It is important that students are able to understand how their assessment is carried out: how and when they will know what it is they need to do, the processes to allow them to submit work, how their work is marked, and how they will receive feedback, and how this is inteded to support their further development and achievement. The University's policies and procedures set out in detail how it expects assessment to be carried out, ensuring a consistent process is applied across all provision.
To ensure transparency and fairness of assessment designs and communication, course teams are expected to:
However, course teams will determine many aspects of how their course's assessments will be delivered to students including:
Course Team Guidance
Setting a word or time count or limit for an assessment component implies that there will be some sort of penalty for not adhering to this. Penalties within marking processes for work which exceeds or fails to reach set word counts should be clearly communicated to students in course documentation and within all assessment briefs where such penalties are to be applied.
University of Suffolk course teams have adopted a variety of approaches to the setting of penalties, as deemed appropriate to the particular subject area(s) involved. Some examples include:
Course Team Guidance
Most courses include a capstone project at the culmination of their course, often in the form of a project or a dissertation. Usually allocated a higher credit weighting than other modules, this module will be a key focus for students and can be a significant determinant of a student’s final classification. Consequently, it is important that the assessment processes for this module are robust and clear for all involved.
It can be difficult for those who supervise capstone projects, gaining through the supervision process both a deeper relationship with the student and a clear understanding of the student’s achievement and, in some cases, failures, to take an unbiased view of the final submission. To avoid the potential of such unintentional bias, it is prudent to avoid using the supervisor as the first marker for the student’s submission, although it may be worth them taking the role of moderator for the work.