Uts Coursework Assessment
Policy ownership and support
Appendix A: Results and grades
1.1 The Coursework Assessment Policy (the Policy) articulates the principles and expectations for the assessment of coursework subjects at UTS.
2.1 This Policy applies to the assessment of all coursework subjects at UTS and to all staff and students, who need to be aware of the Coursework Assessment Policy and Procedures and the Student Rules related to assessment, academic misconduct and appeals processes.
2.2 This Policy does not apply to the thesis component of graduate research degree programs.
2.3 UTS recognises that the forms of assessment used throughout UTS are diverse and vary according to academic discipline, however all must comply with this Policy.
3.1 Assessment must promote learning and prepare students for future learning and practice.
3.2 Assessment must include authentic assessments (see definitions) and allow students to demonstrate their knowledge and skills on meaningful, practice-oriented tasks.
3.3 Assessments must be fair and equitable (providing reasonable opportunities for all students to demonstrate their learning) with requirements clearly communicated in the subject outline and any accompanying materials.
3.4 Students’ work must be assessed against clearly stated and consistently applied criteria that are aligned with the task and the intended learning outcomes of the subject.
3.5 Students must be provided with opportunities for feedback on their assessed work in a timely manner to facilitate understanding and improvement; and feedback must be consistent with the learning outcomes.
3.6 Assessments must promote academic integrity and discourage plagiarism and dishonesty.
3.7 Assessment must be designed across the ‘whole of the course of study’ in order to:
- enable students to develop and demonstrate their achievement of the desired graduate attributes and intended learning outcomes for the course as a whole
- assess learning outcomes to a standard appropriate for the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) level of the course and any relevant professional standards
- ensure students have opportunities to experience different types of assessment
- support students’ transition to study, their progression through their studies and their transition to employment or further studies
- be consistent with the UTS Model of Learning in ways that are relevant to the professional/disciplinary domains of the course
- include assessment experiences that enable students to prepare for their intended future contexts, and develop their capacities for professional and personal judgement and lifelong learning.
3.8 Subject assessment patterns must involve reasonable workloads for both students and staff, consistent with:
- the credit points allocated to the subject
- the relative weightings of tasks reflective of the expected workloads, and
- the number, type and timing of assessment tasks designed to allow reasonable time for task completion, marking and feedback.
3.9 Assessment process and tasks must be kept private and confidential. Staff must not divulge any information related to an individual student’s assessment to unauthorised persons.
3.10 The University will provide reasonable learning and assessment arrangements in line with Rule 8.2, to enable students to demonstrate their achievement of the learning objectives of the subjects in which they are enrolled.
4. Policy statements
4.1 This Policy is drafted to support section 8, Student Rules (assessment of coursework subjects) and is implemented via procedures approved by the Provost and implemented by the Student Administration Unit (SAU) from time to time.
Assessment strategy at UTS
4.2 Assessment must focus on students’ capacity to develop and apply their knowledge and skills on meaningful, practice-oriented assessment tasks. The assessment pattern in a subject should include at least one substantial authentic task or component. Where this is not appropriate, a substantial task or component must be performance-based. Open-book rather than closed-book examinations should be used wherever these are appropriate.
Assessment design and approval
4.3 Subject assessment patterns are approved, reviewed and changed in line with the Subject Descriptions and Outlines Policy, with further details of assessment pattern design outlined in the Coursework Assessment Procedures.
4.4 An assessor must be nominated for each subject by the relevant Responsible Academic Officer (RAO) and approved in accordance with faculty board procedures, in line with the Subject Descriptions and Outlines Policy. Assessors must be full-time or fractional members of academic staff.
4.5 Subject coordinators and assessors are usually appointed at the same time. Assessors are expected to work with subject coordinators, acting as peer reviewers to review and improve the appropriateness of assessment tasks.
4.6 Any exceptions to normal assessment requirements must be discussed with the assessor and approved through the faculty subject approvals process. Disputes should be managed by the RAO.
Marking, feedback, grades and results
4.7 The total mark or grade for each assessment task and final subject results are determined as described in the subject outline and any supporting documentation provided by the faculty.
4.8 Faculties are responsible for developing and implementing marking procedures for subjects they administer in a manner consistent with the principles and practice outlined in the Student Rules, this Policy and its Procedures. This responsibility may be assigned to the subject coordinators and/or RAOs at the discretion of faculty boards.
4.9 Marking must only be undertaken by appropriately qualified and employed staff approved by the subject coordinator and/or assessor.
4.10 Markers must be provided with adequate information regarding what is to be marked, marking procedures and the return date of assessed work.
4.11 Marking must be consistent with the specified criteria and standards for the task.
4.12 Marking procedures must ensure that criteria and standards are applied in similar ways across different markers.
4.13 Students should receive timely feedback on each assessment task, prior to the submission of the next summative task. Some opportunities for feedback on learning must be provided prior to the relevant census date for the subject.
4.14 Grades are based on a student’s level of performance in achieving stated learning objectives and must never be norm-referenced. UTS assessments never apply negative marking techniques.
4.15 Grades are awarded so that UTS can provide a statement for students and the outside community that indicates a student’s achievement of the learning objectives in subjects and intended learning outcomes for a course.
4.16 UTS results and grades are outlined in appendix A of this policy.
4.17 Faculty boards have authority to determine the appropriate grading type (as outlined in CASS) and set of grades for each subject.
4.18 The subject outline must include information about the approved form in which subject assessment results will be provided to students.
4.19 The Provost will approve procedures for the approval of:
- the final results of students in each subject
- the release and publication of student results by the Director, SAU, as outlined in Rule 8.4 and Delegation 4.7.1.
Assessment arrangements and extensions
4.20 Faculties should have in place fair and consistent processes for requesting and granting assessment extensions and fair and consistent penalties for late submissions in the absence of an approved extension.
4.21 Staff and students must comply with learning and assessment arrangements outlined in Rule 8.2.
4.22 The University will make all reasonable arrangements to enable students to demonstrate learning outcomes in an equitable manner, as prescribed in Rule 8.2. Progression, sanctions and misconduct
Progression, sanctions and misconduct
4.23 Section 10, Student Rules provides for the University’s management of academic progression and the management of repeated failures.
4.24 Students who fail a subject more than once should refer to these Rules (section 10) and seek advice from an academic advisor. A list of academic advisers is published on the UTS website.
4.25 Procedures for managing subject assessment sanctions are approved by the Provost and published on the UTS website.
4.26 Misconduct is defined in Rule 16.2; misconduct in assessments is addressed in Rule 8.8. Student misconduct during examinations (centrally conducted and faculty-based) is managed under Rule 9.6.
4.27 Where the allegation is not a first offence and/or of a serious nature, the University’s procedures for misconduct will be applied (Rule 16, Schedule 3 and Schedule 4).
4.28 Vivas or other invigilated tasks may be used to verify student achievement of learning outcomes.
Assessments records and privacy
4.29 Faculties are required to keep assessment-related records (including but not limited to assessment tasks, marks, grades and final results) for the required minimum retention period (Rule 8.4.1) or in keeping with external accreditation requirements.
4.30 Assessment records, including marked exam scripts and uncollected assignments, must be stored securely on the University’s premises with access only by authorised staff, and must not be stored in any other area outside the University and its control.
4.31 Compliance requirements for record keeping are set out in the Records Management Vice-Chancellor’s Directive. If a member of staff or a student suspects a serious misuse of assessment records or maladministration, it must be reported in accordance with the Fraud and Corruption Prevention and Public Interest Disclosures Policy.
5. Policy ownership and support
5.1 Policy owners
- The Provost is responsible for enforcement and compliance of this Policy, ensuring that its principles and statements are observed. The Provost is also responsible for approval of any associated university-level procedures.
- The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education and Students) is responsible for the educational strategies that underpin this Policy.
5.2 Policy contacts
- The Director, Student Administration Unit has central responsibility for the implementation of coursework assessments.
- Responsible Academic Officers, subject coordinators and appointed assessors are responsible for the implementation of this Policy within the faculties.
- The Director, Institute of Media and Learning is responsible for the implementation of the University’s educational strategies that underpin this Policy.
The following definitions apply for this Policy. These are presented in addition to the definitions outlined in Schedule 1, Student Rules.
Assessment pattern means the assessment types and weightings in a subject and their relation to learning outcomes (at subject and course level). These are approved at faculty level in accordance with the Subject Descriptions and Outlines Policy.
Assessment requirements mean the combination of assessment tasks, the timing of assessment tasks, the outputs to be submitted for assessment, and the conditions for assessment that must be undertaken to ensure that the learning objectives and requirements of a subject have been met.
Assessment tasks refer to the various modes of assessment used to assess a subject. They include but are not limited to student presentations, literature reviews, laboratory reports, essays, creative works, group assessment, peer assessment, self-assessment, computer-based assessment, oral examinations, class quizzes, reflections, experiential activities, simulations, clinical experiences, practical exercises, performances, folio presentations and class participation, examinations.
Authentic assessments focus on students developing and applying knowledge and skills through meaningful, practice-oriented assessment tasks. Authentic assessment supports students to develop graduate attributes, apply theory to practice and engage with problems similar to those they will encounter in the workplace. Authenticity levels are judged on the extent to which the attributes students use, their activities and the context reflect work and/or life practices outside the course.
Criterion-referenced assessment means assessment tasks where a student’s work is assessed against stated criteria, and marks or grades are awarded according to the level of achievement of these criteria. UTS only engages in criterion-referenced assessment.
Criterion-referenced assessment differs from norm-referenced assessment in which grades are determined in relation to other students’ performance and the grade distribution is managed in such a way that only a certain percentage of students are able to attain each grade. Assessment at UTS is never norm-referenced.
Feedback means information about aspects of a student’s learning used to guide or improve their understanding, performance or achievements. Feedback can be gained informally or formally, from formative activities as well as summative assessment tasks. It can be gained in multiple ways, including but not limited to group discussions in class or online, automated online responses, and self, peer or teacher reviews of work using rubrics, checklists or comments. It includes information from self, peers, teachers, other people, online and other sources.
Marking means the process of assigning an assessment score or grade to a piece of work produced, performed or submitted by a student according to information provided in the subject outline, using academic judgement.
Open-book examination means an assessment task in which students are permitted to use any printed materials (including notes and textbooks) and to annotate, tag or otherwise organise them for easy access. Electronic devices or online access are permitted only when specified in the subject outline and on the examination cover sheet or equivalent. Library materials are only permitted where they can be made available to all students undertaking the examination, at the examination time.
|Policy contact||Director, Institute of Media and Learning|
Director, Student Administration Unit
(see section 5.2 of this Policy for details)
|Approval authority||Academic Board|
|Superseded documents||Policy for the Assessment of Coursework Subjects (file UR09/797)|
|Version||Approved by||Approval date||Effective date||Sections modified|
|1.0||Academic Board (AB/17-3/52)||9 August 2017||1 January 2018||New policy.|
Coursework Assessments Policy(PDF)
Coursework Assessments Procedures
Credit Points for UTS Coursework Awards Policy
Delegations: Delegation 4.7.1
Fraud and Corruption Prevention and Public Interest Disclosures Policy
Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cwlth)
Records Management Vice-Chancellor’s Directive
Responsibilities of Responsible Academic Officers
Subject Descriptions and Outlines Policy
UTS Model of Learning
Appendix A: Results and grades
|Grade||Mark Range||Grade Point Average  Score||Descriptor|
|High Distinction||85–100||4||Work of outstanding quality on all objectives of the subject, which may be demonstrated by means of criticism, logical argument, interpretation of materials or use of methodology. This grade may also be given to recognise particular originality or creativity.|
|Distinction||75–84||3.5||Work of superior quality on all objectives, demonstrating a sound grasp of content, together with efficient organisation and selectivity.|
|Credit||65–74||2.5||Work of good quality showing more than satisfactory achievement on all objectives, or work of superior quality on most of the objectives.|
|Pass||50–64||1.5||Work showing a satisfactory achievement on the overall objectives of the subject.|
|Pass — Not Graded||N/A ||Work showing a satisfactory achievement on the overall objectives of the subject.|
|Satisfactory||N/A||Awarded for projects or theses.|
|Fail (X)||0.5||Unsatisfactory performance in a compulsory component of the subject. A ‘Fail (X)’ grade may be awarded only where approved by the relevant faculty board, on the basis that the compulsory component is essential for meeting the objectives of the subject. Faculty boards need to review the subject assessment pattern if students with a Fail (X) grade receive a final mark of more than 50 per cent.|
|Fail||0–49||0.5||Unsatisfactory performance in one or more objectives of the subject as contained within the assessment items.|
|Industrial experience||Professional experience/industrial training. A number may appear next to this grade to indicate the level of industrial experience.|
|Withdrawn||Granted withdrawal from a subject without academic fail after the prescribed date.|
|Withdrawn Fail||Withdrawn after the prescribed date.|
|Administrative notations — results not finalised|
|E||Grade not submitted. |
This result is allocated by the student administration system when a result has not been submitted by a subject coordinator. Students who receive an ‘E’ result must immediately contact the subject coordinator or, where unavailable, the relevant faculty academic adviser, and take any actions necessary to complete subject requirements, otherwise the result will be changed to ‘0 Fail’ after the prescribed period.
|Q||Result pending the completion of a project, clinical practicum or field excursion where the student has not completed assessment task(s) by the end of the teaching period. |
‘Q’ results must be finalised before the result ratification deadline for the following teaching period, otherwise the result will be changed to ‘0 Fail’.
|T||45–49||Formal supplementary examination to be completed within a designated examination period before a grade can be awarded. |
A supplementary assessment may be awarded on the recommendation of the Responsible Academic Officer (RAO) or subject coordinator; normally in the following cases:
|W||Result withheld. |
The RAO or subject coordinator may determine that supplementary assessments are required, or that alternative examiners and/or alternative assessments are required because of misadventure.
Students who receive a ‘W’ result must immediately contact the subject coordinator to ensure that they understand what is required and take any actions necessary to complete subject requirements otherwise the mark will be unchanged (where a mark has been submitted) or recorded as a ‘0 Fail’ (otherwise) after the prescribed period.
- The Grade Point Average (GPA) is an internationally recognised measure of a student’s academic achievement in a course. The Grade Point Average is the average of all grades achieved by a student in a course of study weighted by the credit point value of each subject approved by Academic Board. See notes on results and grades
- Not applicable.
Notes on results and grades
The following information is supplementary to, and should be read in conjunction with, the results and grades table above and the statements of this Policy and the Procedures.
Subjects graded ‘pass/fail’ only
Subjects graded pass/fail only are indicated as ‘Pass – Not Graded’ or ‘Fail’ on the official academic record and are not allocated a grade. Pass/fail may be awarded only in subjects approved by the relevant faculty board in accordance with the criteria for ungraded subjects approved by Academic Board (resolution AB/04/77, meeting 04/6 (01/12/04)), as follows:
- professional practice or similar subjects based on workplace, community or other experience outside the University
- subjects which are components of ungraded postgraduate research degree programs, and are designed to prepare students for research components assessed on a pass/fail or equivalent basis
- subjects which are designed to enable access, development and/or support for a particular equity target group, where grading would act as a deterrent to learning.
Faculty boards may request Academic Board to consider approval of subjects as ungraded which do not meet the approved criteria, and such requests must be justified on pedagogic grounds.
Requests for withdrawal from a subject after the teaching period census date should be lodged with the Director, Student Administration Unit (SAU) in accordance with Rule 7.5.6. Although the student will not have an academic fail, they may incur financial liability for the subject (unless they have documentary evidence that meets the strict special circumstances requirements defined in the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cwlth)). The status on their academic record for that subject will be ‘Withdrawn’.
‘Withdrawn Fail’ applies where approval for withdrawal without academic fail has not been granted by the Director, SAU in accordance with Rule 7.5.6. The student incurs a financial liability for the subject and the status on the academic record for that subject will be ‘Withdrawn Fail’.
Grade Point Average (GPA)
The Academic Board (at meeting 07/4 (03/10/07), resolution AB/07/61.7) approved the introduction of a four-point Grade Point Average.
The GPA is a progressive measure of academic achievement over the duration of enrolment in a course. It provides an overall view of a student’s performance in a course and is an internationally recognised measure of student performance. The GPA is included on the UTS academic transcript. It only applies to coursework awards commenced from the 2003 Autumn teaching period.
Further information about the GPA is available on the results website managed by SAU.
Subjects included in GPA calculation
Grades for all enrolled subjects within a course are included in the GPA calculation, including fail results, except where the grade type is ungraded. Subject exemptions or any form of recognition of prior learning are not included in the calculation.
The GPA is calculated using a formula based on two dimensions: a grade point for each subject grade and subject credit points. All GPA values are between the range of 0.00 and 4.00.
The GPA formula is:
GPA = [(Sub1 GP x CP) + (Sub2 GP x CP) + . . (SubN GP x CP)] / (Total CP enrolled)
‘Sub GP’ is the subject’s grade point value and ‘CP’ is credit points.
Subject grade point (GP)
The grade point schema, per subject grade, used for GPA calculations is:
High Distinction – 4.0
Distinction – 3.5
Credit – 2.5
Pass – 1.5
Fail – 0.5
Pass or Fail are not included in calculation of the GPA.
Responsibility, ownership and support
Appendix A: Results ratification
1.1 The Coursework Assessment Procedures (the Procedures) implement the Coursework Assessments Policy (the Policy) and should be read in conjunction with the Policy.
2.1 The Procedures have the same scope and application as the Policy.
3.1 The principles guiding the Procedures are outlined in the Policy.
4. Policy statements
4.1 The Procedures, under the provisions of the Policy, provide guidance on how to develop and design assessments, manage assessment administration, conduct examinations, provide for alternative assessment arrangements and manage exceptions, and manage the marking process.
Assessment pattern design
4.2 The assessment pattern for a subject should normally include two or three summative assessment tasks (each worth no more than 65 per cent), except in the case of subjects that have a 100 per cent project assessment (eg capstone).
4.3 Assessment patterns should normally include at least two different types of assessment task, except in the case of subjects that have 100 per cent project assessment (eg capstone).
4.4 Final examinations will not normally be worth more than 50 per cent of the final mark/grade, except in exceptional circumstances approved by the faculty. Where final examinations are worth more than 50 per cent, a supplementary assessment must be provided by the faculty for students with borderline results in the final subject of their degree (see Schedule 1, Student Rules for definition). These must be provided by the faculty.
4.5 A minimum of 70 per cent of the total mark/grade awarded in a subject must be for individually marked/graded work. This may include individually marked components of group tasks.
4.6 Assessment tasks for which most work is carried out outside class may include a viva, in-class or other invigilated component to confirm the integrity of student work. Students should be advised in the subject outline of the broad type of task component (for example oral, written) and any assigned weighting.
4.7 The following learning needs must be considered in assessment pattern design:
- opportunities to practice and gain feedback prior to high-stakes competency-based and proficiency-based tasks
- guidance and support for final projects or assignments worth more than 50 per cent of the total mark
- opportunities to practise prior to online or technology-based examinations that are timed and/or invigilated
- where self- or peer assessment contributes to final marks or grades (including through self- and peer assessment of group work), opportunities to practice and develop an understanding of the criteria
- essential presentation events that require student attendance must be clearly stated in the subject outline, with the consequences of any unapproved non-attendance.
4.8 Subject outlines describe students’ responsibilities and timelines for the submission and collection of assessment tasks (where appropriate). Tasks should be submitted online where it is practical to do so, and students should not be required to submit additional hard copies.
4.9 Under Rule 3.9, the University reserves the right to retain students’ work under specific circumstances.
4.10 For changes to assessment requirements published in the subject outline, Rule 3.7.4 applies. Where approval is not forthcoming, the assessment requirements cannot be changed.
4.11 Student responsibilities in the examination of coursework subjects can be found in Rule 9.2.
Centrally conducted examinations
4.12 Centrally conducted examinations are organised and conducted in accordance with Rules 9.3 to 9.6, the Procedures and any guidelines provided by the Student Administration Unit (SAU).
4.13 Subject coordinators must prepare examination masters and complete the necessary steps, standards and conventions required by SAU (see centrally conducted exams on Staff Connect). SAU may request additional information upon submission.
4.14 Subject coordinators are also responsible for the preparation of rescheduled and alternative examinations.
4.15 Faculty-based examinations are run and coordinated by individual faculties in line with Rule 9.3.2 and the principles outlined in the Policy and Procedures.
Examination master and quality assurance
4.16 Subject coordinators must submit the examination master to the assessor for review to ensure that exam questions:
- are subject-appropriate
- have a distribution of questions covering relevant learning objectives
- are of a reasonable length for the completion time allowed
- are clear and unambiguous
- are capable of solution either from knowledge that students could reasonably be assumed to possess or from the data supplied (where appropriate)
- are of equal difficulty, duration and complexity for each exam master (main, rescheduled, alternative and supplementary) or be weighted accordingly.
4.17 Where the subject coordinator and the assessor disagree on the examination master, the Responsible Academic Officer (RAO) will act to resolve the difference of opinion.
4.18 Where an error in the examination master is discovered prior to the examination, the subject coordinator will provide an erratum/addendum sheet for distribution with examination papers, or otherwise be present at the commencement of the exam to explain the error (eg typing or numbering errors).
Responsibilities during examinations
4.19 Subject coordinators (or nominees) must be available to provide advice during centrally conducted examinations. Alternative arrangements can be made with the approval of SAU and the RAO.
4.20 Where special materials or exam conditions are permitted in the centrally conducted examination, as per the subject outlines, subject coordinators must be in attendance before the exam.
4.21 Students must present their Student Identification Card to gain entry to the examination room. Restrictions on entry and exit to the examination centre and information on general examinations conduct are outlined in Rule 9.3.
Responsibilities after examinations
4.22 Completed examination scripts from centrally conducted examinations are usually delivered to the faculty office or the school or department office one business day after the completion of the exam. Exam Attendance Sheets (showing the students enrolled in the subject and indicating those who attempted the examination) must be attached to the collected examination papers.
Administration of alternative assessment arrangements and special consideration
4.23 Where a scheduling difficulty arises in the examination of coursework subjects, students should advise the University, as prescribed by Rule 9.1.5, via the approved University advice for scheduling difficulties form(PDF), by the prescribed deadline (see important dates for scheduling difficulties).
4.24 Special conditions for examination are outlined in Rule 9.4 with further information on exam provisions. Special conditions apply to both centrally conducted and faculty examinations.
4.25 In addition to the provisions of Rule 8.2, any students experiencing difficulties in meeting an assessment deadline or requirements should consult with their subject coordinator in the first instance. Students who experience significant difficulty can apply for special consideration under Rule 8.3.1.
4.26 Details on alternative and rescheduled examinations for specific students (held at a time other than the published time) are outlined in Rule 9.5.
4.27 Special consideration is available for students who feel their performance in an examination has been significantly disrupted due to circumstances beyond their control, as outlined in Rule 8.3.2. Information about alternative exam arrangements is available from SAU.
4.28 A student who is absent from an entire examination should consult Rule 8.3.3. A student who has not informed themselves of the time or place of an examination will not be eligible for an alternative examination, as defined in Rule 9.5.
4.29 Where a student fails to meet, or is unable to meet, the prescribed attendance and/or participation included in the subject outline (Rule 3.8.3), students may be eligible to apply for special consideration (Rule 8.3).
4.30 All UTS student forms and procedures will be made available on the special circumstances webpage.
4.31 Faculties must have fair and consistent processes for requesting and granting assessment extensions. This must include fair and consistent penalties for late submissions in the absence of an approved extension (for example, 10 per cent per day late penalty and late submissions periods after which assignments will not be eligible for more than 50 per cent of marks and/or will not be marked).
4.32 Processes for requesting extensions and penalties for late submission must be clearly stated in the subject outline, or in a faculty- or course-level student guide referred to in the subject outline.
Marking, grades, results and feedback
Marking and feedback to students
4.33 Marking should be conducted, and feedback provided to students, in a fair, timely and confidential manner in line with the principles and practice outlined in the Policy. Online marking and feedback should be used where it is reasonable to do so.
4.34 Where marking is carried out by multiple markers, benchmarking of marking standards should be used prior to or at the commencement of marking, to assist markers to apply the criteria in similar ways.
4.35 Any moderation of results after marking must be based on comparison of samples of student work given the same grades or marks across different markers, and never on comparison of mark distributions alone.
4.36 Where moderation is used, this will be indicated in the subject outline and, wherever possible, completed before marks/grades are released to students.
4.37 Any moderation of results must be completed prior to submission of marks and grades for ratification.
4.38 Students may request to review a copy of their examination within three months of the results release date (except where the examination paper contains material that is to be used in successive examinations).
4.39 Students should contact subject coordinators (or their nominee) who will facilitate requests for exam scripts, grades and results.
4.40 Students requesting examination results (marks or grades) must be provided with this information.
Processing and recording results
4.41 SAU issue results processing schedules to subject coordinators and RAOs each teaching period (usually in May and October). The timelines for the other teaching sessions (Summer, March, May, July, August, October, December) are distributed separately.
4.42 Instructions for recording final results are drafted and published by SAU on Staff Connect (see assessment progression and graduation).
4.43 When an interim result is awarded, the student must contact the subject coordinator or relevant academic adviser to determine the reason for the interim result.
4.44 The designated administrative officer, SAU is responsible for contacting students who have been awarded ‘T’ results. Communication with respect of all other interim results is the responsibility of the designated administrative officer of the faculty administering the subject.
4.45 Procedures for the management and correction of interim results are drafted by SAU, approved by the Provost and published by SAU on Staff Connect (see assessment progression and graduation). These should be reviewed every three years.
Borderline results and supplementary assessments
4.46 A supplementary examination or assessment must be provided for students with borderline results in their final subject in line with statement 4.4 of the Procedures.
4.47 Supplementary assessment in all other circumstances may be provided, as described in the subject outline, or, where not described, at the discretion of the subject coordinator, in consultation with the RAO, as appropriate. Students may choose not to accept the offer of supplementary assessment.
4.48 The Director, SAU may approve procedural steps for the management of borderline results in line with the Policy and Procedures. These will be published by SAU on Staff Connect (see assessment progression and graduation).
4.49 Students who wish to query marks must do so no later than five working days from the date of the return of the marks to the student or, for final examination or subject results, no later than five working days from the official release of the final subject result.
4.50 Specific guidelines for querying marks and grades are approved by the Provost (or nominee) and published by SAU.
Resubmission and remarking
4.51 Resubmission or re-marking may be undertaken as a consequence of:
- a determination made as a result of a student querying a mark or result (see 4.50 above) or making a complaint
- a borderline result (at the discretion of the subject coordinator and/or RAO).
4.52 Resubmission or re-marking conditions and possible outcomes must be provided to the student in advance.
4.53 One resubmission or re-mark is possible per assessment task.
4.54 Where the outcome of a query or complaint investigation is the re-marking of an assessment task by a different marker (subject coordinator, assessor or external marker), the following apply:
- the second marker must receive a clean copy of the assessment task (supplied by the student where possible) on which to undertake the re-marking
- both markers shall compare assessments and then agree a mark/grade, and
- the new mark/grade may be higher or lower than the original
- if the markers cannot agree, the matter is resolved by the RAO.
Changing final results and finalising interim results
4.55 After results are released, subject coordinators must submit results for interim notations and any other changes to results on SAU’s Authority to Vary Results form, available from the designated administrative officer, SAU.
4.56 Changes to final assessment results may be made:
- following re-marking and/or supplementary assessment
- to finalise interim results (E, Q, T, W)
- to amend a final result following a review of final subject assessment result
- to correct an administrative error (documentation must be attached, as outlined in Rule 2.4)
- following a successful query or complaint by a student
- by the subject coordinator and RAO on the basis of a finding by a faculty Student Assessment Review Committee (Rule 8.7.3).
4.57 The Director, SAU will only approve the processing of changes to final grades or results from the teaching period immediately preceding that in which the request is made. The only exceptions are cases where the subject coordinator provides sound reasons for requesting an amendment together with an Authority to Vary Results form. If the Director, SAU does not approve the request, the matter should be referred to the Provost for resolution.
Review of final subject assessment results
4.58 Reviews of final subject assessment results are only permitted where procedural irregularities (see Schedule 1, Student Rules for definition) have been identified in line with Rule 8.6 and Rule 8.7.
4.59 This is separate from any special consideration requests (Rule 8.3) or a mark/grade query. Further information on review of final subject assessment results is available to students at review of final subject assessment results.
4.60 Director, SAU approves the release of final results online via My Student Admin on the published date in line with Rule 8.4.3 and Rule 8.4.4 under the provisions of Rule 4.4.
4.61 Students may request an official academic record as outlined in the Academic Records Vice-Chancellor's Directive.
5. Responsibility, ownership and support
5.1 Policy owners
- Provost, in line with the Policy, is responsible for enforcement and compliance of these Procedures; ensuring that its statements are observed.
- Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education and Students) is responsible for the University’s educational strategies.
5.2 Policy contacts
- Director, Student Administration
5.3 Additional responsibilities
Additional responsibilities in the Procedures are assigned to:
- subject coordinators
- Responsible Academic Officers (RAOs)
- Student Administration Unit (SAU)
- Academic Board
- faculty boards.
The terms used in these Procedures are defined in the Policy and Schedule 1, Student Rules, with additional definitions provided below.
Essential presentation eventmeans an event (via a number of delivery options) which students are expected to attend at a specific time and location (physical or online) in order to present work to a group of assessors, collaborate with others on an observable assessable activity, or similar, for which it is not reasonably practical to arrange alternate times for individual students.
Summative assessments are those that contribute to students’ final assessment results in a subject. Summative assessments other than final examinations normally also have the formative function of providing feedback on students’ work.
Re-marking means the re-presentation of a previously submitted assessment task.
Resubmission means the submission of a new version of an assessment task.
|Policy contact||Director, Student Administration Unit|
|File number||To be provided by Senior Advisor Governance and Policy UR17/3560|
|Superseded documents||Procedures for the Assessment of Coursework Subjects (fileUR09/798)|
|Version||Approved by||Approval date||Effective date||Sections modified|
|1||Provost||2 November 2017||1 January 2018||New procedures.|
Coursework Assessments Procedures
Coursework Assessment Policy
Academic Records Vice-Chancellor's Directive
Assessment progression and graduation(Staff Connect)
Centrally conducted exams(Staff Connect)
Managing your study
Review of final subject assessment results
Appendix A: Results ratification
Results ratification occurs in line with the Policy (section 4.19), to:
- review the performance of students undertaking subjects offered by the faculty, paying particular attention to borderline results (defined in Schedule 1, Student Rules) and special consideration applications, to determine appropriate action in consideration of the table of results and grades, in view of the Policy and its appendix.
- approve the publication of results for all subjects offered by the faculty
- submit a final copy of the subject results sheets to the designated administrative officer, Student Administration Unit (SAU)
- determine interim results:
- E – grade not submitted
- Q – project, clinical practicum or field excursion
- T – supplementary assessment to be completed by the faculty
- W – withheld results.
Responsible Academic Officers would normally consult with relevant program directors, course coordinators and/or subject coordinators prior to ratifying results.
A designated administrative officer, SAU, will be available (via telephone) to provide advice on ratification.