1 Procedures for the Assessment of Learners


1.1 Overview

IBAT College Dublin is fully committed to operating a policy that delivers a process of judging learner achievement against the standards of knowledge, skill or competence for the purpose of attaining an award, and assures assessment practices that are demonstrably fair, valid and consistent. The College’s policy ensures that learners are kept informed of what is expected of them, their progress, and their academic achievements. This policy for the assessment of learners has been developed to be consistent with QQI’s Assessment and Standards document (2009).


1.2 Assessment Components

Each subject typically consists of multiple assessment components, a combination of coursework and examination. All required assessment components are clearly communicated to Students. The relevant syllabus for each subject a student undertakes is distributed at the earliest possible time usually in the course outline distributed to students at the beginning of their programme of study.


1.3 Communication of Examination Regulations

Examination regulations are given to each student registered on a programme with IBAT College Dublin. The current version of the College’s assessment regulations is included in Appendix 12.4 of this document. These regulations cover all aspects of assessment including expected learner conduct at examinations, marks and standards relating to the programmes, rules regarding the submission of coursework, procedures relating to extensions and deferrals, and information relating to plagiarism.


1.4 Responsibilities Relating to Assessment

All assessments mechanisms are validated internally and externally during the initial programme/subject development and during the programme/subject review cycle. The lecturer and Programme Coordinator are responsible for the assessment of students. All assessments are written to reflect the subject syllabus and to examine the extent to which students have reached the learning outcomes. The Programme Coordinator is responsible for ensuring that each subject Lecturer makes an appropriate amount of time available for assessment and verification activities based on an evaluation of the assessment and verification requirements of each subject. The final decision regarding the design of assessment components rests with the Programme Coordinator. This includes an examination of the assessment instruments to ensure that they facilitate the achievement of the relevant assessment and grading criteria.


1.5 External Examiners QQI Programmes

External Examiners for QQI accredited programmes are appointed in accordance with QQI’s Assessment and Standards (2009) and Effective Practice Guideline for External Examining (2010) policy documents. IBAT College Dublin nominations are notified to QQI for ratification.


1.5.1 Criteria for Appointment of External Examiners for QQI Programmes

1.     Each external's standing, expertise and experience should be such as to enable fulfilment of his/her responsibility in the maintenance of the academic standards of the programme(s) in the context of higher education both nationally and internationally. External examiners should be drawn from academic life and, where appropriate and possible, from business, industry and professional practice.

2.     Each external examiner's academic/professional qualifications should be appropriate in level to facilitate a thorough examination of the relevant module/programme(s).

3.     Where possible, each external examiner should have had significant recent experience as an internal examiner.

4.     There should not be current reciprocal external examining between departments (i.e. nominees should not normally be members of a department in an institution where a member of College staff is serving as an external examiner). External examiner nominations/appointments should be such as to ensure maximum objectivity in relation to the College.

5.     For any one programme, external examiners should not be appointed consecutively from the same institution - the College seeks nominations from a variety of institutions and avoids multiple nominations from the same institution/within a single discipline.

6.     As a norm, an external examiner should not hold more than two external examining appointments for taught programmes at the same time. This policy can be waived, in exceptional circumstances, only with the approval of academic council (taking cognisance of the attached workload).

7.     Former members of IBAT College Dublin staff may not be invited to become external examiners within at least three years of their ceasing to be employed by the College.

8.     Those registered for and currently undertaking a QQI award, are ineligible for appointment as external examiners in any part of the College.

9.     It is the responsibility of the external examiner to declare an interest (actual or potential, real or apparent) if placed in a position of making a judgement about any learner with whom there is a close tie e.g. as a relative, friend or employer, as a close professional colleague, or having been involved with the direct supervision of the learner on placement or professional training.

10.   The requirements of professional or accrediting bodies are taken into account, where/as relevant.

11.   The College takes due cognisance of the desirability of gender balance when nominating teams of external examiners.

12.   The Registrar and/or Head of Academics is/are responsible for resolving any conflict of interest (actual or potential, real or apparent) which may arise in the appointment of an external examiner. Where this is proving difficult, academic council has the final decision.


1.6 Continuous Assessment

Programmes delivered at the IBAT College Dublin are assessed according to the learning outcomes and assessment criteria specified for each subject in the module descriptor. Before teaching begins, the lecturer submits the coursework specification for their subject to the respective Programme Coordinator. The coursework specification includes a description of the assignment, the mark breakdown, submission date and other relevant information for the student. While varieties of continuous assessment formats exist, IBAT College Dublin lecturers are encouraged to choose from the following:

1.     Answers to set questions

2.     In-class examination

3.     Oral presentation

4.     Individual project work

5.     Group project work

6.     Case studies


1.6.1 Assessment Submission Procedures

For both hard and soft copy assessment submissions, the relevant submission form must also be submitted. Soft copy submissions are e-mailed to the Programme Leader who then forwards them to the relevant Lecturer.

In the case of presentations and group work, the Assessor is required to keep the marking scheme for each group/individual. If there is a discrepancy between the written and oral work, or between individual members of the group, this is examined for any (positive or negative) bias on behalf of the Lecturer. Any student who feels it is necessary may avail of the appeals procedure.


1.6.2 Quality Control of Assignment Marking

Transparency in grading is essential. Feedback is documented by the lecturer for each assignment displaying where marks were awarded and lost in as much detail as is possible. The main purpose of such feedback is to enable the student to use the assignment process effectively in preparation for their final exam and to ensure transparency in the process. The Programme Coordinator reviews the assignment grades for the purpose of quality control prior to their communication to students.

Documentation and assignments are available for the External Examiners and University of Wales External Moderators to review where/as requested.


1.6.3 Assignment Feedback

Results and feedback from assessment work are posted on the College notice boards and Moodle using student identity numbers only as soon as is practicable.  When possible, Lecturers should make themselves available for student consultation in relation to feedback on the assignment/assessment.


1.6.4 Recording Results and Return of Certification Data

Results from assignments/assessments are entered into the College’s student management system, by the lecturer and verified by the Student Administrator.


1.7 Examination Procedures

Examination procedures in IBAT College Dublin adhere to the procedures required by the respective awarding bodies, namely, QQI’s Assessment and Standards document (2009) and the UoW Validation Unit Quality Handbook: Policies and Procedures.


1.7.1 Examination Papers

An important responsibility of subject Lecturers is the writing of examination papers. Lecturers are required to draft examination papers by a date specified by the Programme Coordinator. The aim of the examination paper is to assess the extent to which students have achieved learning outcomes of a subject. Lecturers are required to submit a marking scheme with their exam paper. In the drafting of exam papers, Lecturers are encouraged to consider the learning outcomes for the subject and to ensure that the format is as per previous years. Where a change to a paper format is required, students should be given a sample paper to allow them adequately prepare. The Programme Coordinator reviews all papers prior to sending them to External Examiner. The External Examiner reviews the exam papers and returns feedback. The feedback is normally incorporated into a revised exam paper which is then considered final.


1.7.2 Internal Grading

The Primary Grader, usually the subject Lecturer, receives a Primary Grader Package which includes completed exam scripts, the exam paper and marking scheme, a blank Primary Grader’s Report and any special grading instructions.

When correcting scripts, examiners are transparent in their grading, recording any necessary comments.

The Primary Grader delivers the completed Primary Grader Package to the Secondary Grader, who selects a proportion of assessments to grade from each grade range and also selects the borderline cases. The Primary and Secondary Graders meet to discuss the findings and to adjust grades if necessary. Any difficulties should be resolved by the Programme Coordinator. The Secondary Grader completes a secondary grader report and this report, with the graded scripts and the primary grader report, is delivered to the Student Administrator.


1.7.3 External grading

A representative sample of scripts is sent to the relevant External Examiner. The sample should include all borderline and fail cases for each subject. Other documentation for the External Examiner includes:

1.     Cover letter from the Registrar including the date of the exam board meeting and return date for the assessments

2.     The completed Primary and Secondary Grader reports

3.     A copy of the grade sheets containing all assessment results

4.     A blank external examiners feedback form (QQI external examiner feedback form) or UoW Validation Unit Quality Handbook: Policies and Procedures - Appendix 31, as appropriate)

5.     Student numbers of all assessments sent

External Examiners return all assessments with a completed external examiner feedback form. Feedback from External Examiners is communicated to the relevant Internal Examiners. Changes and recommendations for future subject delivery are considered where appropriate within the Programme Board.  Any feedback from this process is discussed at the examination board meeting, which takes place as soon as is practicable, after the final assessment is completed. The procedures applied for examination boards and the consideration of results are in compliance with QQI’s Assessment and Standards Document (2009).

Additionally, each University of Wales Moderator is required to submit a report of each relevant Examination Board to the Chair of the Academic Board of the University.


1.8 Recheck and Review Procedures

Students may request reviews and rechecks on any piece of assessment. There is a charge for both activities which is reimbursed should the assessment mark change as a result of the process. A recheck is the administrative operation of checking of the recording and combination of component scores. A review is the reconsideration of the assessment decision, either by the original Assessor or other competent persons. Students are required to state the grounds for the requested review. The grounds for review are normally that the student suspects that the assessment was erroneous in some respect. Reviews and rechecks are completed in time for the granting of an award date set awarding body.

The candidate should raise the issue with the Student Administrator within 5 days of the publication of the assessment result and indicate whether a review or a recheck is requested. The Student Administrator can perform a recheck directly with the assessment material. In the event of a review, the Lecturer should review the assessment with the grounds for review in mind. A written report is provided for the student indicating if the Lecturer is recommending the result remains unchanged or is to be revised. If the Assessor is upholding the original assessment decision, then the candidate must be provided with full information describing what is required to demonstrate their achievement. This should be provided in writing and relate specifically to the standards relevant to the assessment decision. If the candidate remains unhappy with the decision, the candidate may complete an appeals form which is forwarded to the Registrar. Details of the appeals procedure in IBAT are below.


1.9 Appeals

Examination results are provisionally approved by the academic committee and are subject to formal approval by the awarding body. Students have an opportunity to appeal the results of examinations prior to the awarding body examination board meeting. The dates for appeals are clearly set out on the annual academic calendar.

In all cases, both the accused student and the lecturer making the allegation may appeal the outcome of the process investigating the violation of academic standards. This appeal must be submitted in writing. Where an appeal is made, the merits of each case are weighed by the Academic Council, which determines the penalty accordingly. Where either party requests that a specific member of staff not hear the case, this request is honoured. Documentation of previous violations of academic integrity form part of the record in subsequent cases and appeals. During the hearing of the appeal, the lecturer who made the original allegation provides information and answers questions. The student may be accompanied and advised by another person, who may provide information and answer questions. Decisions are based on a preponderance of the evidence and reasons are provided in writing to all parties. The Academic Council has the right to reverse the decision of the earlier Academic Committee hearing or to uphold the original decision if no new evidence has been presented, if no evidence has been shown to have been overlooked, and/or if no procedural errors have been shown to have occurred.

The resulting decisions of the Academic Council may be appealed only if new evidence has been found or if the original hearing overlooked specific evidence or committed procedural errors. All documents relating to the case are placed on file in the office of the Registrar, where they are retained in a secure manner until the student's academic record file is destroyed one year after the student graduates.

1.9.1 Appeals Procedure

Candidates should have access to fair and reliable assessment in which s/he plays a full part. If this ‘access’ opportunity is to be meaningful the candidate must have the right to appeal against assessment decisions that are unclear or seem unfair. The Appeals Procedure is required to provide an appropriate audit trail of the process and be clearly logged with concise detailed information at each stage. If a candidate is dissatisfied with an assessment decision then they must have a right of appeal.

An Internal Moderator is appointed by the Programme Coordinator as someone not directly involved with subject delivery. The Internal Moderator reviews all evidence and assessment records in order to consider the appeal. A decision should be made within 5 working days and the candidate and Assessor must be informed orally and in writing. If the candidate is dissatisfied with the decision, the appeal proceeds to the final stage.

The third and final stage involves the right of appeal to an Assessment Appeals Panel. The Internal Moderator passes all records to the Programme Coordinator. The Programme Coordinator convenes an Appeals Panel consisting of, for example:

1.     The Programme Co-ordinator

2.     An Alternative Assessor

3.     An Independent Assessor/Internal Moderator

Both the candidate and Assessor are invited to make their case to the Panel. The Panel reaches its decisions within 10 working days. Results of the appeals panel are final.

If the College’s appeals procedure has been exhausted and the candidate is still dissatisfied, s/he can make a final appeal to the relevant external accreditation/quality body (QQI or University of Wales, as appropriate).




2 Examination Regulations (General)


2.1 General Regulations

Each candidate is required to arrive and be seated in the examination room at least fifteen minutes before the start of the examination.

No candidate is admitted to the examination room more than thirty minutes after the start of the examination and no candidate may leave the examination during the first thirty minutes of the examination.

All candidates are required to have their student card at all examinations.

Candidates are not allowed to bring into the examination room, or have in their possession while in the examination, any computing equipment including electronic organisers, programmable calculators, mobile phones, books, note paper or any source of information that might influence examination performance. Any unauthorised material found by the invigilator is deemed as a breach of exam regulations and treated as such (whether the material is relevant to that examination or not).

Candidates must ensure they have no written material on their hands, arms and legs as this is assumed to be in breach of examination regulations and treated as such (whether the material is relevant to that examination or not).

Students are reminded that severe sanctions are attached to any breach of exam regulations (reference section 2.4: Breaches of Examination Regulations below).

Personal effects such as coats or bags must be deposited wherever the invigilator directs.

Candidates must comply with the instructions printed on the examination paper and on the answer book. Students are reminded to put his/her name, student number and subject on each answer book.


2.2 Registering for Examinations

In advance of the examination sessions, the examination timetables are displayed in the College and on the web through the student portal pages. It is the candidate’s responsibility to ensure that s/he is aware of the date, time and location of examinations.

It is the responsibility of each candidate to ensure that s/he is registered with the college where/as necessary for repeat examinations.



2.3 Conduct during Examinations

Candidates may not use electronic dictionaries, reference books or notes during the examination.

Candidates may not bring blank paper into the examination room - all paper is supplied by the invigilators.

Candidates wishing to leave the examination room temporarily may not do so unless accompanied by an invigilator. In any event, no person may enter or leave the examination room without the invigilator’s permission.

It is the responsibility of each candidate to ensure that s/he has an adequate supply of pens, pencils, etc. required for an examination. The borrowing of such materials from another candidate is not permitted during an examination.

A candidate must not, on any pretext whatsoever speak to, or have any communication with, any other candidate; such communications are regarded as a breach of the examinations regulations. If a candidate needs to ask a question or obtain an extra answer booklet, s/he should raise his/her hand to get the attention of the invigilator.

Candidates must have a current student identity card visible on their desks at all examinations.

Each candidate must sit at the desk indicated by the invigilator but must not turn over the examination paper on the desk until requested to do so by the invigilator.

At the end of the examination, each candidate is required to remain in his/her place until the invigilator has collected his/her answer book. It is the responsibility of each candidate to ensure that his/her answer booklet(s) is handed to the invigilator.


2.4 Breaches of Examination Regulations

An invigilator who considers, or suspects that a candidate is engaging in an unfair examination practice is authorised by the college to confiscate and retain all evidence relating to the alleged unfair practice.

A candidate who is found to have unauthorised materials in his/her possession in the examination room is deemed to be in breach of the examination regulations. Any written or printed materials (not written on official answer books) or electronic devices containing text is considered to be unauthorised material.

The unauthorised material is removed and retained by the invigilator who reports the matter to the academic committee. The candidate is allowed to complete the examination.

The same procedure is followed where a candidate is considered by the invigilator to have copied or to have attempted to copy material from another candidate.

The Academic Committee considers the allegation at its next meeting following the reporting of the incident. Each case is considered separately on the basis of evidence available to the committee.

In such cases, the candidate is notified of the following

1.     the precise allegation

2.     the entitlement to present a response either orally or in writing to the committee

The Academic Committee determines the penalty to be applied having regard to the seriousness of the incident and the evidence gathered.

The Academic Committee may, at its discretion

1.     deem the candidate to be innocent of the allegation. In such a case the examination board is instructed to consider the assessment or examination results in the normal manner

2.     find that the candidate has breached examination regulations. In such a case the committee may request that the candidate have that examination declared void and determines when (or if) the candidate is entitled to be reassessed.

The committee also decide if any further action should be taken, for example if other forms of assessment undertaken in that academic year may also be declared void if this is considered appropriate or necessary.

A report from the academic committee is placed before the examination board at the awarding body examination board meeting. The report includes the recommendation of the academic committee which is decided on and implemented by the board.

The candidate is notified in writing of the outcome of the enquiry, and the penalty to be applied.


2.5 Appeals

Examination results are provisionally approved by the academic committee and are subject to formal approval by the awarding body. Students have an opportunity to appeal the results of examinations prior to the awarding body examination board meeting. The dates for appeals are clearly set out on the annual academic calendar. See section 1.8 Rechecks Review and 1.9 Appeals


2.6 Communication of Examination Results

The date for the issuance of results (both provisional and final) is indicated on the annual academic calendar. All examination results are subject to final confirmation by the awarding body.

Results are formally communicated to students after the relevant meetings of the awarding body. Students are advised of their results online and an individual transcript of results is also issued to the postal address provided by the student.

The College does not issue results in the case of any student whose result is in dispute, indeterminate or the subject of an enquiry.



3. Policy on Submission of Course Work (General)

Students are required to submit all course work on or before the due date. It is each student’s responsibility to organise himself/herself to submit assignments by the due date in the prescribed manner. Students should retain a copy of all assignments.

Assignments submitted after the due date attract a marking penalty unless an extension has been granted (reference information on ‘Extensions’ below).


3.1 Extensions

An extension may be granted in circumstances where a written request for an extension is received before the original due submission date and an acceptable reason e.g. illness is given by the student.

Extensions are considered only where written application is submitted to the lecturer in advance of the deadline with supporting evidence as to why the extension is warranted (e.g. medical certificate).

Technical problems, such as computer failure or viruses, are not deemed legitimate reasons for late submission or non-submission of work.

If an extension is neither sought nor granted, or work is submitted after the extended due date, late submission of assignments is penalised as per section 3.2 Late Submissions below.


3.2 Late Submissions

If work is submitted after the due date (and an extension is neither sought nor granted or an extended deadline is missed), late submission of assignments is penalised as follows

1.     10% penalty for assignments submitted within three days of the submission deadline

2.     20% penalty for assignments submitted within one week (seven days) of the submission deadline

3.     late submissions, i.e. after one week, will attract a further penalty of 5% for each additional day the work is late.


3.3 Policy of Academic Integrity within IBAT College Dublin

IBAT College Dublin has defined a policy statement outlining the standards of academic integrity to be upheld within the College, the penalties for violation of these standards and the process by which appeals against penalties are handled.

IBAT College Dublin has established standards and procedures governing violations of academic integrity. Violation of the standards of academic integrity hinders student learning and development, and may compromise the fairness of grades and the academic reputation of the College and students. It also affects the overall student body and the trust between lecturers and students.

The following categories of academic integrity are considered

1.     Plagiarism

2.     Duplicate submission

3.     Cheating on examinations

4.     False citation


3.3.1 Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the presentation of someone else’s ideas, words or work as one's own creation. A student who copies or paraphrases published or on-line material, or another person's research, without properly identifying the source(s) is committing plagiarism. A Student who copies another Student’s work is also guilty of plagiarism.

Students are considered to plagiarise when they do not credit the sources of their writing - the words, information, ideas, or opinions of others. This may include the following

1.     An entire essay written by someone else e.g. purchased or published from a website or unpublished essays written by others

2.     The exact words of someone else without quotation marks around those words.

3.     A paraphrase of someone else’s words without documentation. This form of plagiarism includes reordering or replacing someone else’s words while keeping the main idea or the central information.

4.     A summary of someone else’s words or ideas without documentation. This form of plagiarism includes using some, few, or even none of the original words to reproduce a shorter version of some or all of someone else’s ideas or text.

5.     Undocumented use of information from someone else. In this kind of plagiarism, a student takes information that s/he found in a particular source and presents it as his/her own knowledge or as common knowledge. A student must document information that appears in one or only a few specialised sources, is the work or idea of a particular person, or represents a controversial stance on a topic. A student need not document information that is common knowledge.

6.     Undocumented use of information that someone else has collected. A student must document research aids such as web-based ‘research’ services and annotated bibliographies.

1.     The sequence of ideas, arrangement of material, pattern of thought, or visual representation of information (images, tables, charts, or graphs) from someone else. This form of plagiarism includes any of these textual features even if students present the ideas or information in their own words.

Students are accomplices to plagiarism if they allow a fellow student to submit their work as the student’s own or if they write an essay for another student and allow that student to submit it as his/her own, e.g. a student is an accomplice to plagiarism if s/he does any of the following

1.     s/he allows a fellow student to submit their work as the student’s own, or writes an essay for another student and allows that student to submit it as his/her own

2.     s/he does not report a fellow student who plagiarises

3.     s/he contributes an essay to a collection of essays (among friends or at a website) that s/he knows provides opportunity for other students to plagiarise.

Plagiarism violates the ethical and academic standards of the College and is not tolerated at IBAT College Dublin. Students are held responsible for such violations, even when unintentional. To avoid unintended plagiarism, students should consult with their lecturers about when and how to document their sources.


3.3.2 Duplicate Submission

Submitting one piece of work in identical or similar form to fulfil more than one requirement, without prior approval of the relevant faculty members, is a breach of academic integrity. This includes using a paper for more than one course or submitting material previously used to meet another requirement.


3.3.3 Cheating in Examinations

Cheating in examinations by copying material from another person or source or by gaining any advance knowledge of the content or topic of an examination without the permission of the instructor is another breach of academic integrity. Cheating is the use or attempted use of fraud, deception or misrepresentation in any academic exercise.

Examples of cheating may include

1.     use of unauthorised notes or material during an exam

2.     exchanging information with another student during an exam

3.     having another student take an exam for you (‘personation’)

4.     tampering with an exam after it has been returned, then claiming that the instructor made a grading error

5.     submitting as your own work a paper written by someone else

6.     undisclosed submission of the same paper for different courses


3.3.4 False Citation

Listing an author, title, or page reference as the source for obtained material, when the material actually came from another source or from another location within that source, is a breach of academic integrity. This includes attributing fabricated material to a real or fictitious source.


3.4 Penalties for violation of Academic Standards

IBAT College Dublin makes the policy on academic standards available to all students at the beginning of the academic year. In addition, students are advised on strategies to avoid the risk of violating these standards in their work.

Plagiarism at IBAT College Dublin may carry severe penalties. The severity of the penalty is dependent on whether the Examiner feels the plagiarism is intentional or unintentional. Any direct copying of one students work from another’s or from an online source results in the examiner reporting all the students involved to the Academic Committee. The Academic Committee decides on what disciplinary action should be taken – this could result in the student(s) involved receiving a reduced grade, no grade, or even suspension from the College.

In a case where the examiner feels the plagiarism is unintentional the penalties is commensurate with the severity of the infraction. The examiner may, for example, require the work to be redone, reduce the course grade, fail the student in the course, or refer the case to the academic committee.

In the event of a violation of any of the College’s academic standards, IBAT College Dublin has set out the following policy;

1.     Where a lecturer suspects that a student has violated academic standards s/he will first consult with the Registrar, in a manner that minimises disruption and embarrassment to the student at all times.

2.     Where evidence warrants an allegation of an offence, the student is invited to meet with the College’s Academic Committee. The student may invite his/her mentor to attend this meeting to support him/her. The Student is advised of the basis for the suspicions and is asked to respond to these suspicions with reasoning and with evidence. This evidence may come from a Student’s research (sources and/or notes on sources) or drafts of work submitted. It is the Student’s responsibility to retain all materials used in the preparation of his/her work. The Student may request, and will be granted, up to one week to prepare his or her response.

3.     In cases where the Student admits to violation of the College’s academic standards (including plagiarism), or where proof is established during the hearing, the proof is discussed with the student, drawing his/her attention to the moral and academic implications of violating academic standards. A decision of guilt or innocence is based on consideration of the evidence in the case. Prior accusations or other mitigating circumstances may also be taken into account. Academic sanctions may be imposed, subject to approval of the Academic Council.

4.     The minimum penalty for violating academic standards (including engaging in plagiarism) in IBAT College Dublin is a fail grade for the relevant subject. Additional sanctions available to the Academic Committee may include;

                                i.        Official warning in writing that continuation or repetition of violation or inappropriate behaviour may result in a more severe sanction

                               ii.        The Student may receive a formal written warning that his/her conduct is in violation of College policies and his/her standing as a Student is in jeopardy

                              iii.        Student status may be terminated at the College for no less than the remainder of the semester

                              iv.        Student status may be terminated at the College permanently or for an indefinite period of time.

A decision to suspend or expel the Student is taken in consultation with, and only on approval of, the Academic Council. Academic sanctions are determined within 10 working days of the initial accusation being made, unless the student consents in writing to an extension of this time. The determination or recommendation shall be communicated in writing to the student with appropriate members of the College informed.

3.5 Academic Impropriety

Any member of staff who suspects academic impropriety must report such suspicions immediately to the Invigilator/Examinations Officer. The Invigilator/Examinations Officer will mark the script clearly at that point, will allow the student to finish the examination and submit a full, written report on the incident to the Registrarís Office. At the end of the examination, the student concerned must present himself/herself immediately to the Registrarís Office. The relevant script will be corrected as normal.

Any Internal Examiner who suspects academic impropriety must report such suspicions immediately to the Registrarís Office attaching any relevant evidence/documentation, supporting this suspicion. The relevant work will be corrected as normal by the Internal Examiner.

The Registrar, or a Registrarís nominee, will review the report and evidence provided and will decide if there is a case to answer by the student. If it is decided that there is insufficient basis for a charge of academic impropriety, no further action will be taken in the matter. If it is decided that there is a case to answer, the Registrar will refer the matter to an Academic Committee.

3.5.1 The Academic Impropriety Review Committee

The Academic Committee will convene once per academic term and prior to the meeting of the Examination Board or as required. The Committee will review all cases of suspected academic impropriety referred to it by the Registrar. All proceedings of the Committee will be minuted formally and its findings presented to the Examination Board at the next available opportunity.

The Academic Committee shall consist of the following:

The Registrarís Office will inform the student concerned of the review hearing in writing, with at least seven days clear notice prior to the meeting of the Committee. The student concerned will be invited to attend, with his/her nominee, if desired, and/or to make a written submission to the Committee. The student concerned may decline such an invitation.

Decisions of the Academic Committee

The Committee will consider the evidence presented to it and will reach one of the following two decisions:

1.     That academic impropriety has occurred; or

2.     That academic impropriety has not occurred.

Should decision (1), above, be made, the decision must be unanimous. Should decision (2), above, be made, the matter will be considered closed.

Should the Committee decide that academic impropriety has occurred, it will decide on an appropriate penalty to be imposed on the student(s) concerned. The penalty will be appropriate to the seriousness of the case, and may include:

3.5.2 Appeal of Penalties Imposed in the case of Academic Impropriety

The Examination Board is the ultimate authority for decisions relating to academic impropriety. Students wishing to appeal a decision of the Academic Impropriety Committee to the Examination Board must inform the Registrarís Office in writing not later than seven days after notification of the original decision of the Committee. A written submission must be received by recorded post together with supporting documentation (if appropriate). Students should note that the only permissible grounds for appeal are as follows:

The submission must specify the grounds on which the appeal is requested, and it must contain all information that the candidate wishes to have taken into account.

Appeals will be considered at the next available sitting of the Examination Board. An appeal will be considered only if the Registrar is satisfied that there are prima facie grounds for appeal, as outlined above.

 



4 IBAT College Policy on Deferral (General)

It is recognised that in exceptional circumstances it may be necessary for a student to defer from a programme of study or defer some of his/her assessments during the academic year. This document outlines

1.     General principles relating to deferral of an examination or programme of study

2.     Procedures for applying for a deferral


4.1 General Principles Relating to Deferral

Deferral means that a student applies to defer or postpone his/her programme of study or an element of it. Deferrals may be applied for as follows


4.1.1 Deferral of a place during a Programme of Study

If a student at some point during the academic year finds that s/he is unable to continue his/her studies due to unforeseen circumstances an application for deferral can be made.

A student who defers a place on a programme is not entitled to a refund and will be liable for any increase in fees for the following year or semester.

In certain instances a fee review may be undertaken (e.g. compassionate and compelling circumstances that are beyond the control of the student and have an impact on the student’s academic progress and or wellbeing).


4.1.2 Deferral of an Examination or Assessment

If a student is unable to sit an examination, complete an assignment or submit a project on time due to mitigating circumstance an application requesting a deferral must be made. Examples of mitigating circumstances are

1.     Ongoing illness

2.     Family bereavement

3.     Other personal circumstances

A student will only be able to claim mitigating circumstances if s/he submits the relevant documentary evidence (e.g. medical certificate) with the application form prior to the commencement of the examination session or submission deadline. Claims submitted after the examination session or submission deadline or after the results have been published will not be considered.

1.     Download a copy of the Personal Mitigating Circumstances Form were a student is unable to complete an assignment or examination (PDF pdf)

Note: 

Deferral of a place does not automatically guarantee that the deferred examination or programme will run in the next academic semester or academic year. All courses are run subject to student numbers and programmatic review and IBAT College Dublin reserve the right to change or withdraw a programme following programmatic review.

Non-EU students who are permitted entry into Ireland on the basis of full-time study at an College need to ensure that this status remains unchanged. The GNIB has the right to deny this residency to any student who is not taking part in a full-time programme of study. The College cannot influence this decision – students should therefore be aware of the consequences of deferring an examination or a programme of study.


4.2 Procedures for Applying for a Deferral during an Academic Year

A student must apply in writing by completing the deferral application form available from reception stating the reasons for the request. All supporting documentation (originals only – no photocopies) must accompany the application form.

The Academic Committee meets once weekly and all deferral requests are considered at that meeting. The granting of a deferral is an academic issue and is subject to academic regulations.

A fee review under compassionate and compelling circumstances may be considered as part of the application. The student is notified of the any relevant decision in writing and the student record amended accordingly.



5 IBAT College Assessment Standards  

 



6 IBAT College Assessment Standards (QQI)


6.1 Student Assessment (QQI)

The purpose of assessment is to provide a measure of the extent to which the learning outcomes of the programme and individual modules have been achieved and to provide a basis for the determination of the award.


6.2 Assessment Strategies (QQI)

The assessment strategy for the QQI programme reflects both the programme learning outcomes and the individual module learning outcomes.  This requires the use of a wide range of assessment methods involving an appropriate balance of continuous assessments and end of term examinations. The assessment schedule gives a detailed breakdown of the various assessment methodologies for each module.


6.3 Assignments (QQI)

Assignments, both written and in other forms are an integral aspect of the assessment strategy for the QQI programmes. Students are required to submit assignments by the due deadline using the submission requirements specified for that assignment.  

It is each student’s responsibility to organise themselves to submit assignments by the due date in the prescribed manner. Students should retain a copy of all assignments. Assignments submitted after the due date will attract a marking penalty unless an extension has been granted.

Students should submit a hard copy of each assignment to reception where they will receive a confirmation of submission from staff.

All soft copies of assignments will need to be submitted through Turnitin software (available on Moodle) prior to final submission. Full training on this will be provided to students at Induction.   Requests for late submission will be supported only in exceptional circumstances.

All submissions should include the IBAT College Dublin Cover Sheet available from reception or the Student Portal on Moodle.


6.4 Examinations (QQI)

IBAT College Dublin’s examinations regulations deal with the processing of marks, award classifications and the process for appeals and rechecks.

Examination dates will be published on the student notice board and on the student portal in Moodle. Students are responsible for ensuring that they are familiar with the up to date times and locations for examinations.


6.5 Examination Results (QQI)

All assessment and examination results are published on the student portal - dates and times of publication will be issued in advance. Results are uploaded onto Moodle where students can log in securely and view their individual results. Students are made aware that results at this stage are provisional. Confirmed results are not released until the external examination board meeting is held and results are confirmed by the relevant external examiners. Students will subsequently be informed of examination results by post.  


6.6 Assessment Structure (QQI)

A stage is a rung on a progression ladder. It may comprise a set of modules at a similar level. Typically, the National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) level of the intended learning outcomes of constituent modules increases as a learner progresses through successive stages of a programme. Even where modules are not taken in parallel, the stage concept is important for grouping modules with the same level (NFQ) of learning and requiring a similar level of maturity in the relevant discipline. Full-time learners study all the modules in a stage in parallel, while part-time learners may study as little as one module at a time.

Where programmes are organised in stages, a learner, to be eligible to progress to a particular stage, is normally required to demonstrate achievement of the minimum intended learning outcomes of all the preceding stages.

Award (Stage)

Credits Required

Higher Certificate

A minimum of 60 credits at level 6

Ordinary Bachelor’s Degree

A minimum of 60 credits at level 7

Honours Bachelor’s Degree

A minimum of 120 credits, at least 60 of which are at level 8

Master’s Degree

A complete programme

 


6.7 Assessment Grading and Awards (QQI)

The following tables describe the classifications available for major awards (made by QQI or by recognised institutions under delegated authority) in the National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ).

Classification of Higher Certificates (Level 6) and Ordinary Bachelor’s Degrees (Level 7)

PPA boundary values

Description

Distinction

70%

Indicative descriptor: Achievement includes that required for a Pass and in most respects is significantly and consistently beyond this

Merit Grade 1

60%

Indicative descriptor: Achievement includes that required for a Pass and in many respects is significantly beyond this

Merit Grade 2

50%

Indicative descriptor: Achievement includes that required for a Pass and in some respects is significantly beyond this

Pass

40%

Definitive descriptor: Attains all the minimum intended programme learning outcomes

 

Classification of Honours Bachelor’s degrees (Level 8) and Higher Diplomas (Level 8)

PPA boundary values

Description

First-class honours

70%

Indicative descriptor: Achievement includes that required for a Pass and in most respects is significantly and consistently beyond this

Second-class honours Grade 1

60%

Indicative descriptor: Achievement includes that required for a Pass and in many respects is significantly beyond this

Second-class honours Grade 2

50%

Indicative descriptor: Achievement includes that required for a Pass and in some respects is significantly beyond this

Pass

40%

Definitive descriptor: Attains all the minimum intended programme learning outcomes



6.8 Marks and Grades For Subjects (QQI)

IBAT College provides both a percentage grading system and alphabetic grading system for all of its assessments and exams.

The minimum mark required to pass a subject is 40% with the exception of compensation

Description

Percentage mark

Percentage point value (PPV) 

Passing marks

40 >=  and =< 100

40 >=  ppv =< 100

Compensation

35 >=  and =< 39

35 >=  ppv =< 39

Outright failing marks

0 >=  and =< 34

0

Alphabetic Credit Grades are defined by the following table.

Description

Alphabetic Grade

Result

Passing Grades

A

Passed Subject

B+

Passed Subject

B+

Passed Subject

B

Passed Subject

B-

Passed Subject

C+

Passed Subject

C

Passed Subject

D

Passed By Compensation

Outright failing grade

F

Failed Subject

Non-Credited Grades (Students with a grade of 'EF' will need to contact the college)

Grade

Description

Relevance

F

Fail

Repeat Exam and/or Coursework

EF

Exam Failed

Repeat Exam

I

Deferral of Result

Result Withheld due to Personal Circumstances

NP

Absent / Not Present for Exam

Repeat Exam and/or Coursework

W

Withdrew

Withdrew from Course

X

Exception

Subject Passed by Exception

 

YEAR 1 - Higher Certificate/Bachelor Degree (Year 1) of Higher Certificate or Bachelor Degree has only a PASS award regardless of overall grades.

GRADE

Description

PASS

Pass

EXE

Passed one or more subjects but failed others or NP some exams

FAILED

Failed all subjects/no exams/failed repeats (Failed the Year)

WDRW

Withdrew from Course

YEAR 2  - Higher Certificate (Year 2) - AWARD STAGE

GRADE

Description

DIS

Distinction

MER1

Merit Grade 1

MER2

Merit Grade 2

PASS

Pass

EXE

Passed one or more subjects but failed others or NP some exams

FAIL

Failed all subjects/no exams/failed repeats (Failed the Year)

WDRW

Withdrew from Course

YEAR 3 - Bachelor Ordinary Degree (Year 3) - AWARD STAGE

GRADE

Description

DIS

Distinction

MER1

Merit Grade 1

MER2

Merit Grade 2

PASS

Pass

EXE

Passed one or more subjects but failed others or NP some exams

FAIL

Failed all subjects/no exams/failed repeats (Failed the Year)

WDRW

Withdrew from Course

 

YEAR 4 - Bachelor Honours Degree (Year 4) - AWARD STAGE

GRADE

Description

H1

First-Class Honours

H21

Second-Class Honours Grade 1

H22

Second-Class Honours Grade 2

PASS

Pass

EXE

Passed one or more subjects but failed others or NP some exams

FAIL

Failed all subjects/no exams/failed repeats (Failed the Year)

WDRW

Withdrew from Course


6.9 Pass By Compensation (QQI)

Pass by compensation Grades which are greater than or equal to 35% but less than 40% in the percentage system — or a ‘D’ grade in the alphabetic system — are awarded when a learner has nearly (but not quite) demonstrated attainment of the relevant minimum intended learning outcomes for a particular assessment task.

Performance at the first attempt in modules in a given stage (of at least 30 credits) may be used to compensate in the same stage, provided no module in the stage has been failed outright. A pass earned in this way is referred to as a pass by compensation and is credit bearing.

Where a candidate is just below pass in each of a string of independent modules in the same stage, the results are reinforced. Consequently, it is justifiable to limit the number of independent modules that may be passed by compensation in a stage. Because modules can have different sizes, it is reasonable to express such a limit as a proportion of the total available credit rather than the number of modules. This latter point assumes that the confidence in the grade is increased in larger volume modules owing to compensation processes operating within the module.

In a programme based on stages, subject to conditions 1 - 4 specified below, a module can be passed by compensation (using passes in other modules from the same stage) unless this is specifically precluded in the programme assessment strategy and approved programme schedule. Compensation can be applied automatically. Accordingly, the programme and module assessment strategies should take this into account. Specifically, they should further ensure that compensation is consistent with the requirement that minimum intended programme learning outcomes are achieved before an award is recommended.

In the programme assessment strategy and approved programme schedule, certain modules may be designated as not passable by compensation.

Compensation can only be applied in the following circumstances:

1.     The learner has been assessed for all stage modules and no module in the stage has been failed outright (F or below 35%).

2.     The results of all modules in the stage are from first attempts.

3.     In the case of full-time learners, the results are from the same sitting (session).

4.     The overall Alphabetic Grade Point Average is at least 2.0 or the stage-aggregate of credit-weighted excesses of percentage marks (over 40) is greater than or equal to twice the stage-aggregate of credit-weighted deficits of marks (under 40) and the potentially compensatable results account for no more than one-third of the credit for the stage: i.e. 20 credits in a 60-credit stage or 10 credits in a 30-credit stage.

Compensation may be applied only to enable a learner to pass a stage (at the award stage, a learner who passes by compensation remains eligible for honours etc.). Compensation does not change the result of the modules passed in that way. When reporting module passes by compensation (on the Europass Diploma Supplement), the actual result is returned, e.g. 37% or D, along with an indication that the module pass has been granted by compensation.


6.10 Exceptions (QQI)

Exemption from Studying a Module For the purpose of this section, exemption means exemption from parts of a programme. (Note that the term exemption is also used in a different sense to indicate satisfactory completion of a module.)

Exemption procedures must be consistent with the necessity for learners to demonstrate the learning outcomes required to qualify for an award. Exemption allows those learning outcomes to be achieved and/or demonstrated in alternative ways. It also recognises that the learning outcomes may have been achieved prior to enrolment in the programme.

In principle, exemptions are permitted at any stage of a programme, subject to the relevant programme and constituent module assessment strategies.

Where the result of the module is required for calculating an award classification, the provider should, where feasible, establish a fair, consistent and transparent process for grading the learner’s achievements in respect of the exempted module’s learning outcomes. Where this is not possible, the award can only be recommended without classification.


6.11 Recognition of Prior Learning - Uncertified Learning (QQI)

A learner may be exempted from participating in a module if he/she has already attained the minimum intended module learning outcomes. The demonstrable prior learning should be a sufficiently good match to the minimum intended module learning outcomes to justify exemption from the module in the context of the overall programme.

In the particular case where the relevant prior learning is uncertified (e.g. prior experiential learning), the provider should assess the learner using the regular module assessment instruments and/or by an alternative assessment arrangement. Learners who are assessed to have demonstrated the required learning are granted the available credit for the module and are exempt from the module. Furthermore, a grade (percentage mark or alphabetic grade) should be available in principle. However, providers may choose not to grade if the assessment arrangement might not provide grading which is consistent with the regular assessment instruments.

If the module is one which contributes to the award classification, prior learning achievement must be graded in order for the award to be classified. Otherwise, an unclassified award should be made.

Where the module does not contribute to the award classification, the prior learning achievement does not need to be graded.

When a grade is not assigned, the result for learners who demonstrate the required learning should be returned as Exemption Granted. Where a grade is awarded, it can be used in compensation etc., as with any regularly passed module. Where grading is not feasible, there may be circumstances in which a learner might be advantaged by waiving a right to exemption to enable award classification. The provider should foresee and provide for such situations, and should also ensure that learners are aware of any such consequences.


6.12 Recognition of Prior Learning - Certified Learning (QQI)

There are two scenarios of prior certified learning.

Scenario 1

The learning is certified by an awarding body in the form of a major award (e.g. a higher certificate or bachelor’s degree) or is included as part of such an award.

Exemption may be granted for a module if the learner demonstrates the minimum intended module learning outcomes. For learners who demonstrate the required learning, the result should be returned as Exemption Granted. The learner should not be granted any ECTS credit because credit has already been granted in the prior qualification.

If the module is one that would normally contribute to the award classification, such exemption should only entitle a learner to an unclassified award unless it is feasible to recognise, or award, a grade. Any grade awarded/recognised should be consistent with the prior award classification and the module grades in the associated Europass Diploma Supplement.

Scenario 2

The learning is certified by an awarding body in the form of a minor, special-purpose or supplemental award or it is certified in respect of a period of study, and24 the relevant credit has not already been used to meet the credit requirements for a major award.

This case of prior certified learning can be handled in the same way as prior uncertified learning with one exception: the provider should not require the learner to undergo assessment provided that the attainment of the minimum intended module learning outcomes can be demonstrated. However, where there is a need for a grade to be assigned — e.g. where it contributes to an award classification — assessment may be necessary. The learner may transfer his/her credit. A grade is available in principle, but providers may choose not to grade if consistency with the grading in regular assessment instruments cannot be assured.

For learners who demonstrate the required learning but are not graded, the result  should be returned as Exemption Granted.


6.13 Carrying a module (QQI)

 Before progressing to the next stage, learners are required to pass all modules identified as essential prerequisites for progression, as specified by the programme assessment strategy and approved programme schedule. The presumption here is that the stages are substantial, e.g. 30 or more credits, and the programme is for a major award.

A provider may, however, allow learners to be permitted, on a case-by-case basis and under exceptional circumstances, to carry a failed module while progressing to the next stage, provided the module is not a prerequisite for any module in this stage and provided this is consistent with the requirements of the relevant programme assessment strategy. Normally, learners are required to pass a carried module in the stage into which it is carried.

As a general guideline, the normal maximum missing credit should be 16% of the credit for the stage, e.g. 10 credits per 60-credit stage.


6.14 Reassessment Regulations (QQI)

For QQI Level 6-8 programmes, a student is not admitted to a second or subsequent examination year (except in exceptional circumstances) without first having passed all examinable modules for the previous year.

If a student is unsuccessful in the assessment of some or all of the modules the student is normally permitted a further attempt at the unsuccessful assessment(s) at the next available opportunity.

A candidate who does not avail of a first or subsequent attempt at an examination is deemed to have exhausted one such attempt for each missed session (except in extenuating circumstances, in which case an application for a deferral should be made by the candidate). Reference Section 4: IBAT College Dublin Policy on Deferrals below.

A candidate who is unsuccessful in a reassessment may be required to repeat attendance of the year of the course prior to reassessment, subject to the approval of Academic Council.

 


6.15 Reassessment Regulations at Award Stage (QQI)

Where reassessment is undertaken for an award, successful candidates are eligible for an award with pass classification only.

The award for the Higher Certificate in Business and the ordinary Bachelor of Business degree may be a Pass, Merit 1, Merit 2 or Distinction.

The award for the Bachelor of Business (Honours) degree may be made at Pass, Second Class Honours (Grade 1) Second Class Honours (Grade 2) or First Class Honours.

Where students do not pass all final examinations in one sitting and at first attempt, or where reassessment is undertaken for any element of continuous assessment or coursework, (except in the case of extenuating circumstances where a deferral has been granted) successful candidates is eligible for a Higher Certificate in Business or Bachelor of Business award with a pass classification only.


6.16 Reassessment Regulations for Continuous Assessment (QQI)

Students who fail to submit work in respect of a continuous assessment element of a module (and have not sought or been granted a deferral) are not automatically given an opportunity to be reassessed if the overall grade achieved in that module is greater than 40%.

Students who fail an element of coursework and subsequently fail the module are normally permitted a further attempt at the unsuccessful assessment(s) at the next available opportunity.

Any student who satisfies the requirement for the award by availing of a reassessment opportunity for any part of the continuous assessment (or final examination) is eligible for the award at a pass classification only.

 

 



7 IBAT College Assessment Standards (UoW)


7.1 Student Assessment (UoW)

The purpose of assessment is to provide a measure of the extent to which the learning outcomes of the programme and individual modules have been achieved and to provide a basis for the determination of the award.

A detailed assessment schedule listing all assessments, including due dates and examinations dates will be given to each student at the start of each term.


7.2 Assessment Strategies (UoW)

The assessment strategy for the MBA programme reflects the aims and learning objectives of the programme and the module learning outcomes.  This requires the use of a wide range of assessment methods involving an appropriate balance between formative and summative methods. The assessment schedule gives a detailed breakdown of the various assessment methodologies for each module.

The Assessment and Regulations in relation to the University of Wales MBA programme are provided in the University of Wales Assessment and Reassessment Guidelines Documentation. This is made available to UoW students prior to commencement on a Programme of Study.


7.3 Assignments (UoW)

Assignments, both written and in other forms are an integral aspect of the assessment strategy for the MBA programme. Students are required to submit assignments by the due deadline using the submission requirements specified for that assignment.  

It is each student’s responsibility to organise themselves to submit assignments by the due date in the prescribed manner. Students should retain a copy of all assignments. Assignments submitted after the due date will attract a marking penalty unless an extension has been granted (see information under ‘Extensions’).

Students should submit a hard copy of each assignment to the administration office where you will receive a confirmation of submission from staff.

All soft copies of assignments will need to be submitted through Turnitin software (available on Moodle) prior to final submission. Full training on this will be provided to students at the Induction.   Requests for late submission will be supported only in exceptional circumstances.

All submissions should include the MBA Cover sheet available from administrative office or on MBA Central.


7.4 Assessment Criteria (UoW)

In your written work the following general assessment criteria will apply. You should;

1.     adhere closely to guidelines given by the lecturer

2.     focus clearly on the issues, themes and problems

3.     refer to theory in relevant disciplines

4.     integrate theory and practice

5.     structure your work logically to ensure coherency

6.     present arguments and draw conclusions

7.     show evidence of reading and research such as books, journals, observations and reflective practice

8.     ensure work is well presented

9.     reference all work using the Harvard Referencing Style


7.5 Key Assessment Regulation Points (UoW)

The key regulations to be aware of at this stage are:

1.     Very strict, 2 failed subjects and you are out rule (Pass first time)

2.     No cross compensation one component for one subject

3.     Compensation permitted for 1 subject only

4.     Component Marks under 30% cannot be compensated

5.     Each component of each subject must attain minimum of 40%  to Pass

6.     Each subject must attain overall minimum of 40%  to Pass

7.     Group work carries one mark.

8.     Plagiarism treated very seriously.


7.6 Examinations (UoW)

IBAT College Dublin’s examinations regulations deal with the processing of marks, award classifications and the process for appeals and rechecks.

Examination dates will be published on the student notice board and on the student portal in Moodle. Students are responsible for ensuring that they are familiar with the up to date times and locations for examination. Most exams will range from 2 to 3 hours; students often find the examination format difficult. We will be providing tutorials to specifically assist with this area.

Students have one re-sit only for failed both assessments or exams and all re-sits will have the overall marks for that subject capped at 40%.. Please read full regulations in handbook and note the limited situations where appeals may apply.



7.7 The Dissertation (UoW)

Upon successful completion of all 8 modules, you will be required to submit a dissertation. A specific module, Research Methods will be delivered on a total of 5 weekends and will help to prepare you for this important project. It is worth 60 credits in total (Research Proposal 15 & Dissertation 45) and with 20,000 words for Dissertation. You will be allocated a subject expert to supervise you in your work at this stage of the programme.


7.8 Examination Results (UoW)

All assessment and examination results are published on the student portal - dates and times of publication will be issued in advance. Results are uploaded onto Moodle where students can log in securely and view their individual results. Students are made aware that results at this stage are provisional. Confirmed results are not released until the external examination board meeting is held and results are confirmed by the relevant external examiners. Students will subsequently be informed of examination results by post.  


7.9 Special Circumstances (UoW)

UoW specify what constitute special circumstances, these include (documented) illness, accident, close bereavement or on closely related compassionate grounds. Candidates who have brought forward special circumstances that have affected their performance in an examination/assessment, or which has caused absence from an examination /assessment need to be carefully considered in order that the appropriate action can be taken. This might include allowing a candidate a further attempt at an examination previously failed, with no penalty applied.


7.10 Progression (UoW)

The pass mark for a module at undergraduate and postgraduate level is 40%. However, each programme should have clear criteria on the requirements to pass a module - this might vary from requiring each individual component that contributes to the module mark to be passed to calculating a weighted average of the component marks. Whichever approach is operated, staff, students and Examiners need to be clear on the rules being operated – in the staff and student handbook and in the course document. Students should be made aware of the impact of individual marks and results on their ability to progress and complete a programme.

Students are normally required to complete successfully the full assessment programme for that particular level before being permitted to proceed to the next level of study, and students who pass all modules will automatically progress to the following year/ level of study. However, this does not necessarily mean that students are required to pass every individual element of the assessment. The cases of those who have failed some modules will be considered individually and in the light of the course regulations. These can include the following:


7.11 Trailing Modules (UoW)

UoW allows students to carry forward (or ‘trail’) failed modules to the following year (the UoW advises that no more than 40 credits can be trailed from one level to another). Students who failed a subject on the first sitting in semester 1, 2 or 3 can carry (trail) this subject to the next semester but must sit the new assessment at the next available sitting. Students must attain 40% in this resit. No compensation is permitted. Students who attain less than 40% or who do not resubmit will unfortunately be withdrawn from the programme.


7.12 Compensation (UoW)

A student maybe awarded a pass grade, in exceptional circumstances, for work which was not quite of the required standard. The practice of compensation would only be operated in exceptional circumstances as agreed by the internal regulations.

UoW not normally expect more than 20 credits worth of modules to be condoned at any level, and no condonement operated in a module awarded a mark of below 30%. Certain key modules may be excluded from the possibility of compensation, especially where they are pre-requisities for later modules. Compensation is usually not automatic but at the discretion of the board, which will normally consider overall student performance and the benefits or otherwise of compensation against re-sits or the resubmission of coursework. Condonement of modules at master’s level is not permitted.


7.13 Re-assessment Regulations (UoW)

The pass mark for a module is 40%, and there is a clear rules on the criteria to pass a module. UoW regulations and the programme specific regulations detail that the number of re-sit opportunities allowed is one re-sit at Master’s level. It should also be noted that modules recovered after a re-sit or resubmission can normally only achieve the bare pass mark (40%) in the module concerned (as opposed to the component), regardless of the mark actually obtained. A candidate at Master’s level who has failed and re-taken a module cannot be eligible for a grade of Distinction in the degree.

A candidate who fails a large number of modules for instance might be required to leave the programme or repeat the academic year/level. Candidates can be allowed to repeat an entire academic level, and therefore the marks for the repeated level would not be capped. However, the marks for any modules in the level concerned that were passed have to be forfeited. This cannot be applied to candidates in the final level of their studies.


In summary, the principal options for progression are:

1.     Progress with no modules pending

2.     Progress after compensation or condonement (with or without modules pending)

3.     Progress with modules pending with re-sits at the next available opportunity

4.     Re-assessment with progression dependent on passing a certain number of modules

5.     Repeat of the whole year if the number of failed modules is so large that re-assessment at the next opportunity is not permitted under the regulations

6.     Exclusion from the course if the number of failed modules is so large as to require a student to withdraw from the programme, the student has run out of time to complete the programme or has run out of re-sit opportunities under the regulations.


7.14 Masters Awards (UoW)

In order to progress from Part One to Part Two of a taught Master’s degree, a candidate should have achieved an overall average mark of 40%.

NB: In order to be awarded a Master’s degree with Distinction, candidates should have been awarded a Distinction grade in both components (taught and dissertation) or have been more successful in the dissertation component than in the examined component, provided that the aggregate mark obtained is 70% or greater and no modules have been failed. It follows therefore that candidates achieving a mark of 70% or greater in Part One, but 69% or lower in Part Two cannot be considered eligible for a Distinction overall.

The following may be of assistance when considering eligibility of a candidate for the award of a Master’s degree with Distinction:

Part One mark

Candidate is eligible for the award of Distinction:

65%

Where the Part Two mark is 75% or greater;

66%

Where the Part Two mark is 74% or greater;

67%

Where the Part Two mark is 73% or greater;

68%

Where the Part Two mark is 72% or greater;

69%

Where the Part Two mark is 71% or greater;

70%

Where the Part Two mark is 70% or greater;



7.15 Borderline cases (UoW)

When a student is on the borderline between two degree classifications or pass/fail, the External Examiners will normally look at all the evidence, including the student profile, but will pay particular attention to any arguments put forward by the teaching staff in favour of moving a particular student into a higher category or maintaining the classification indicated by the marks.

The Taught Degrees Board has agreed that a borderline candidate be defined as one whose classification falls within the ‘window of opportunity’, i.e. within 2% of the next category of award available (e.g. 58% for consideration as a borderline 2.i/2.ii), before any rounding has taken place. Examining Boards should consider all students falling within the ‘window of opportunity’ and should ensure that any decisions are fully minuted.

There are two main methods used when discussing borderline cases on the basis of a candidate’s performance:


7.16 Exit Velocity (UoW)

Where a student’s classification falls within 2% of a classification boundary (before any rounding is applied), the Examining Board shall consider the candidate’s performance in the final year of study. Where the student’s final year average is in the higher classification band the Examining Board shall normally award the higher class of degree.


7.17 Preponderance Principle (UoW)

Where a student’s classification falls within 2% of a classification boundary (before any rounding is applied), the Examining Board shall consider the proportion of marks obtained by the student in each of the classification bands. Examining boards shall only consider those marks which are used to calculate the final award classification. In order to be awarded the higher classification, marks in the higher classification band must have been achieved in modules attracting a credit weighting equal to half or more of those contributing to the degree classification. 

The Examining Board may also choose to look at a candidate’s performance in a major piece of assessed work (e.g. dissertation or project).



7.18 Newport Marking Scheme – (UoW)

Grade

%

Comment

A16

80-100

Excellent: demonstrates intelligent understanding of the material with an insightful interpretation of its relevance on context, provides a thorough discussion of the implications with some original observations or recommendations

A15

75-79

A14

70-74

B13

67-69

Very Good: demonstrates an appreciation of the material with an informed interpretation of its relevance in context, provides an appropriately critical discussion of the implications covering the expected observations or recommendations.

B12

64-66

B11

60-63

C10

57-59

Good: demonstrates a correct but limited grasp of the material with adequate interpretation of its relevance in context, attempts some critical discussion of the implications covering may of the obvious observations or recommendations

C9

54-56

C8

50-53

D7

47-49

Satisfactory: demonstrates a correct but superficial grasp of the material with a superficial or incomplete interpretation of its relevance in context, attempts a little critical discussion of ht implications covering some of the obvious observations or recommendations

D6

44-46

D5

40-43

E4

35-39

Marginal Fail/Fail: demonstrates a lack of understanding of the material with minimal interpretation of its relevance in context, provides minimal or incoherent discussion of the implications covering very little in the way of observations or recommedations

F3

31-34

F2

16-30

F1

0-15