The University of Huddersfield Students’ Regulations

This is a useful source of information. Keep it in a safe place.

September 2006 edition

• Back to Contents
• Appendix 3

Section E - The assessment of students on courses of study

Students are advised to seek impartial help, advice, guidance and support from sabbatical officers in the Students Union.

1. General Principles
   1. Course outcomes
      The purpose of assessment is to enable students to demonstrate that they have addressed the learning outcomes of the course of study and achieved the standard required for the award they seek. All courses of study are subject to regulations which relate the assessment requirements of the course to its learning outcomes, and it is within these assessment regulations that examiners make their judgements on student performance.
   2. Confirmation of standard
      Assessment must reflect the achievement of the individual student in addressing course learning outcomes, and at the same time relate that achievement to a consistent national standard of awards. It must therefore be carried out by competent and impartial examiners, and by methods which enable them to assess students fairly. In order to achieve this end, External Examiners must be associated with all assessments which may count towards an award; their particular role is to ensure that justice is done to the individual student and that the standard of awards is maintained.
   3. Examiners’ judgement
      1. Assessment is a matter of judgement, not simply of computation. Marks, grades and percentages are not absolute values but symbols used by examiners to communicate their judgement of different aspects of a student’s work, in order to provide information on which the final decision on a student’s fulfilment of course learning outcomes may be based. It is particularly important for students to understand the nature of examiners’ discretion and judgement when details of individual marks are available to them.
      2. Within the constraints imposed by the requirements of E1.1, examiners have wide discretion in reaching decisions on the awards to be recommended for individual candidates. They are responsible for interpreting the assessment regulations for the course if any difficulties arise, and their academic judgements cannot, in themselves, be questioned or overturned.
   4. Information for students
      1. The University will ensure that the assessment requirements for courses of study are made known to students. The assessment scheme of an individual course of study is subject to both institution-wide regulations and regulations specific to that course, and students will be made aware of the detailed requirements of both sets of regulations.
      2. The University will make available to students information about the grounds on which they may request that assessment boards be asked to review their decisions and about the arrangements for dealing with any such requests.
   5. Responsibilities of students
      1. It is the responsibility of students to attend examinations and submit work for assessment by the agreed submission date and to provide the examiners in advance of their meeting with any relevant information on personal circumstances which may have affected performance and which they wish the examiners to take into account.
      2. If a student fails to attend examinations or submit work for assessment without good cause, the examiners have authority to deem the student to have failed the assessments concerned.
      3. If a student fails, without good cause, to provide the examiners in advance of their meeting with information about any personal circumstances that may have affected performance in assessments, the Senate or other body authorised by it to consider appeals against an examiner's decision has authority to reject the appeal on those grounds.
      4. If a student is found to have cheated or attempted to gain an unfair advantage, the examiners have authority to deem the student to have failed part or all of the assessments and the authority to determine whether or not the student shall be permitted to be reassessed.
   6. Extenuating Circumstances
      1. Course Assessment Boards may take remedial action if they are satisfied that a student’s absence from an examination, or failure to submit work for assessment by the agreed cut-off date, or failure to pass one or more elements of the assessment can be attributed either to illness or to other circumstances of a personal nature. The normal form of remedial action is to permit another attempt at the assessment(s) concerned. The results of this reassessment will be considered at the next scheduled Course Assessment Board (paragraph E3.3.5 refers).
      2. If a student suffers from a short-term illness or experiences serious personal difficulties which warrant a request for an extension of course work submission dates, he or she must submit a written request for such an extension before the agreed submission date (other than in exceptional circumstances agreed by the Course Assessment Board).
      3. Students who wish to claim that either:
         • failure to attend an examination
         • failure to submit work by the agreed submission or extension date
         • poor performance in any element of the assessment
         was due to illness or other extenuating circumstances must make such a claim in writing before the Course Assessment Board meets. The written claim must be submitted to the appropriate course leader via the School Office of the School responsible for the course. The written claim for failure to attend an examination must be received no later than five working days after the last scheduled examination on the timetable (other than in exceptional circumstances agreed by the Course Assessment Board). The written claim for failure to submit work by the agreed submission or extension date must be received no later than five working days after the submission date (other than in exceptional circumstances agreed by the Course Assessment Board). It is expected that requests for extensions are made before the agreed submission date (see E1.6.2). A written claim relating to poor performance in any element of the assessment must be received as soon as possible after the event and no later than five working days after the hand-in date for the assessment concerned (other than in exceptional circumstances agreed by the Course Assessment Board). Whenever possible, claims must be supported by independent evidence. Students should also make it clear what action they are asking the Course Assessment Board to take.
      4. The claims that are submitted will first be considered by a panel of staff associated with the course. That panel will consider the claims and make recommendations to the Course Assessment Board.
      5. When dealing with a claim for extenuating circumstances, the Course Assessment Board will not attempt to judge how a student might have performed in different circumstances with a view to awarding extra marks. If a claim is recognised and the student has failed to pass, the normal remedy will be to allow a further attempt at the assessment(s) concerned. The Course Assessment Board will take a recognised claim for poor performance into account when deciding a candidate’s classification.
2. Regulations Governing Assessment in the Credit Accumulation and Transfer Scheme
   1. The award of credit
      1. Candidates are awarded credit at an appropriate Course Assessment Board for each module that they pass. Where a student is an associate student and is not linked to a named course, Schools must make arrangements to assign responsibility for the award of credit to such students to an appropriate Course Assessment Board. Subject to the provisos contained in E2.9 and E3.11.3 candidates may not be required to retake a module which they have passed.
      2. Candidates are not permitted to retake a module which they have passed with a view to obtaining a higher mark.
   2. Graded and non-graded modules
      1. Each module must have the status either of being graded or of being non-graded.
      2. The classification of honours degrees must be calculated so that all Intermediate level modules carry a weighting of one and all Honours level modules carry a weighting of two. All Honours level modules must be graded. A maximum of 40 Intermediate level modules may be ungraded. An exception to this rule will be permitted in the case of existing ungraded placement Intermediate level modules.
      3. Candidates who obtain an overall mark of 40% or more on a graded module will be deemed to have passed that module. Candidates studying health related modules with a professional practice component, and for which Professional and Statutory Bodies have set a requirement that these be passed the following rule will apply:
         1. Where the theory and practice components are 40% or above overall and the practice element has been passed, the credit will be awarded with the appropriate full mark and grade
         2. Where the theory component is 40% plus and the practice component has been referred the credit will not be awarded until the practice component has been passed and the full theory mark and grade will be awarded
         3. Where the theory mark is less than 40% standard University regulations will apply
         4. Where the theory component is 40% plus and the practice component has been failed the credit will not be awarded until the practice component has been passed and the full theory mark and grade will be awarded
   3. Referral, failure and tutor re-assessment
      1. The decision as to whether the result should be declared as deferred, referred, condoned or failed lies with the Course Assessment Board. These decisions apply to graded and ungraded modules.
      2. In graded modules candidates who achieve an overall mark within the range 30% to 39% will normally be referred by the Course Assessment Board. Candidates who achieve an overall mark below 30% will normally be failed by the Course Assessment Board. In the light of a candidate’s good overall profile of performance, a Course Assessment Board may require that a candidate who has achieved a mark below 30% should be referred – the nature of the re-assessment is at the discretion of the Course Assessment Board. This should be recorded as an Approved Referral.
      3. Where a candidate fails a module the candidate will have to undertake a new and different full set of assessment activities, normally when the module is next offered.
      4. Tutor Re-assessment is where a candidate is given the opportunity to resubmit once a piece of work, other than a formal examination, and for it to be re-marked prior to the meeting of the Course Assessment Board. The mark presented to the Course Assessment Board will be obtained from the resubmitted piece of work.
      5. A Tutor Re-assessment may only be applied when:
         1. A candidate achieves a mark of between 0 and 39% in any assessment other than a formal examination
         2. It is possible for the candidate to complete the work and for it to be submitted for marking before an agreed date before the end of the teaching period
      6. A Tutor Re-assessment will not be offered to a candidate who fails to submit a piece of work for the original assessment.
      7. The maximum mark for a successful Tutor Re-assessment will be 40%.
      8. Assessments other than formal examinations should be marked and made available for return to candidates within three weeks of the submission date.
      9. Other than in the case of a Tutor Re-assessment, referred work can only be considered after the initial result has been formally published as a referral by a Course Assessment Board. Assessment of referred modules must be completed by a standard time as specified in the University’s assessment timetable published by the Head of Registry. Where a candidate is referred in a pre-requisite module the referred work should normally be assessed before the candidate starts the post-requisite module. Where a piece of work submitted for Tutor Re-assessment attains a mark less than 40% and the candidate’s overall mark for the module is less than 40%, the Course Assessment Board will follow the regulations set out in E2.3.2.
      10. When a graded module is passed following a referral, the grade recorded for the module should normally be no higher than 40% (grade D) regardless of the actual grade received.
      11. When an overall mark of less than 40% is obtained in a module following referral, the candidate will be deemed to have failed that module.
      12. If a student fails to attend an examination or to submit assessed work by the agreed submission date (after allowing for any extension that might have been granted) the Course Assessment Board will record a mark of zero, leading to failure in that examination or assessed work, unless it is satisfied that there are good grounds for treating the student differently.
   4. Condonement
      1. Condonement under this clause is not considered a right of all students but is a judgement made by the Course Assessment Board. Condonement is not applicable to pre-foundation credits or to modules on some professional courses.
      2. The Course Assessment Board may determine that a student’s failure to meet the pass requirements for a module can be condoned in the light of overall performance in achieving the learning outcomes and educational aims of the stage as a whole. Condonement may only be applied:
         1. to undergraduate awards and the Postgraduate Certificate of Education
         2. to a module taken as a first assessment even if it includes an element of assessment that has been subject to a Tutor Reassessment, unless this is at the final stage of assessment
         3. where an overall mark of at least 30% has been achieved in the relevant module, unless this is at the final stage of assessment
         4. to a maximum of 20 foundation credit points and 20 intermediate and 20 honours credit points (the Course Assessment Board must not condone more than 20 credit points in any one stage of assessment)
         5. where all other credit points taken as a first assessment in the current stage of assessment have been passed.
      3. In all cases where a module has been condoned, the credit for the module will be awarded, and the actual mark achieved will be recorded.
      4. Where a module has been condoned, the module will be accepted as a prerequisite for subsequent relevant modules.
   5. Initial reassessment of failed modules
      1. All candidates at whatever point in their course of study shall have the right, following an initial failure, to repeat and be reassessed once only (including, where appropriate, Tutor Reassessment and referral) in the failed module, provided that it is still possible to complete their course within the maximum specified period.
      2. Candidates may, following an initial failure in an optional module (and in accordance with the appropriate course regulations), choose to substitute a different optional module in preference to exercising their entitlement to reassessment. For the purpose of these regulations, such modules will be termed substituted modules. Candidates who elect to study substituted modules will, in so doing, sacrifice their entitlement to an initial reassessment in their failed modules.
      3. Timing of initial reassessments of failed modules. Initial reassessment of a failed module will normally take place when the module is next offered (subject to the provision of E2.3.3).
      4. In graded modules, the grade recorded on reassessment should, for the purposes of classification for honours, normally be no higher than 40% (grade D) regardless of the actual grade achieved. The candidate’s transcript will record the grade awarded the reassessment.
      5. Failure to achieve an award
         1. Candidates who, after exercising their entitlement to initial reassessment, fail to achieve a pass in undergraduate modules totaling 60 credit points at any level or combination of levels, shall normally lose their right to count their existing credits towards any award on which they are enrolled and for which they have not yet become eligible.
         2. Candidates who, after exercising their entitlement to initial reassessment, fail to achieve a pass in modules totaling 30 credit points at postgraduate level, shall normally lose their right to count their existing credits towards any award on which they are enrolled and for which they have not yet become eligible.
   6. Subsequent reassessment of modules
      1. Exceptionally and with the approval of the relevant Course Assessment Board, a candidate may be permitted, following failure in an initial reassessment of a module, to undertake a subsequent reassessment or reassessments. This does not apply to modules on some professional courses.
      2. Where a candidate has failed the initial reassessment of a compulsory module, the relevant Course Assessment Board may refuse an application for a subsequent reassessment even though the candidate has not yet reached the limits of failure laid down in E2.5.5.
   7. Changed modules
      Module assessment requirements may change from year to year. A candidate who is reassessed may not demand reassessment using evidence and criteria which are no longer current in the module. The appropriate assessment board may, at its discretion, make such special arrangement as it deems appropriate in cases where it is not practicable for candidates to be reassessed using the same assessment requirements as at the first attempt.
   8. Registration for modules
      1. Full-time undergraduate students will normally register for tuition in no more than 120 credit points each year. Full-time postgraduate students will normally register for tuition in no more than 180 credits.
      2. Full-time students shall be progressed from one stage to the next provided 100 credit points have been recorded in the previous stage.
      3. In exceptional circumstances, at the discretion of the Course Assessment Board, a student may be registered for tuition in 140 credit points or, in the case of a student who is repeating failed modules, for tuition in 160 credit points.
      4. Part-time undergraduate students will normally register for tuition in no more than 80 credit points per academic session. Part-time postgraduate students will normally register for tuition in no more than 90 credit points per academic session.
      5. The responsibility for ensuring that module choices have been made and correctly recorded rests with the student.
      6. The Head of Registry will publish an annual timetable by which continuing and new students must record their modules for the academic session.
      7. Students do not have the right to change their module choices. Exceptionally, a student may be allowed to change up to the end of the third week of the academic session. However, to make such exceptional module changes, the student will need to obtain the express permission of the course leader and to complete all the necessary paperwork. Students must note that any agreed change(s) can only be accommodated within the timetable slot(s) as originally allocated.
      8. A student is entitled to be assessed only in those modules on which he or she is formally enrolled. If a student changes modules without seeking approval and/or without changing registration, any work in connection with such module(s) will not be formally assessed.
      9. If a student fails to confirm his or her recorded module choices, he or she will only be assessed in those modules which have been registered.
      10. If a student enrols for a module which is subsequently not taken, the Course Assessment Board will record a fail in that module.
   9. Registration for awards
      Any specific credit accumulated by a candidate shall normally be deemed to be general credit if the candidate has not converted that specific credit into an award of the University within a period of six years following the award of the specific credit.
   10. The classification of Bachelor’s degrees awarded with honours
       1. In a course leading to the award of a Bachelor’s degree with honours, classification will be based on a numerical average of marks awarded in graded I and H level credits undertaken in a student’s course of study, with the best marks totaling 100 credits at each level being included in the calculation. Subject to the provisions of E2.4, candidates must have achieved a pass mark in all modules.
       2. In calculating the numerical average for the Bachelor’s degree with honours, all H level credits counting to the calculation will carry a weighting of two and all graded I level credits counting to the calculation will carry a weighting of one (subject to the provisions of E2.2.2).
       3. In calculating the numerical average for the classified Master of Chemistry, the classified Master of Engineering, the classified Master of Science and the classified Master of Textiles, the credits for the H level modules will carry a weighting of two. All graded Intermediate level credits in the course will carry a weighting of one (subject to the provisions of E2.2.2). The awards normally require an overall average of at least 50% in H level modules totaling between 120 and 180 credit points.
       4. In the case of a designated sandwich course, weighted marks attached to S level credits may also play a part in determining the classification of a degree with honours. Such S level credits will be weighted at one.
       5. In a course leading to the award of a Bachelor’s degree with honours where the student has received accreditation for prior learning, subject to the provisions of E2.10.1 the classification will be based on a numerical average of marks awarded in graded I and 100 H level credits undertaken in the student’s course of study as a registered student of the University. Subject to the provisions of E2.4, candidates must have achieved a pass mark in all modules.
       6. A Course Assessment Board may exercise academic judgement (including that relating to poor performance due to recognised extenuating circumstances) in determining classifications, and may also take account of a profile of the marks that have contributed to the overall numerical average. Course Assessment Boards, subject to the provisions of C2.2.4, must be guided by the following mark bands in assigning classifications:
          • 70% and above – First Class
          • 60% to 69% – Upper Second Class
          • 50% to 59% – Lower Second Class
          • 40% to 49% – Third Class
   11. The classification of foundation degrees
       1. In a course leading to the award of foundation degree, classification will be based on a numerical average of the overall marks awarded at intermediate level, with the best marks totaling 100 credits at intermediate level being included in the calculation. Subject to the provisions of E2.4, candidates must have achieved a pass mark in all modules.
       2. A Course Assessment Board may exercise academic judgement (including that relating to poor performance due to recognised extenuating circumstances) in determining classifications, and may also take account of a profile of the marks that have contributed to the overall numerical average. Course Assessment Boards, subject to the provisions of C2.2.4, must be guided by the following mark bands in assigning classifications:
          • 70% and above – Distinction
          • 60% to 69% – Merit
          • 40% to 59%   Pass
   12. Failure to meet the requirements for Master of Chemistry, Master of Engineering, Master of Interior Design, Master of Pharmacy, Master of Science and Master of Textiles
       Where a candidate fails to meet the requirements for an enhanced undergraduate degree (MChem, MEng, MInt, MPharm, MSci or MText) the candidate will be considered for the award of a bachelor’s degree with honours. This award will be subject to the provisions of E2.10 and will exclude marks awarded in graded H level modules taken in the final year of the enhanced undergraduate degree course.
3. Assessment Boards and External Examiners
   1. Appointment of assessment boards
      1. For every course of studies approved as leading to an award there must be an Assessment Board whose constitution and terms of reference accord with the approved regulations for the course and which includes the External Examiner(s) approved by the Senate. The constitution of the Board may include provision for the appointment of subsidiary examination committees and the same Board may be responsible for more than one course of study.
      2. The assessment boards are appointed in accordance with procedures determined by the Senate and are accountable to that body for the fulfilment of their terms of reference.
   2. Student membership of assessment boards
      No student may be a member of an assessment board or attend an examiners’ meeting other than as a candidate for assessment.
   3. Course Assessment Boards
      1. A Course Assessment Board will not change moderated marks brought before it but is responsible for:
         • reaching decisions about the performance of candidates (passed, referred, deferred, condoned or failed) in modules based on the moderated marks brought forward to the Board
         • confirming moderated marks
         • making decisions (where appropriate) on extenuating circumstances relating to student performance both in particular modules and across an entire course
         • (where appropriate) exercising quality control within modules and across courses to review the comparability and fairness of marks
         • making decisions about student progression between stages
         • deciding on classifications and making recommendations for the conferment of awards
         • exercising various discretionary powers
         No other body has authority to recommend conferment of an award, nor to amend the decision of an approved and properly constituted Course Assessment Board acting within its terms of reference and in accordance with the regulations for the courses of study. A Course Assessment Board may, however, be required to review a decision or may have that decision annulled under the terms of E3.7.
      2. Course Assessment Boards may be responsible for either a single course or for two or more closely related courses which have a similar structure and a high proportion of common modules.
      3. The membership of each Course Assessment Board will be determined by the School Board and should normally comprise the Chair nominated by the Dean of School, the Course External Examiner(s), the course leader(s), module tutors (as necessary), staff teaching on modules, module leaders and a representative from outside of the department where the course is located.
      4. The Chair, course leader and External Examiner should be in attendance for the Course Assessment Board to be quorate. If the External Examiner cannot attend a module leader should attend in place of the External Examiner. Where a University award is to be conferred an External Examiner should normally be in attendance.
      5. For September start courses the normal pattern of assessment will require a meeting of the Assessment Board in June/July and in September/October.
   4. Module Leaders
      1. The responsibility for managing the assessment of modules which are completed shall lie with the designated Module Leader.
      2. The Module Leader will be responsible for:
         • the collation of marks
         • oversight of all second marking and other moderation procedures required to ensure the full and proper assessment of student performance
         • authorisation and arrangements for Tutor Reassessments in appropriate units of reassessment
         • ensuring that the External Examiner has access to all necessary information and scripts to enable him or her to carry out full and proper moderation of students’ work on the module
         • ensuring that the External Examiner has detailed knowledge of the moderation processes undertaken by the module teaching team
         • confirming a final and complete set of marks with the agreement of the External Examiner
      3. Each School shall be responsible for ensuring that mechanisms are in place for ensuring that Module Leaders perform the tasks laid out above in 3.4.2.
   5. External Examiners
      1. External Examiners will be appointed in the first instance to modules on the basis of the relevance of their academic expertise. External Examiners will also be assigned to one or more Course Assessment Boards. As members of Course Assessment Boards, External Examiners will exercise both an oversight of students’ overall performance and carry out a responsibility for monitoring the comparability and fairness of the assessment processes for all the modules which comprise the Course, including the condonement of modules.
      2. The External Examiner will:
         • undertake moderation and (where required) adjudication of student performance within modules
         • assure the comparability of marks between the modules ascribed to him or her
         • monitor the effectiveness of the processes used to moderate scripts, and, where necessary, make recommendations to improve or develop these processes.
      3. External Examiners need not be associated with the assessment of performance at Foundation level with the following exceptions:
         • where foundation level modules lead to a University award – an External Examiner must be appointed to the course
         • when examining modules on foundation degrees.
      4. External Examiners should normally attend the Course Assessment Boards ascribed as their responsibility at which awards are due to be conferred.
      5. No recommendation for the conferment of an award may be made without the written consent of the approved External Examiner(s).
      6. On any matter which the External Examiner(s) have declared a matter of principle, the decision of those examiner(s) shall either be accepted as final by the Course Assessment Board or shall be referred to the Senate. Any unresolved disagreement between External Examiners shall be referred to the Senate.
   6. Secretary of assessment boards
      The Senate shall ensure that arrangements are made to appoint a secretary to each assessment board and shall require the secretary to maintain detailed and accurate records of the board’s proceedings.
   7. Appeal against a decision of an assessment board
      1. The Senate, or a body authorised by it to act as an Appeals Committee, may in the following circumstances require an assessment board to reconsider its decision:
         • if a candidate requests such a reconsideration and establishes to the satisfaction of the Senate or Appeals Committee that his or her performance in the assessment was adversely affected by illness or other factors which he or she was unable, or for valid reasons unwilling, to divulge before the assessment board reached its decision. The candidate’s request must be supported by medical certificates or other documentary evidence acceptable to the Senate or Appeals Committee
         • if the Senate or Appeals Committee is satisfied on evidence produced by a candidate or any other person that there has been a material administrative error, or that the assessments were not conducted in accordance with the current regulations for the course, or that some other material irregularity relevant to the assessments has occurred.
      2. Disagreement with the academic judgement of an assessment board in assessing the merits of an individual piece of work or in reaching any assessment decision based on the marks, grades and other information relating to a candidate’s performance cannot in itself constitute grounds for a request for reconsideration by a candidate.
      3. If after reconsideration, in the circumstances detailed in E3.7.1ii), the assessment board does not modify its decision, the Senate may annul that decision if in its opinion due and proper account has not been taken of those circumstances.
      4. In cases of procedural or other irregularity, or where it is not possible to reconvene an assessment board, the Senate shall have power to annul a decision of the assessment board without making a prior request for reconsideration. If an error or irregularity is found to have affected more than one candidate, the Senate may annul the whole assessment or any part of it.
      5. When a decision has been annulled it is the responsibility of the Senate to take action, including if necessary the appointment of new External Examiners, to ensure that recommendations are made to it in respect of the candidate(s) concerned by an approved assessment board.
      6. The Senate shall ensure that adequate permanent arrangements are established for dealing with any requests by candidates or with other evidence which may lead to the reconsideration or annulment of a decision.
   8. Viva voce examination
      External Examiners have a right to examine any student viva voce in addition to the assessments specified in course regulations. This form of assessment may only be used:
      1. to determine difficult or borderline cases; such additional assessment is used only to raise and not to lower a student’s marks
      2. as an alternative or additional assessment where valid reasons for poor performance have been established.
   9. Valid reasons for poor performance
      If it is established to the satisfaction of an assessment board that a student’s performance has been adversely affected by authenticated extenuating circumstances (as identified in E1.6), the Board shall act under 1 to 4 below.
      1. A student who has failed to pass in this situation has the right to be reassessed as if for the first time in any or all of the elements of assessment, as specified by the Assessment Board. If an assessment was itself a second attempt the student shall be permitted to resit as if for the second time.
      2. Where a Course Assessment Board is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence of the student’s achievement, or this evidence is subsequently obtained, the student may be recommended for the award for which he or she is a candidate, with or without honours, classification or Distinction as appropriate. In order to reach a decision a Board may assess the candidate by whatever means it considers appropriate.
      3. An Aegrotat award may be recommended, where it is available, when the Course Assessment Board does not have enough evidence of the student’s performance to recommend the award for which the student was a candidate or a lower award specified in the course regulations, but is satisfied that but for illness or other valid cause the student would have reached the standard required.
      4. Before an award resulting from a recommendation under 2 or 3 above is conferred, the student must have signified that he or she is willing to accept the award and understands that this implies waiving the right to be reassessed under 1 above.
   10. Disability
       If a student is unable, through disability, to be assessed by the normal methods, examiners may vary the methods as appropriate, bearing in mind the learning outcomes of the course and the need to assess the student on equal terms with other students.
   11. Cheating and plagiarism
       1. The Senate will establish procedures under which allegations that students have cheated or plagiarised will be investigated fairly and impartially with a view to establishing the facts.
       2. Where a case of cheating or plagiarism is suspected the assessment board will not reach a decision on the student's performance until the facts have been established.
       3. Where it is established that a student has cheated or plagiarised or otherwise sought to gain an unfair advantage the assessment board shall exercise discretion in a manner appropriate to the case. This discretion shall include the right to deem the student to have failed part or all of the stage assessment concerned and to determine whether or not the student should be reassessed.
       4. In cases of confirmed serious plagiarism, students may be prevented from using accumulated credit for the purpose of accreditation of prior learning on other courses of study which lead to a higher award within the University. The Assessment Board shall determine whether or not the student should be so prevented.
4. Regulations on external examiners
   External Examiners are appointed to ensure that justice is done to the individual student, that appropriate standards of assessment are maintained, and that assessments are conducted in accordance with approved regulations.
   1. The rights and responsibilities of External Examiners in relation to modules
      1. The role of the External Examiner(s) is to advise the subject group with regard to standards and fairness of assessment and, when appropriate, to consider the results of individual students in the context of the University’s current regulations.
      2. In order to carry out these responsibilities, the External Examiner(s) must:
         • be able to offer advice impartially without being influenced by previous association with the staff or any of the students
         • be able to compare the standard of assessments with that of similar modules in higher education elsewhere
         • comment on the set of assessment activities for any particular module, in the light of the need to ensure that all students are assessed fairly in relation to the module specifications
         • have the right to inspect all forms of assessed work in line with paragraph C1.8.2
         • see the work of all students proposed for the highest grade and for failure, and samples of the work of students proposed to each other grade, in order to ensure that each student is placed fairly in relation to the rest of the cohort
         • have the right to make recommendations with regard to the moderation of marks/grades awarded by internal examiners
         • have the right to conduct a viva voce examination of any candidate in line with paragraph E3.8
         • comment on the way assessments are conducted, and share in developmental discussions with module teams where appropriate
         • write a report, annually or more frequently if appropriate, which reflects upon their duties
         • report to the Chair of the Senate on any matters of serious concern arising from the assessments, which put at risk academic standards.
      3. To carry out these responsibilities the External Examiner(s) must be:
         • expert in the field of study concerned
         • competent in assessing students’ knowledge and skills at higher education level
         • impartial in judgement
         • fully briefed on their role, in line with the University’s procedures (E4.3.7)
   2. The rights and responsibilities of External Examiners in relation to courses
      1. The role of the External Examiner(s) is to advise the Course Assessment Board with regard to standards and fairness of assessment and, when appropriate, to consider the results of individual students in the context of the University’s current regulations.
      2. In order to carry out these responsibilities, the External Examiner(s) must:
         • be able to offer advice impartially without being influenced by previous association with the course, the staff, or any of the students
         • be able to compare in overall terms the performance of students with that of their peers on similar courses of higher education elsewhere
         • be consulted about any proposed changes to the approved Course assessment regulations which will directly affect students currently on the Course(s)
         • be able to offer advice on progression and awards based on the agreed module grades and in the light of discussion at the Course Assessment Board
         • have the right to conduct a viva voce examination of any candidate in line with paragraph E3.8
         • attend the meetings of the Course Assessment Board at which decisions on recommendations for award are made and ensure that those recommendations have been reached in line with the University’s regulations and normal practice in higher education
         • participate as required in any reviews of decisions about individual students’ results during the examiner’s period of office
         • write a report, annually or more frequently if appropriate, which reflects upon their duties
         • report to the chair of the Senate on any matters of serious concern arising from the assessments, which put at risk the standard of the award.
      3. To carry out these responsibilities the External Examiner(s) must be:
         • expert in one of the fields of study associated with the course
         • competent in assessing students’ knowledge and skills at higher education level
         • impartial in judgement
         • briefed on their role, in line with the University’s procedures (E4.3.7)
         • an External Examiner for a group of modules involved in the Course.
      4. All recommendations for the conferment of awards must be signed by the Chair of the Course Assessment Board and all External Examiner(s) present at the meeting.
   3. The appointment of External Examiners
      1. All External Examiner appointments must be approved by the Teaching and Learning Committee acting on behalf of the Senate. An assessment board which does not include approved External Examiners is not authorised, subject to C1.8.2, to assess students for an award or to recommend the conferment of an award upon a student.
      2. The School Board must normally submit External Examiner nominations for approval by the Teaching and Learning Committee at least twelve months before the date of the first assessments with which the proposed appointee is to be associated.
      3. New External Examiners should take up their appointments on or before the retirement of their predecessors. They should remain available after the last assessments with which they are to be associated in order to deal with any subsequent reviews of decisions.
      4. Normally, appointments will run from the September before the first assessments to the September after the last assessments. The usual term of office will be one which allows the External Examiner to assess four successive cohorts of students; this will normally mean four calendar years but may be longer where, for example, in the case of a new course, the first output will not occur in the first year of appointment.
      5. External Examiners should not normally hold more than the equivalent of two substantial undergraduate appointments at the same time.
      6. In approving the appointment of External Examiners the Senate will be seeking to ensure that they will be competent and impartial.
      7. New External Examiners must be briefed on their task as soon as possible after appointment. The briefing will cover as appropriate: the dates of meetings, their role in relation to the examining team as a whole, the learning outcomes of the course, the module specifications including the methods of assessment and marking scheme, the regulations for the course, and the University’s assessment regulations and requirements and conditions of award as set out in this handbook.
      8. Any decision to request termination of an appointment prematurely must be referred by the Dean of the School to the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic Affairs) in writing giving reasons for the request. The Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic Affairs) will advise the School and Registry of his/her decision. Registry will inform the External Examiner.
   4. Reports of External Examiners
      1. External Examiners are required to report promptly to the Senate at the end of each academic year on the conduct of the assessments and on issues related to assessment, including:
         • the overall performance of the students in relation to their peers on similar courses/modules
         • the quality of knowledge and skills (both general and subject specific) demonstrated by the students
         • the overall standard of assessments
         • the overall approach to teaching, learning and assessment as indicated by student performance
         • any other recommendations arising from the assessment
      2. The purpose of the report is to enable the Senate to judge whether the course is meeting its stated learning outcomes and to make any necessary improvements, whether immediately or at the next review as appropriate.
      3. External Examiners have authority to report direct to the chair of the Senate if they are concerned about standards of assessment and performance, particularly where they consider that assessments are being conducted in a way that jeopardises either the fair treatment of individual students or the standard of awards.
   5. Courses which lie outside the CATS framework
      The Senate may exceptionally give approval for the design of courses of study leading to awards of the University which lie outside the CATS framework. In such cases an External Examiner(s) will be appointed and the functions of the Course Assessment Board will be discharged by a Board of Examiners for the course.
5. Grading scales
   1. Modules in undergraduate courses
      The grading scale at the end of this document may be used as an alternative to percentages in connection with both the grading of modules at P, F, I, S or H levels and the determination of Honours degree classifications.
   2. Modules in postgraduate courses
      The grading scale at the end of this document may be used as an alternative to percentages in connection with the grading of M level modules.