Page 1

London College of Fashion

Assessment Handbook 2013-14

Contents 1.0



2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.10.1 2.10.2 2.10.3 2.10.4 2.10.5 2.10.6 2.10.7 2.10.8 2.10.0

Pedagogic principles Learning, teaching and assessment Principles of assessment The assessment programme at LCF is designed to: Factors to consider in assessment design for LCF courses Learning Outcomes Marking Criteria Range of assessment types Who assesses? Accommodated assessment Marking Academic considerations Holistic versus weighted marking Assessment of Personal and Professional Development (PPD) Group assessment Collaborative working and assessment Principles of good written feedback Factors that may affect marking Operational Issues Making changes to assessment

03 03 05 06 06 08 09 10 10 11 12 12 13 15 16 17 18 18 19 19

3.0 3.1 3.2

Internal Moderation Terms and Purpose Internal Moderation Procedures

20 20 20

4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

Other Assessment Procedures Non-submissions and Referrals Compensation Termly Progression Boards and Extenuating Circumstances Panel Meeting Assessment Deadlines. E-assessment

21 21 21 22 22 22

Appendices Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 Appendix 6

Themes and Questions from a Group Work Seminar PPD: Assessment and Academic Regulation. Reminder Sheet The Ten Commandments of Writing Constructive Feedback Examples of Accommodated Assessment Assessment Policy Exercise 19 Reading and References

24 27 31 33 36 39


1.0 Introduction 1.1 This handbook is designed to be both a guide to assessment regulation at LCF and also to offer some pointers and materials on a number of topics to do with assessment. It sets out the pedagogic principles for assessment in LCF and combines the UAL Assessment Policy and particular examples of LCF compliance and practice (e.g. PPD) with case studies and suggestions of additional resources. Topics include holistic versus weighted marking, assessment of team assignments, grading collaborative working, guidance for course teams on choosing and using marking criteria and the UAL marking scale. Further guidance on these and other topics is both embedded with the Policy and provided in the Reading and References section at the back of the Handbook. 1.2 This handbook has been updated in line with the University of the Arts London Assessment Regulations which can be found at This site covers all aspects of academic regulation, however if you particularly wish to look as issues of grading please visit the MyAssessment website at http://www.

2.0 Pedagogic Principles 2.1

Learning, teaching and assessment

There has been extensive research into the nature and purpose of assessment since the 1970s. One longstanding model of good practice often referred to is Biggs’ concept of constructive alignment. When a course is constructively aligned, its structure, teaching and learning delivery methods, content and assessment tasks, are all clearly related and fully support the specified outcomes intended for that learning experience. A course which is not aligned has elements of its content and delivery which do not relate appropriately to each other. For example, a course where students are primarily engaged in practical work and expected to demonstrate practical capability at the end, but who are assessed through written submissions alone, is not constructively aligned. Assessment is also expected to become more challenging to students according to their stage and level of their studies. On a traditional three year degree course students can therefore expect a more supportive (“scaffolded�) model of learning and assessment in year one, with the expectation that they will become increasingly proactive and independently engaged with each subsequent year.


Problems with assessment have often been that students do not always understand how and why they are being assessed or the way in which their work has been judged and graded. Recurrent criticisms (not just in UAL) are of assessment practices where grades and feedback do not match up, assessment requirements are unclear, or that there has been too much assessment, often poorly timed, resulting in student overload. An age old criticism of assessment has also been that students are strategic learners who are focussing too much on what they need to do to pass an assessment, rather than grow and develop as learners across all aspects of their subject of study. Finally, assessment is often perceived by students as something that is done to them, rather than with them. The Assessment for Learning CETL, AfL, has argued in recent years for reduction in the number of summative assessments and a significant increase in the opportunities for formative assessment and feedback to counter some of the criticisms made above and improve student engagement with the assessment process. A key purpose of AfL is to foster student development in taking responsibility for evaluating, judging and improving their own performance by actively using a range of feedback. These capabilities are at the heart of autonomous learning and of the graduate qualities valued by employers and in professional practice. (CETL AfL statement, 2008, previously found at The principles which follow are largely generic and apply to all levels of study. However there are some differences; marking criteria do not apply on FE or doctoral programmes of study; FE courses are further subject to external examining bodies and sets of regulations which differ from courses whose award is conferred by LCF.


2.2 Principles of assessment 1. Assessment is a crucial part of the learning process and should be embedded with learning and teaching delivery, not simply as a matter of attainment (how to pass) but of deepening understanding. 2.

Assessment is a matter of academic judgement, not solely of computation.


Assessment schemes must be explicit, transparent, fit for purpose and ensure fairness/parity of treatment for all students. This includes the wording of assessment tasks, briefs and criteria in clear unambiguous language.

4. Students must be provided with full and accurate information on all aspects of their assessment. 5.

All assessment schemes must be approved as part of validation by Academic Quality and Standards Committee (AQSC) and their operation monitored and regularly reviewed.


In assessment, academic judgement should be made against the marking criteria specified for the course and course element. These marking criteria have been mapped against course and unit learning outcomes within course and unit handbooks.

7. Wherever possible, a holistic approach to marking is recommended although there is some flexibility for weighting. This is discussed in greater detail in the Marking section of this document. 8.

Principles of inclusion are considered when designing assessment tasks in order to avoid discrimination against learners with specific learning difficulties or disabilities.


Prompt feedback on assessment should be provided to students in line with our own guidance relating to marking periods and return of work. Normal working practice is a maximum of four college working weeks.


Assessment tasks must be fully aligned with the taught curriculum and suit the nature of the discipline and level. Course teams can draw on the support of staff within Academic Development and Quality Assurance to access current best practice and assessment literature for shaping their assessment practices, as well as relevant staff development.


A useful source of guidance in relation to course design for different levels is found in the QAA Subject Benchmark Statements, while additional information is further provided in the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications level descriptors, details of which are found under Resources in this document.

2.3 The assessment programme at LCF is designed to: • Increase learning Assignments offer students the opportunity to review and revisit work covered on the course. This can extend the depth and breadth of learning through the experience of carrying out the assignment. • Provide an opportunity for structured feedback Assessment offers feedback opportunities. Feedback can be offered in a number of ways: peer group discussion, crits, group and individual tutorials, progress reviews and written comment on returned work. Constructive feedback can enhance future performance. • Allocate marks Marking allows students to benchmark their performance against themselves and against others in their year. An awareness of strengths and weaknesses can enable students to action plan and study effectively. • Increase motivation Despite the excellent and eager intentions of all students, workloads grow, while social, emotional and work place activities compete with students’ studying time. A framework of assessment incentivises study. • Ensure quality The process of marking, moderation and input from external examiners ensures that standards are set and maintained. This acts as a quality assurance mechanism.

2.4 Factors to consider in assessment design for LCF courses

The questions listed below need to be considered when an assessment is being planned: • Has consideration been given to the scope for alternative or accommodated assessment tasks in relation to the subject? • Is the product or process being assessed; if both are under scrutiny, do the learning outcomes reflect this accurately? • Is knowledge being tested, or is the student’s ability to use this knowledge being tested? • Is the level of assessment appropriate?


• Do assessment criteria and tasks relate appropriately to learning outcomes and marking criteria? • Is individual or group effort being assessed? • Are studentship factors being assessed (where appropriate)? • How and where is PPD being assessed? How are related documents and tasks, such as reflective logs, incorporated into assessment, if at all? (Additional guidance on PPD can be found in the UAL Principles and Guidelines for PPD which recommend a minimum assessment point of PPD of once per stage of study. See CLTAD website for link and also References section of this handbook) • Is the assessment formative or summative? (see also following section on assessment types) • Is the assessment convergent or divergent i.e. are all students aiming to get the same answers or is the brief set to allow students individual interpretation and diversity of response? • Is the assessment discrete or integrated (integrated assignments may draw on learning that happens across a number of units)? • How are assessment processes for a course or specific unit introduced, understood or reinforced for a diverse body of learners? Is language and are expectations clear? • When a student is assessed the assessment/project briefs/ unit handbooks will set out what is expected, how they will be assessed and what feedback they can expect. Students are given research information (for example reference lists) as appropriate. All written assessment and project briefs are accompanied by a group verbal briefing to provide additional information and support for students.


2.5 Learning Outcomes Within the HE credit framework all units specify learning outcomes, which provide a set of thresholds (i.e. satisfactory performance) as to what a student is expected to be able to do or know at the end of a unit of study. These outcomes express what teaching staff intend students to learn and be able to do by the end of the unit, and the relationship between these learning outcomes and the specific marking criteria used to grade the assessments set made clear. Unit handbooks should set out all this information clearly for students. According to Walker (1994) learning outcomes should: • • • • •

Be written in the future tense. Identify important learning requirements. Be achievable and assessable. Use language that students can understand. Relate to explicit statements of achievement.

These overarching statements are mapped onto marking criteria in unit handbooks, however the main focus in assessing is against these criteria. Overarching course learning outcomes are matched with marking criteria to show where these are assessed during a programme of study. Additional information on writing learning outcomes can be found in David Baume’s guide on the Leeds Metropolitan University website pdf e.g. p7. Within Further Education courses each unit has stated assessment criteria that should form the basis for assessment. On FE courses the guidelines for assessment are predetermined by the requirements of the awarding body. In all cases assessment must be carried out using specified learning outcomes and assessment criteria.


2.6 Marking Criteria There are eight standard UAL marking criteria: research, analysis, subject knowledge, experimentation, technical competence, communication and presentation, personal and professional development, and collaborative and/or independent professional working. These will be applied to students’ work to help give an understanding of what has been accomplished, how any mark given was arrived at, and how the student can improve their work in future. Course Handbooks should contain guidance on the relationship between the course learning outcomes and the marking criteria by which they are being assessed. Not all the criteria will be relevant to every course unit or assignment. Guidance and templates for the mapping of learning outcomes against the Marking Criteria can be found on the UAL assessment website, available at http://www.arts. including information on the UAL Marking Scale. Failure in one criterion does not necessarily mean failure of the unit. Course teams therefore need to agree in advance of delivering individual units how marking criteria are going to be applied on these across their course. This discussion should start as early as the point of (re) validation and review and means deciding in advance whether the criteria in use are all equal in value, or whether some are more important than others. The relative importance of criteria should not, however, be confused with weighting individual criteria e.g. 30-% of the overall grade for Research. Individual criteria should not be weighted. However, if, for example, on a Languages unit Communication & Presentation was the most important criterion at play, the course team must decide whether failure in this criterion would mean failure of the assessment overall. Any decisions over the importance of marking criteria must be communicated to students as part of advance guidance on the assessment requirements as a whole.


2.7 Range of assessment types Assessment can focus on and reward the product and/or process activities. The choices made will depend on the learning outcomes as set out in the unit of study being assessed within the context of the overall course objectives. When selecting assessment approaches it is important to offer variety to give students opportunities to work to their strengths and to enable them to develop a range of skills in a range of contexts. Please see the glossary at the end of this document for clarification of the nature of formative and summative assessment, if needed.

2.8 Who assesses? At LCF lecturer, peer and self-assessment is the norm. The vast majority of lecturers at LCF play an active role in the design and delivery of assessment. New lecturers are encouraged to take advantage of staff development available to do with all aspects of curriculum delivery and assessment and also register for the Postgraduate Certificate in Learning and Teaching in Art and Design. This programme offers new lecturers a chance to develop skills and reflect on their practice in relation to assessment. Sometimes industry partners or external experts who do not have experience of university teaching are involved in the assessment process in some capacity e.g. on a panel evaluating student presentations or pitches. It is important that these colleagues be fully briefed as to the nature, level and requirements of study in the discipline and at any given stage and their involvement supported and monitored by experienced staff. Peer assessment or critique forms an integral part of education at LCF. The feedback that students offer each other helps develop skills and ideas and fosters a supportive collaborative approach to learning. Guided self-assessment can be developed through tutorials and the use of learning logs and is a means of increasing a student’s self awareness of their learning preferences and strategies. Students may be asked to comment on an assignment before they hand it in, in some cases they may be asked to award themselves a grade. These activities foster greater awareness in students of the ways they learn and the many factors or influences which may affect their progress. Selfassessment encourages useful reflection on learning and helps to develop analytical and practical skills that are useful career skills. These are all an important part of PPD. Please see the UAL Principles and Guidelines for PPD for further information on PPD and assessment, which can be found on in the Resources section and on the CLTAD website.


2.9 Accommodated assessment For guidance on accommodated assessment please visit the UAL guidance available at To avoid any confusion between Accommodated Assessment and Extenuating Circumstances please see also


2.10 Marking From September 2011 UAL replaced the use of percentages in student grading by adopting letter grades. The UAL Marking Scale illustrates how these letter grades match up onto previously used percentages and align with the present system of final degree classification. In addition to the guidance provided under the section on marking criteria there are both academic and operational aspects to be taken into consideration when marking. There is no single, fixed model of marking that is recommended, however courses need to choose the method of marking which will ensure, as far as possible, fairness and consistency in the grading of students. 2.10.1 Academic considerations a) Matching feedback and grade One of the most important outcomes to achieve in student assessment is consonance between the final grade awarded and the feedback given to students. One of the greatest areas for student complaint in relation to feedback refers to the discrepancy between what a tutor has written or said about their work and the mark that goes with it. With the use of letter grades for example, it is important that the overall letter grade awarded reflects the letter grades allocated for each of the individual marking criteria in use on any unit and for any set task. b) Ensuring that sufficient constructive criticism backed by evidence and example is provided in written feedback to allow the student to improve their assessment performance. These kinds of comments are often referred to as ‘feed forward’. While there is no single way to mark against criteria the following is typical: markers use the Marking Matrix as a guide for performance levels and then allocate a letter grade accordingly on the Marking Feedback sheet. They may take the entire statement from that performance statement (for example, what it says that a ‘B’ in Research indicates) and place in it the feedback box against the relevant criterion, or they may adjust the statement for subject relevance, or they may make their own comments. All of these are likely to focus on what the student has done in the assignment. In the ‘general comments’ box at the bottom of the feedback sheet, staff then provide guidance as to how the student can develop their work in the future, even if it has already been very good. NB The suggestion has been made that it is not possible to give ‘feed forward’ to a student on their final assessment before they leave university as the course team will not be able to work with the student any more. This view is disputed as knowledge of a student means that a tutor will still be able to make suggestions about directions or themes that might be useful to that student after graduation, or pick up on areas of interest that they know the student to have.


Whether or not the student acts on any of these after leaving is not the issue, but part of the academic and professional guidance their course team can provide. A ten point guide The Ten Commandments of Constructive Feedback has been used in staff development sessions to remind assessors of key principles in feeding back to students and is included in the appendices to this handbook. NB As of January 2014 UAL have adopted an Assessment Turnaround Policy which stipulates a target of 3 weeks return of student work after assessment and maximum of four. There are certain adjustments to this deadline, full details of which can be found here in point 3.7 http://www.arts. 2.10.2 Holistic versus weighted marking The UAL guidance paper on holistic and element assessment can be found here http://www. course-regs-2013-14/3.1ASSESSREGS1314.1.pdf and here myintranet/students/assessment-and-quality/course-regulations-website/course-regs-201314/3.2ASSESSGUIDANCE1314.2.pdf There is much discussion as to whether or not to choose a weighted or holistic model of grading. A weighted model is one where specific elements of an assessment are accorded a maximum number of marks. An example of this would be where two assessment tasks have been validated as having the marks divided between them, such as an essay carrying 60% of the marks and a presentation 40%. This can make assessment clear in one way, however does not automatically result in a final grade which is more representative than a holistic approach. If weighted assessment is applied too elaborately i.e. to multiple assessment elements or subdivisions of these it can also cause unnecessary complication in terms of calculating marks, which may further result in confusion for the student. Markers should avoid trying to reach a final grade by allocating percentages to individual criteria and then trying to calculate from these an overall figure. Rather, deciding on a final grade happens through providing an indepth evaluation of student performance based in the subject expertise of the marker and knowledge of the parameters of the assessment task, including the level of study.


Reviewing these judgements against the selected marking criteria for the assessment task will make it clear to the marker which grade band to select. At LCF, if weighting is adopted we recommend no more than three (and ideally two) weighted elements per unit. While mindful of the benefits of holistic marking we also recognise that staff and students often possess different interpretations of what holistic marking actually means. This variance in definition can be detected within the broader university and is discussed in Duna Sabri’s paper ‘An evaluation of marking criteria at the University of the Arts, London.’ (2011). This includes reference to differing interpretations of holism within the disciplines: for design and communication it is resolution, for fine artists continuous practice, for performance, ‘person as material’. The many views as to what holistic assessment might be is illustrated in the following quote from her opening summary: Holistic assessment is often associated with connoisseurship and tacit judgement and cast as the polar opposite of analytic assessment which deploys marking criteria (Sabri, 11: 3) Details of where to find Sabri’s paper and its full reference are provided in the Further Reading Section of this Handbook. However, where a unit is being assessed by two pieces of work, either of equal importance or one subordinate to the other, which are not validated to bear individual grades, holistic marking may still apply. One mark would be given for the work overall, and a single mark sheet produced to record this. Staff and students are sometimes confused by terms such as ‘elements’ and ‘components’ of assessment; an element is a validated assessment task bearing a stated proportion of marks, while a component is one of several tasks being assessed holistically by one mark for all, for example through the submission of a portfolio. Holistic assessment has value in that, in the main, our disciplines are not ones we can grade on the basis of incontrovertible right/wrong answers. Matters of taste, subjectivity, flair, creativity and innovation, which are open to debate, also influence our judgement, although we do our best to ensure such factors do not impinge inappropriately on our assessment of student work. Weighted assessment can be helpful in terms of making explicit how the proportion of marks is allocated across more than one assessment task and where two distinct tasks have been set which need separate consideration for the most effective evaluation of each. Moderation procedures and double marking where there is doubt will also help confirm the marker in their choice of final grade, prior to the official confirmation at Exam Board.


2.10.3 Assessment of Personal and Professional Development (PPD) A guidance note is available in the Appendices of this handbook providing information on ensuring effective assessment of PPD from the point of (re) validation and review and making suggestions as to alternative ways of assessing PPD beyond the use of a 500 word reflective statement – which was only ever proposed as something to use if nothing else more engaging could be found. The main things to consider about assessing PPD are the following: • • • •

That if the PPD learning outcome has been included in a unit then adoption of the PPD marking criterion will need to be used, and PPD assessed formally That thought be given to how assessing PPD will be done in advance of unit delivery to ensure that tutors are not faced with the dilemma of having to assess PPD on assessment tasks that have not been designed to include this That time be dedicated in learning and teaching delivery to ensuring that students understand the purpose of PPD and how to demonstrate effective engagement with it, so that in summative assessment it is both meaningful and useful to them, not just seen as something to satisfy their tutors That PPD assessment tasks described in validated documentation are identical to those proposed in the UHB, with no variation, unless approved in advance through formal channels such as Minor Modifications procedures.

As with other learning outcomes and marking criteria, course teams must also given consideration to the importance of PPD on any particular unit. This will in part be dictated by the size and value in credit terms of the PPD contribution (e.g. a 40 credit PPD unit compared to a 20 credit unit with expectation of PPD reflection as part of a portfolio of activities). Understanding this importance will inform a team decision about how to mark PPD and whether or not its lack is something that results in a lower overall grade or an outright fail. This will also be governed by whether or not PPD is a validated component of assessment or something that is referred to as needing to be demonstrated by unspecified evidence. As an example, where two component assessment tasks are listed under a single element (such as essay and reflective statement, 40%) failure to submit one of these would result in failure of the unit. If, however, the validated assessment element is a portfolio of work, with a list of unvalidated components subsequently listed in the UHB, failure to submit one of these components would result in a lower mark, but not necessarily failure. This is because the portfolio will be marked holistically.


2.10.4 Group Assessment A range of issues may complicate the assessment of groups or teams for markers and need to be taken into consideration when designing assessment tasks for multiple rather than single students. These include • • • • • •

How to allocate marks (to all members of group equally or divided between individuals) Assessing individual contributions Encouraging peer/self assessment which is honest and evidence based When to use group assessment and the implications of formally grading it at particular points in the course of study Student understanding of the group assessment process Perceptions of fairness (e.g. from those who have worked hard versus ‘passengers’ in the student group who have contributed little)

The University of Ulster’s Assessment Handbook offers the following advice for assessing group activity: Heathfield (1999) has identified a similar list that could be used to help students to assess their contribution to the work of a group and these could be used for self assessment (or peer assessment) of the process: • • • • • •

Regular attendance at group meetings Contribution of ideas for the task Researching, analysing and preparing material for the task Contribution to co-operative group process Supporting and encouraging group members Practical contribution to the end product

(Heathfield, M., 1999. How to assess student group work. The Times Higher Education Supplement, 26 March 1999, 40-41.) Further useful materials on group assessment, can be found in the University of Ulster handbook, the url for which is included under Resources in the Appendices. These include a synopsis of a seminar conducted in the School of Management and Science where a ‘domino discussion’ approach was adopted to elicit key issues that needed addressing with regard to group work within the School. In particular, this method allowed for the identification of solutions from within the group. The summary included particularly relates to assessment, as opposed to group constitution and management.


2.10.5 Collaborative working and assessment Collaborative working for assessment is taken as an activity that combines the research and development of project work of more than one student in a significant way and into one cohesive project submission for assessment. Collaborative working is by definition an activity that goes beyond the engagement of the skills of another student in the production of an individual project work (e.g. a make up artist working for a photographer, does not in itself constitute collaborative working for assessment). Where students work together or collaborate as a project requirement, it should be clear (within the UHB) whether the assessment process is based on individual OR joint contribution. Thus the assessment process should accommodate either the recognition for individual contribution or accountability to a group/ collaborative project, OR an equal or joint level of accountability and contribution to a group/ collaborative project. In the first instance, collaborators may receive individual and different marks, in the second students may all receive the same marks. Where students opt to work together or collaborate as a student-led initiative or response to a project, this should be discussed and formalised with the unit tutor/ Course Leader in advance of the assessment process and in relation to the learning outcomes. Each student should be required to demonstrate all learning outcomes as appropriate, either jointly or individually within the collaboration. In this respect the assessment process should accommodate either the recognition for individual contribution or accountability to a group/ collaborative project, OR an equal or joint level of accountability and contribution to a group/ collaborative project, with the implication on marks as above.


2.10.6 Principles of good written feedback It is • timely • clear and legible • worded so that students can understand it • specific • sufficiently detailed (not just ‘sweet’/’poor’/’excellent’) • including examples where helpful • offering judgements which are evidence based • temperately worded (not cruel, exasperated or sarcastic) • encouraging and praises where appropriate • giving clear indications to the student how the work can be improved, developed or taken to next • in relation to the grades given (i.e. not ‘fabulous – D’) 2.10.7 Factors that may affect marking • • • •

Halo effect: this occurs when the previous performance is known to marker and this information colours the judgement of work Contrast effect/script order: in this situation the marker is affected by the level of the work just marked when faced with a new assignment Marker factors: marker moods and energy levels can affect marking. In one example, an individual marker may be inconsistent over a period of marking (e.g. due to tiredness) and become more or less lenient. In another, multiple markers may interpret and apply marking criteria differently. Preconceptions. For example inexperienced teacher practitioners used to industry standards may be unfamiliar with standards and expectations at different levels of university education


2.10.8 Operational issues It is not the intention of this policy to impose a single model of marking upon course teams, although it is clear that some approaches to marking work more effectively than others. Staff development or team/pair marking activities may be appropriate to ensure all members of the assessing team have a common conception of level and criteria. This will also be supported by the course’s internal moderation processes. The following examples may help in ensuring a shared understanding among markers as to appropriate levels of mark, priority, performance etc. • • • • •

Pre marking team meetings to clarify objectives, pitfalls, requirements. An example may be ensuring that all team members understand which marking criteria are ‘non negotiable’ in terms of passing the unit, and which ones may be less important. Alternatively, teams may deem all criteria equally valid. Team marking (where colleagues may be working separately but in the same room and are able to share comments and queries in relation to student work) Double marking Moderation meetings (e.g. where work may be set out in different grade bands or distinct differences between markers identified) Use of sample submissions from previous years across all grade bands from fail to firsts, including ‘problematic’ submissions or encouraging teams to blind mark a sample piece of work as a staff development exercise to see what range of marks results and to discuss why. Additional information on this can be found in Appendix 5.

Approaches to marking which may be less helpful than others are those which involve compartmentalised marking where staff might be assessing in isolation or only being responsible for one aspect of an assignment, or not having the chance to discuss priorities and relationship between criteria and tasks (one tutor marking highly for concept as more interested in this than make, compared to the tutor who is concerned that the quality of practical output should be paramount, over considerations of ideas and innovation). Laborious approaches to marking which take up a lot of staff time and resource will also need to be avoided and are not necessarily effective. 2.10.9 Making changes to assessments Each year there is an opportunity for course teams to make formal changes to course documentation through the Minor Modifications procedure. For further information on this please to go to https:// which hosts information on all aspects of formal course change processes.


3.0 Internal Moderation

For full guidance on Internal Moderation, including sampling and parity review, please consult the UAL Guidance Notes on Assessment point 3.6. available at myintranet/students/assessment-and-quality/course-regulations-website/course-regs-201314/3.2ASSESSGUIDANCE1314.2.pdf 3.1

Terms and Purpose

A system for Internal Moderation will: • • •

provide advice and support for assessors verify the assessment process and grading/marking decisions provide evidence for External Examination and course monitoring.

Internal Moderation may include: • • • • 3.2

sampling assessment and project briefs team marking, whereby individual judgments of individuals are subject to discussion and agreement by colleagues not involved in the initial assessment the discussion and approval of assessments and project briefs benchmarking procedures that enable assessors to benchmark their marking practices against others to achieve parity of assessment. Internal Moderation Procedures

The aim of Internal Moderation is to provide a check for the whole system of marking and assessment. Internal Moderation ensures that course teams have procedures in place to standardise assessment practice and verify assessment and grading decisions.


4.0 Other Assessment Procedures 4.1

Non-submissions and Referrals

Students who have not submitted and those who have been referred are given the referral tasks and a new deadline. It is the student’s responsibility to check on Moodle for details of any new or additional work required. The tutor assessing should notify the Course Leader and the Student Administrator of the requirements for resubmission and Registry should post this information on Moodle by student ID number only and highlighting the referral deadline and requirements. Referral / Deferral deadline dates are announced at the progression examination boards. It is the Referral Officer’s responsibility to arrange for the collection, marking and return of student work and notification of the referral grade within four weeks of hand in. Assessors must record the indicative grade (i.e. what the work would have received if it had not been referred) and then a capped mark of D- (assumed the work has passed) will be recorded at the Exam Board. Where weighted assessment is used and there is more than one assessment element carrying marks referral will take place at unit, not element, level. If, for example, a student passes one element of a unit but fails the second, where that failure is in the marginal band (E) and the aggregate mark for both elements D- or above, then the student can compensate that failure and pass the unit. If the failure is below the marginal band (in the F/F-/NS band) the element will have to be retrieved and the unit mark capped overall at D-. While the referred element will be graded at its appropriate value, the unit mark will be graded at D- as already stated. The maximum time allowed for resubmission is usually one term after the work was originally due in. An exception would be if the student was on work placement, for example, and this had been agreed by the Board. Where appropriate, students who do not submit on the deadline should be given a slightly different task to avoid the practice of using non-submission as a means to get more time to complete work. When work has been submitted on time, particularly in the case of larger units, referral tasks may cover only the failed or missing assessment evidence. Late work is recorded as a Non-submission. See also Section 4.4 Meeting Assessment Deadlines. 4.2 Compensation Undergraduate students who have a marginal fail (E) in units up to the value of 30 credits in any one Stage other than the final Stage will be compensated for that failure, awarded the credits and progressed by the Board of Examiners without a requirement to retrieve that failure. Compensation is for progressing students only and not for those in their final award year.



Termly Progression Boards and Extenuating Circumstances Panel

The College has established an Extenuating Circumstances Panel to review all extenuating circumstances and ensure a greater degree of parity across the College. The group is made up of representative academic and administrative staff who would make a recommendation to the Progression and Examination Board on whether the claim was validated or not validated. Extenuating Circumstances Please see Section 2.7.6 of this document also. Students must complete an extenuating circumstances form (available from Student Administration / Registry or Moodle) and lodge this with Registry, together with medical certificates or other formal documentation, by the deadlines advertised. Tutors should mark all assignments as if no extenuating circumstances form has been handed in and record the grade and return a complete list of grades for the unit to the Student Administrator. It is the Student Administrator’s duty to note any student who has returned an extenuating circumstances form at that point, on the spreadsheet of grades. 4.4

Meeting Assessment Deadlines.

See Section 2.7.7 The UAL Assessment Policy clearly outlines that no extensions to assessment deadlines are permissible. • Any student who does not submit their work for assessment at the time and place specified on their assignment will be recorded as a non-submission / fail. • If students have exceptional reasons for lateness they must use the extenuating circumstances form. 4.5 E-assessment A number of pilots and trials are currently underway with regard to adoption of the UAL Online Assessment Tool (OAT) and online submission of student work. For further information on work in progress please contact Darren Gray, Head of eLearning at LCF or CLTAD.




Appendix 1

Themes and Questions from a Group Work Seminar

A ‘domino discussion’ workshop was held on July 18th, 2013 in the School of Management and Science, at which a number of topics, issues and solutions were debated from diverse course perspectives. Key points relating to the assessment of group work are reiterated here in note form. However, the main benefit of the method was in capturing all voices in the room and learning from and sharing own expertise. General synopsis of topics • • • • • • • •

How best to establish and manage groups How are students “fired” from groups? The role of academics in monitoring progress and other kinds of support The role of peer assessment in group work and allocation of marks Failure and retrieval in group work The allocation of individual marks for group work Working with industry in group work and an issue of intellectual property (IP) Plagiarism / academic misconduct (AM)

The topics highlighted in bold are those related to assessment and key points are summarised here. The role of peer assessment in group work and allocation of marks Diverse points were made on these topics and these points reflect the opinions of the individuals commenting: The strongest approach is to use a combination of Self assessment Peer assessment Tutor assessment Students often have mixed reactions to peer learning and peer/self assessment, seeing it as teaching each other the stuff they need to know (dereliction of staff duty) and are wary of peer assessment


Appreciating the importance of roles within groups and how they function is one learning element of the assessment lost e.g. Students are looking for content learning, not metacognition. This is where the effective use of reflection on units is important. The use of self and peer assessment inventories were variously seen as helpful and problematic. Good and bad things were noted with using tools such as the Belbin team role inventory for self and peer assessment, e.g. getting students to reflect on how they came out as shaper, plant etc is important. Using such tools needs to be supplemented with other pedagogic approaches and positions such as strengths based learning and appreciative enquiry. The helpfulness of PPD Coach was noted in providing information on these topics and other reflective resources http://www.arts. Pre testing and post testing of performance may be useful On the John Lewis project staff suggest things that students might want to reflect on e.g. the sorts of experiences they had in their groups, using these as hooks for reflection so that their evaluations are different each time. One tutor uses a group peer assessment form and students have opportunity to say what their contribution is and then the last question is “do you think all your members should be awarded the same mark?� Tutor grades are not altered in the light of student views, however, the feedback does reflect student judgements and evaluations. In some cases, peer rating matrices are used and students are told that ratings can affect their marks. Peer group assessment formatively works really well rather than summative Failure and retrieval in group work The key questions to be asked are what was set for retrieval? New or original work? What could be set as individual work for a referral / deferral when there wasn’t a group for students to undertake retrieval work?


Points and questions included: The need to ensure that the indicative content and learning outcomes/marking criteria can be demonstrated as having been engaged with and ahcieved through any alternative task. The danger is when the referral task seems to bear no relation to the original task, or does not fulfill any of these requirements. Can you get them to do a reflection on group work if they can’t do the group work per se? Would this meet these needs? The allocation of individual marks for group work On one course it was noted that students do work as a group but have their own mark as well e.g. on a written report/ or where they talk about a topic and do a group presentation but get an individual mark for this as well as a group mark. The key questions when allocating individual as well as group marks were felt to be how these are arrived at, and on what evidence?


Appendix 2. PPD: Assessment and Academic Regulation. Reminder Sheet 2013/14 In the course of preparation for re/validation and review, and through scrutiny of unit handbooks, a number of issues have come to light with regard to the assessment of PPD which this reminder sheet seeks to clarify. It focuses on those issues only: for in-depth information about PPD please refer to the UAL PPD guidelines 2011 and also the student statement on PPD in the course handbook. Alternatively, if you wish to discuss PPD provision and assessment in greater detail please contact Dr Alison James, Associate Dean Learning and Teaching . Background Introduced in 2006/07, the present model of PPD, with its single learning outcome, was designed to allow courses to cater for student reflection on learning flexibly and in accordance with the needs of their discipline/specific units. It leaves course teams free to decide how to embed assessment of PPD where best suits, as long as this is in line with UAL academic regulation. Many courses are doing this successfully, however in some cases oversights or misunderstandings have been identified which may impact on the potential benefit students can derive from PPD, while others could result in material irregularity. Issues concerning assessment regulations. A number of problems occurring with the assessment of PPD appear to be because how to assess PPD has not been fully considered. As a result, course teams are finding that the assessment methods chosen do not, or were not designed to, incorporate PPD. Cases where there have been problems include the following: •

PPD is listed as a learning outcome on a unit and then no mention is made of it under assessment methods.

It is not sufficient for PPD (or any learning outcome) to be listed, or the PPD marking criterion indicated, without further information as to how it will be assessed. This information, including details of specific tasks required, should be included in the project brief details of a UHB, and under assessment tasks. •

The way PPD is to be assessed is different from, or additional to, that which is set out in the validated course handbook.


This contravenes UAL assessment regulations. Unless units are being considered and formally changed through the minor modifications process, which can happen annually and in advance of the academic year in question, assessment tasks cannot be added into a unit handbook on a termly basis. This includes adding in the PPD reflective statement sheet when there has been no previous indication that PPD will be assessed, or a reflective statement required (i.e. in validated course descriptors etc). •

Word counts are changed on assessment tasks to incorporate PPD which have not been formally validated, e.g. stating in the course handbook that a unit assessment will be a 2000 word report and then asking for a 3000 word essay which incorporates a PPD evaluation in the UHB.

This contravenes UAL assessment regulations. •

Weighted marks are allocated to PPD (or other assessment tasks) which are not validated.

This contravenes UAL assessment regulations. •

A lack of clarity over which parts of PPD evidence are summative, and which are formative.

For example, whether a learning journal is something which a student keeps privately, and informs a final reflective evaluation, or which needs to be handed in as part of final grading. Issues of academic practice and PPD •

Insufficient explanation of the value and purpose of PPD and reflective practice

While some students may already be adept at reflecting and articulating their progress others may not understand the process fully. If they are left to their own devices because we assume that how to do this is self-evident they may miss out on academic guidance which helps them improve their understanding of themselves and their subject. •

In some courses PPD is only conceived of as the 500 word statement.

The PPD reflective statement, with a suggested template in the UHB, was only ever designed to be a “fall back position”, for courses to use if they could not find a more appropriate way to integrate reflection on learning into their courses. While there is nothing wrong with the statement per se, there are other more inventive ways of inviting students to evaluate their progress and development.


Referring to a reflective statement or essay as 'your PPD'

The danger in doing this is that it reduces reflection to a piece of paper, rather than an internal process evidenced throughout a student's thinking and acting. Course teams need to avoid language such as ‘do a PPD’ as opposed to ‘provide evidence of/evaluate your PPD’, to ensure it is seen as a process, not a thing. •

Repetition of the same reflective activity on multiple units

PPD can fit subtly into all aspects of a course and evidence of engagement made clear in a variety of ways. However asking students to do the same activity on every unit without explaining the purpose and relevance or varying the medium will turn them off. •

Assessment of PPD by more than the PPD Criterion

While this does not contravene regulations it is not necessarily helpful for the student. Course teams should make clear to students why they would assess PPD by additional criteria. •

There is vagueness as to what PPD constitutes e.g. reference to a PPD portfolio.

Details of this need to be articulated in the unit handbook •

Asking students to do activities on PPD Coach without supporting guidance.

A number of courses are asking students on ISHE to do specific activities from PPD Coach (http:// as evidence of engagement with PPD. This move to integrate PPD Coach into units to help students develop reflective capacity is warmly welcomed, however it should be noted that it is not a stand- alone, online course, but rather designed as a flexible toolkit to be interpreted and employed according to the wishes and needs of the user. While there are many activities embedded within PPD Coach, students need to be made aware that there is no set list of these for them to work through. Their use therefore may need explaining, in addition to the 'how to use' tour on the resource. Students can also be encouraged to engage with the resource by thinking how they have responded to materials on it, or related materials to their own experiences.


Good practice in and support for PPD Many effective forms of PPD are those which are varied and have been designed to fit the unit, discipline and cater for flexibility of expression. These can be stand-alone or embedded in the subject. Examples of alternatives include: video reflections (Flexible Programme), use of Lego Serious Play (IPF), double entry journals for observing process (Cosmetic Science), a reflective essay and portfolio of employability documents (courses in SDT) evaluations of personal progress in reports, presentations or group discussions, creative reflective activities (the use of weekly reflective postcards on interior and spatial design at Chelsea), or other ways of evidencing PPD. For further information on any of these please contact Dr Alison James


Appendix 3. THE TEN COMMANDMENTS OF CONSTRUCTIVE WRITTEN FEEDBACK (These may seem obvious but you’d be surprised how often they get broken) 1.

Ensure comments are relevant to the criteria, unit and level in question (don’t judge against industry standards or allocate extra marks “to be encouraging” if not appropriate)


Align your comments with the actual grades given and general ethos of each band described in the marking criteria


Make your comments specific and evidence based (if a concept is under -developed or an essay under- theorized explain what needs to be done and give examples)


Suggest clear actions in plain English (“include more ephemera” or “clarify your epistemological assumptions” may not mean much to some of our students)


Separate opinion from fact where possible (if this is difficult, tie in with 2 – “Good presentation slides but delivery boring” may be true in your view, but turn it around: “to develop your delivery style and engage your audience more effectively do X”)


Provide detail. Brevity may be the soul of wit, but not on assessment sheets. (“sweet” “poor research”, “good work”, “could do better” are not helpful”)


Save the sarcasm (“looks like it was done by a four year old in the dark”)


Try and keep a balance e.g. of feed back and feed forward in an individual’s feedback sheet and of quantity/quality of feedback for different students; writing one line on one sheet compared to a whole paragraph on another doesn’t equate (unless you are categorizing it as “academic misconduct”)

9. Keep it clean (legible, no scratching out, typos, cat paws, coffee stains, emoticons, colloquialisms) 10.

Don’t get tired and emotional, or personal (“after all I have done for you this is the best you could do?”; “Given your terrible year [cites catastrophe in graphic detail] you have done marvellously well”; “Excellent project Josephine, see you pub Friday?”)


Please note A)

Giving written feedback is not an act of staff goodwill, it’s a student entitlement. Because of A, we have B


Saying we are too busy to give detailed feedback is not good enough


If we do B, or worse, nothing at all, we risk material irregularity (this is when we fail to fulfil the commitments we have made in writing to our students through our policies and procedures. We promise to provide written feedback on all summative assessments to students, but if this is scant or of poor quality then it is worse than useless. Students don’t learn as much from our feedback and may also appeal on the grounds of material irregularity).


Appendix 4. Examples of Accommodated Assessment Examples of accommodated assessment in the School of Design & Technology A first year student, with a physical disability, had access issues with classes timetabled on some of the LCF sites without lifts. Classes were re-timetabled on alternate floors or alternate sites for students for this group. Where this was not possible the student was allowed to join an alternative technical class and offered tutorial support in addition to the lesson from the sample room staff to ensure understanding of the lesson content. The student is supported by close liaison between the Disability team and the first year tutor. A first year student with hearing impairment is closely supported by the Year tutor liaising with City Lit and the Disability team. She is supported successfully in mixed group project participation through the communicator speaking for the student for inclusion within the project. A second year textile student with severe physical disability is facilitated in completing their degree through an emphasis on digital textile specialism rather than craft methods. A final year student experienced mental health problems at the beginning of the final year disrupting her studies and causing her increasing anxiety and concern. Through discussion with the Group tutor the students was able to meet with the Disability team who were able to provide support including the provision of a disability passport and agreed extra time for submission of her final year units. The student continues to receive weekly support form her group tutor throughout the year. Following this support the students is completing the year with a high level of achievement which is in itself greatly boosting her self confidence. The course team work closely with the Disability team to organise support within the textile technical rooms for students with physical disability or dyspraxia. This has included sample room technical support for three dimensional realisation of final collections and products. Examples of accommodated assessment in the School of Management and Science, LCF (Names have been changed to protect anonymity)


Alex, a first year student, was experiencing severe mental health issues which disrupted her studies. At the beginning of the course she had not disclosed her condition which meant that there was little immediate support in place for her other than access to a Student Services counsellor with whom the Course Leader was in close contact. During the second term her condition deteriorated and she suffered a breakdown. Following consideration of her case by the Dean of School, Alex was granted a year out to recuperate. When she returned to college the Course Leader and the Disability team were able to provide specific support as her needs had been identified. This included provision of a disability passport which ensured that Alex could access weekly counselling and study support sessions as well as agreed extra time for hand in dates. Since receiving this support with her study Alex has performed very well and is looking forward to continuing next year. Joan needed treatment for an ongoing condition which involved being out of College on Fridays; this meant that she could not attend the timetabled all-day sessions for CHS and had already missed over half of them before alerting her tutors to her predicament. A meeting was called with the Disability Co-ordinator, CHS, and Course Leader to address the situation. Unfortunately, the timetable could not be changed to accommodate her and she could not change her treatment day. A resolution was found as Joan was able to access the lecture notes available on BB as well as using her friends to help her keep up with the missed lessons. Joan was also granted a disability passport through which 2 additional weeks to hand in her work and weekly study support sessions were agreed. Joan was happy with the accommodated assessment. Pam was a returning student from the previous year who needed to complete an outstanding unit. Unfortunately due to a visa issue Pam started the term very late (week 4 out of a 6 week term, shortened due to work experience) and she felt very lost as the students were working on a very different assignment to the one she had undertaken the year. In order to address the situation the Course Leader and Programme Director liaised closely with the Quality Assurance Coordinator for the School to find a resolution to the problem. It was decided that the assessment task from the previous year could be used for Pam as it had the same learning outcomes and would evidence that she could work at the same level as her peers. This was confirmed by the Dean. Pam was given tutorials from her year tutor about the assessment hand in details and her course tutor about the content. Pam subsequently passed the unit and progressed onto the next term. Examples of accommodated assessment in the School of Media & Communication A student with Mental Health issues who felt unable to take part in group presentation or assessments on the BA Performance was able to present to the tutor on her own at the end of the group presentations and assessment.


The Costume course had a student diagnosed with Lupus Disease in her last year of university who became increasingly exhausted and unable to sew or lift her work. It was arranged for her to have sewing support from a technician to enable her to complete her degree. Additional examples from Study Support: 1)

a visually impaired student on Fashion Illustration Year 1 - life drawing is proving impossible so she is being allowed to work off a monitor, onto which is projected the image of the model in the classroom;


students with mental health conditions who find it hard to present in front of groups are allowed to do so just to their tutors.


technical support has been put in place for students with dyspraxia/physical impairments


vivas are being considered as a means of alternative assessment for one or two severely dyslexic students.


currently no alternative tasks are being offered through our accommodated assessment policy - additional time remains our primary adjustment.


Appendix 5: Assessment Policy Exercise created by Dr Julia Gaimster, Associate Dean Academic, Graduate School LCF This can be used as a discussion tool for staff needing to clarify their understanding of policies and procedures to follow, in various situations with students. The answers can be found overleaf. Student A On the day her assignment is due her computer fails and she loses all of her work. She has no back up but has printed out an earlier draft. What would you advise? Student B Two days before her assignment is due a close family member dies in traumatic circumstances. She does not inform anyone at the time and does not submit. One week after the exam board results have been published goes to see her tutor and explains why she did not submit. What should the tutor advise? Student Group B The tutor for this group is suddenly taken ill. A substitute cannot be found at short notice and the group miss several classes. The course leader notices that the grades are not as high as normal. What action if any should she take? Students XYZ On the day of the hand in for the final major project Oxford Circus station is closed due to a fire alert. Students X Y and Z arrive to hand in their work 5 minutes after the door to the hand in room has been locked. They are clearly distressed and one of them is a distinction standard student. What do you do? Student G Student G an international student has submitted a written report – the standard of the English and the depth of the concepts discussed are of a much higher standard than work submitted previously. You have run the work through safe assign and it has come out with a very low score for plagiarism. However you are concerned that the student has not produced the piece himself or herself. What do you do?


Student A ECs do not cover printer failure, therefore the student would have to hand in whatever she can manage Student B Two days before her assignment is due a close family member dies in traumatic circumstances. She does not inform anyone at the time and does not submit. One week after the exam board results have been published goes to see her tutor and explains why she did not submit. What should the tutor advise? The student would need to submit evidence relating to ECs which would be considered retrospectively at appeal. Student Group B The tutor for this group is suddenly taken ill. A substitute cannot be found at short notice and the group miss several classes. The course leader notices that the grades are not as high as normal. What action if any should she take? The lack of support that the students are entitled to, arising from the tutor’s absence, constitutes a material irregularity – i.e. a failure on the institution’s part to do what it has undertaken to do in relation to the students’ learning. No grades should be changed as a block, but should be considered on their individual merits. This is currently the subject of some debate at UAL level. Students XYZ On the day of the hand in for the final major project Oxford Circus station is closed due to a fire alert. Students X Y and Z arrive to hand in their work 5 minutes after the door to the hand in room has been locked. They are clearly distressed and one of them is a distinction standard student. What do you do? Transportation issues are not included in ECs for late hand in, and the fact that the student is of distinction standard has nothing to do with overturning the ruling that late should mean late.


Student G Student G an international student has submitted a written report – the standard of the English and the depth of the concepts discussed are of a much higher standard than work submitted previously. You have run the work through Safe Assign and it has come out with a very low score for plagiarism. However you are concerned that the student has not produced the piece himself or herself. What do you do? The tutor would need to take into consideration knowledge of the level of work previously submitted by the student and other evidence of ability to communicate in English. We are also aware that students have become much more adept at evading software systems like Safe Assign and that buying or commissioning essay writing is increasingly common practice by some students. While it is not possible for a tutor to ‘viva’ a student to test their knowledge of the subject in question, the Academic Misconduct procedures would need to be followed to explore whether or not the student had in fact infringed the regulations.


Appendix 6 Reading and References General references Framework for Higher Education Qualification in England and Wales, available at http://www.qaa. Accessed January 29th 2014. QAA Subject Benchmark Statements, available at Accessed January 29th 2014. Information on Level Descriptors in A Brief Guide to Academic Qualifications, a QAA report, available at Accessed January 29th 2014. Understanding Assessment. QAA report for early career staff. Available at Accessed January 29th 2014. General resources on assessment A Marked Improvement. HEA report and manifesto for change in assessment strategy. Available at Accessed January 27th 2014 Atherton, J Last accessed January 27th 2011. Biggs, J. B. and Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university. Open University Press/Mc Graw-Hill Education. Third edition. Higher Education Academy Multiple resources on assessment which can be searched by keywords: e.g. Sue Bloxham’s guide to assessment issues in teacher education – as with many of the HEA resources look beyond the immediate context for transferability or applicability to your own settings.


Race, P LTSN Guidelines on Assessment gc/assess09SelfPeerGroup.pdf including advice on how to assess student groups (these guidelines are currently up for revision and updating but some principles remain current) University of Ulster Assessment Handbook Accessed March 13th 2012. Assessment in the creative arts Camberwell Inclusive Induction handbook Accessed March 13th 2012 CLIP CETL Guide to assessment in the creative arts docs/CC-HANDBOOK-5-DRAFT2.pdf Accessed March 12th 2012 Accommodated assessment The LCF ADAPT programme and materials also has extensive information on inclusive learning, teaching and assessment. Sheffield Hallam University’s guidance on the design and delivery of inclusive academic assessments. Available at Accessed January 29th 2014 Collaborative working and group assessment guidance on assessing collaborative working but seems to conflate the terms collaborative working and team working. From the Educause not for profit initiative focussing on e-learning OCSLD at Oxford Brookes University. Guidelines on Assessing Groupwork (free ebook) and links to group assessment, in particular Professor Graham Gibbs review of the literature at http://www.brookes. Rust C LTSN Guidelines on assessing large groups especially pp17-18 http://www.bioscience. (these guidelines are currently up for revision and updating but some principles remain current).


Marking Criteria Sabri, D (2011) An evaluation of marking criteria at the University of the Arts, London. Research paper commissioned by CLTAD. Peer and self assessment Healey, M and Addis, M. Use of peer and self assessment to distribute group marks among individual team members: ten years’ experience. Available online at Accessed January 29th 2014. Race P, Brown S, Smith B (2000) 500 Tips on Assessment. Routledge Falmer. In particular Chapter 5 ‘Involving students in their own assessment’ with checklists and questions that can be used in relation to reflection on assessed work and feedback. Plagiarism NTU’s paper on academic misconduct and discouraging plagiarism through assessment design, available at Accessed January 29th 2014 PPD Personal and Professional Development. Principles and Guidelines for Implementation. UAL publication 2011. PPD_guidelines_2011.pdf Writing learning outcomes Baume, D Writing and using good learning outcomes learning_outcomes.pdf Accessed March 14th 2012 Guide for Busy Academics: Using learning outcomes to design a course and assess learning http:// Accessed January 29th 2014

© All images courtesy of the University of the Arts Image Library https:/


Lcf assessment handbook 13 14  
Lcf assessment handbook 13 14