These conventions and procedures apply to:
The Department's Assessment Procedures are governed by the University's:
(as applicable) in addition to the following regulations, which have been approved by the the Faculty of Taught Programmes.
The pass mark for modules at NQF levels 4-6 is 40%
The pass mark for modules at NQF level 7 is 50%.
Modules excluded from the standard condonement scheme are specified in Section 10 of the applicable full Programme Specification. In identifying modules to be condoned, (see Consequences of Failure, below) the Department will select the failed modules with the highest marks but give priority to any modules which have no referred assessment available.
[Note: Minimum stage average and module mark requirements in the following sections apply to the marks available to the Assessment Progression and Awarding Committee (APAC) for Stage 2 in June; i.e., any hypothetical increase in the mark which may be obtained in a future referred assessment is discounted. A mark obtained after repeat study - for reasons of unsatisfactory academic performance - is also discounted.]
A minimum average of 59.50% at stage 2 is required to remain on any MPhys programme — an MPhys student who accumulates 120 credits in the stage 2 assessment but fails to achieve a 59.50% average will be required to transfer to a BSc programme for which he/she is qualified.
A minimum average of 59.50% at stage 2, and marks of at least 50% in the modules PHY2021 and PHY2022), which are direct pre-requisites to the self-study modules is required to remain on an MPhys programme with Professional Experience. A student on one of these programmes who accumulates 120 credits in the stage 2 assessment but fails to satisfy the above requirements will be required to transfer to another programme for which he/she is qualified.
An original assessment which is based on both examination and coursework, tests, etc., is considered as a single element for the purpose of referral; i.e., the referred mark is based on the referred examination only, discounting all previous marks. In the event that the mark for a referred assessment is lower than that of the original assessment, the original higher mark will be retained.
Referred examinations will only be available in PHY3064, PHYM004 and those other modules for which the original assessment includes an examination component - this information is given in individual module descriptors.
The credit attached to modules will generate the assessment weighting - i.e. a 30-credit module would contribute one-quarter of the total marks for the stage of the programme in which it is taken.
The marks achieved at stage 1 (for the first 120 credits of a programme) will not count towards classification or award unless the programme in question leads to an undergraduate Certificate. However, marks for level 1 modules may count towards classification or award if part of a longer set of core modules or if such modules are taken at later stages which do count towards classification or award.
The following tables specify how the marks achieved at various stages are combined in order to classify awards. The weightings vary between programmes to ensure that the awards reflect an appropriate balance of academic and practical/project work.
|Programmes||Stage 2||Stage 3||Stage 4|
|MPhys Physics programmes with Study Abroad||0.2222||0.3333||0.4444|
|MPhys Physics with Professional Experience||0.2222||0.3333||0.4444|
|Other MPhys programmes||0.2222||0.3333||0.4444|
|Programmes||Stage 2||Stage 3|
|All Single Honours BSc awards in Physics||0.3333||0.6667|
|All Combined Honours BSc awards in Mathematics/Physics||0.3333||0.6667|
Classification will be based on the student's overall average marks, weighted as described above, at stages 2, 3 and (where appropriate) 4.
The following rules should be applied in descending order, starting at the Pass / Fail threshold, so that fail students are excluded from further consideration.
The general principles underpinning assessment and feedback in the Department are:
The Department's procedures for marking assessed work are based on University policy. Normally, assessments have detailed mark schemes, prepared as part of the setting procedure. In such cases, check marking (see below) may be replaced by mark checking, q.v.. The following safeguards apply to the assessment of scripts that are not subsequently returned to and/or discussed with the student.
Every examination script and other substantial assignment should be subject to at least one of the following assessment strategies:
In the event that two markers involved in check, or double blind marking, are unable to agree a mark for a piece of work a third academic will be appointed to arbitrate. For modules, such as laboratories, where several markers are involved it is the responsibility of the first named instructor on the module descriptor to brief/train the individual markers and then monitor their marking trends to ensure that students are treated equitably.
|Check Marking||A piece of work is marked by one person, the mark and comments are then reviewed by a second marker and a final mark is agreed between the two.|
|Double Marking||Can mean 'check marking', 'double blind marking' or 'double open marking' depending on context.||Avoid using this ambiguous term.|
|Double Open Marking||Two markers jointly assess a piece of work and agree their comments and award final mark.|
|Double Blind Marking||Two markers assess a piece of work and record their comments and marks independently and in ignorance of the views of each other. The markers then confer and jointly agree the final mark.|
|Moderation||The process by which marks and comments are checked against marking criteria to ensure that the mark awarded is appropriate.||Adjustments to sets of marks arising from moderation should be rare and will normally trigger a review of marking criteria and/or learning outcomes.|
|Mark Checking||The process for ensuring that every page of a script has been marked, and that the marks have been correctly processed.||Refer to Marking and Checking Examination Scripts for details.|
|Scaling||The application of a formula to a set of marks in order to rectify anomalies in mark distributions that arise from unanticipated circumstances. Only used in exceptional circumstances.||Refer to Mark Scaling Policy and Procedures for details.|
The Department supports the University's Assessment and Feedback Strategy as follows:
Students are expected to review and reflect on the feedback and/or solutions and hints provided by the module leader. A student who believes that their mark must be in error, e.g. because they can't reconcile it with their self-evaluation, may use this form:
to request that their exam script is independently reviewed. Completed forms should be returned to Physics Student Services within two weeks of the results being released. The normal outcome of the review will be a brief written explanation of how the mark awarded was arrived at. Reviews will be conducted by experienced members of staff nominated by the Director of Education. Such a review may result in the mark being confirmed, raised or lowered.
The mark sheets submitted to APACs should record the following information for each candidate:
In addition, the APAC will be provided with relevant summary statistics for modules and programmes.
The student record system will always record the actual numerical marks obtained for modules. Marks for modules that have been raised by the APAC, e.g. to adjust for underperformance in assessment with mitigating circumstances, will carry an indicator to that effect if either: (a) the adjustment increases the module mark by 5% or more, and/or (b) substitute marks have been used. Marks for referred modules, where the pass-mark is the maximum achievable, will also carry an indicator to specify that the mark has been capped at 40% or 50% as applicable.
The University appoints external examiners to scrutinise and comment upon the papers, marking, procedures and standards of the degree examination. There is a [University] Code of Good Practice for External Examiners. The current external examiners are listed here:
Note: The contacting of external examiners by students regarding any aspect of their programmes of study is prohibited and will be treated as an offence under the University's Disciplinary Procedures. Externals are requested to inform the University's Examinations Office should such an occurrence take place.
On a module-by-module basis, external examiners approve the examination papers, together with the model answers (and/or, where appropriate, other assessment materials). Inspection of samples of marked scripts and continuously assessed work provides a further check of appropriate levels and confirmation of the reliability of the procedures.
At the APAC the external examiners may simply confirm that no action is necessary in relation to marks. Alternatively, the external examiners and the Department staff may agree that modifications to marks need to be made. These modifications must be for specific reasons (that will be recorded in the minutes of the APAC). Apart from instances where individual students have mitigating circumstances, a 'good' reason for adjusting marks will essentially amount to a statement that a particular assessment did not turn out as expected (questions harder/easier than they appeared when set, marking harsher/more lenient than suggested by mark schemes, etc.). Particular scrutiny will be applied to any module that, for a given group of students, produces a failure rate much higher/lower than expected for that group of students. Any adjustment of module marks (if there is a good reason) will normally involve a uniform raising/lowering of marks for a given group of students, so as to give an average module mark in line with the overall average for that group of students on other modules taken (subject to the constraint that the adjustment must be made equally to all students taking the module, irrespective of the stage or programme they are in).
Note: The regulations do not permit adjustment of the classification ranges on the overall mark.
The full cycle of external examiners' reports, issues raised with the College and the College response, as signed off by the Dean of the Faculty of Taught Programmes is available for inspection by all students, and is published here:
The APAC awards annual prizes. The number, value and criteria for these awards are listed on the following spreadsheets:
The University has policy on disclosure of marks. Complete transcripts, including marks for assessed modules at all levels will be sent to undergraduate finalists by the University Examinations Office during the summer vacation following graduation. Provisional marks, which may be subject to future moderation, will be communicated students according to the published schedule:
Discipline APACs do not make recommendations about the consequences of failure for individual students (i.e. whether referral, deferral, repeat study or withdrawal should result). This is the responsibility of the College APAC, which receives recommendations from the discipline's Consequences of Failure meeting, submits recommendations to the Faculty Board. The Department does not normally permit an individual student to repeat the final stage of a programme, or more than one other stage. There is no 'right' to repeat study. In normal circumstances, however, if the student has complied with the Department's Code of Practice for Teaching and Learning and appears to have made a serious attempt to achieve passes in their referred assessment, the recommendations made are as follows:
Other recommendations may be made in cases where there are exceptional mitigating circumstances.
Note: The University does not normally permit modules that have been passed to be retaken. This means that repeat study is full-time only in exceptional circumstances.
A student who thinks that their results are incorrect has a right to appeal. The University Student Academic Appeals page is the definitive guide, and the Students' Guild Academic Support Section and will offer advice and help with the process.
All Stage 1 appeals must to submitted to the CEMPS Quality Assurance and Enhancement Manger (who receives appeals on behalf of the College Dean) by email to email@example.com.