Assessment Appeals Procedure

GLOSSARY OF TERMS:

Different awarding bodies use different names for the roles involved in quality assurance of assessment. This glossary is intended to clarify the roles referred to in the policy.

Assessor: The person who marks the student’s work.

Internal Verifier (IV): The person who checks the quality, accuracy and fairness of the assessment and feedback to the student. May also be called Internal Quality Assurer.

External Verifier or External Examiner (EE): The person appointed by the awarding body to review and assure the quality and fairness of both the assessment and the internal verification against standards. This role may also be referred to as: External Quality Assurer

INTERNAL ASSESSMENT APPEALS PROCEDURE

If a student is dissatisfied with an internal assessment outcome she/he has the right of appeal. Where the qualification is awarded through a partner organisation’s assessment appeals procedure should be followed.

All students may request additional support from the Student Information team to assist them with their appeal to address any perceived barriers in line with the ‘Single Equality Duty’.

There are three stages in the Berkeleyme internal appeals procedure and each stage must be exhausted before proceeding to the next one.

Stage 1

If students are not satisfied with the assessor’s decision and feedback, they have a right to appeal directly to the assessor who carried out the assessment within 5 working days. By exception, in extenuating circumstances, the Berkeleyme may allow appeals of assessment outcomes outside of this timeframe.

This appeal must be recorded by the assessor for recording at Examination and Assessment Board meetings. (An appeals form is provided with this policy) and clearly indicate:

▪ The points of disagreement and reasons.

▪ The evidence in the portfolio which the student believes meets the requirements of the performance criteria.

▪ The appeal must be submitted within five working days of receipt of the assessment outcome.

▪ The appeal response must be provided within 5 working days of receipt of the appeal.

The main reasons for an appeal are likely to be:

▪ The student does not understand why she/he is not yet competent, due to lack of, or unclear, feedback from the assessor.

▪ The student believes she/he is competent and that the assessor has misjudged them or missed/misinterpreted some vital evidence.

In most cases it is hoped that this stage of the process will terminate the appeals procedure.

Students are advised to keep their own copies of all documents used in the appeals procedure.

Stage 2

Students who are not satisfied with the outcome of their Stage 1 appeal can refer to the Curriculum Manager for advice on further appeal for the course within 5 working days. This appeal must be in writing, but need not repeat the detail provided at Stage 1 as all the documentation used at Stage 1 will be passed on to the Internal Verifier. The Internal Verifier will report back to the student in five working days.

Stage 3

Before proceeding to Stage 3, the students must have exhausted the requirements of Stage 1 and 2.

▪ Students who are not satisfied with the outcomes of Stage 2 of the Appeals Procedure may then proceed to Stage 3 by appealing in writing to the Vice Principal Students and Curriculum within 5 days of receipt of the outcome of stage 2.

▪ The Vice Principal Students and Curriculum will examine the findings and call a meeting to report to the student, assessor, internal verifier and other relevant staff involved in either the appeal or in providing support for the student.

APPEALS TO AN AWARDING BODY

Before proceeding, the students must have exhausted all the internal Appeals Procedures of the Berkeleyme.

Students who are not satisfied with the outcomes of Stage 3 of the Appeals Procedure may then appeal to the Awarding Body.

An investigation will be undertaken by the External Verifier/ Quality Assurer appointed by the awarding body. On receipt of a report, the application will be considered by the awarding body’s ‘Appeals Committee’. This consideration will lead to one of two decisions:

1. The appeals committee supports the decision of the External Verifier.

2. The appeal may be rejected or upheld.

APPEALS AGAINST EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT DECISIONS

This procedure enables students to appeal against the outcome of external assessment and the process of controlled assessments within the Berkeleyme.

If a student has any concerns about the procedures used in assessing their internally assessed work for public exams i.e. controlled assessment/coursework/portfolios, she/he should discuss the matter with the Course Leader and Curriculum Manager immediately. Following that, if the matter remains unresolved, the formal appeal procedure may be used by the student concerned.

On completion of external assessments and the notification of results, Curriculum Managers/Lecturers or Students themselves may wish to appeal the outcome.

The procedure for appealing against external assessment decisions is as follows:

1. The Curriculum Manager, Lecturer or Student informs the Examinations Officer that they wish to appeal an assessment decision as soon as they receive notification of their results. This should normally allow at least 5 working days before an awarding body deadline for closing their ‘Enquiries About Results’ (EAR) procedure.

2. The Examinations Officer discusses the appeal request with the Student or member of staff to ensure that the appeal is eligible within the regulations of the awarding body.

If the Curriculum Manager agrees to support the EAR:

The request, together with the appeal form, should be made to the Examinations Officer immediately and before the awarding body’s published deadline for EARs. The cost of the enquiry will be met by the Examinations budget.

If the Curriculum Manager does not agree to support the EAR:

A student may appeal against the decision not to support an EAR. Appeals should be made in writing to the Examinations Officer, at least 5 working days before the awarding body’s published deadline for EARs. The appeal should state, in detail, the reason(s) for the appeal. This appeal should be signed and dated and should include the daytime contact telephone number of the student, parent or guardian. The appeal information will be reviewed by the Examinations Officer and a member of the Senior Management Team; the outcome of the appeal will be communicated by telephone and 1st class letter posted within 24 hours of receipt. This decision is final.

If the Berkeleyme does not support the EAR:

The student may still proceed with the EAR but all costs involved will be paid by the student at the time the EAR is made. A fee will be requested prior to submission of the EAR. Requests must be made in person to the Examinations Officer before the awarding body’s published deadline for EARs. If the enquiry is successful the fee will be refunded to the student.

3. The Examinations Officer contacts the awarding body to clarify procedures and timescales for the submission of appeals and liaises with teaching staff or the student to collate any evidence being submitted in support of the appeal.

4. The Examinations Officer submits the appeal to the awarding body, together with any supporting evidence, and notifies the student/teaching staff.

5. On receipt of the appeal outcome, the Examinations Officer communicates the result to the relevant parties in line with awarding body requirements.*

6. Higher Education Students who consider that the appeal has not been addressed correctly when all available processes have been exhausted and a completion of procedures letter has been provided by the Berkeleyme; may refer their concerns to the Office for.

Internal assessment appeals structure and timeframe.

ASSESSMENT POLICY

1.0 POLICY STATEMENT

1.1 Berkeleyme is committed to providing students with assessment that tracks, measures, assures quality; is fair, consistent, unbiased, transparent, valid, reliable and accessible to all students. Assessment is to be robust and substantial to provide a fair gauge of student ability and achievement to support progress.

1.2 The policy includes:
Table 1: The procedure for approving assignments and assessments. Assignment writing procedure.
Procedure and guidelines for marking student work
Quality Assurance (QA) or Moderation Procedure
The accurate submission of summative grades.
Annex 1: Guidelines for developing students’ literacy and numeracy skills.

2.0 CONTEXT

2.1 The assessment method must efficiently produce valid, consistent and reliable results.
2.2 The assessment procedure must be open to inspection and both internal and external verification at all times.
2.3 Assessment must be fair and accessible to all students.

3.0 OBJECTIVES

3.1 To follow the guidelines agreed by the awarding body to recognise prior learning.
3.2 To define the role of the assessor and internal quality assurer (IQA), Lead IV or moderator (IM) in the assessment process.
3.3 To provide a system of assessment which is easily interpreted and understood by students and assessors.
3.4 To promote learning and achievement by establishing a system of recording assessment and feedback to allow student and assessor to monitor progress.
3.5 To provide a basis for induction and training of new assessors, moderators and internal quality assurers.
3.6 To establish rigorous standards of assessment which are consistent across equivalent programme levels in all curriculum areas.
3.7 To ensure the Berkeleyme complies with the assessment regulations and procedures of external awarding bodies.

4.0 RANGE

4.1 The policy applies to all assessment processes including initial assessment, recognition of prior learning and experience (RPL), assignment writing, work based assessment, formative and summative assessments, assessment of functional skills, Personal Learning and Thinking Skills (PLTS) and internal standardisation, quality assurance and moderation processes. The policy also refers to the Assessment Appeals Procedure.
4.2 The assessment, moderation and quality assurance mechanisms apply from interview and for the duration of the individual’s learning agreement with the Berkeleyme.
4.3 At Berkeleyme, the activity of IQA is the responsibility of a number of different roles. Clarification of the IQA for a particular course can be identified by the Curriculum Manager or TQM.

5.0 TERMINOLOGY

• Accessible to all students: includes students with any difficulties or disabilities irrespective of age, gender or ethnicity.
• Assessment is the way in which a student’s knowledge, understanding, and skills are measured and evaluated.
• Awarding Body is any external body which has the authority to award accreditation for a course of learning.
• EE: External Examiner
• IM (Internal Moderation) is a similar process to internal quality assurance in that it is the impartial monitoring of assignments, tasks and assessments for consistency and quality and also ensures that the methods of assessment used are reliable and fit for purpose and that the order of assessed outcomes is fair and consistent.
• IQA is Internal Quality Assurance. This is the impartial monitoring of assignments, tasks and assessments for consistency and quality that is carried out within the Berkeleyme. IQA is also sometimes used to refer to the person carrying out that IVQA process i.e. the Internal Quality Assurer.
• Moderation is also a process whereby the assessment carried out by teachers and assessors is checked for consistency and quality by other teachers or managers or by professionals nominated by the awarding authorities.
• Sampling for quality assurance. Awarding bodies ask to view the Assignments, Work, and Assessments produced by a set number of students for agreed units that have been studied
• Standardisation is the process whereby it is ensured that all assessments made by teachers and others are marked to the same standards and at the agreed national standard i.e. are assessed reliably.
• Quality Assurance (Formerly verification) is the impartial monitoring of assignments, tasks and assessments for consistency and quality.

Table 1: The procedure for approving and validating assignments and assessments

ASSIGNMENT WRITING PROCEDURE

1.0 AIMS:

1.1 To provide a standardised approach to assignment writing
1.2 To provide formats that are accessible to students and in line with awarding body recommendations.
1.3 To ensure that all the required information is included to simplify assessment and minimise the possibility of confusion or appeals.

2.0 STANDARDS EXPECTED OF ASSIGNMENTS

2.1 Be set on time in line with assessment plan to avoid unacceptable pressure on students.
2.2 Be typed following the awarding body’s recommended format and spell checked.
Where the awarding body does not recommend a format, an agreed format should be followed by the course team
2.3 Be internally quality assured/ verified before issue to students.
2.4 A copy to be kept on the course file and on the IQA/ IV file with IQA/ IV forms.
2.5 All assignment activities and tasks must identify the assessment criteria that will be applied to the task/activity.
2.6 Have a standard awarding body front page or, where this is not available, a Berkeleyme front page showing key dates, assessment criteria achieved etc. together with the assessment feedback sheets with action points.
2.7 Identify clearly what the student is required to submit for each task.
2.8 Show the student how they are to be assessed on each task.
2.9 Identify what English or Maths Skills can be achieved in the assignment.
2.10 Provide an awarding body assessment sheet or, where this is not available, an approved Berkeleyme assessment sheet. The assessment sheet must clearly identify the assessment criteria and allow space for feedback on the evidence and quality of work submitted.
2.11 Provide a feedback sheet that enables supportive descriptive feedback to be given and allows for action planning against the assessment criteria/learning outcomes.
2.12 Provide assessment documentation recording English or Maths Skills and PLTS
achievement together with feedback as described in point 2.10.
2.13 Clearly state arrangements for handing in work and the need to meet the deadline given.

PROCEDURE FOR MARKING STUDENT WORK

1.0 RANGE

1.1 This policy relates to the marking of course work set by teaching staff which may include work completed by students in their own time. It relates only to work being assessed and contributing to the final grading of the programme.
Assessors should be qualified or be working towards the current approved assessor qualifications for work based or vocationally related qualifications as requi red for the qualification being assessed. The trainee assessor must have their assessments countersigned by an accredited assessor whilst in training, to confirm the accuracy of the assessment.

2.0 PROCEDURE

2.1 All work set will be issued via the relevant VLE, e-portfolio or in print, clearly indicating what the student is required to do, what needs to be handed in, the deadline for handing in the work, and how the work will be assessed using the appropriate assessment sheet.

2.2 Where there is a legitimate reason that prevents meeting the submission date the student must at the earliest opportunity, and before the initial hand in is due, approach the Lead IV/Course Leader with a view to negotiating an extension. For HE students this request must be made in writing and for all students the request must clearly give the reason for the request for an extension. Any requests that are approved will be notified in writing and assessment forms will record the extension given. Lead IVs are responsible for signing any agreed extensions for programmes.

2.3 All work will be handed to the Assessor who set the work or where arranged e.g. for part time courses, to the Information Services team. In all cases a record of submission will be kept.

2.4 Where work is submitted to the Information Services team, assessors will collect assignments from the Information Services area and sign to confirm collection. When work is returned via the Information Services team a record should be signed by the Information Services team and signed by the student on collection.

2.5 Assessment will provide constructive feedback that clearly identifies the quality of the evidence provided to justify the grade given and provide SMART action points to identify additional work required to complete the assignment or where approved by the Lead IV to achieve an improved grade.

2.6 Feedback should include reference to students’ development of English and Maths skills as stated in the Guidelines for Developing Students’ Numeracy and Literacy Skills.

2.7 Be marked and returned to students within the agreed time frame: 10 working days for assignments set by 1 member of staff or 15 working days for joint assignments. A sample of student work must then be forwarded to the IQA/IV/IM allowing 5 working days for the sampling.

2.8 Where two or more groups or assessors submit work for the same unit or a ssignment, a standardisation meeting will be required to ensure consistency in grading.

2.9 Work that is below the minimum standard required by the course will be marked as not yet passed on the initial submission and feedback will be given to identify the assessment criteria that requires further response.

2.10 All students will have an opportunity for formative assessment and to further develop their work by the summative deadline with the aim of improving their grade or achieving a pass grade.

3.0 GUIDELINES FOR MARKING STUDENT WORK

3.1 Grade to be placed in box on assignment assessment sheet. Formative assessment and assessment of work that is part of a unit should not be graded, but may record the assessment criteria achieved at that point of assessment.
3.2 Feedback should include an opening statement on how the student has done overall
3.3 Explain how the evidence assessed meets the required evidence for the assessment criteria/learning outcomes.
3.4 Clearly identify the assessment criteria/learning outcomes achieved.
3.5 Explain how the evidence assessed has informed the grade awarded.
3.6 Identify what the student needs to do to improve the achievement of learning outcomes / assessment criteria and to improve the grade.
3.7 If a distinction is awarded still note how the assignment could be improved or sustained i.e. comment on the layout, neatness, pictures etc in the assignment and the quality of referencing/bibliography.

IQA PROCEDURE AND STRATEGY

1. IQA Qualifications

1.1 Internal Quality Assurers/Verifiers may initially verify vocationally related qualifications without a qualification but should register to complete the relevant verification award within the academic year using the quality assurance/ verification of work as evidence of their practice.
1.2 It is also a requirement that IQAs/IVs and course leaders from courses delivered across the Berkeleyme have regular standardisation meetings.
1.3 IQA/IVs of individual programmes should participate in the awarding body standardisation training and updates each academic year.

2. IQA Planning and Resources

2.1 Ensure the course leader, assessor and IQA have the correct specification for the qualification with full details of the units, assessment criteria and guidance.
2.2 Assessor and IQA have:
• copies of the assignment brief.
• a copy of the assessment plan from the course leader/assessor(s).
• copies of the awarding body IQA sheets for both assignments and for assessments, or where these are not provided use Berkeleyme IV documents available on the WBL area of SharePoint.
2.3 Plans in accordance with awarding body guidelines, an IQA/IM tracking document scheduling the IQA/IM samples to be completed on an IV sampling plan (Berkeleyme form IVT).
2.4 Checks that awarding body EQA/Standards sampling time frames will be adhered to by the assessment and IQA plans.

3.IQA Strategy: Risk based IQA Sampling Guidelines:

4. Standardisation

4.1 Plan and Lead internal standardisation meeting.
4.2 Book onto awarding body annual standardisation and update training.
4.3 Participate in relevant TAQA IQA training for your course &/or Lead IV
accreditation as relevant for the courses you assess.

5. IQA of Assignments

5.1 Every assignment brief must be approved by the IQA/IV/IM before it is released to the students.
5.2 IQA (IV/IM) internally quality assures/moderates assignment brief within 3 working days of receipt and a minimum of 10 days before issue to students using awarding body documentation. Where the awarding body provides the brief these should be IQA’ed to ensure they are up to date and fit the approach used by the teachers and learners. The original copy of the IQA of assignment form and a copy of the brief will be placed in the Course IQA/IV/IM file.
5.3 The assignment and a copy of IQA/IM form with constructive comments and actions for any required improvements returned to assessor. A copy of the original brief is to be kept on file.
5.4 Teacher makes necessary adjustments to brief and submits to IQA/IV/IM for approval prior to distribution to students.
5.5 Internal Quality Assurer/ Lead IV/Internal Moderator approves assignment for distribution to students.
5.6 A copy of the approved brief with the signed IQA/IV form is placed in the IQA/IV
file and a copy placed in the course file.

6. IQA of Assessment

6.1 Work is assessed by the assessor(s) within 10 days of the submission date and the required sample is passed to the IQA/IM.
6.2 IQA/IM ensures that the sample of assessed work for internal quality assurance is in accordance with the assessment and IQA sampling plan and IQA strategy.
6.3 The work in the sample ideally should represent the range of grades awarded in the assessment
6.4 Work not submitted to the IQA/ IV must be retained in case adjustments are recommended in the IQA/IV process
6.5 Where a student who is identified on the IQA/IV schedule has not produced work for grading an alternative student can be substituted
6.6 IQA/Lead IV monitors that formative and summative feedback is provided to students and samples a minimum of 4 pieces to monitor the quality of the feedback
6.7 Internally Quality Assures/Moderates work using awarding body IQA/IM documents or Centre IQA documents where awarding body does not provide documents. This is to ensure consistency in assessment and that methods of grading are fair and accurate and in line with awarding body standards
6.8 Where the IQA/IV approves the assessment of the assessment sample then the work for that assignment may be returned to the students

7. Appeals

7.1 A student can appeal an assessment within five days of its return.

8. IQA and External Quality Assurance

8.1 The IQA (IV/IM) liaises with the External Quality Assurer, sometimes known as Standards Verifier, External verifier (EV) or External Moderator to organise either:
On site sampling: A visit by the EQA to sample student work, assessment and associated IQA documentation.

9. End of Course and Qualification Claims

9.1 IQA/Lead IV and Course Leader attends an examination board meeting with course team/assessor(s) and curriculum manager.
9.2 Assessor identifies Unit and grades awarded for each student.
9.3 IQA/IV or Course Leader records grade onto online or paper based Student
Record Form (SRF) or other relevant qualification claim form.

10. Conflict of Interest

10.1 The awarding body should be informed if a member of staff is to teach or train a student where they have a vested interest in that student’s successful achievement e.g. are a direct relative of the student. All assessment for that student should be carried out by an assessor who is unrelated to the member of staff or student.
10.2 No member of staff should assess or internally verify, moderate, invigilate, read, scribe or quality assure the work of a student where they have a vested interest in that student’s successful achievement.

11. Continuity Planning

11.1 Where an awarding body ceases to provide a qualification which is offered by Berkeleyme, then the Berkeleyme will approach alternative awarding bodies to seek approval and accreditation for existing students
11.2 Should an awarding body decline approval for Berkeleyme to offer a qualification, there will be an immediate response to any reasonable required actions to regain approval from the awarding body. If this is not successful, the Berkeleyme will:
• immediately stop recruitment to that qualification
• seek accreditation for the qualification and for existing students with an alternative awarding body or
• obtain accreditation for existing students by agreement with another approved centre

12. Examination and Assessment Boards

12.1 Each term the course leader for each programme meets with the Teaching and
Quality Manager, The Tutorial Programme Leader and their Curriculum Manager to review the quality of assessment and tutorial activities and the quality and completion of tracking records. These are recorded on a template that monitors the percentage of good quality and completion of tasks evidenced. Action plans are set for elements that are partially completed or incomplete, or where quality requires improvement. These are monitored for completion at the next assessment board.
12.4 It is optional the exams team or a Governor to attend
If the Chair is not available, the Deputy Principal Quality and Curriculum may stand in.