asg section f - examinations and other forms of assessment

Academic Standards Guidelines 

Section F 

Guidelines for the Conduct of Examinations and Other Forms of Assessment 

for Taught Programmes 

2 

Figure: External Examiners Reports 9 

Guidelines on Good Practice In Relation To Determining and Using Assessment Criteria 18 

University of Surrey, Undergraduate Grade Descriptors 20 

University Policy and Guidelines for the Anonymous Marking of Examination Scripts 23 

Statement of Policy on Special Examination Arrangements 24 

Figure: Procedure for Special Assessment Arrangements 25 

1

Section F: Guidelines for the Conduct of Examinations and Other 

Forms of Assessment for Taught Programmes 

1 Scope of Guidelines 

These guidelines are concerned with procedures and documentation associated with 

the assessment of undergraduate and postgraduate taught programmes, including 

examinations, coursework, practical work, assignments and projects. These guidelines 

should be read in conjunction with the University's General Regulations that are set 

out in full in the University Calendar: 

http://portal.surrey.ac.uk/calendar/generalregs/index.jsp 

The pertinent General Regulations for this purpose are: 

General Regulations for First Degrees, Diplomas and Certificates for Students Pursuing 

Modular Programmes of Study 

General Regulations for the Degree(s) of Master (modular and non-modular) 

Regulations for Practitioner Doctorate (DBA, DClinPrac, EdD, EngD and PsychD) 

Regulations for Boards of Examiners 

Regulations for External Examining 

Regulations for the Conduct of Examinations and Other Forms of Assessment 

Regulations for Boards of Studies 

2 Board of Studies and Regulations 

2.1 Each Board of Studies is responsible for the organisation and implementation of the 

programme(s) of study for which it has been established. For each programme of study 

leading to an award of the University there shall be Programme Regulations, approved 

by the Quality & Standards Subcommittee, which will include, inter alia: 

2.1.1 a clear statement of the scheme of assessment associated with each individual 

course/module and for the programme of study overall; 

2.1.2 requirements for the progression of students from one stage of the 

programme to another (including procedures by which any failure to satisfy 

the examiners can be redeemed); 

2.1.3 requirements for the award of the target qualification; 

2.1.4 where appropriate, an indication of the way in which classifications or 

merits/distinctions will be determined; 

2.1.5 date approved by the Quality & Standards Subcommittee. 

For closely related programmes it may be appropriate to have a single set of joint 

regulations. 

As a matter of principle, the Quality & Standards Subcommittee will not approve 

retrospective revisions if those revisions might disadvantage students on programme, 

unless the students give their unanimous written consent. 

2.2 Faculties will be responsible for notifying students of the nature of any required 

coursework or projects, together with the deadlines for the submission of that work 

(see also Academic Standards Guidelines: Communications with Students). 

2

3 Boards of Examiners 

3.1 For each programme of study leading to an award of the University, there shall be a 

Board of Examiners. The Quality & Standards Subcommittee will approve arrangements 

for Boards of Examiners when programmes are validated or reviewed. When two or 

more programmes of study share a substantial part in common, the Quality & 

Standards Subcommittee may determine that there will be a joint Board of Examiners. 

3.2 The Board of Examiners. is responsible to the Dean of Faculty(-ies) responsible for a 

programme of study and for the general conduct of the assessment for that 

programme, in accordance with the General and the more specific Programme 

Regulations. It will ensure that suitable arrangements are made for the setting, holding 

and marking of examinations and other forms of assessment. 

3.3 Regulations for Boards of Examiners, governing inter alia the establishment, 

membership, terms of reference, frequency and quorum for meetings for Boards of 

Examiners, are set out in full in the University Calendar: 


4 External Examiners 

4.1 The purposes of the system of external examining are: 

4.1.1 to ensure, first and foremost, that degrees and other academic qualifications 

awarded in similar subjects or disciplines are comparable in standard in 

different universities and institutions of higher education in the United 

Kingdom, though their content may vary; 

4.1.2 to ensure that the system of assessment is fair and is fairly operated in the 

determination and, where appropriate, classification of awards made to 

students. 

4.2 Regulations for External Examining are published annually in the University Calendar: 


For each programme of study leading to an award of the University at least one 

external examiner shall be appointed. 

4.3 No degree or other academic qualification of the University may be awarded without 

participation in the process of examination and assessment by at least one external 

examiner. 

4.4 External examiners for taught programmes of study are appointed by the Senate 

Progression And Conferment Executive, acting with the delegated authority of the 

University Council. Upon appointment, an external examiner becomes a member of 

the appropriate Board of Examiners ex officio. 

4.6 Eligibility for appointment as an external examiner is set out in Regulations for External 

Examining. The principles which underpin the rules on eligibility, however, are: 

4.6.1 that the individual must be impartial; 

4.6.2 that a nominee has, or has had within the previous four years, no close 

professional link with the programme or Faculty/Department to which he/she 

is to be attached, or any close personal connection with staff or students, and 

is not a current student at the University or at one of its Associated 

Institutions or has been a student within four years prior to the date of 

commencement of the proposed appointment as external examiner; 

3

4.6.3 that the individual’s academic and / or professional qualifications and 

experience of teaching and assessment are appropriate in relation to the 

programme or specific component of the programme for which the 

appointment is being made and also, where appropriate, that to criteria 

specified by professional or statutory bodies. [As a guide, a sole appointee as 

external examiner should ordinarily be of senior lecturer level or above. 

However, the University recognises that, in the interests of allowing 

individuals to gain experience, a less senior appointee may be appointed 

normally only when there is already at least one experienced serving external 

examiner In some disciplines, it is recognised that there may be only a small 

pool of eligible candidates; in some instances, it may be appropriate to 

appoint an industry-based external examiner]; 

4.6.4 that the individual has sufficient breadth of experience to be able to monitor 

and make judgements on the comparability of academic standards with 

similar programmes at the same level in other institutions; 

4.6.5 that programmes and assessment procedures should benefit from scrutiny by 

external examiners drawn over time from a wide range of institutional/ 

professional contexts and traditions; 

4.6.6 that appointees have the time to undertake the role of external examiner 

diligently and effectively and should therefore not be over-extended by their 

duties as external examiner. A nominee, who already holds two or more 

similar appointments at undergraduate level will not normally be appointed; 

4.6.7 that, wherever possible, appointments should not establish a close reciprocal 

external examining arrangements, for example, between programme teams or 

Faculties/Departments in a similar discipline. [SPACE may consider an 

appointment between institutions/ Faculties, however, where it can be 

demonstrated that the reciprocity is not within the same discipline or subject 

area and is such that neither examiner’s independence is compromised.] 

4.7 Before a nomination has been considered and agreed by the Board of Studies, an 

initial, informal approach should be made to the nominee by the Faculty. In so doing, 

the Faculty should ascertain that the nominee is eligible for appointment in accordance 

with the General Regulations. The nominee should be asked to confirm his/her 

eligibility by reading, signing and dating the Statement of Eligibility form (available 

from the Assistant Registrar (Quality Support) tel. 9108). 

4.8 Nominations for appointment or re-appointment as external examiners are submitted 

for approval to the Senate Progression And Conferment Executive) by the Board of 

Studies. The submission of a nomination should be made via the Assistant Registrar 

(Quality Support) using the common Nomination Form (available from the Quality 

Support Section in Academic Registry), which provides information on: 

4.8.1 the nominating Faculty; 

4.8.2 the programme of study for which responsibility is to be taken (including, 

where appropriate, that part or parts of the programme or specific modules 

for which he/she will take particular responsibility); 

4.8.3 his/her title and name; 

4.8.4 his/her current academic/professional position; 

4.8.5 his/her current address; 

4

4.8.6 sufficient information on the nominee's competence and experience to enable 

the Senate Progression And Conferment Executive to make an informed 

decision [In the case of an initial appointment, a nomination should be 

accompanied by a signed Eligibility Form and a curriculum vitae]; 

4.8.7 the duration of the appointment or re-appointment, up to 3 consecutive years 

in the first instance, with automatic progression to one final year 1 ; 

4.8.8 the date from which the appointment will be effective (usually the beginning 

of the academic year in which the appointee will take up his/her duties). 

4.9 Once a nomination has been approved, the Assistant Registrar (Quality Support) will 

write formally to the individual, offering him/her appointment. The letter of 

appointment will: 

4.9.1 specify the award-bearing programme(s) (or subject area(s)) for which the 

individual is being appointed, together with any specific areas/modules of the 

syllabus for which he/she is asked to take particular responsibility; 

4.9.2 specify the period of appointment and starting date; 

4.9.3 indicate the fee that the external examiner should receive and explain the 

University's position with regard to the deduction of tax and NI at source, etc.; 

4.9.4 request the appointee's NI number; 

4.9.5 specify as a requirement the submission of an annual written report to the 

Vice-Chancellor; 

4.9.6 indicate that fees will not be paid unless the University receives an annual 

written report. 

4.10 With the letter of appointment, the Assistant Registrar (Quality Support) will send the 

new appointee: 

4.10.1 A copy of the Notes of Guidance and Regulations for External Examiners, 

included within which are the Regulations for External Examining and 

Regulations for Boards of Examiners; 

4.10.2 a copy of the appropriate set(s) of General Undergraduate or Postgraduate 

Regulations; 

4.10.3 information on the level, structure and conditions of payment of fees and 

travel/subsistence allowances (included in the Notes of Guidance and 

Regulations for External Examiners). 

4.11 Following an individual’s appointment, the University and the appropriate Faculty(-ies) 

will be responsible for the induction of the external examiner and for communicating 

with him/her throughout the academic year. If induction is not facilitated through the 

University Induction Programme for External Examiners, which takes place annually for 

newly-appointed external examiners, Faculties should contact external examiners and 

make separate arrangements as necessary. 

Induction by the Faculty should include: 

4.11.1 sending him/her a copy of the up-to-date Programme Regulations; 

4.11.2 sending him/her a copy of Faculty or Programme Handbooks, which outline 

the aims objectives structure and content of the definitive programme and 

other relevant information, including any relevant Subject Benchmark 

Statement(s); 

1 

With effect from 1 September 2002, external examiners are now appointed for three years in the first instance. 

Their appointments will be extended automatically for a fourth and final year unless the Examinations Office is 

advised by the External Examiner or the Faculty/Department to the contrary. 

5

4.11.3 the arrangements for submitting schemes of assessment and draft 

examination papers for approval; 

4.11.4 advice on the schedule of assessments for the academic year (if not already 

included in the above) and the likely timing of examinations, viva voce 

examinations, etc, which will be subject to external moderation; 

4.11.5 consulting and agreeing dates for meetings of the Board of Examiners and, in 

particular, for the final meeting; 

4.11.6 sending at the appropriate time a report form and claim form for fees 

(completed by the Faculty) and for travel/subsistence expenses. 

It is recommended that, if a newly-appointed external examiner is unable to attend 

the University’s Induction for External Examiners, he/she be invited by the Faculty to 

visit the University to meet with staff and students and to discuss the programme and 

detailed arrangements for interaction between the external examiner and the Faculty. 

4.12 At the completion of the assessment each academic year (normally within six weeks of 

the moderation of the final assessment for which they are responsible) and at the 

conclusion of their period of appointment, external examiners are required to submit 

to the Vice-Chancellor a written report on the assessment procedures and standards 

associated with the programme of study for which they are responsible. The report, 

employing a common pro-forma, invites comment upon: 

4.12.1 the programme of study itself (clarity of programme aims and learning 

outcomes; the structure and content of the programme in relation to the 

general aims and learning outcomes); 

4.12.2 the appropriateness of the method(s) of assessment for the stated learning 

outcomes (including knowledge, understanding, practical skills and key 

transferable skills, as appropriate) for the programme and / or individual 

modules; 

4.12.3 the congruence of the programme/award with external points of reference 

(e.g., the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications, relevant benchmark 

statement(s), professional or statutory body standards); 

4.12.4 the appropriateness of the marking criteria used, of marks awarded and the 

overall range of marks in relation to the marking criteria; 

4.12.5 the consistency of marking within and between the modules/courses 

moderated; 

4.12.6 quality and consistency of written feedback to students; 

4.12.7 the organisation and administration of assessment procedures and the 

Faculty’s adherence to procedures, regulations and rules for the classification 

or division of awards. 

The pro- forma also includes a checklist which external examiners are asked to 

complete. 

4.13 The University will expect the Chair of the Board of Examiners to have invited the 

external examiners to make their observations and comments verbally and directly 

during formal meetings of the Board. When, for any reason, an external examiner is 

unable to attend a meeting of a Board of Examiners, he/she should be invited, to give 

written feedback, prior to the meeting, on the assessments he/she has moderated. 

5 External Examiners' Reports 

5.1 Figure 8 illustrates the model system within the University for dealing with external 

examiners.’ reports described below. 

6

5.2 External report pro-formas will be issued to External Examiners by the Quality Support 

Section of the Academic Registry on appointment, or by Faculties. Copies of the 

report pro-forma can be accessed on the University web site at: 

http://portal.surrey.ac.uk/registry/qaeo/externals 

5.3 External examiners’ reports are generally regarded as confidential to the University but 

the report pro-forma indicates that they will be made available, for example, to 

representatives of the QAA and OFSTED, to appropriate statutory or professional 

bodies and to members of a Periodic Review Panel. External examiners' reports may be 

made available to any other person or persons outside the University only with the 

prior agreement of the University and of the authors. However, in accordance with 

the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998, information within a report relating to 

named individual students or members of staff may also be made available to those 

individuals on request but in summary form. External Examiners are advised that 

information relating to individuals must be attached to the report as a separate, 

confidential annex. 

5.4 External examiners' reports will be received on behalf of the Vice-Chancellor by the 

Senior Assistant Registrar (Quality Support), who will pass them immediately to the 

Registrar or his/her nominee. The Registrar or his/her nominee will arrange for copies 

to be made for distribution to the appropriate Dean of Faculty. The Registrar will draw 

to the attention of the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic Development) any matters of 

particular concern. 

5.5 The Dean of Faculty will be responsible for ensuring that the reports are considered by 

the Board of Studies (and reported in the Annual Programme Review) and, where 

appropriate, by the Board of Examiners.. The reports may, if Faculties wish, be 

considered in summary form by the Board of Studies and Boards may choose to 

consider sensitive issues concerning named members of staff or students under 

“reserved business”. Actions arising from consideration of the external examiners.' 

reports should be recorded in the Minutes of the Board of Studies/Board of Examiners 

and promulgated through the University committees as appropriate. External 

examiners should be advised (preferably by letter from the Dean of Faculty) of the 

outcome of consideration of their reports and of specific actions which the Board of 

Studies has agreed to take. The Faculty’s response should be copied to the Quality 

Support Section, Academic Registry. 

5.6 The Dean of Faculty will maintain a watching brief over all the programmes of study 

available within the Faculty. He/she may delegate this function to a person or group of 

persons acting on his/her behalf. The Dean of Faculty, the nominated person or group 

of persons, will be responsible for ensuring that reports are considered and acted 

upon. 

5.7 External examiners' reports will ordinarily be considered as part of the documentation 

prepared by the Faculty for the periodic review of a programme of study. 

5.8 Upon receipt of a completed claim form, the Assistant Registrar (Quality Support) will 

authorise fee payment to the external examiner in accordance with the scale of fees 

approved by the University from time to time. Reimbursement of travel and subsistence 

expenses will also be made by the Assistant Registrar (Quality Support) in accordance 

with current University rates. Receipts in support of claims for subsistence must be 

submitted by the external examiners. 

5.9 No payment of a fee will be made unless and until the University has received an 

annual report from the external examiner. 

5.10 In the event that an external examiner fails to submit an expected annual report, the 

Quality Support Section will issue a reminder. 

7

5.11 If an external examiner fails to submit a written report in two consecutive years, the 

appointment will be terminated. 

Last revised: June 2009 

8

Figure 9 – External Examiners Reports 

External 

Examiner 

Quality Support Section 

Dean / Boards of 

Studies 

Deputy Vice 

Chancellor (Ac Dev) / 

ULTC 

QSS provide 

annual summary 

report of principal 

issues arising 

from EE Reports 

for Q&SS 

Q&SS receives and 

considers summary 

report and agrees 

actions as 

appropriate 

Annual 

Summary 

Report of 

EE reports 

submitted to 

ULTC 

Serious issues referred to DVC (Ac Dev) 

External Examiner 

submits Annual 

Report and Fees 

Claim Form 

Report and Claim 

received by QSS 

QSS receives, 

reads, acknowledges 

and records Report 

on database. QSS 

writes to Dean, 

drawing attention to 

particular concerns 

(if applicable). 

Dean receives report 

and refers to Boards of 

Studies for consideration 

Feedback to External Examiner (ideally a personal letter from Dean/HoD, copied to QSS) 

Key: Q&SS Quality & Standards Subcommittee 

QSS Quality Support Section, Academic Registry 

ULTC University Learning & Teaching Committee 

Copy to QSS 

Board of Studies 

considers Report 

and agrees action(s) 

– Annual 

Programme Review 

9

6 Examinations Officers 

6.1 The University Examinations Officer is responsible for all administrative matters concerning 

examinations. These include: 

6.1.1 the maintenance and interpretation of the University's General Regulations; 

6.1.2 printing externally moderated examination papers and related security 

arrangements; 

6.1.3 preparing timetables for examinations and making appropriate arrangements for 

candidates to sit examinations held in central locations; 

6.1.4 appointing invigilators on the recommendation of Faculties; 

6.1.5 presenting results to SPACE/RDC and, as appropriate, the Academic Standards 

and Quality Assurance Committee; 

6.1.6 maintaining central records of marks and results; 

6.1.7 issuing of certificates to candidates gaining awards of the University. 

The University Examinations Officer will advise Faculties on any matters concerned with 

examinations and assessment generally. 

6.2 Each Faculty shall have a designated Examinations Officer who will be responsible to the 

Dean of Faculty. In a large or complex Faculty there may be two or more Examinations 

Officers. Their roles may be split in relation to first degree programmes and postgraduate 

taught programmes or, in the case of modular programmes, the role may be even more 

disparate. In all cases, it is important for responsibilities to be clearly defined and the 

individuals clearly identified. 

6.3 Subject to the overall responsibility of the Dean of Faculty, the responsibilities of the 

Faculty Examinations Officer(s) will normally include: 

6.3.1 preparing draft examination timetables and liaising with the University 

Examinations Officer; 

6.3.2 arranging the preparation of draft examination papers; 

6.3.3 arranging for the production of camera-ready copy of externally assessed papers 

and its delivery to the Academic Registry; 

6.3.4 arranging for the checking of such papers when printed; 

6.3.5 arranging for the printing and secure storage of examination papers which are 

not externally assessed; 

6.3.6 proposing the names of invigilators for the Faculty's examinations; 

6.3.7 arranging for papers etc to be marked in accordance with the agreed time 

schedule; 

6.3.8 preparing mark sheets for meetings of the Board of Examiners and recording 

decisions thereon; 

6.3.9 conveying mark sheets and examiners' recommendations to the Academic 

Registry; 

6.3.10 retaining records of students' results; 

6.3.11 informing candidates of the results of examinations and assessments. 

The Faculty Examinations Officer(s) will be the principal point of contact with the 

Academic Registry on any matter regarding the Faculty's examinations and other 

assessments. 

10

7 Special Assessment Needs 

7.1 The Director of Studies should be aware of any declared special learning and / or 

assessment needs of individual students in relation to the programme of study under 

his/her direction, for seeking appropriate advice on ways of addressing and resolving those 

needs and for advising students of the procedures for applying for special examination 

arrangements. 

7.2 A Special Assessment Arrangements Committee is in place: 

• to consider the requirements with respect to examinations and other forms of 

assessment for students with special needs; 

• to consult Faculties of the University regarding their students’ special needs; 

• to decide what special arrangements should be made for the assessment of each 

student, so that, as far as possible, he or she is neither advantaged or 

disadvantaged in comparison with other students. 

7.3 Students will be invited to make known to the Committee any documented or confirmed 

special needs by a published date in the first half of each semester. The appropriate 

procedure and designated dates will be published in the University’s Student Handbook 

and in all Programme Handbooks (Academic Standards Guidelines, Section D). 

The period of notice may be waived in unforeseen and exceptional circumstances. 

[The University’s Policy on Special Examination Arrangements is set out in 

Academic Standards Guidelines, Section D] 

8 Setting of Examination Length, Papers, Marking and Moderation 

Formula for maximum examination length (written examination) 

8.1 The University sets a maximum limit for written examination length. The scheme gives a 

maximum of 12 hours of exams per year for a student taking 20-credit or 30-credit 

modules. Therefore, programmes should use the following formula: 

30- credit module = maximum of 3 hour exam 

20, 15 and 10-credit = maximum of 2 hour exam 

The examination length stated should be inclusive of ‘reading time’. 

8.2 The maximum time allowed should reflect the possibility that the assessment will be very 

largely based on the final exam. Broadly speaking, the intensity of teaching and learning 

will be the same, regardless of the size of the module, so that in principal a 20-credit 

module may have 2/3 the learning outcomes of a 30-credit module. There is a certain 

minimum "granularity" of an assessment, which argues against very short exams, even for 

10-credit modules. 

8.3 Associate Deans have authority to authorise exceptions to this level, where there is an 

academic necessity (not just an academic argument, or preference). Requests for a 

reduction in written examination length should be made via a programme’s Board of 

Studies and Associate Deans should report any proposed changes to the Quality & 

Standards Subcommittee. 

Preparation of Examination Papers 

11

8.4 The method of setting examination papers will vary between Faculties. For some 

courses/modules each paper may be set separately by one or two people while, for others, 

it may be appropriate to hold a meeting of the Examiners to assemble the papers. It is 

essential that each complete draft is read by someone other than the setter(s) to 

ensure that the rubric is correct and that the questions are unambiguous and in 

good English. 

8.5 Draft papers for externally-assessed examinations must be sent to the external examiner(s) 

in adequate time for them to comment on them and for any disagreements to be resolved 

before the papers need to be printed. An external examiner should receive all the draft 

examination papers unless the external examiner has indicated to the Faculty that he/she 

wishes to receive only those papers for which he/she has a particular responsibility. When 

the answers to questions will be divided into distinct sections, a marking scheme should 

be sent with the draft papers (and, where appropriate, sample solutions or guidance on 

expectations) to the external examiner(s). 

8.6 The University Examinations Officer will inform Faculties of the dates by which papers 

should reach him/her for printing. The large volume of papers to be printed for the 

University and the Associated Institutions requires that these deadlines are 

observed. The University Examinations Officer should be informed immediately if there 

are problems with the compilation of particular papers. 

8.7 Faculties must make appropriate arrangements for the secure storage of draft examination 

papers and for their safe delivery to the University Examinations Officer. The University 

Examinations Officer is thereafter responsible for security arrangements relating to the 

printing and storage of papers. 

8.8 The University Library no longer retains printed copies of past examination papers, but 

makes them available in digital format. Faculties are required to submit all examination 

papers electronically to the Library ensuring any supplementary material provided to the 

candidate at the time of the examination is also digitised and submitted with the paper. It 

is the responsibility of the Faculty to ensure that papers are uploaded and that precautions 

similar to those pertaining to printed papers are in place to ensure that examinations 

papers are not released publicly before all candidates have sat the paper. 

Marking 

8.9 The University operates a policy of anonymous marking for all written examinations (with 

effect from 1 September 1996) the details of which are set out in Appendix F3. Faculties 

are encouraged to consider anonymous marking of coursework, where possible and 

practicable. 

8.10 The Faculty’s policy and practices with regard to marking should be made known to its 

internal and external examiner(s) alike. 

12

8.11 In February 2011 the University Senate approved generic grade descriptors for 

undergraduate programmes (Appendix F2). The principles embodied within the 

University Grade Descriptors should be a feature of assignment-specific marking schemes. 

These include: 

• clarity as to what constitutes work that represents the whole range of available 

marks (0% -100%), 

• the objectivity of the marking schemes, their alignment with the University Grade 

Descriptors, their match to the learning outcomes that are being assessed, and 

their relevance to the form of assessment selected. 

Students should be made aware of University Grade Descriptors and how these relate to 

marking schemes for their assignments. It will be essential that, however the University 

Grade Descriptors are developed into marking schemes, staff are able to explain these 

marking schemes to students in discussions early in the students’ academic careers. 

The design of challenging assignments (beyond essays and exams that test knowledge 

recall) must happen alongside the use of the University Grade Descriptors and clearly 

aligned discipline-specific marking schemes since if there is no opportunity within the 

assignment for a student to demonstrate their higher level ability then this too will limit 

their ability to access marks at the higher end of the range. 

8.12 The marking of a written examination script must not be left entirely to one person. For 

examination answers in the form of calculations or short notes on a number of separate 

topics it is sufficient for a second person to check that all parts have been marked and that 

the marks have been totalled correctly. 

8.13 It is a requirement that, for essay-type answers, a sample of between 10% and 25% of 

scripts (depending on numbers), as a minimum, should be second-marked by another 

internal marker (although it is desirable that all such answers are double-marked where 

practicable). The sample should be representative of the range of marks and include all 

borderline fails. 

8.14 All projects/dissertations must be double marked “blind” by internal examiners (i.e., that 

the marks of the first marker are not made known to the second marker in advance). 

Marking “blind” should not be confused with anonymous marking (ref. 8.6 above). 

8.15 Faculties /Departments should put in place a reliable system for ensuring consistency of 

marking across the Faculty/Department. Criteria for marking must be stated clearly for the 

benefit of students, internal and external markers. This is particularly important where 

individual projects, dissertations or theses are concerned since the topics may be diverse. 

If, for any given assignment or examination, a number of marks are to be awarded 

specifically for spelling and grammar, the Faculty must make this known to all students in 

advance of the assessment. 

8.16 Faculties /Departments must make efforts to ensure uniformity of marking across the 

range of topics. Faculties /Departments should also put in place a mechanism for the 

reconciliation of marks in cases where internal examiners have recorded very different 

marks for the same work, before projects/dissertations are referred to the external 

examiner(s) for moderation. 

Illegible Scripts 

8.17 Occasionally an examiner may be presented with a script which is illegible. In such 

instances the following guidance should be used: 

8.17.1 the responsibility for determining that a script is illegible resides with the Board 

of Examiners or through consultation with the Chair of the Board and the 

external examiner(s), never an individual examiner; 

13

8.17.2 at its discretion, the Board of Examiners may require the candidate, at his/her 

own expense, to reproduce the answer in legible form under such conditions and 

within a timescale specified by the Board; 

8.17.3 the original script should be retained by the examiner(s) for the purposes of 

comparison; 

8.17.4 the Board of Examiners has discretion to determine the appropriate course of 

action to be followed, having due regard to: (i) the overall circumstances and (ii) 

the timescale; 

8.17.5 notwithstanding the foregoing clauses, the Board of Examiners shall take into 

consideration the particular circumstances of students who are known to have 

special needs and may, in cases of doubt, advise a student whose script is 

deemed illegible to seek professional help. 

External Moderation 

8.18 Faculty Examinations Officers should ascertain from the external examiner(s) in advance 

whether he/she wishes to moderate scripts or coursework “blind”. Very often, however, 

the external examiner(s) will wish to understand from remarks on the marked script or 

separate sheet the basis on which the internal examiners(s) has awarded the marks. 

Coursework may have to be photocopied or temporarily returned to the Faculty to be 

available for the external examiner for moderation. 

8.19 The external examiner should not be expected to act as a second marker per se or to remark 

all examination scripts. Except where the number of candidates is very small, the 

external examiner will often moderate only a sample of scripts; this sample should include 

candidates assessed by internal examiners at the top, middle and bottom of the range and 

should ordinarily include the scripts of candidates who are likely to fail and those of 

candidates potentially eligible for the award of first class honours or a distinction. If the 

external examiner chooses not to receive all the scripts, the nature and method of 

selection of the sample should be agreed with him/her in advance. 

8.20 It is not expected that an external examiner will wish to moderate all assessed coursework 

but a selection of coursework which makes a significant contribution to the programme 

should be available for moderation by the external examiner. The method of selection 

should be discussed and agreed with the external examiner in advance. 

It is not unusual for an external examiner to look at a considerable number of 

projects/dissertations, however. 

8.21 Programme handbooks may stipulate that some or all of the candidates will be examined 

orally and / or by performance. If only some candidates are so examined, the external 

examiner should be involved in determining the method of selection. Even though no oral 

or performance-based examination may be specified in the Programme Handbook, the 

General Regulations do provide for any candidate to be examined orally in addition to the 

methods of assessment specified and at the discretion of the Board of Examiners. 

14

9 Assessment and Feedback to Students 

9.1 It is a requirement, when determining the assessment requirements for a programme, 

that: 

• all modules should include at least one opportunity to provide students with 

evaluative feedback on their work from which they can judge how they have 

performed and how they can improve; 

• students are provided in advance of undertaking an assignment or other form of 

assessment with the criteria on which their work will be assessed [Guidelines on 

good practice in relation to determining and using assessment criteria are set out 

in Appendix F1]. 

• that assessment of any module by formal examination shall be restricted to a 

maximum of 80% of the total marks for a given academic level; 

9.2 It is also a requirement that: 

• for formative assignments and exercises on which students would normally expect 

to receive feedback, that the module/programme documents and relevant 

assessment guides should specify how long after submission the students will 

receive such feedback. Feedback would be given to students within 4 weeks of 

submission and this normally would be at least one week before the submission 

date for subsequent and related assignments. 

10 Consideration and Promulgation of Results 

10.1 The Faculty Examination Officer(s) will prepare a mark sheet. The format will vary from one 

programme to another and the mark sheet may be prepared by computer or manually. 

The mark sheet should serve both to provide the Board of Examiners with full information 

about each candidate and to provide a record in future years (for providing references, 

transcripts etc). It is best if all marks are expressed as percentages for easy comparison; the 

weighting of each mark in the overall total should be clearly indicated. Column headings 

should be clear and, if abbreviations are used to save space, a key should be provided. 

See also Examination Office Guidance on the Preparation of Results. 

10.2 The Board of Examiners will consider each candidate in turn. Any agreed change in marks 

should be entered on the mark sheet by crossing out the original entry and inserting the 

new figure. The result for each candidate should be entered when agreed. The Board of 

Examiners may wish to take factors other than the total mark into account in determining 

whether a candidate has passed or gained a certain class but it is important that equal 

consideration is given to all candidates near the same borderline. The Board of Examiners 

has a duty to consider any mitigating or extenuating circumstances which relate to either 

examination or other forms of assessment which may have impaired a candidate's 

performance (see Section F of the Regulations). The Board of Examiners must also consider 

the situation of candidates who were absent from an examination [including those who 

were entitled to resit but who failed to do so] and make recommendations. When all 

recommendations have been decided for all candidates, the Chair should sign the mark 

sheet, as should the external examiner(s) in the case of externally assessed examinations. 

10.3 The Dean of Faculty is responsible for informing candidates of the results of examinations 

and other forms of assessment. This may be done before the results have been approved 

by the Senate Progression And Conferment Executive [and when awards are to be made], 

provided the list or letters make it clear that the results are provisional and may be subject 

to change. 

15

10.4 A list of the recommendations of the Board of Examiners, together with a signed copy of 

the mark sheet, should be brought to the University Examinations Officer as soon as 

possible after the conclusion of the meeting. When awards are to be made, the 

recommendations are entered into the computer and the lists provided for the Senate 

Progression And Conferment Executive and Senate are printed by computer. This ensures 

that the University records, the Gazette and the certificates are the same but does mean 

the computer lists require careful checking by Faculties. The processing and storage of 

candidates' marks by computer or other means must accord with the provisions of the 

Data Protection Act 1998. 

10.5 Each candidate shall be told his or her marks on a confidential basis if he or she so 

requests. In accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 students may, if they wish, be 

shown their marked examination scripts. Scripts may not be returned to candidates on a 

permanent basis. 

11 Retention of Examination Scripts / Dissertations 

11.1 Faculties must make arrangements to retain marked examination scripts for at least 12 

months after they have been considered by the Board of Examiners. Scripts should be 

retained securely (e.g. in a locked filing cabinet) and access accorded only to academic and 

other staff with a legitimate right to consult them. 

11.2 In the event that a student submits a formal appeal to the University, Faculties should 

retain copies of the appellant’s examinations scripts, coursework, dissertation or thesis, 

and other documents until the appeal has run its course. 

11.3 Faculties are advised, in the approach to Institutional or other form of Audit by the QAA, 

to an accreditation visit by a professional body or to some other form of review to ensure 

that they have available a representative sample of assessed work across the full marking 

spectrum. 

11.4 Other than 10.2 and 10.3 above, the University does not require Faculties to retain copies 

of undergraduate dissertations, project reports or other forms of substantive coursework. 

11.5 The University Library will only retain Master’s dissertations, with the exception of M.Phil 

dissertations for a period of eight years. Faculties wishing to retain theses for a longer 

period than this should do so on a Departmental basis. 

11.6 Faculties are required to adhere to the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998, viz: 

11.6.1 personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully; 

11.6.2 personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful 

purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with 

that purpose or those purposes; 

11.6.3 personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the 

purpose or purposes for which they are processed; 

11.6.4 personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date; 

11.6.5 personal data processed for any purpose shall not be kept for longer than is 

necessary for that purpose or those purposes; 

11.6.6 personal data shall be processed in accordance with the rights of data subjects 

under the Act; 

11.6.7 appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against 

unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss 

or destruction of, or damage to, personal data; 

16

11.6.8 personal data shall not be transferred to a country or territory outside the 

European Economic Area unless that country or territory ensures an adequate 

level of protection for the rights and freedoms of data subjects in relation to the 

processing of personal data. 

Approved by Senate: October 1992 

Last Revised: July 2011 

17

Appendix F1: Guidelines on Good Practice In Relation To 

Determining and Using Assessment Criteria 

The key question when setting an assignment should be “What, exactly, do I want the students 

to demonstrate about their learning in this assignment” Careful consideration of this question 

should ensure alignment between the assignment tasks and the intended module outcomes, 

and facilitate the development of clear assessment criteria that may be made explicit for the 

benefit of students. 

Assessment criteria specify what a student must be able to do to achieve a pass, or to achieve a 

particular grade. The use of appropriate criteria facilitates the provision of feedback to students 

and may also link to a self-assessment cover sheet where the students indicate how their 

answers seek to meet the demands of the assignment. 

Supposing that you decide that the following areas need to be evidenced (the particular traits 

will, of course, differ according to the subject area and type of assessment): 

• Knowledge and understanding of particular content 

• Critical analysis of conflicting evidence 

• A range of sources used appropriately 

• A well-structured argument 

• Language and expression 

These may be incorporated into a matrix which shows how well each of these traits is 

demonstrated using a scale from 1-5. 

Assignments can be graded by scoring them for each factor on the five point scale. Overall 

percentages are derived by applying a weighting to the factor relative to its importance, so that 

the total possible marks are 100. So, for example, critical analysis of conflicting evidence may be 

weighted x5 while understanding of relevant content is weighted x3, and so on. Again, the 

relative weighting of categories will depend on the level at which the student is studying. 

A sample matrix is shown below 2 : 

Knowledge Critical Sources Argument Language 

1 Little or no 

evidence of 

familiarity with 

content of 

module 

Little or no 

evidence of critical 

evaluation of 

material 

Sources not 

used to 

support 

substantive 

assertions or 

argument 

Either no 

discernible, or 

seriously 

flawed 

academic 

argument 

The 

assignment 

has 

unacceptable 

failings in 

structure and / 

or clarity of 

written 

expression 

2 

This draws on an example provided by James Atherton, De Montfort University. 

18

2 Evidence that 

relevant module 

content is broadly 

understood, but 

with significant 

gaps or 

misapprehensions 

Evidence of limited 

critical evaluation 

in some areas, 

with some lost 

opportunities or 

misunderstandings 

Limited and 

uncritical use 

of a restricted 

range of 

sources 

Argument is 

sometimes 

trivial, 

confused or 

flawed 

The 

assignment 

has failings in 



written 

expression, 

which impair 

its capacity to 

communicate 

3 Evidence that 


content is 

adequately 

understood, but 

with some gaps or 


4 Evidence of 

extensive 

knowledge of the 


content, without 

major 


5 Evidence of 

superior, 

comprehensive 

and deep 

knowledge of the 


content 

Evidence of a 

general critical 

stance, although 

some material not 

evaluated 

Evidence of good 

critical 

appreciation and 


relevant theory 

and research and a 

systematic attempt 

to relate it to the 

topic 

Evidence of 

thorough critical 

appreciation and 


relevant theory 

and research and a 

systematic and 

creative attempt to 

relate it to the 

topic 

Use of a range 

of appropriate 

sources, but 

without critical 

evaluation, or 

missing some 

significant 

items 

Use of a wide 


appropriate 

sources with 

some critical 

awareness of 

their status 

and relevance 

Use of a wide 


appropriate 

sources, 

indicating 

personal 

research, and 

with full critical 

awareness of 

their status 

and relevance 

Argument is 

let down by 

occasional 

confusion or 

flaws 

Argument is 

sound and 

substantial, 

although not 

original 

Argument is 

sound and 

substantial, 

with significant 

elements of 

originality 

While the 

assignment 

has some 

failings in 



written 

expression, 

these do not 

impair its 

capacity to 

communicate 

A generally 

well-structured 

and expressed 

assignment, 

which 

communicates 

clearly 

An assignment 

whose clear 

structure and 

expression 

significantly 

enhances its 

argument 

There is freeware available (see, for example, http://www.circle-of-excellence.com – Free 

Downloads – MarkThis Pro 3.0) which will do the calculations for you and also generate a 

student feedback sheet which may be further individualised by providing each student with a 

comment indicating what they need to do next to improve. 

19

Appendix F2: University of Surrey, Undergraduate Grade Descriptors 

Command of the Subject 

90-100 • Demonstrates a breadth and depth of substantive 

knowledge that is exceptional and informed by 

the highest level of scholarship 

• Excellent integration of the full range of 

appropriate principles, theories, evidence and 

techniques 

• Goes beyond the material displaying exceptional 

flair in tackling issues identified 

Subject Specific Skills and 

Practices 

• Exceptional application of theoretical 

and technical knowledge to achieve 

learning outcomes 

• Exceptional professional presentation 

using an appropriate range of 

resources and reflecting professional 

norms. 

Scholarly and Professional Skills and Attitudes 

Work that influences how academics and students think about their 

discipline through: 

• Being original within the discipline on the basis of its excellence; 

• Achieving the highest level of compelling, coherent and concise 

argument attainable within the level of study; 

• Using a full range of high quality sources to inform but not dominate 

the argument 


knowledge that is comprehensive, accurate, 

relevant and informed by advanced scholarship 

• Excellent integration of a full range of appropriate 

principles, theories, evidence and techniques 

• Goes beyond the material with excellent 

conceptualisation which is original, innovative 

and/or insightful 

70-79 • Informed by a breadth and depth of substantive 

knowledge that is comprehensive, accurate, 

relevant with an awareness of advanced 

scholarship 

• Very good integration of a full range of 

appropriate principles, theories, evidence and 

techniques 

• Goes beyond the material with very good 

conceptualisation which is often original, 

innovative and/or insightful 


knowledge that is comprehensive and accurate 

• Good integration of a range of appropriate 


• Some good insight into the material 

• Excellent and original application of 

theoretical and technical knowledge 

to achieve learning outcomes 

• Excellent professional presentation 



norms. 

• Consistently applies theoretical and 

technical knowledge to achieve 

learning outcomes with some 

originality 

• Very good professional presentation 



norms. 

• Clear evidence of the application of 

theoretical and technical knowledge 

to achieve learning outcomes with 

few obvious flaws 

• Professional presentation using a 

good range of resources and 

reflecting professional norms. 

Work that has real potential to influence how academics and students 

may think about their discipline through: 

• Being original on the basis of its excellence in the context of the level 

of study; 

• A compelling, coherent and concise argument; 

• Drawing on a full range of high quality sources. 

Work that has some potential to influence how academics and students 

may think about their discipline through: 

• Some originality on the basis of its excellence in the context of the 

level of study; 

• Arguments which are coherent, concise and frequently compelling; 

• Drawing on a wide range of high quality sources. 

Work that critically engages with current thinking in the discipline 

through: 

• Clear differentiation between the quality and appropriateness of 

sources used; 

• Arguments which are coherent and concise and offer robust 

conclusions; 

• The development of a good analytical model 

20

50-59 • Demonstrates an adequate breadth and depth of 

substantive knowledge but with only a few errors 

or omissions 

• Demonstrates an adequate understanding of a 

range of appropriate principles, theories, evidence 

and techniques 

• Shows some ability to critically engage with the 

material 

40-49 • Incomplete breadth and depth of substantive 

knowledge with some errors or omissions 

• Demonstrates an awareness of appropriate 


• Limited and underdeveloped critical engagement 

with the material 

30-39 • Little relevant knowledge, which is minimal in its 

breadth and depth with major errors or omissions 

• Minimal awareness of appropriate principles, 

theories, evidence and techniques 

• Fails to demonstrate sufficient critical engagement 

with the material 

20-29 • Does not demonstrate even a basic understanding 

of the subject matter 

• Insufficient awareness of appropriate principles, 


• Little evidence of critical engagement with the 

material 

10-19 • Demonstrates confusion over the subject matter 

• Little awareness of appropriate principles, 


• No evidence of critical engagement with the 

material 

• Adequate application of theoretical 

and technical knowledge to achieve 

learning outcomes although with 

some obvious flaws 

• Presentation which adequately 

reflects relevant professional norms 

• Demonstrates limited ability to put 

theory into practice 

• Demonstrates limited technical ability 

but lacking theoretical and reflective 

insights 

• Presentation with reflects 

professional practice in a limited 

manner 

• Demonstrates a minimal ability to 

meet learning outcomes in the grasp 

of both theory and technical 

knowledge 

• Presentation which displays little 

more than cursory attention to 

professional norms 

• Lacks any real application of skills to 

meet learning outcomes 

• Fails to demonstrate any substantive 

meeting of learning outcomes 

• No real attention to the disciplinary 

norms of presentation 

• Fails to demonstrate the use of skills 

to meet learning outcomes 

• Fails to demonstrate any substantive 

meeting of learning outcomes 

• No real attention to the disciplinary 

norms of presentation 

Work that accurately reports on current thinking in the discipline through: 

• The repetition of, rather than critical engagement with, limited 

sources; 

• Adequate differentiation between the quality and appropriateness of 

sources used; 

• Drawing adequate conclusions which do not always fully reflect the 

complexity of the subject matter; 

• An adequate if unsophisticated analytical model. 

Work that offers a limited understanding of thinking in the discipline 

through: 

• Limited attention paid to the quality, range and appropriateness of 

sources used; 

• Poorly informed opinion led work which lacks a clear evidence base; 

• A limited and underdeveloped structure of argument; 

• Work that is of limited coherence and clarity. 

Work that often misrepresents or misunderstands thinking in the discipline 

through: 

• Minimal attention paid to the quality, range and appropriateness of 

sources used; 

• Poorly informed opinion led work with a minimal evidence base; 

• No real underlying structure of argument; 

• Work that is frequently confused and incoherent. 

Work that fundamentally misrepresents or misunderstands thinking in the 


• A lack of attention to the quality, range and appropriateness of 

sources used; 

• Poorly informed opinion-led work rather than evidence based 

argument; 

• No real underlying structure of argument; 

Work that completely misrepresents or misunderstands thinking in the 


• Inadequacy of sources used; 

• Unsubstantiated assertion with no evidence base 

• Failure to structure the argument being presented; 

21

0-9 • Demonstrates mainly ignorance of the subject 

matter by presenting information of minimal 

relevance. 

• Little or no awareness of appropriate principles, 

theories, evidence and techniques. 

• Learning outcomes not met 

• No real attention to any norms of 

presentation. 

Work that completely misrepresents or misunderstands thinking in the 


• Absence or misuse of sources; 

• Work that is confused and incoherent. 

22

Appendix F3: University Policy and Guidelines for the Anonymous 

Marking of Examination Scripts 

1.1 A policy of anonymous marking for all written examinations was introduced in 1996- 

97 (SEN 6/95: Minute 73 refers). Faculties may decide whether the principle should be 

extended to any other forms of assessment. 

1.2 Each candidate will be expected to identify his or her script by means of the University 

Registration Number (URN); this is printed on the library card. It has been agreed that it 

is desirable to allocate individual seat numbers to candidates but the Academic Registry 

cannot do this and produce place cards at present. Those Faculties which decide to 

produce their own place cards should include the candidate's number in addition to 

the name. Owing to the possibility of a candidate writing a wrong or illegible number 

on a script, answer books are used which enable the candidate to write his or her 

name on the script and then seal down the corner to conceal it; if necessary this corner 

can be slit open to reveal the candidate's name. Supplies of answer books with 16 

ruled pages (as at present) and small answer books with 8 ruled pages are available. A 

candidate should write his or her number on any supplementary material, such as 

graph paper, and attach it to the answer book. For a multiple choice examination there 

should be a space for both the candidate's number and name; the fact that the name 

cannot be concealed is of no importance since each answer is either right or wrong 

and marking is an automatic process. 

1.3 Attendance lists should be prepared by Faculties with the candidates' names in 

alphabetical order but also showing each candidate's number; such lists can be 

produced from the MIS database. Reference can be made to such a list if a candidate 

does not know his or her number. For examinations at level HE2 and above, one copy 

of the list, marked to show the candidates present, must be returned to the University 

Examinations Office and another retained by the Faculty. Such a list must not be 

included in the bundle of scripts for marking. 

1.4 Scripts must remain identified only by number at least until they have been fully 

marked internally. 

1.5 The method of preparation of mark sheets will depend on whether this is done 

manually or by using a computer. If a computer is used then the candidates should be 

arranged in numerical order to facilitate entering marks. The computer can, of course, 

be programmed to print mark sheets in any desired format for an examiners' meeting. 

For a meeting at which classes of degrees are to be determined, it may be of 

advantage if the lists of candidates are arranged in rank order according to the total 

mark. In all cases the agreed mark sheet submitted to the University Examinations 

Office after the examiners' meeting must list the candidates in alphabetical order. 

1.6 Great care must be taken to avoid entering a mark against the wrong candidate, 

whatever system is used to identify scripts. 

1.7 Each Faculty may decide whether candidates should be identified by name throughout 

the examiners' meeting(s). When classes of degrees are being determined the best 

practice is to decide them initially, with the candidates identified only by number. It is, 

however, necessary to identify candidates by name to make any allowances for illness 

or other special circumstances. 

1.8 Each candidate is entitled to be told his or her marks for each examination or other 

form of assessment but a candidate may not be told other individual candidates' 

marks. A Faculty may find it convenient to provide this information by displaying a list 

of marks with the candidates identified solely by number. 

23

Appendix F4: Statement of Policy on Special Examination and 

Assessment Arrangements 

1 The University is committed to providing equality of opportunity in academic 

assessment for all students. This policy is intended to provide a clear statement of the 

University's specific commitments in relation to the reasonable adjustment to the 

examination arrangements for those students with recognised special needs or 

disabilities. It should be read in conjunction with the Student Disability Policy. 

2 The University will comply with the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (2001) 

and Disability Discrimination Act: Part 4 (2001) with respect to making reasonable 

adjustments to assessment or examination arrangements. 

3 The University will provide reasonable adjustments to assessment and examination 

arrangements to provide equality of opportunity for students with special needs or 

disability to demonstrate their achievement of the learning outcomes. 

4 Reasonable adjustments to assessment arrangements will involve the provision of 

appropriate resources, forms of assessment and, where necessary, additional time in 

time-constrained assessments. 

5 The University will not normally adjust the criteria or learning outcomes for an 

assessment. However, in exceptional circumstances it may be necessary to make 

adjustments to a student’s programme of study, where it would otherwise be 

impossible for the student to complete the learning outcomes. As is prescribed in the 

Code of Practice published by the Disability Rights Commission. 

6 Recommendations for the adjustment to arrangements for assessment and / or 

examination will be made by Additional Learning Support (ALS). Approval of the 

recommendation should be obtained prior to the implementation of any adjustment. 

The University Examinations Officer shall make special arrangements for the 

examination of a candidate, which the Special Assessment Arrangements Committee 

approves – as is defined in the General Regulations. The terms of reference for the 

Committee are listed in The University Calendar. A flow chart of the process of an 

application follows section 7 below. 

7 Where it is not practically feasible to provide special examination arrangements, due to 

the lateness of recommendation or limitation of resources, the circumstances will be 

reported formally to the appropriate Board of Examiners by the Special Examinations 

Arrangements Committee. The Board will be informed of the recommendation for 

special examination arrangement for the student and be asked to take this into 

account when considering the progress of or award for the student. 

Dean of Students (4.1.05) 

24

Figure 10 – Procedure for Special Assessment Arrangements 

Students informed of how to apply for 

special examination arrangements 

and approach ALS, by specified date, 

for assessment. 

Student’s application is considered by 

ALS staff - evidence is gathered and 

recommendation for special 

assessment arrangement (SAA) is 

made. 

ALS submit 

recommendation for 

SAA to SAAC 

SAAC approves 

recommendation and 

forwards to Registry 

ALS inform 

student of SAA 

agreed 

Registry forward 

recommendations to 

Faculty Examination 

Officers 

Faculty Examination 

Officers implement 

Faculty/Departmentbased 

arrangements 

where approved at 

SAAC 

Exceptionally late applications 

may be considered by the 

Chair of SAAC in consultation 

with ALS, Registry and 

Faculties 

25

asg section f - examinations and other forms of assessment

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?