By David Efrid
‘Assessment leading to University awards should be based on principles of equity, clarity, consistency and openness.’ So begins the 2009/10 version of the University’s ‘Guide to Assessment: Policies and Procedures’. These principles are, in effect, a litmus-test for all assessment across the University.
This document is ‘owned’ by the committee I chair, the Standing Committee on Assessment, a committee which, whilst not quite as headline-grabbing as the Bars Strategy Review Group, makes decisions which impact students just as much. I am writing this piece not so much to give my own opinions but rather to solicit students’ opinions, since there are some matters coming before the Committee this year which will have an impact students could not help but notice.
Part of the remit of the SCA is to harmonise policies, procedures, and practices related to assessment where there is not a discipline-specific reason for deviation from a University norm. Such as the Late Submission of Work policy, which now governs all Departments, apart for where an exception has been granted for good reason. Should a student submit an assessment late, the work loses 10% of the available marks per day or part of a day up until five days, after which the work will be given a zero.
Another such policy is the Maximum Turnaround Time for Summative Feedback and Marks, a policy proposed by the Students’ Union. This policy has been much discussed around campus and reported in the campus media, so I want to correct what has come to be a misunderstanding. At the meeting of the University Teaching Committee on 29 June 2009, the Committee decided that ‘Departments would be encouraged to move within [a maximum turnaround time of six weeks] during 2009/10 and this would be implemented for all years in 2010/11’.
Consequently, students should not assume that Departments must return their summative marks and feedback within six weeks this academic year, though it is good practice for Departments to do so. Just as Departments need to be fair with students in assessing students’ performance, so should students be fair with Departments in assessing Departments’ performance.
Now one matter currently being discussed is an attendance policy which would be common across the University. At present, Departments are free to have their own policies, and, consequently, they vary across Departments, thereby potentially creating a concern about equity and consistency. Because some of these policies may impact on assessment, e.g. if a student has not attended a certain percentage of the teaching sessions for a module they will not be permitted to take the assessment for that module, this matter falls within the orbit of the SCA. The need for an attendance policy arises from the University’s duty of care it bears to students, the University’s requirement to track international students’ engagement with their course, and the rules concerning how the University is funded for the students it teaches.
We will be working with the Academic Registrar to investigate whether this variability is indeed cause for concern, and if so, what should be done about it. Such a policy would impact students directly, and, consequently, I am eager to hear students’ feedback. What do you think is a fair way for the University to meet what is required of it?
Students are ably represented on the SCA by a post-graduate research student, a post-graduate taught student, both soon to be elected, and the Students’ Union Academic Officer, Charlie Leyland. I am sure that she would be very pleased to hear any feedback you have concerning assessment, as would I. The principles with which the ‘Guide’ begins are principles of justice designed to allow all students to realize their academic potential. It is up to all of us, as an academic community, to interpret and implement them.
David Efrid is Vanbrugh Provost
Contact him at [email protected]