The following is a summary of the general points made by the four discussion groups at the round table meeting and some of the major comments made in respect of individual precepts.
The summary is based on a synthesis of the notes taken of each group's discussions during the round table meeting. Comments on the feedback are in square brackets in the relevant sections.
The term 'Assessment Code' is used throughout to refer to the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (the Code of practice), section 6: Assessment of students.
The version of the Assessment Code to which the comments refer can be found at:
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/codeofpractice/section6/draft/
If you have any queries about this document, please contact Gill Clarke (g.clarke@qaa.ac.uk).
Style
There are different views about the effect the new style of the Assessment Code will have on institutions and audit teams, including the following.
1.1 The revised Assessment Code is an improvement on the previous, over-prescriptive version. It does encourage good practice, although it will be a challenge for institutions to ensure the Assessment Code leads to changes in practice at department or school level. It is possible that the revised Assessment Code is unlikely to prompt major re-thinking about assessment practice, despite the new emphasis on assessment for learning.
1.2 The emphasis on assessment for learning is welcomed, together with the references to inclusivity and disability; nevertheless it is important not to lose sight of the fact that students' motivation to learn is directly affected by summative assessment outcomes and their contribution to overall results. Views differ about whether the revised Assessment Code is too long, or about the right length, with the examples being thought either helpful or not belonging in such a document, depending on the individual point of view.
1.3 Bold, firm precepts are good, but the explanations could undermine this boldness and lead to less clarity. On the other hand, it is important that institutions are trusted to manage their assessment practices and allowed the agility to respond to the global higher education market. Institutions also have the freedom, if they wish, to implement assessment policies that go further than the Assessment Code.
1.4 References to some of the recent research literature around assessment might make the Assessment Code more convincing by showing it is evidence-based.
1.5 It is not clear that systems and data handling activities relating to assessment practice are currently adequately covered in the Assessment Code. This is an important part of assuring the accuracy and security of assessment outcomes.
Language
Comments about language include the following.
2.1 It is important that audit teams are aware of the new wording of the precepts, and take this into account in their interactions with institutions. It is noted that in the past audit reports have not normally included a specific section on assessment.
[In institutional audit reports there are sometimes general references to assessment practice in the sections on external examining and, at the moment, in the part of the report concerning discipline audit trails.]
2.2 The changed language in the precepts is likely to help everyone using the Assessment Code not to think about it in terms of 'compliance'. Removal of the additional verbs improves clarity and is helpful. Conversely, the neutral language of the revised version is considered by some to be less clear than previously and therefore less useful. For example, the revised Assessment Code now looks quite different from the Code of practice, Section 4: External examining, which includes words such as 'must' and 'will' in the precepts.
2.3 Where references are made to legislation it would be helpful to make it clear that institutions are statutorily obliged to take account of it; therefore the words 'may wish to' are not relevant in this context.
2.4 In respect of precepts 7 and 8, it is suggested that references to faculty/school/department, when related to the potential need for different practices, are not relevant and that such differences occur because of diverse subject, needs, rather than institutional levels of operation.
[The working group's references to levels of operation other than the institutional level are deliberately linked to subject practices and intended to indicate that subject-specific practice might take place at any of the three levels: faculty, school or department.]
2.5 It might be helpful if the working group reviewed the use of the words 'publicise' and 'publish', to ensure they are used in the correct context throughout the document. One purpose of this would be to make clear the intended recipients for different materials.
Definitions
Specific and general comments on the definitions include the following.
3.1 It might be more helpful to include the definitions of diagnostic, formative and summative assessment in Appendix 2, rather than in the introduction. The inclusion of an appendix of definitions is welcomed. Diagnostic assessment can also be formative or summative and this should be mentioned. More guidance on double marking in relation to moderation would be helpful. It would be helpful to include 'hot links' to references about current assessment theory and practice in the final electronic version of the Assessment Code. This might help to amplify some of the definitions.
3.2 It will be important that auditors and reviewers do not try to apply the definitions too rigidly in audit and review processes. This message could be reinforced in auditor and reviewer training.
3.3 One view is that 'formative assessment' is a misnomer: it is the purpose of an assessment rather than the assessment itself that is either formative or summative, or both. QAA is asked to give thought to the terms 'contributory' and 'non-contributory' when talking about the ways in which an assessment outcome might be used.
[This point was raised at an earlier round table meeting and discussed by the working group, who decided then that the terms 'formative assessment' and 'summative assessment' are so widely used that it would not necessarily be helpful to make major changes to the definitions at this stage. Since the point has been raised again, the group will reconsider this decision.]
3.4 The introduction of 'synoptic' assessment as a useful way of measuring programme level outcomes helps institutions looking to use more holistic ways of assessing students. In this context, a module can be viewed as a 'unit of learning' rather than a 'unit of assessment'; this approach is challenging, especially with truly modular programmes. There is a suggestion that the third bullet point in the explanation accompanying precept 6 is contradictory because 'synoptic' is used to refer to the assessment of a number of modules, rather than a programme overall.
[It can be argued that synoptic assessment can apply at both programme and module level.]
Student input
It is important that students have an opportunity to contribute to the consultation process on revisions to this section of the Code of practice.
E-learning and e-assessment
There are few references to assessment connected with e-learning.
[The working group thought it was preferable to cross-refer to the Code of practice, section 2: Collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning) - section B of which includes a sub-section on Assessment of students - when referring to e-assessment, to avoid duplication.]
Links to other materials and events
6.1 Feedback indicates general enthusiasm for links from the Assessment Code to other useful materials once a final, electronic version is available (see also 3.1 above). Such links could, for example, be useful in providing information about assessment practice in different subject areas, or to illustrate more explicitly why the precepts are important.
6.2 It would also be useful to organise UK events to coincide with publication of the Assessment Code. For example, QAA could run seminars jointly with the Higher Education Academy (HEA). Also, HEA and the Subject Centres in particular, could be involved with staff development around themes in the Assessment Code.
6.3 These links and events would help to make clearer the respective roles and responsibilities of QAA and the HEA.
Comments on individual precepts
Participants in the round table provided some constructive suggestions for making relatively minor changes to different precepts and explanations which will help to assure an appropriate emphasis in the various sections of the Assessment Code.
Most of the more significant comments made were in respect of precepts 7, 8 and 11. The following sections provide a brief summary of the feedback on these three precepts.
7.1 Precept 7 Institutions have transparent and fair mechanisms for marking and for moderating marks.
Comments on precept 7 and accompanying explanation included questions about:
- whether the explanation fully reflects the principles implicit in the precept
- the extent of alignment with institutional policy that can be achieved at subject level, recognising that flexibility to respond to discipline needs is important but that this must be balanced with the need to assure consistency and fairness to students
- the need to explore the relationship between double or second marking and blind double marking.
7.2 Precept 8 Institutions publicise and implement clear rules and regulations for progressing from one stage of a programme to another and for qualifying for an award.
In respect of precept 8 participants were concerned about:
- the extent to which the working group had taken account of the recently published Outcomes from institutional audit: Assessment of students paper
- the decision taken not to refer explicitly to the terms 'compensation' or 'condonation' because of the potential for them to be interpreted differently by different institutions
- the lack of reference to 'degree classification' in favour of more generic terminology.
7.3 Precept 11 The languages used in teaching and assessment are normally the same. If, for any reason, this is not possible, institutions ensure that their academic standards are not consequently put at risk.
Comments about precept 11 and its explanation focused on:
- the possibility of changing the title of this section to something more inclusive and that would better reflect the content of the explanation, for example 'Languages and assessment'
- the perceived need to use firmer language in parts of the explanation to emphasise that some elements of it are not optional.
Top