thorough standardisation process will assure fairness in assessment and grading.

Standardisation takes place prior to grading. The module team will independently grade the same sample of work and then discuss and agree the grades. The focus of feedback for the assessment task is also agreed to ensure it is consistent and relevant for future assessments. This process establishes a standard.

Standardisation can take place prior to assessment submission as assessments from previous years can be used. In this case, the grading criteria and feedback standard is discussed and confirmed.

How this will be evidenced:

Standardisation must be overseen by the course leader, records kept and made available to the External Examiner.

The course team must indicate in their assessment strategy how the external examiner will be assured of the rigour of assessment grading and feedback.

Requirement:

Grades must be awarded in alignment with the assessment criteria.

All module learning outcomes must be assessed and passed in order to pass the module (as specified in QH Section 12: Course Design Requirements).

Anonymous grading must be considered for all summative assessment tasks, where practicable, as part of the course assessment strategy.

Anonymous grading must be used for all timed written examinations.

Assessment outcomes remain a human responsibility. AI must not be used to decide assessment outcomes.

Grades must be submitted to the Student Data and Systems Team as soon as possible after grading.

Details:

Grading and feedback must align to the standard agreed during the standardisation process, ensuring consistency between colleagues and across assessments.

Double or team grading of a sample of assessments must be used as the norm for grading dissertations and major projects or studio work at the final award level. Courses with small cohorts may double or team mark the work of the whole student cohort.

AI may assist assessors in reviewing evidence or reflecting on student work, for example, by sense checking their own decisions, but it must not be used to decide assessment outcomes/grades. Grades and outcomes must always be determined by academic staff.

All grades are provisional until ratified by the Exam Board.

How this will be evidenced:

Grading records must be kept and overseen by the course leader.

Requirements:

Course teams must review grade distributions and profiles across modules per level of study to check any anomaly and ensure consistency across modules. The minimum requirement is to consider frequency distributions for each module. This could lead to adjustment of grades.

Details:

If there is evidence that the grades that have been awarded for a particular module are problematic and the reason(s) for this can be identified, then it may be that the grades for that module need to be adjusted.

How this will be evidenced:

Record of these internal pre-exam board quality checks must be kept and presented at the Board of Examiners meeting by the course leader.

Requirements:

Scaling of grades can only be undertaken where there are legitimate grounds.

Legitimate grounds for scaling  grades are only:

1. a problematic issue with the articulation of the assessment task (for example, an error or ambiguity in a question not identified at stage 1);
2. a problematic issue with the assessment context (for example, an interruption to an examination).
3. inconsistency in the grades awarded

Scaling grades must not be undertaken in the following circumstances:

1. To align student outcomes with sector benchmarks.
2. To align student outcomes with competitor profiles.
3. To achieve a particular set of desired attainment profiles.

The scaling of grades must not be undertaken as routine practice.

The rationale for the adjustment of grades and the approach taken must be communicated to students.

If it is determined that students’ grades for an assessment task should be adjusted, a clear rationale and the intended method of grade adjustment must be presented by the course leader to the chair of the Board of Examiners and the relevant external examiner(s) in cases where the assessment contributes to the classification of the final award.

Details:

Scaling involves the adjustment of students’ grades on an assessment task to ensure that the grades properly reflect the students’ performance.

Where adjustment of grades has been required, the cause of the problem must be addressed to prevent a similar occurrence at a later date. This might have implications at the level of the module, or the course.

How this will be evidenced:

The approaches taken for all cases of grade adjustment must be discussed at the Board of Examiners and recorded in the minutes taken.

Requirement:

1. Coursework: Students must receive individual feedback (written or recorded), including an individual grade, on all assessed coursework.
2. Examinations: Feedback must be provided for all examinations, where a balance of individual and cohort feedback may be used.

Students must receive individual feedback for examinations, to enable them to perform better in later examinations.

Details:

In deciding the balance of individual and cohort feedback for examinations, the course team must consider the students’ experience of assessment across the level and course.

How this will be evidenced:

Evidenced on the module learning room Dropbox or other mechanism used to provide student feedback.

Requirement:

The course leader must ensure timeliness of feedback at module level.

Students must receive feedback on all summative assessments within 15 working days of the submission date, except for the specific assessments identified in the next column. This timeframe excludes University closure days.

Where the 15 working day feedback period for coursework and examinations falls within either:

1. the end-of-year examination period, including the degree show period; or
2. an end of first-half-year or first semester examination period and when students undertake further examinations within this period; grades and individual feedback must not be released to students until after either:
   1. the Board of Examiners or
   2. the final assessment has been undertaken.

For examinations earlier in the year, the individual feedback timeframe should follow the 15 working day timeframe.

Details:

The 15 working day period does not apply to:

1. Large pieces of work (e.g. a portfolio, final year project or dissertation) are exempt from this timeframe. In recognition that such work requires considerably longer to grade than other coursework, the feedback (and grade) may be provided outside the standard 15 working day period. This exemption may only be used where formative feedback has been provided on work-in-progress.
2. Examinations. For end-of-year or final semester examinations, the individual feedback and grades must be provided after the Examination Board, even if this is outside the standard 15 working day period.

Individual feedback or grades  must not be provided in advance of the Examination Board as this may detract the students from focusing on their other upcoming examinations. However, generic cohort feedback could be provided before the Examination Board in order to support students in preparing for other upcoming assessments.

How this will be evidenced:

The course team must maintain accurate records to monitor the timeliness of feedback.

Requirement:

Course teams must use appropriate forms of feedback which are relevant to the assessment. Feedback must be communicated appropriately to help students to understand how feedback can support their learning.

Feedback on formative assessments must provide students with information and guidance aligned to the forthcoming summative assessment.

Feedback must be aligned with learning outcomes and assessment criteria using language consistent with the grade awarded.

Feedback must enable the student to understand the grade awarded and must identify actionable improvements which the student can apply to future assessments.

Where the assessment is graded as a fail, the feedback must be specific as to why it did not meet the assessment criteria and what is required to achieve this in a future submission. The student must be signposted to further resources, guidance and support.

Summative feedback to students must always be grounded in human academic judgement, subject expertise, and where possible, a genuine understanding of the individual learner.

Details:

Feedback can take numerous forms, such as informal, formal, verbal, written and peer feedback. Course teams will decide the appropriate mechanisms.

Emphasising the link between formative and specific summative assessments can help to encourage active student participation in formative tasks.

Opportunities to engage with feedback from formative tasks and summative assessments should be designed into the curriculum.

AI must not replace academic judgement in the generation of summative feedback. However, it may be used in a limited supporting role, for example to improve clarity, tone, or structure once feedback has been authored by the assessor.

Use of speech-to-text, dictation, or similar assistive features, used to improve readability, structure, or coherence, is acceptable where the academic judgement, evaluative content, and feedback itself originate from the assessor.

For low-stakes, objective or formative tasks, such as automated responses to multiple choice questions or structured quizzes, AI-generated feedback may be used where appropriate, provided it is accurate, proportionate to the task, and subject to human oversight.

How this will be evidenced:

Quality of feedback is evidenced in feedback documents associated with the assessment.

Requirement:

The course team must create and publish the Assessment Schedule and Feedback Plan (ASFP) in the Course Learning Room.

Submission deadlines must be set on a normal working day and during working hours. Deadlines must not fall on weekends or University closure days.

The course team must specify on the ASFP the examinations in which they will receive written feedback and those for which they will receive cohort feedback.

Details:

The ASFP must be communicated verbally and provided to students in NOW.

How this will be evidenced:

The ASFP will be published in the Course Learning Room. It will align to assessment information in module learning rooms.

Requirement:

The language of assessment and teaching will usually be English. Courses that are taught and assessed in another language must be approved through the course design and approval process.

Details:

Where courses are taught and assessed in another language, the external examiner will be a specialist in that language and will moderate the assessments.

Internal assessment scrutiny will also be carried out by a staff member fluent in the respective language.

Further information on the University’s requirements in respect of collaborative provision is available in QH Section 10.

How this will be evidenced:

Appropriate mechanisms to meet this requirement are evidenced in Course Information on CourseLoop.

Associated activity:

Ensure the Assessment Schedule and Feedback Plan (ASFP) is completed and published in Course Learning Room.

Oversees the validity of assessment, standardisation and grading processes for the course, and ensures that these are articulated appropriately in the Course Assessment Strategy.

Takes responsibility for providing support and guidance to colleagues who are new to grading or unfamiliar with the assessment.

Takes responsibility for compiling the standardisation record, ensuring it is made available to the external examiner in a timely manner.  Oversees the maintenance of records relating to the outcome of the consultation with peers and external examiners.

Scaling of grades: The course leader must record, as a minimum, the following for scrutiny and approval at the Board of Examiners:

1. The reason for adjusting students’ grades on the assessment task.
2. The evidence considered in arriving at the decision.
3. The method of grade adjustment selected.
4. The relationship between the original grades and scaled grades.
5. An explanation of the consequences of scaling the grades.
6. An explanation of how the issue will be rectified in the future so that the adjustment of students’ grades will not be necessary.

The course leader must ensure that the rationale for the adjustment of grades and the approach taken is communicated to students as soon as the grades are issued.

The course leader must ensure that the approach to fairness in assessment and grading is communicated to students.

The course leader must ensure timeliness of feedback at module level.

The course leader must report to SASQC on the timeliness of assessment feedback across the course.

Module leaders have direct responsibility for the implementation of assessments.

Ensure assessment details are published on module learning rooms and are aligned with the ASFP. Module leaders should discuss any changes to the assessment details with their course leader or course manager, as appropriate.

Allocate the grading of assessments across the module team.

Undertake standardisation of grading and feedback.

Monitor completion of grading and report any concerns to the course leader.

Complete standardisation and grading record.

Ensure that grades are released to students.

Submit grades to Student Data and Systems Team or through other means which are used in the School.

Heads of Department (HoDs) are responsible for overseeing the validity of assessment, standardisation, and grading processes within their departments. They hold overall accountability for ensuring that assessments are appropriate and valid within their respective areas.

HoDs are responsible for ensuring that students receive effective and timely feedback on all assessments. They must also proactively manage staff leave and illness to support the consistent implementation of these requirements.

In some Schools, HoDs oversee the review of grade patterns across modules, identifying any discrepancies in grade profiles and, where necessary, initiating the process for grade adjustment in coordination with course leaders/managers.

Some Schools appoint course managers - typically Principal Lecturers - who hold overarching responsibility for overseeing assessments across multiple courses. Their role includes addressing assessment‑related issues that course leaders are unable to resolve.

School Academic Standards and Quality Committees (SASQCs) ensure that the following are meeting University and School expectations across all its courses:

• the application of assessment regulations;
• Assessment Schedules and Feedback plans which avoid potential assessment bunching;
• procedures for effective feedback to students on assessments;
• timeliness of assessment feedback;
• arrangements for external examiner nominations and monitoring of EE annual reports on a School-wide basis to identify good practice, issues or themes (See QH Section 1: Academic Governance).

Confidence:

Develop your own confidence and personal direction through self-reflection.

Curiosity:

Explore arts and culture, sport, volunteering and wellbeing events and activities.

Engagement:

Commit, participate and connect with all aspects of your NTU experience.

Specialist subject knowledge:

Deepen and apply your subject specialism knowledge.

Critical thinking:

Develop your logical and analytical reasoning, problem solving and evaluation skills.

Socially conscious practice:

Recognise and act on the power you have to make positive change.

Work Experiences:

Apply your insights, influence and knowledge within workplace environments.

Collaboration:

Cultivate your networking, teamwork and communication skills.

Professional Skills:

Develop a wide range of professional behaviours.