Assessment, Grading, and Exam Moderation Guidelines

University of Bahrain

College of Information Technology

Assessment, Grading, and Exam Moderation Guidelines

Version 0.5312-3-2013

Assessment Strategy

The College of IT Assessment Strategy relies on the following main objectives, which are in line with the NAQQAET Institutional and Program Review criteria as well as international best practice:

Student assessment reflects learning outcomes and academic standards.
Assessment regulations are applied consistently and fairly.
A variety of assessment methods are employed and cover both formative and summative assessment.
Appropriate and prompt feedback is provided to students on their assessment results.
Moderation of assessment, exams, and grading to ensure consistency and fairness.

Figure 1. College of IT Assessment Strategy Objectives

The assessment strategy can be applied using many policies and mechanisms. The NAQQAET Handbook for Program Review summarizes some good practices in this regard and these have been excerpted from the handbook in Appendix C.

In order to satisfy the objectives of the assessment strategy, below are the policies and guidelines that will be applied at the College of IT.

Alignment of student assessment and learning outcomes
Assessment items including exams, assignments, homework, projects, etc. should assess the extent to which the students are meeting the Course Intended Learning Outcomes that have been published. As the CILOs are mapped to the Program Intended Learning Outcomes, the assessment in turn contributes to satisfying the PILOs.
Instructors must ensure balanced and comprehensive assessment of CILOs during the semester.
The assessment methods should be suitable to the level of the assessed learning outcomes.
Fair and consistent application of assessment regulations
Instructors must ensure fair and consistent application of assessment across all sections and students. When more than one instructor is teaching a course, there should be:
Common tests/exams/policies.
Each question in the test/exam should be marked by the same instructor across all sections.
The same grading range (grade distribution) should be applied to all sections.
Common marks distributions shown in the key solutions for tests/exams should be used across all sections.
Common exams should be reviewed by all instructors and moderated before the exam by the course coordinator.
Students must be allowed access to the assessment results (excluding final exam) andhave the right to enquire about the marking scheme and how it was applied.
Students have the right to appeal their assessment and ask for a re-grading and verification of the grade. In the case of the final course grade the University process is implemented. In case of protest of other assessment during the semester, the faculty member will verify his grading and explain to the student how the grade was awarded. Students who are not satisfied can raise the issue to the course coordinator and then to the chair of the department.
Students have the right to access their course assessment summary (detailed grades in course assessment tasks and midterms) before the end of the semester. A University Council decision requires all instructors to post the detailed “sessional” marks before the last day of classes.
Students should have access from the start of the course (typically in the course plan/syllabus) to the schedule of assessment, the types of assessment, weight from total marks and criteria for marking and grading.
Course coordinators should ensure that all course instructors and lab assistants also have access to the assessment schedule and weights.
Instructors must submit a detailed record form which includes student grades, weights, and maximum grade for each assessment activity to the course coordinator who will submit the report to the chairperson at the end of the semester. The method used for calculating the total grade should also be indicated on this record.
Results of the final assessment of the course and the letter grades should be submitted to the Deanship of Admission and Registration after they have been checked and approved by at least two members of the Grade Distribution Committee and the Chairperson. Any suggested grade distribution changes must be submitted to the course instructor/coordinator on the same day the draft grades are submitted to the GDC or the chairperson.
Complete records of the assessments should be kept in the department. This is both for student appeal and for accreditation/review purposes. The final exam student papers should also be submitted for storage and appeal purposes. These are usually stored for two years before being disposed of.

Range of assessment methods

3.1 Instructors are encouraged to use a variety of assessment methods. These may be diagnostic, formative and summative. A policy of using formative assessments should be specified and attached to this strategy.

3.2 Assessment can include a mixture of techniques including midterm exams, projects, term papers, case studies, quizzes, etc.University and College council regulations specify the weight of final examsat 40%. Other tasks should share the other 60% of the final grade.

3.3 Exams and tests should also include a variety of question types including essay, short-answer, multiple-choice, and other types of questions.The multiple-choice questionsshould not exceed the 20% of the overall marks in any test.

3.5 Formative assessment should be employed to inform the students of their progress in learning and means of improving it. In order to achieve this, formative assessment should be the basis for prompt and objective feedback to the students.

Prompt feedback to students
Feedback to the student should be prompt, fair, objective.The feedback might be given to students verbally or in a written form but a record of verbal feedback should be kept.
Assessment results should be returned to students within 2 weeks from the date of the assessment activity.
Project work should be done in phases feedback for each phases should be forwarded to student.
Moderation and grade distribution
A Grade Distribution Committee (consisting of 3-6 members) will be created by each department to ensure moderation and consistency of grading among all courses offered by the department.
The GDC will ensure application of the University and College policies in grading.
The GDC will prepare a schedule during the grading period for staff who would like to submit their grades.
Consultation by the staff with the GDC for reviewing the grade distribution will be in a meeting where at least 2 of the GDC members present and should not be done individually.
In the event when the student population is large enough a normal curve distribution can be used, taking into consideration the University normal curve as basis for the grade distribution.
Change of curve points is possible due to class level, student population, or other considerations. However, in this case the instructor/coordinator must obtain the consent of the GDC.
It is highly recommended that external examiners should be involved especially in the assessment project work and summer training.
Internal/departmental exam moderation and grade distribution committee for the moderation of midterm tests and final exams should be created annually.
The procedure for internal pre-moderation of midterm and final exams for multi-instructor courses is as follows:
The course coordinator will ask instructors to submit candidate questions for the exam.
The coordinator will prepare a draft exam and must discuss it with other instructors.
Upon receiving their comments, the course coordinator will prepare a final version of the exam with a key solution.
The coordinator should refer any disputes regarding pre-moderation of exams to the GDC.

Appendix A. Grading Guidelines

The standard University grading curve.

Letter / Points / Grade
A / 4 / 90-100
A- / 3.67 / 87-89
B+ / 3.33 / 84-86
B / 3 / 80-83
B- / 2.67 / 77-79
C+ / 2.33 / 74-76
C / 2 / 70-73
C- / 1.67 / 67-69
D+ / 1.33 / 64-66
D / 1 / 60-63
F / 0 / <60

Note that it has been considered as usual practice to round grades on the boundary upward. For example, a student receiving 89.8 or 89.5 or even 89.1 will be considered an A.

The percentage of the student population that should be awarded a grade has been set as follows in the American and European systems. Note that this basically follows the normal curve and is meant here as an indication of good practice and for benchmarking purposes only.

Benchmark / A / B / C / D / F
ETCS: European Credit Transfer System / 10% / 25% / 30% / 25% / 10%
Academic Grading System in USA / 7% / 24% / 38% / 24% / 7%

To eliminate doubt when specifying the grade boundaries and especially for large sections, the Grade Distribution Committee should maintain suitable gaps between grades and thus can move the boundaries slightly accordingly. This has to be discussed in the GDC and should be approved by at least 3 members with the consultation of the course coordinator.

Appendix B. NAQQAET Indicators Related to Assessment

Below are the indicators that are concerned with assessment in the NAQQAET handbooks.

Table 1. NAQQAET Institutional Review Indicator 10 Statement

(see )

Indicator 10
Assessment of student learning is appropriate for the learning outcomes sought and accurately reflects the academic standards achieved by students.
What is expected of a higher education institution operating in Bahrain:

There are policies on student assessment which set out: examination processes; grading schemes and marking criteria; rules for special consideration and re-examination; requirements for more than one piece of assessment; and the ways in which moderation is applied.
These policies reflect research findings on good practice in assessment, so that assessment tasks are designed to ensure accurate measurement of student learning, in accordance with the learning outcomes for the subject and to provide early identification of student learning difficulties
These policies are implemented consistently throughout the institution
There are staff development opportunities on how to measure subject and programme learning outcomes through appropriate design of assessment and the use of varying assessment tasks
There is external scrutiny or comparison of the relative academic standards achieved by the institution’s students.

Table 2. Excerpt from the Program Review Handbook ()

Indicator 1: The programme complies with existing regulations in terms of the curriculum, the teaching and the assessment of students’ achievements; the curriculum demonstrates fitness for purpose.
1.1The programme has clear aims (that is, the broad purposes of providing the programme) that relate to the missions of the institution and the Faculty and comply with the Higher Education Council’s (HEC) regulations.
1.2Intended learning outcomes are expressed in programme and course specifications.
1.3The syllabus (curricular content) is accurately documented in terms of breadth, depth, relevance, appropriate references to current and recent professional practice and published research findings.
1.4The curriculum is organized to provide academic progression year-on-year, suitable workloads for students, and balances between knowledge and skills, and between theory and practice.
1.5Teaching and learning approaches are adopted which support the attainment of aims and intended learning outcomes; these approaches relate to the range of methods, participation in learning by students, exposure to professional practice or applications of theory, encouragement of personal responsibility for learning and the development of the habit of self-learning or independent learning after graduation.
1.6Suitable arrangements are in place, and known to all faculty and students, to assess students’ achievements; these arrangements cover formative and summative functions. There are clear criteria for marking; appropriate mechanisms for students to get prompt feedback on their progress and performance that assists further learning; clear links between what is assessed and the programme aims and intended learning outcomes, and mechanisms for ranking students’ achievements fairly and rigorously.

Appendix C. QAAET Program Review Handbook Excerpt (Section 2.6)

(source )

2.6 Guidance on the assessment of students’ achievements

The assessment of students’ performance and achievements in terms of the stated aims and intended learning outcomes of a programme presents a challenge in higher education worldwide. Success in this respect contributes to the level of confidence in the programme and its graduates more than any other single component of a programme. The development of an outcomes-related approach to higher education quality assurance requires considerable investment in student assessment strategies and methods and in an institution’s regulations and procedures, including internal and external moderation and evaluation.

Sources of good practice in assessment include the Code of Practice for Assessment published by the Quality Assurance and Accreditation Project (QAAP) in Egypt, and the Code of Practice on Student Assessment published by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) in the UK.

The essence of good practice may be summarised as follows:

Student assessment should be “fit for purpose” in being appropriate for the articulated academic standards.
Programmes may employ three forms of assessment: diagnostic, formative and summative.
Diagnostic assessment determines the abilities of a student to determine the suitability of a course or programme; this is particularly useful for direct entry at levels of a programme higher than first year, and for some courses such as foreign languages.
F ormative assessment provides information for teachers and the students on progress and what is being learned and applied, and on how the student can further their learning. Feedback to the student should be prompt, fair, objective and may be structured in a standard proforma or template for consistency; feedback may also be face-to-face or by e-mail tutorial.
Summative assessment contributes to credits and can use a range of methods ranging from laboratory and other practical work through major projects, case studies and dissertations, multiple choice questions (MCQ), to formal time-constrained and unseen written examinations.
Self-assessment by students features in programmes or courses where the student is given greater responsibility for their learning.
Peer assessment may also be used in suitable contexts such as seminars with students’ presentations and group projects.
In any viable total population, a normal distribution curve will apply. A normative assessment method, together with the use of reference points such as trends in outcomes, may be used to moderate aggregate outcomes; selective admissions can, however, create bias in the student group.
The development of outcomes-related approaches to higher education quality assurance emphasises criterion-referenced assessment, where students either demonstrate the specified performance or not; criteria may be graded upwards from threshold in order to differentiate levels of performance.
The balance and proportion of the total course assessment allocated to each type of assessment enables the students to demonstrate the achievement of all the intended learning outcomes, addressing knowledge and skills.
Professors responsible for courses, their academic colleagues and assistant teachers and examiners, should have access to the detailed arrangements for assessment of courses at all times, including type of assessment, schedule, credit rating, criteria for marking and grading, marking schemes and model answers.
Students should have access at all times (typically in a student handbook, programme handbook or website) to the schedule of assessment, the types of assessment, credit rating and criteria for marking and grading.
The Faculty or institution should have a clear policy and set of regulations for assessing students’ achievements, including a clear function in either or both a senior faculty member and a Committee or Board.
Internal moderation is essential to the quality assurance of the assessment of students’ achievements. It ensures, before the students take the assessment, that the assessment designed to establish the students’ progress in learning and their level of achievements, is valid, fair and meets the intended learning outcomes. Following the assessment, it checks thatthe marks awarded are correct, fair and statistically normal. Where justified, modifications tothe accumulated marks and decisions on grades of pass, refer, and fail may be made.
External evaluation provides an independent professional opinion on the appropriatenessof the assessment of the students’ performance and the academic standards achieved ongraduation. This is sometimes referred to as verification of the academic standards attained.The functions and responsibilities of the external evaluator are normally the responsibility ofthe institution.
Security of summative assessment is paramount (in particular, ensuring that examination questionsand answers are not leaked and that questions are not repeated unduly in successive years; ensuringanonymity of answer scripts to protect students from bias; preventing plagiarism and cheating bystudents; and ensuring that marks or pass/fail rates are not altered without justification).
Results of assessment should be released as soon as they have been checked, ratified andendorsed by the appropriate Committee or Board.
An appeals mechanism should be in place and made known to students.
Adequate records for the programme are required, including the examination questionsand results itemised for each student and each assessment; these provide information forscrutiny by HERU external peer reviewers, the institution’s external evaluators or an appealscommittee.