Assessment Policies and Procedures in Computer Science

Contents of this document

The main sections, in order, are:

Form and location of this document

This document is written in html, primarily for on-line access. Any other form is derivative. The current version is available to staff and students at:

http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/student/assessment/policies/

Purpose and scope of this document

This document explains how the process of assessment works for all taught programmes in the Department of Computer Science at the University of York. It is intended mainly for students and staff in the department. It may also serve as a guide for external examiners and other interested parties.

When students take a module in Computer Science as part of a programme based in another department, the policies and practices set out here apply to the assessment of the module. All decisions at the programme level remain with the home department.

This document is fairly comprehensive and self-contained. However, it is subject to the University's Ordinances and Regulations (2010/11 edition), and also to the University's Guide to Assessment, Standards, Marking and Feedback (2010/11 edition). Occasionally, reference will be made to sections of these documents (eg. Ordinances 1.2, Regulations 3.4 or Guide 5.6).

As assessment roles of academic staff are reallocated from time to time, this document uses role-names rather than names of individuals. However, the names and roles of administrative staff most involved in assessments are given in the section Examinations Officer and Assessment Support Office.

For students, further advice about assessments is included in the department's taught-course student handbooks.

Boards of Studies and Boards of Examiners

There is both a Board of Studies (BoS) and a Board of Examiners (BoE) in Computer Science. External examiners are among the members of BoE. There are also combined-subject boards in Computer Science and Mathematics.

Board of Studies in Computer Science

Responsibility: BoS is responsible for teaching in the Department. It makes recommendations to the university concerning the progress of students and final awards.

When BoS discusses individual students they are identified by name.

Members: All teaching staff are members of BoS. There are also student members: they attend items of open business such as discussion of the principles and arrangements for assessments in general terms, but they do not attend closed business such as discussion of assessment results for individual students.

Officers: Some assessment-related responsibilities rest specifically with Chair BoS, as noted in other sections.

Board of Examiners in Computer Science

Responsibility: BoE is responsible for carrying out assessments as determined by BoS. Individual members of BoE set and mark assessments. The board collectively receives and approves marks, and makes recommendations to BoS. In more detail, BoE:

  1. ensures that assessment procedures required by the University and by BoS are carried out;
  2. approves module marks presented anonymously;
  3. considers whether students should progress at the appropriate stage, and decides the requirements and outcomes of resit assessments;
  4. decides recommendations for final awards, including class borderlines and distinctions, using the appropriate University scales;
  5. considers any problems arising during the assessment process and how they may be resolved;
  6. considers all aspects of academic misconduct associated with the examination process;
  7. makes reports and recommendations to BoS.

When BoE discusses individual students they are identified only by their university examination number in order to preserve, so far as possible, the anonymity of students.

Members and quorum: All teaching members of BoS are also members of BoE. So too are the external examiners. To be quorate, a meeting of BoE must have at least three present, including at least one internal examiner and at least one external examiner.

Meetings: BoE meets several times in the summer term, to consider progression to the project stage of postgraduate programmes, progression to the next year of the programme for undergraduates not yet in their final year, and final awards for undergraduate programmes. It meets in the summer vacation to consider resit results. It meets on several further occasions in the autumn term to consider awards for postgraduate programmes.

Officers: Many assessment-related responsibilities rest specifically with Chair BoE, as noted in other sections.

For further information about the way in which the outcomes of assessments are decided by BoE, see the sections Progression between stages of a programme and How final results are decided.

External Examiners

Appointment: For every taught degree programme there is at least one external examiner. External examiners are appointed by the university for a fixed period, usually three years. Appointments are made on the recommendation of BoS. When a fresh appointment is needed, the Chairs of BoS and BoE confer with the Deputy Head of Department for Teaching, and with colleagues most involved in the programme, before putting forward a nominee.

Responsibilities: An external examiner may have responsibility for more than one programme. Our current practice is to have two external examiners jointly responsible for all undergraduate programmes, and one external examiner for each of our MSc programmes. Each external examiner only attends BoE when there is business relating to the programme for which they are appointed.

An external examiner is expected (cf. Guide, 17):

  1. to offer advice about the content, balance and structure of a programme;
  2. to review and evaluate proposed assessments;
  3. to assist in the calibration of academic standards;
  4. to attend and participate in BoE meetings to consider the programme for which they are appointed;
  5. to confirm fairness and consistency in the decision-making process by countersigning BoE recommendations;
  6. to submit an annual written report to the University.

Authority: Although due consideration should always be given to the expressed opinions of external examiners, they do not have the power of veto, nor do they have authority to impose decisions on BoE.

Combined-subject boards

Scope: Several undergraduate programmes are taught jointly by the departments of Computer Science and Mathematics. For students of these programmes, decisions about progression and final awards cannot be taken by the single-subject boards alone. Results are reported from each of the single-subject boards to combined boards where such decisions are made.

Members and quorum: All members of BoS in either subject are members of the joint BoS, and so of the joint BoE. In practice, representative groups from each subject attend joint boards. To be quorate a joint BoE meeting must have at least one internal examiner present from each department and at least one external examiner (who may be from either department).

For further information about the way in which overall outcomes are decided for combined-subject students, see the sections Progression between stages of a programme and How final awards are determined.

Examinations Officer and Assessment Support Office

Examinations Officer

Each academic department has an Examinations Officer. Their role is to manage all administrative aspects of assessments for their department. Specifically it is their responsibility:

  • to liaise with the Department's Teaching Committees to ensure that assessment plans in each programme are practicable and correctly represented in university information systems;
  • to negotiate with the University's Examinations Office the implementation of procedures relating to assessments, such as the timing of closed examinations and associated tasks;
  • to oversee the registration of students for modules, and hence for assessments connected with them;
  • to oversee the receipt of all assessment results, checks for the integrity of results data and transfers of data between Department and University information systems;
  • to issue results of assessments, including provisional results on web pages, formally tabulated results for use by BoE and BoS, official results summarised in departmental transcripts and recommendations to the university concerning progression, final awards and distinctions;
  • to administer the nomination of External Examiners for taught programmes, to oversee all necessary correspondence with them and all arrangements in connection with their work;
  • to report to Chair BoE and to work with them to identify and resolve assessment-related issues as they arise throughout the academic year; to maintain this document in collaboration with Chair BoE.

Assessment Support Office

Other administrative staff fulfil various roles in connection with assessment, and report to the Examinations Officer. Although they do not share one physical office, and they have other responsibilities apart from assessment, these staff are collectively referred to as the Assessment Support Office (ASO).

Current ASO staff and their main responsibilities are:

  • Debra Lashua:
    Academic Administration Manager; Examinations Officer;
  • Carolyn Haskins:
    issue and submission of open assessments; extensions and mitigating circumstances;
  • Chris Linfoot:
    arrangements for disabled students; preparation and checking of assessment papers; receipt, checking and entry of results.

E-mail for the attention of ASO should be sent to:

aso@cs.york.ac.uk

Types and timing of assessments

Throughout most modules students are set various exercises for formative and diagnostic purposes only.

Assessments to be formally examined are of two main types:

  • Open assessments are practical exercises, projects or essays, completed over several days or even weeks. In some cases, in addition to a written submission a brief oral presentation may be required.
  • Closed assessments are timed and supervised examinations, normally without access to notes or books.

10-credit modules usually have a single assessment of one type, but modules of 20 credits or more may involve a mixture of both.

Project modules with individual topics of study, and ranging from 30 to 90 credits, are open assessments of a special kind. Where necessary, this document distinguishes between standard open assessments and individual projects.

Standard open assessments take place at various times throughout the academic year. The exact dates for issue and submission of each assessment are fixed in advance by the department's teaching committees and approved by BoS. These dates are set out in the Students' Handbook.

Undergraduate projects are done mainly during the Autumn and Spring terms, with dissertations submitted and presentations given either at the end of the Spring term or early in the Summer term. MSc and Diploma projects typically begin in the summer term with final submissions and presentations towards the end of the academic year.

Almost all closed examinations are held during one of three examination seasons: Week 1 of the spring term, Week 1 of the summer term and Weeks 7-8 of the summer term. Examinations may be held on Saturdays.

For some modules, very short closed tests, held during required classes, are used as a small part of the assessment.

How assessments are set

Setters, checkers and vetters

A typical module is assessed by a standard open assessment or a closed exam or both. One or more of the staff who teach the module are also the assessment setters. If there is more than one setter for an assessment, one is identified as the person with overall responsibility for the task of setting it. Another member of staff is named as the checker.

Both setters and checkers have a duty to ensure that all assessment papers are clearly written and free from typing and other errors. Rubrics should be complete and accurate. Marks for parts of questions should sum to the correct total. Questions should make only appropriate demands on students' time and ability, and be in keeping with the learning outcomes for the module.

For individual-project modules, all teaching staff are potential setters. Several staff are named as vetters. Each vetter reviews the draft project specifications put forward by a different named group of setters.

The appointment of checkers and vetters is the responsibility of Chair BoE in consultation with the Deputy Head of Department for Teaching and the Projects Coordinator.

Security of assessment papers

It is important that students do not have access to assessment papers in advance of their issue or examination date.

Key points about paper security for staff:

  • Electronic sources of draft or final versions of open or closed exam papers not yet due for issue should only be stored on password-protected machines, and must be encrypted.
  • The same applies to any file derived from such sources (eg. pdf). Where possible, use it immediately (eg. print it) and then delete it.
  • Do not send unencrypted exam papers as e-mail attachments.
  • Keep printed copies to a minimum. Only print one if you can be sure that no-one else will see any part of the printed copy before you collect it from the printer. Store or dispose of any printed copy securely.
  • Any delivery or return of a printed paper to a colleague should be by hand, person-to-person. If you cannot find the intended recipient, pass the paper in a marked envelope to ASO and mail the recipient to tell them you have done so.
  • Do not put a printed exam paper in the internal mail, or in a pigeon-hole or mail-tray, or on someone's desk when they are not there, or any other place where someone other than the intended recipient could gain access to it.
  • Printed exam papers may only be put in the post (eg. to external examiners) by ASO staff and with a guarantee of recorded delivery.

Key points about paper security for students:

  • Any attempt to gain unauthorised access to assessment papers is a serious offence. The University has clear procedures and policies for dealing with such actions: see the section on Academic Misconduct.
  • If you believe that papers relating to future assessments have been, or could be, accessed inappropriately, you should inform a member of staff immediately.

Deadlines for preparation of assessments

For each academic year, ASO sets deadlines by which each assessment is due to be prepared and checked. These deadlines are given on the web-page:

http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/staff/teaching/assessment/schedule/ (staff only)

If for some good reason a deadline cannot be met, notify Chair BoE as soon as possible so that a revised deadline can be agreed.

Deadlines by which individual projects should be proposed and vetted are given on the project web-pages at:

http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/projects/

Setting standard open assessments

Key points for open-assessment setters and checkers:

  • Module specifications state learning objectives and the amount of study-time expected for each assessment. The demands of an assessment should be set accordingly.
  • Although assessments for a module may be broadly similar from year to year, each assessment paper should be fresh. Elements of past papers may be reused with care and with due variation, but practices such as drawing from the same small pool of exercises each time should be avoided.
  • The only formats accepted for open assessment papers are LaTeX and Word. For LaTeX users, there is an appropriate style-file; Word users should ask ASO for a copy of a past paper and use that as a starting point. For details see: http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/staff/teaching/assessment/format (staff only)
  • There must be a cover sheet carrying an appropriate rubric. It must state to which group of students the assessment should be issued, and on what date. It must specify the date by which students' work must be submitted, explicitly stating 12:00 midday as the time of the deadline. (From 1 October 2011, we have agreed to change from 12:00 midday to 3pm.) It may also indicate an expected or maximum length for submissions, measured either in words or in pages. For an example of an appropriate form of rubric, see Appendix A. If in doubt, consult ASO.
  • If any part of assessed work is to be submitted electronically, ASO must be advised before the assessment is issued. The requirement for electronic submission must be clearly stated on the assessment paper. Students should be instructed to use the standard web-page http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/submit/ to upload their submissions.
  • If the assessment is to be done in pairs or groups, specific guidance should be given about the extent of collaboration permitted within each pair or group.
  • The main divisions of marks for the assessment, and the main criteria to be used for the award of marks, should be clearly indicated.
  • For the information of the checker and external examiners, and for use when marking, setters should provide separate detailed notes on the expected answers or solutions, and a marking scheme.
  • If an assessment requires the development of a solution to a practical problem, the setter(s) should themselves develop such a solution in full. (This should take only a fraction of the time allowed for students to solve the problem and to write their submission.)

Setting procedure for open assessments:

  1. By the published deadline, the setters prepare a draft paper and its accompanying notes including a marking scheme. They pass one copy to the checker and another copy to ASO.
  2. Within one week, the checker carefully reads every part of the draft paper, annotating a printed copy with any suggested corrections or amendments. They return this annotated copy to the setter(s) and notify ASO that they have done so.
  3. Within one week, the setter completes any necessary amendments and passes to ASO a copy of the final version of the assessment.
  4. ASO sends a copy of the assessment to an External Examiner for information.
  5. No further amendment to the assessment may be made without the explicit authorisation of Chair BoE or Secretary BoE.
  6. By one week in advance of the issue date, ASO makes copies of the assessment paper ready for issue to students.

Setting individual projects

The full procedures for setting, vetting and allocating projects, and details of the on-line support for these processes, are set out on the projects web-site at:

In short, each setter enters on-line definitions of several projects they can offer. These definitions are reviewed by vetters, and if necessary revised or withdrawn, until a final list can be approved. Definitions are then made available to students as part of an on-line selection and allocation process.

Key points for project setters:

  • There are separate criteria for the nature of an acceptable project in each degree programme, as specified at: http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/projects/ProjectSpecs 
    However, many projects can appropriately be offered to students from more than one programme.
  • In all programmes, an individual project must provide scope for literature review, experimental development or investigation, evaluation and critical assessment.
  • Two students are not normally permitted to pursue the same project at the same time. Nor can a recent project be repeated by another student unless there is a substantial change to the specification.
  • Besides stating an overall goal, project definitions should make clear any special skills needed or any unusual constraints, suggest a general approach that might be taken and give references to the literature as a starting point for research.
  • All project definitions must pass the vetting process before they are published to students.
  • Students may propose their own projects, but these proposals must first be adopted by a potential supervisor and must then pass the normal vetting process.

Key points for project vetters:

  • Each project must be clearly specified and suitable for each of the programmes for which it is proposed. Consider not only the nature of work required but also the time it is likely to take.
  • Ideally, a project should allow sufficient variation according to the ability of the student that a just-passing student will just pass, yet an excellent student will excel.
  • If any project is not acceptable, the problematic issues should be discussed with the setter. If no acceptable revision can be made, the project should be withdrawn.

Setting closed examinations

Key points for closed-exam setters and checkers:

  • Module specifications state the intended learning outcomes and the rubric for any closed examination. The paper should be set accordingly.
  • Although exams for a module may be broadly similar from year to year, each paper should be fresh. Questions from past papers may be reused with care and with due variation, but practices such as drawing from the same small pool of questions each time should be avoided.
  • In closed-exam rubrics there is typically a choice of main questions. Each main question should have a coherent topic or theme, which can helpfully be stated at its start. It is not appropriate for several main questions to address similar assortments of topics.
  • The only formats accepted for exam papers are LaTeX and Word. For LaTeX users, there is an appropriate style-file; Word users should ask ASO for a copy of a past paper and use that as a starting point. For further details see: http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/staff/teaching/assessment/format (staff only)
  • The rubric should follow the pattern of the example in Appendix B. If in doubt, consult ASO.
  • For the information of the checker and external examiners, and for use when marking, setters should provide separate detailed notes on the expected answers or solutions, and a marking scheme.
  • If a question requires a solution to a specific technical problem, checkers are encouraged to find their own solution first, and then to compare it with the notes provided.

The setting procedure for closed exams:

  1. By the published deadline, the setters prepare a draft paper and its accompanying notes including a marking scheme. They pass one copy to the checker and another copy to ASO.
  2. Within one week, the checker carefully reads every part of the draft paper, annotating a printed copy with any suggested corrections or amendments. They return this annotated copy to the setter(s) and notify ASO that they have done so.
  3. The draft paper is also sent by ASO to an external examiner, inviting their comments. When comments are returned they are immediately passed to the setter(s).
  4. When setter(s) have feedback from both the checker and the external, they complete any necessary amendments and pass to ASO a copy of the revised paper.
  5. The paper is checked for generic errors by Secretary BoE.
  6. The setter and checker meet to read through the paper, checking that it contains no errors. They return a signed declaration to ASO, specifying any amendments found to be necessary.
  7. The paper is sent to the University's Examinations Office where copies are printed and held ready for the examination.
  8. No further amendment to the paper may be made without the explicit authorisation of Chair BoE or Secretary BoE.

How assessments are conducted

Conducting standard open assessments Open assessments are administered by the Department. The date of issue and the hand-in deadline are approved in advance by BoS. These dates are published in students' handbooks, and on module web-pages, and should be clearly stated on the front cover of the assessment paper. They may not be altered unless Chair BoE gives explicit permission for some compelling reason.

Procedures during an open assessment:

  • Open assessment papers are normally issued from the Departmental Reception Desk. Students sign to confirm that they have collected their copy.
  • With explicit agreement of ASO in advance, open assessments for modules taken by part-time students may be issued in a teaching session. The assessment should still be issued on the agreed date. Students should still sign to confirm receipt, and a record of these signatures must be passed to ASO as soon as possible.
  • During the assessment period, queries and requests concerning an open assessment should be directed to the setter, and not to other members of staff. Any significant information given in response should be published to all students taking the assessment: eg. by FAQ list on the module web-page or by posting to an appropriate web-forum. However, the setter should not post responses to every request, no matter how trivial, as this can distract students' attention unhelpfully.
  • All hard-copy open-assessment submissions are made to the Departmental Reception Desk. Receipts are issued, with a signed confirmation of the date and time of hand-in.
  • Electronic submissions should be made only when explicitly requested for the assessment and using the standard web-page: http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/submit/

Late submissions normally attract a penalty: see the sections on How assessments are marked and Extensions and mitigating circumstances.

Conducting projects

Work for individual projects takes place over an extended period, with one-to-one supervision of each student by a member of staff. Assessment is not based on the supervisor's view of the student's general performance, or practical results demonstrated, during the project period. Rather it is based on a written dissertation and a brief oral presentation given shortly after the dissertation is submitted. A supervisor assists the student's work mainly by giving advice on:

  1. both the overall direction and the specific steps to be followed in the technical work for the project;
  2. how to prepare the dissertation and talk, with detailed feedback on a draft version of each.

Dissertation: There are word-limits and page-limits to the length of dissertations. For undergraduate, diploma and MSc IT projects the limits are 35,000 words and 70 pages; for all other MSc projects the limits are 50,000 words and 100 pages. These limits exclude only reference appendices, such as code listings and tables of data not essential to the argument of the dissertation, and the bibliography. The title page must declare a word count, stating how it was derived and which appendices are excluded, if any.

Two copies of the dissertation must be submitted to the Departmental Reception Desk by the due date given in the students' handbook. Signed receipts are issued showing the date and time of hand-in. As for other open assessments late submissions normally attract a penalty: see the sections on How assessments are marked and Extensions and mitigating circumstances.

Presentation: Project presentations are given in one of the departmental seminar rooms, according to a schedule published well in advance.

The only participants at each presentation are a student, a member of academic staff as observer, and a technical assistant. Students provide their digital slides in advance, in pdf format, to avoid delays. They enter the room when invited by the technical assistant, and give an illustrated talk about their work lasting no more than 10 minutes. The observer should instruct them to conclude if they are still speaking after that time. A brief demonstration during the talk is optional. At the end of the talk there is a 5-minute period for questions from the observer.

Each presentation is video recorded for subsequent viewing and assessment by the project markers.

Conducting closed examinations

All closed examinations are conducted by the University's Examinations Office in accord with standard University policies and procedures (Guide, 5). Full timetables for each University examination season are published on the web at:

A reduced timetable showing only Computer Science examinations is posted on departmental web-pages and student notice-boards.

Key points about exam procedure for students:

  1. Arrive in good time. If you are late, you may be permitted to join the exam up to 30 minutes after it has started, but you cannot expect extra time at the end.
  2. Visit the toilet before the exam starts. If you do need to visit the toilet during the exam, raise your hand to summon an invigilator. Except in emergency, you cannot leave the exam room within the first 45 minutes or the last 15 minutes.
  3. Have with you your University Card to confirm your identity. Display it on the corner of your desk throughout the exam. If you fail to present your card, details will be recorded by Exams-Office staff. You will have to present two forms of identification, one of them your University Card, to Exams Office within one working day of the examination, or else get a mark of zero for the exam.
  4. Do not have with you any books, or other reference materials of any kind. The only permitted items are a small clear bottle of still water and a clear pencil case or bag which may contain pens, pencils, pencil sharpener, rubber and ruler. If the use of a calculator is permitted, standard University calculators are provided in the exam room.
  5. Do not communicate with anyone during an exam other than a member of staff who is invigilating. Any such communication may be regarded as academic misconduct and could result in a serious penalty.For other details of exam procedure see (Guide, 5). Clear instructions are announced at the start and end of each exam.

Key points about exam procedure for staff:

  1. If you are asked to be an invigilator at an exam, arrive at least twenty minutes before it starts and make yourself known to the Senior Invigilator. For details of what invigilators are expected to do see: http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/eto/exams/invig/infoinvigilator.htm
  2. If you are the setter of an examination you must be available throughout the exam period to answer any queries about your paper by telephone. You should be reachable at your university extension, or at another number provided to ASO well in advance of the exam.
  3. At the end of an exam, go to the room where your exam has been held and collect the scripts directly from there. If for some good reason you cannot attend, ask a colleague to collect the exam-scripts for you. The collector must sign a form in the exam room to confirm the number of scripts collected. Scripts should be passed to ASO, or stored securely in another departmental office, or retained by the collector for marking. In all cases ASO must be informed how many scripts have been collected for each paper and where the scripts are now held.

How assessments are marked

Priority and deadlines

The job of marking assessments has high priority and should be completed as soon as possible.

Agreed marking deadlines are relative to the date on which an assessment is completed. It is a university requirement that provisional marks and feedback are published to students within six calendar weeks of an assessment. There is also a need to complete checking and data entry processes in advance of publication or BoE meetings, and to provide timely feedback before students take further related assessments. Therefore:

  • For assessments taken only by part-time students, marks must be submitted to ASO within five calendar weeks of the submission date.
  • For individual projects, supervision reports should be completed as soon as the dissertation is submitted. The supervisor and second marker should submit their initial marking reports within three calendar weeks to allow time for possible resolution or adjudication.
  • For assessments completed in the latter part of the summer term marking must be done within one and a half weeks so that marks can be collated in time for BoE meetings.
  • For all other assessments, marked scripts should be submitted to ASO within five calendar weeks and within three term weeks of the date of submission (open) or examination (closed).

Security of scripts and marking reports

Scripts and completed paper mark sheets should be stored only in locked places. When they are passed between staff, it should always be by hand and in person. Marking standard open assessments Standard open assessments are normally marked by the setters. Exceptionally, if someone is unavailable to mark an assessment they set, a colleague familiar with the subject matter acts as marker. If there is more than one marker for an assessment, one is identified as the person with overall responsibility for the marking task.

Another member of BoE is appointed as second marker. They do not provide a second mark for the work based on an independent study of it. Rather they check the work of the first markers.

Instructions for open-assessment markers:

  1. Collect scripts from ASO. ASO also supplies an electronic mark-sheet, with candidates already listed by number. (A printed mark-sheet can be supplied, but it is preferable if markers complete the electronic mark-sheet, avoiding the need for transcription by ASO.)
  2. Some scripts may have stickers attached, instructing you to ignore specified kinds of error arising from a student's recognised disability.
  3. Use red ink, so that your annotations can easily be distinguished from the student's work.
  4. Keep to the marking scheme agreed when the paper was set. Any departure from it must have the explicit approval of Chair BoE.
  5. First markers: For each part of the assessment allocated marks in the marking scheme, write brief comments on the script and a proposed mark. On the front of each script write a proposed total or overall mark for the assessment.
  6. Working from your annotations and part marks, enter brief written feedback for each student. (See the section Feedback after assessments.)
  7. When first marking is complete, pass the marked scripts to the second marker and notify ASO that you have done so.
  8. Second markers: Check that the marking scheme has been adhered to, with marks awarded according to consistent and appropriate standards. Resolve any differences of view with the first markers.
  9. When all scripts are marked, sort the scripts by examination number. Using the mark-sheet provided by ASO, enter against each examination number the total mark obtained.
  10. Write a brief assessment report for BoE in plain text. Give details of any problems such as an error in the assessment paper, and how these were addressed, or else state that there were no such problems. Comment on the distribution of marks, explaining any anomaly such as a large number of very high or very low marks.
  11. Return the mark-sheet to ASO, along with the sorted scripts and the assessment report. Draw the attention of ASO to any discrepancies between the list of examination numbers on the mark-sheet and those on the scripts you have marked.

Late submission: If a student submits late, a mark is first determined according to the usual marking scheme. When recording a final mark, ASO applies a reduction according to standard university rules. 10% of the available marks are deducted for each day (or part of each day) that the work is late, up to a total of five days including weekends and bank holidays. After five days, the work is marked at zero.

More precisely, let Max be the maximum possible mark for the assessment. Then the daily penalty P = Max / 10. Let M be the assessment mark before any lateness penalty is applied. Suppose the assessment is submitted D days late (any fraction of a day being rounded up to a whole day). If D is no more than 5 and D × P is no more than M, then the final mark is M - (D × P); otherwise the final mark is 0.

Marking individual projects

Special arrangements for marking individual projects reflect both their importance and the intrinsic problems of assessing them objectively and fairly. Project marks are highly weighted in all programmes. Project work is individually supervised and may have some collaborative elements. Project topics are individually assigned, so students cannot remain anonymous to the markers.

Marking arrangements are similar for all individual projects. However, the amount of work expected from students varies from 30 credits (300 hours, the equivalent of 7-8 weeks full-time) for a Diploma project to 90 credits (900 hours, the equivalent of 22-23 weeks full-time) for an advanced MSc project. To remind markers of this variation, marking forms used for the different project modules are colour-coded.

The procedures for marking projects are organised by a Project Marking Coordinator. They coordinate the marking process by means of a project-marking web-page:

Procedure for marking dissertations: All forms and reports are made available on the project-marking web page, and completed on-line.

The first marker for each dissertation is the supervisor. The Project-Marking Coordinator allocates a second marker at random from a pool of staff assigned to mark that project module. The procedure is as follows:

  1. Each of the markers receives from ASO a copy of the dissertation soon after it is submitted.
  2. The supervisor immediately completes a project supervision report. Its purpose is to inform other examiners about the context and demands of the project, and how much help was given by the supervisor. It is not used to assess the merit of the student's work. When submitted, the supervision report becomes available to the second marker via a link on the project-marking web-page.
  3. Some dissertations may have stickers attached, instructing markers to ignore specified kinds of error arising from a student's recognised disability.
  4. The supervisor and the second marker each independently study their copy of the dissertation without writing on it, or annotating it in any way, and complete a marking report. A report includes scores out of ten and written comments for various aspects of the dissertation, and for the video-recorded short talk. A report then gives a score out of ten to indicate the marker's own expertise in the topic. Finally it proposes, with written justification, an overall mark that is an even whole number on the standard university marking scale from 0 to 100. (Overall marks are not calculated by a fixed formula combining smaller scores; that method is too inflexible to handle the diversity of projects.)
  5. After submitting their marking report, each marker returns their copy of the dissertation to ASO.
  6. If the overall marks proposed by the markers differ by no more than eight percentage points, and both fall in the same division of the marking scale, then the two marks are averaged to obtain the final mark awarded. (As each marker proposes an even mark, the possible final marks awarded in this way are all and only whole numbers from 0 to 100.)
  7. If the overall marks differ by ten percentage points or more, or if they are in different divisions of the marking scale, each marker reads the other's report. The markers then discuss their differences and try to resolve them. They jointly complete a resolution report to record the main points, including any revision of their original views. This report concludes with either a proposed overall mark on which the markers now agree or else a statement of unresolved differences and a request for adjudication. Markers should work hard to understand each other's views, and to reconcile them, but they should never hide their true opinions behind arbitrary compromises such as a rough average of two widely differing marks.
  8. If an adjudicator is needed, one is appointed by the Project Marking Co-ordinator from a small panel of experienced markers. The adjudicator must decide an appropriate final mark, based on both the original marking reports, the report of the (failed) resolution, and their own reading of the most salient sections of the dissertation. They complete an adjudication report, including a detailed rationale for the final mark. Adjudication reports are linked to the project-marking web-page where they can be read by the original markers. All cases of adjudication are drawn to the attention of the External Examiners.

Penalties for late submission are applied to marks for project dissertations just as for standard open assessments. Again any deduction is applied by ASO.

Marking closed examinations

Closed examination papers are normally marked by the setters. Exceptionally, if a setter is unavailable to mark their questions, a colleague familiar with the subject matter acts as marker. If there is more than one marker for a paper, one is identified as the person with overall responsibility for the marking task.

Instructions for closed-exam markers:

  1. If you did not collect exam scripts directly from the exam room, obtain them from the collector or from ASO. ASO also supplies an electronic mark-sheet, with candidates already listed by number. (A printed mark-sheet can be supplied, but it is preferable if markers complete the electronic mark-sheet, avoiding the need for transcription by ASO.)
  2. Some scripts may have stickers attached, instructing you to ignore specified kinds of error arising from a student's recognised disability.
  3. If you find a script as a whole illegible, refer it to ASO. It may be transcribed under university-approved arrangements at the student's expense.
  4. Use red ink, so that your annotations can easily be distinguished from the student's answers.
  5. Keep to the marking scheme agreed when the paper was set. Any departure from it must have the explicit approval of Chair BoE.
  6. Record a mark for each section of each question in the right-hand margin.
  7. Provide brief annotations to indicate to the student and other examiners why marks have been lost: eg. "not enough detail", "facts wrong here" or "not relevant". For mathematical, programmed or diagrammatic answers, it may be enough to ring points of error or mark them with a cross.
  8. Ensure that you write on every page of the script in one way or another to confirm that you have seen that page.
  9. Strike through any rough notes or workings in a script that you do not take to be part of the student's final answer (so no mark is recorded for them).
  10. At the end of each question, write a ringed total mark for the question. Also record this total on the front cover of the answer script against the question number.
  11. If a candidate answers more questions than the rubric requires, mark them all. When calculating the overall mark for the paper, select a combination of questions that gives the highest total mark. Clearly indicate on the front cover of the script which answers contribute to the total and which you have disregarded.
  12. When all questions are marked, enter a ringed total mark for the paper on the cover page of the script.
  13. When all scripts are marked, sort the scripts by examination number. Using the mark-sheet provided by ASO, enter against each examination number the total mark obtained.
  14. Write a brief assessment report for BoE in plain text. Give details of any problems such as an error in the exam paper, and how these were addressed, or else state that there were no such problems. Comment on the distribution of marks, explaining any anomaly such as a large number of very high or very low marks.
  15. Return the mark-sheet to ASO, along with the sorted scripts and the assessment report. Draw the attention of ASO to any discrepancies between the list of examination numbers on the mark-sheet and those on the scripts you have marked.

On receipt of a completed mark-sheet with the marked scripts, ASO checks that all parts of each script have been marked and that question and paper marks have been totalled correctly. Any anomalies are drawn to the attention of the marker who should resolve them with ASO as soon as possible.

Checked marks are transferred to the official record of all assessment marks maintained by ASO.

A zero mark is recorded for any student who has failed to attend an examination and for whom no mitigating circumstances have been established.

Feedback after assessments

Provisional marks web-page

ASO aims to publish provisional marks for each assessment within six calendar weeks (and for full-time students within four term weeks) of the date of examination or submission. Students can access their own provisional marks by visiting the web-page

Staff can access marks for any student by visiting the page

Each provisional mark shown is out of a clearly stated maximum. Final marks for each module, as shown on official transcripts, are percentage scores on the standard university scale.

Feedback on standard open assessments

Class feedback: On module web-pages, markers provide written feedback addressed to all students who took a standard open assessment. This feedback should indicate the strengths and weaknesses typically found in submitted work for each part of the assessment. If an assessment has a strong element of problem solving, there may be a model solution, or at least an outline of a possible solution. This feedback should be kept on the module web-page for the benefit of students who may take a similar assessment in the future.

Individual feedback: Markers also provide individual feedback for each student taking a standard open assessment. Written comments are provided on each of the main aspects of the assessment, for example those identified in a marking scheme shown on the assessment paper. Indicative scores such as marks out of ten are also appropriate if used by the marker to determine the overall mark. Feedback is submitted by markers on-line at

and automatically linked to the provisional-marks web-pages. Other academic staff, such as a student's supervisor, can access feedback by entering their student's login name. So to avoid compromising the anonymity of students to markers feedback text must not include examination numbers.

Feedback on individual projects

Each student receives as feedback the written comments made by each of the two dissertation markers in their marking reports. These comments are linked automatically to provisional-marks web-pages. The only exception is that students do not see any comments entered in the section marked as confidential to BoE.

Feedback on closed examinations

Class feedback: On module web-pages, markers provide feedback addressed to all students who took a closed exam. As for standard open assessments, feedback should consider each part of the paper, include model solutions or outline answers, and remain available for the benefit of future students.

Script-access sessions: A few weeks after each closed-exam season, students have supervised access to their own marked scripts. There are separate sessions for different groups of students so that only the scripts for a small number of exams need to be made available each time. The dates, times and locations of all sessions are announced well in advance. The procedure is as follows:

  1. Every session is supervised by at least one academic invigilator, assisted by at least one (normally two) members of ASO.
  2. A large seminar room in the department is booked for the dedicated use of the script-access session. All the relevant exam scripts are brought to the room just before the session starts, along with a small number of reference copies of the examination papers.
  3. Students in the appropriate group may attend at any time during a session. They first submit their student ID cards to a desk of ASO staff in temporary exchange for their scripts for specified exams. Every issue of a script is recorded by ASO staff.
  4. Individual desks are provided, as in an examination, at which students study their scripts. The mode of work is strictly read only: students are not permitted to write at all.
  5. Queries may be raised with the academic invigilator. If a query cannot be resolved immediately, it should be recorded.
  6. Students return scripts to the ASO desk on their way out; their script-issue records are cancelled and their ID card is returned.
  7. After each session scripts are returned to secure storage as soon as possible. A copy of the record of scripts issued is placed on the examinations file. The academic invigilator is responsible for resolving any recorded queries with the markers concerned.

Marks for elective and exchange modules

Exchange modules

A few undergraduates spend a year studying at a university abroad under a University exchange scheme. This year abroad is normally in place of the second year of the programme at York.

Raw marks obtained during the year away are considered by the Exchange Adviser, who submits a report to BoE, recommending an overall mark for the year. When translating marks, the University's standard translation scale is the most important reference, but additional information supplied by the other university may be used to support small adjustments. The overall mark for the year is used to inform subsequent decisions just as if it was a year-mark obtained at York.

Elective modules

Some third or fourth year students may take a small number of elective modules in other departments. Marks for these modules are received by BoE and treated just as if they were modules from the standard programme at the same stage.

Industrial Placements

Some undergraduate students are registered for a programme including an Industrial Placement. The placement is normally during an academic year between the second and third years of study at the University. Work done on placement is not assessed by BoE as part of the academic degree programme. Rather, students who complete and submit a satisfactory log-book receive a Certificate of Industrial Placement when they graduate. For further details of the placement scheme see:

Progression between stages of a programme

In the Summer term BoE meets to consider assessment results for all modules taken that year (for UG programmes this is the final week, for PGT Full-Time this usually occurs halfway through the term). For those not at the end of their programme, BoE reports to BoS whether each student has satisfied the examiners and may therefore progress to their next stage of study. If not, BoE may recommend resit assessments or a transfer to another degree programme. Exceptionally, BoE may report that a student has failed and cannot continue.

The academic year 2010/11 was the first in a period of transition from the university's Old Modular Scheme to its New Modular Scheme. Rules for progression are different under the new scheme, which in 2011/12 applies to first and second year undergraduates (i.e. students who started after October 2010), all full-time MSc students and those part-time MSc students started after October 2011. Please note: that fourth and fifth year undergraduate students in 2011/12 are attending new modules but are assessed under the Old Modular Scheme; MSc students who started their programme before October 2011 are also within the Old Modular Scheme.  However, for ease of explanation: New and Old Modular scheme progression rules are explained for the entire programme (from Stage 1 to Award).

Broadly speaking, the Old Modular Scheme relies on the discretion of BoE to make appropriate resit and progression recommendations in line with our stated departmental policies; the New Modular Scheme applies mechanical rules to determine whether students must be reassessed and whether they meet standard university requirements for progression.

Ideally, all students will pass all of their assessments. If a student does fail a module, there are two mechanisms generally  used to allow students to progress. These are compensation and reassessment. In some circumstances, credit may be awarded for failed module(s) where the failure is compensated by achievement in other modules. This will be explained in detail below. Reassessment is the opportunity for students to redeem failure for the award of credit to meet progression or final degree requirements. The process works by first seeing if students can progress using compensation. Where this is not possible, students are offered reassessment provided they meet the criteria for reassessment. Following reassessment, if there are still failed modules, the compensation rules are applied again. Note, where reassessments are permitted a student can only be reassessed in a particular module on one occasion.  After all applications of the compensation or reassessment rules, if the student still has failed to meet the progression requirements of the degree then they cannot obtain their degree but may be eligible for an alternative award.

For a more detailed explanation for programme progression within Old Modular Scheme and New Modular Scheme, see the University's Guide to Assessment, Standards, Marking and Feedback

Progression in undergraduate programmes

In the final week of Summer Term, BoE meets to consider assessment results for all modules taken that year. For those not at the end of their programme, BoE reports to BoS whether each student has satisfied the examiners and may therefore progress to their next year of study. If not, BoE may recommend resit assessments or a transfer to another degree programme. Exceptionally, BoE may report that a student has failed and cannot continue.

The academic year 2010/11 is the first in a period of transition from the university's Old Module Scheme to its New Modular Scheme. Rules for progression are different under the new scheme, which in 2010/11 applies to first-year undergraduates only. Broadly speaking, the Old Scheme relies on the discretion of BoE to make appropriate resit and progression recommendations in line with our stated departmental policies; the New Scheme applies mechanical rules to determine whether students must be reassessed and whether they meet standard university requirements for progression.

First year: To progress, students must achieve 120 credits.

Credit may be awarded for failed modules (with module marks below 40%) if the failure is compensated by achievement in other modules. Compensation rules allow a student to progress provided that:

  1. they have failed no more that 40 credits;
  2. no module mark is an outright failure (below 30%);
  3. the mean of all module marks is at least 40%.

If these requirements are not met, a student can be reassessed. A student can be reassessed in up to 90 credits of failed modules, provided that they do not have more than 50 credits of outright failed modules.

Second year: Module results are grouped into four 30-credit strands. BEng or BSc students who achieve at least 40% overall, with at least 40% in at least three strands, and at least 35% in the fourth strand, may progress to the third year. If they do not achieve this standard, they resit each failed assessment in each failed strand.

MEng and MMath students are required, in addition, to obtain at least 50% overall to remain on their programme. If they do not, but have satisfied the requirements to progress at BEng or BSc level, a transfer is recommended. If they do not satisfy the BEng or BSc requirements, they resit each failed assessment in each failed strand.

Third year: At this stage, results from the first three years are combined using the weighting 1:3:5. MEng and MMath students are required to have an overall mark of at least 50% to continue on their programme. If they have not reached this standard, but have an overall mark of at least 35%, the award of an Ordinary or Class III BEng or BSc is recommended. If their overall score falls below 35%, they fail. There are no resits at this stage.

BoS receives the recommendations from BoE, and taking into account any exceptional circumstances, makes recommendations to the University.

Resits and reassessments: After resits and reassessments have been completed, BoE and BoS consider again the results of the students involved. In line with University policy BoE considers the greater of the original mark and the resit or reassessment mark in each module when recommending whether a student may progress. However, for those who do progress, the overall mark carried forward for the year is the greater of their original overall mark for the year and 40%.

If a student has missed or spoiled an assessment because of mitigating circumstances, they may be permitted to take a resit assessment as if for the first time. In this case, the mark carried forward by a progressing student includes the full value of the resit mark. If they still do not meet the requirements to progress, they may be permitted Leave of Absence, returning to take a further resit examination in the following academic year.

Progression in combined-subject programmes

First year: The rules for the New Modular Scheme apply to the collected results of all modules in both departments.

The Old-Scheme rules for progression in combined-subject programmes with Mathematics apply requirements for the part-programmes in each of the two departments. In summary the requirements in Computer Science are as follows.

Second year: At least 40% overall in each of two 30-credit strands. If an MMath student has an aggregate Computer Science mark for the first two years less than 50%, then transfer to BSc is recommended.

Third year: If an MMath student has an aggregate Computer Science mark for the first three years less than 50%, they cannot progress to the fourth year. Instead they are considered for the award of a BSc.

Recommendations to the university about the progression of combined-subject students are made by the combined BoS, taking into account any exceptional circumstances.

Progression in postgraduate programmes

The pass mark for any Masters-level module is 50%. This applies to both Old and New Modular Scheme rules.  All full-time and part-time MSc students starting in 2011/12 are under the New Modular Scheme. All other MSc students who started prior to October 2011 are under the Old Modular Scheme.

Master of Science (MSc) New Modular Scheme
Compensation: If a student fails one or more non-ISM module, that is achieves a mark below 50%, s/he may still receive credit for the failed module(s) provided that:

  1. s/he has failed no more than 40 credits, and
  2. no module mark is an outright failure (below 40%), and
  3. the rounded credit-weighted mean over all non-ISM modules (including all failed modules) is at  least 50%.

Reassessment: Where a student has failed (non-ISM) modules and the award requirements cannot be met by the application of compensation criteria, s/he is entitled to reassessment in a maximum of 40 credits-worth of failed modules provided that they have failed no more than 40 credits. For non-ISM M-level modules: marks obtained from reassessments will not be capped.  The reassessment mark will appear on the transcript but it will clearly indicate where marks have been achieved at first attempt or at reassessment.  In addition, along with with other criteria, M-level modules must be passed at first attempt to achieve either Merit or Distinction within an MSc programme  (see the section How final awards are determined).

ISM modules cannot be compensated or reassessed: Where a student has failed an M-level ISM with a mark below 40 there is no opportunity for reassessment. However where a student has been awarded a marginal fail mark (between 40-49) they will have the opportunity to make amendments which would enable a passing threshold to be reached.  The mark after resubmission is capped at 50.

Postgraduate Diploma (PGDip) New Modular Scheme
Compensation: If a student fails one or more modules, that is achieves a mark below 50%, s/he may still receive credit for the failed module(s) provided that:

  1. s/he has failed no more than 40 credits, and
  2. no module mark is an outright failure (below 40%), and
  3. the rounded credit-weighted mean over all modules (including all failed modules) is at at least 50%.

Postgraduate Certificate (PGCert) New Modular Scheme
Compensation: If a student fails one or more modules, that is achieves a mark below 50, s/he may still receive credit for the failed module(s) provided that:

  1. s/he has failed no more than 20 credits, and
  2. no mark is lower than 40%, and
  3. the rounded credit-weighted mean over all modules (including all failed modules) is at at least 50%.


Master of Science (MSc) Old Modular Scheme
Students who would have started their MSc programmes before October 2011 have different progression rules to New Module Scheme MSc students. Progress of students on MSc courses is assessed at a BoE meeting during the summer term.

To proceed to the MSc project stage, students must achieve at least 50% in all but a small number of their assessed taught modules, and at least 50% in the overall mark for these modules. The failures permitted differ between programmes because the number of taught modules differs and nature of the programme differs.

  • MSc in Computing: failure in at most 20 out of 90 credits;
  • MSc in Gas Turbine Control: failure in at most 20 out of 120 credits;
  • MSc in Human-centered Interactive Technologies: failure in at most 20 out of 90 credits;
  • MSc in Information Technology: failure in at most 30 out of 110 credits;
  • MSc in Natural Computation: failure in at most 20 out of 90 credits;
  • MSc in Safety-critical Systems Engineering: failure in at most 20 out of 90 credits;
  • MSc in Software Engineering: failure in at most 20 out of 80 credits.

Where a student has not reached the required standard to continue on their MSc programme, transfer to a Diploma course may be possible. If Diploma requirements are not met, the student must end their studies but with the award of a Certificate where appropriate. See the section How final awards are determined for Diploma and Certificate requirements.

How final awards are determined

Determining final awards for undergraduate programmes

In the final week of Summer Term, BoE meets to consider assessment results for all modules taken that year. BoE decides for each student completing their programme whether they have met the standard required for the award of a degree, and if so what class is recommended.

Marking scale and classification: Recommendations are based on the aggregation of assessment marks to obtain overall marks on the scale 0-100. The standard University division of this scale is shown in the following table.

1st Class Honours 70-100
Upper 2nd Class Honours 60-69
Lower 2nd Class Honours 50-59
3rd Class Honours 40-49
Ordinary Pass 35-39
Fail 0-34

Students who obtain overall marks of 80 or more are considered for recommendation to the University for the award of 1st-class honours with distinction. However, each such recommendation requires the explicit support of an external examiner.

The one-ninth rule and aegrotat passes: Because of mitigating circumstances a student may not have completed some assessments. BoE has discretion to waive these assessments if the circumstances are confirmed by appropriate evidence. A recommendation for the award of a classified degree can be based on marks available for other assessments. However, the University only permits this procedure if together the weighted marks for waived assessments contribute at most one ninth to the overall mark for the programme.

If a greater proportion of assessments has not been completed, for compelling reasons, Regulations (5.2) allow BoE to recommend the award of an aegrotat pass. Aegrotats may be recommended with honours or as an ordinary pass.

Deciding borderlines: BoE considers carefully all cases where the overall mark lies just below a class boundary, and may recommend the award of the higher class.

  • If the overall mark has an integer part at the top of a class band (34, 39, 49 etc) and a fractional part of .5 or more, the higher class is automatically recommended.
  • If an overall mark has an integer part at or immediately below the top of a class band (33, 34, 38, 39, 48, 49 etc) and the individual-project mark or the overall final-year mark lies in a higher class band, or there is a record of mitigating circumstances, the case for recommending the higher class is discussed.

BoS receives the recommendations from BoE and, taking into account any exceptional circumstances, makes recommendations to the University.

BSc and BEng finalists: BoE considers an aggregate Computer Science mark for the three years of study, obtained by combining marks from each year using the weights 1:3:5. More precisely, if T1, T2, T3 are the totals of marks awarded for assessments in each year, and Tmax1, Tmax2 and Tmax3 are the totals of the maximum available marks for these assessments, then the aggregate mark for the programme is:

  • M = 100 × (T1 + 3 × T2 + 5 × T3) / (Tmax1 + 3 × Tmax2 + 5 × Tmax3)

In the case of waivers under the one-ninth rule, or consideration for an aegrotat award, one or more of the Tmax values in the above formula is reduced accordingly.

A student who passes overall, but with a project mark below 40, is recommended for the award of an unaccredited degree.

MEng finalists: The procedure is as for BSc and BEng but with the following amendments:

  • Marks for the four years are combined using the weights 1:3:5:7. So the formula for M is extended by adding 7 × T4 to the numerator and 7 × Tmax4 to the denominator.
  • MEng cannot be awarded with 3rd-class honours or as an ordinary pass degree. A student whose aggregate mark is less than 50, and who does not merit a recommendation of a Lower-2nd class award as a borderline case, is recommended for the award of an unaccredited BSc classified according to their weighted aggregate mark for the first three years of the programme.
  • MEng cannot be awarded to a student with a project mark below 50. A student whose project mark is less than 50 is recommended for the award of an unaccredited BSc classified according to their weighted aggregate mark for the first three years of the programme.

Final awards in combined-subject programmes

Final awards in combined-subject programmes with Mathematics are recommended by the joint BoE.

Each single-subject BoE determines an overall aggregate mark for its own subject, using the same weighting scheme as for single-subject students. Each subject-mark is expressed as a whole number on the University mark scale. Where a subject-mark is close to a borderline, it may be raised to reach the bottom of the higher class subject to the usual rules for considering borderline cases.

These marks are passed to the joint BoE and aggregated by a weighted sum. The weights are in proportion to the total number of credits taken in each subject. From the combined marks, final classifications are decided and recommended to the joint BoS.

Taking into account any exceptional circumstances, the joint BoS makes recommendations for final awards to the University.

Determining final awards for postgraduate programmes

During the autumn Term, BoE meets to consider marks awarded for individual projects, in combination with the taught-module marks reviewed earlier in the year. BoE reports overall results to BoS, deciding in each case whether the student has met the standard required for the award of a degree, and if so whether a distinction is recommended.

Marking scale and classification: Recommendations are based in each case on a student's overall mark for taught modules, their individual-project mark, and the combination of these two marks weighted by credit value. An overall aggregate mark for each student is expressed on the standard University scale 0-100. The division of aggregate marks at this level is:

Distinction 70-100
Pass 50-69
Fail 0-49

An MSc may be awarded as a pass, or as a pass with distinction. The requirements are:

  • Pass: a combined mark of at least 50% for taught modules, a mark of at least 50% for an MSc project, and (therefore) an overall aggregate mark of at least 50%.
  • Distinction: at least passing marks in every module, a combined mark of at least 65% for taught modules, a mark of at least 70% for the MSc project, and an overall aggregate mark of at least 70%.

If an MSc project fails to reach passing standard, but is awarded a mark of 40% or more, BoE may recommend the revision and re-assessment of the dissertation for the award of an MSc. However, the final project mark is capped at 50%.

A Diploma or Certificate may be awarded as a pass only; no distinctions can be recommended for these awards. In programmes where a Diploma or Certificate award is available, the general requirements are:

  • Certificate: 60 credits taught modules with an aggregate mark of at least 50% and failure in at most 10 credits;
  • Diploma: 90 credits taught modules with an aggregate mark of at least 50% and failure in at most 10 credits, and a mark of at least 50% for any project required for the Diploma.

For all HCIT awards, there is a specific requirement for a passing mark of at least 50% in the HCI module.

BoS receives the recommendations from BoE, and taking into account any exceptional circumstances, makes recommendations to the University.

Assessment of visiting students

Visiting students are those registered at another university, usually abroad, but admitted for up to one year to take modules at York. Their York modules normally count as part of the degree programme at their home institution.

Visiting students normally have the same credit-load as other students. Only with the explicit agreement of their home university and the York departments concerned may their credit load be more or less than usual.

Visiting students are normally assessed on each module they take in exactly the same way as other students. Exceptions may be made if the standard assessment takes place after the student's visit is due to end:

  • If the module examiner agrees, an alternative assessment may be set.
  • Or if the student's home institution agrees in writing, they may attend the module without taking an assessment associated with it.

To allow transcripts for visiting students to be issued promptly, University policy is that marks for a visiting student need not be ratified by an external examiner. It is enough that marks are ratified by Chair BoE.

Arrangements for students with disabilities or special needs

Some students may need special arrangements for some assessments because they have a disability or medical condition, or for other personal reasons. If a student wishes to request such arrangements they should notify the department's Disability Coordinator as soon as possible.

Special arrangements for open assessments

Students with recognised disabilities may be exempt from open assessments requiring laboratory work. An alternative assessment may be set.

Special arrangements for closed examinations

Special arrangements for closed exams can only be made on the recommendation of Chair BoS and with supporting evidence from an appropriate professional. Students may be granted various concessions such as additional time, special seating, or the use of a personal computer. Those with such concessions are usually located in a separate room or area of the exam hall to avoid disturbing others. In exceptional cases, permission may be given for a student to take exams in the Computer Science building.

Students who are formally diagnosed as dyslexic should seek the support of the University's Adviser on Dyslexia. They should then contact Chair BoS to request any special exam arrangements that the adviser recommends. Typically these include a 25% extension of the standard exam period.

Extensions and mitigating circumstances

Extensions to open assessment periods

A student may be allowed extra time for an open assessment if:

  1. they have been unable to work on the assessment for at least a full working day during the assessment period, because of compelling and unforeseen circumstances beyond their control, and
  2. documentary evidence can be presented to confirm when and why they were unable to work.

Part-time students may cite exceptional circumstances arising from their employment, but for full-time students constraints arising from employment are not acceptable grounds for an extension.

Extension periods: Extensions are always for some whole number of working days, not counting week-ends or bank holidays. Usually, an extra day is allowed for every day of the standard assessment period for which the student was unable to work. A shorter extension, or no extension, may be granted:

  1. if only a short period was lost at an early stage in a lengthy assessment, or
  2. to avoid conflicts with other requirements of the student's programme of study, or
  3. if necessary to allow examiners sufficient time for marking.

In any case, the maximum extension period is normally two weeks.

Support during extensions:

Beyond the standard assessment period, departmental facilities provided for an assessment may no longer be available. The assessment setter, or supervisor of an individual project, may not be available to discuss queries or requests for advice. However, they or an agreed deputy should at least be contactable by e-mail or telephone.

Procedure for extension requests and approvals:

  1. A student seeking an extension for an open assessment completes and submits a request on the web at:
    http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/student/extension
    They identify themselves and the assessment, state the number of working days requested, when and why days were lost, and what documentary evidence is to be provided by whom. (It is the student's responsibility to arrange for this evidence to be sent to ASO.)
  2. Forms can be submitted at any time during the assessment period, up to the normal submission deadline. If a student does not have internet access when they need to request an extension, they can ask a member of staff to enter a request for them.
  3. Confirmation or notification of a request is automatically mailed to the student, the setter (for a standard open assessment) or the Project Marking Coordinator (for a project), Chair BoS, the supervisor and ASO.
  4. For standard open assessments, the setter decides whether to grant provisional approval of an extension, and if so for what period. They should make this decision as promptly as they can. The automated e-mail they receive points them to a web-form where they should record their decision and brief reasons for any refusal or shortening of the period. For individual projects, the decision is taken by the Project Marking Coordinator, but only after consulting the supervisor. In doubtful cases, the Chair BoS should be consulted. Exceptionally, if the setter or the project-marking coordinator expects to be out of e-mail contact during the period of an assessment, they should ask the Chair BoS to respond to any extension requests on their behalf.
  5. If a request is provisionally approved, the submission deadline for the student is postponed by the appropriate number of days. The student receives an automated e-mail informing them of the decision, and requesting them to print, sign and submit an automatically generated mitigating circumstances form. Final confirmation of the extension is given by the Mitigating Circumstances Committee which reviews the form and associated evidence.
  6. If an extension request is rejected, or if documentary evidence is not received, any submission after the original deadline is treated as a late submission in the usual way.
  7. If a request is neither approved nor rejected by the normal submission deadline the student should submit as promptly as they can. They may yet obtain approval for an extension. But if they end up submitting after the normal deadline without an approved extension, they have the option of completing a mitigating circumstances form.

Mitigating circumstances (MCs)

If a student's performance in an assessment has been adversely affected by circumstances beyond their control they may complete and submit an mitigating circumstances form. Documentary evidence is required to support a claim. Forms can be obtained from, and returned to, the Departmental Reception desk. Alternatively, forms can be obtained on-line at:

A Mitigating Circumstances Committee (MCC) meets at least twice each term to consider MC claims on behalf of BoS. For each claim, the committee decides an initial response set out in a letter to the student. In all cases, details of MC claims remain confidential to MCC.

MC claims cannot be considered after BoE or BoS has met and agreed recommendations to the University based on the assessments concerned. At that stage, a student's only resort is an appeal to the University: see the section on Appeals.

A record of all MC submissions, MCC decisions and responses is kept by ASO.

For students under the New Modular Scheme MCC may respond to a submission by deciding:
  1. to confirm an extension that has been provisionally approved, in view of supporting evidence received;
  2. to recommend that a student's mark for a module should be based on some but not all assessments - but what is disregarded cannot amount to more than 20% of the overall module mark (and only provided that the learning outcomes can be met by the remaining assessments on the module); this procedure may be followed through for up to a maximum of 40 credits per stage (and again only when the learning outcomes for the module/s have been achieved);
  3. to recommend that a student should be reassessed in a module, as if for the first time;
  4. to reject a student's request for any special allowance, as the grounds are not admissible or as no satisfactory supporting evidence has been received..

For students under the Old Modular Scheme MCC assigns coded MC ratings which are shown on mark-sheets considered by BoE.

MC ratings and their meanings:

****-rated MCs are so severe that too many assessment marks are missing or unreliable to be handled by compensation - eg. an emergency stay in hospital across an entire exam period.

***-rated MCs have had a very serious impact on the performance of the student during the academic year - eg. the death of a parent or close relative.

**-rated MCs have had a serious impact on the performance of the student during the academic year - eg. hospitalisation of a student or a chronic medical condition.

*-rated MCs have had a significant impact on the performance of the student during the academic year - eg. brief illness limiting revision time.

+-rated MCs have had an impact on the performance of the student, but this has been fully compensated in the examination procedure - eg. another member of the student's team did not fulfil their role, but the marking scheme was adjusted accordingly.

O-rated MCs have had an insignificant impact on the performance of the student and no compensation is needed - eg. a common cold.

Responses to MCs: If an MC affects one or two assessments only, it may be compensated by basing marks on partial answers to assessments or by waiving an assessment altogether. The MC becomes +-rated.

Where this type of compensation is not possible or appropriate, MC-ratings prompt appropriate allowances when BoE and BoE take their decisions. Allowances are not normally made by increasing module marks. But BoE and BoS may use MC-ratings to justify lenience in progression requirements, waivers of resits, or recommendations for resits as if for the first time. Most importantly, MC-ratings may be used to justify promotions when considering final awards to students just below borderlines.

Possible responses to a ****-rated MCs include resit assessments taken as if for the first time, or an Aegrotat award. If neither of these is appropriate, a Leave of Absence may be necessary.

For a more detailed explanation in regards to MCs, see the see the university's Guide to Assessment, Standards, Marking and Feedback

Academic Misconduct

The University regards any form of academic misconduct as a serious matter. A student must not, in relation to assessed work at any stage:

  • cheat - fail to comply with the rules governing examinations, e.g. by making arrangements to have unauthorised access to information;
  • collude - assist another student to gain advantage by unfair means, or receive such assistance;
  • fabricate - mislead the examiners by presenting work for assessment in a way which intentionally or recklessly suggests that factual information has been collected which has not in fact been collected, or falsifies factual information;
  • personate - act, appear or produce work on behalf of another student in order to deceive the examiners, or solicit another individual to act, appear or produce work on their own behalf;
  • plagiarise - incorporate within their work without appropriate acknowledgement material derived from the work (published or unpublished) of another.

In an academic community such as a university, collaboration in learning by exchanging information and sharing insights is generally desirable. In the context of assessment, however, it is important that the boundary between acceptable exchange and unacceptable collusion or plagiarism is clearly understood.

Plagiarism

A student plagiarises if they incorporate within their work, without appropriate acknowledgement, material derived from the work of another. The University has an on-line tutorial to ensure that students understand what plagiarism is. All students are required to complete this tutorial at an early stage in their programme.

The Students' Handbook includes this advice:

  • Avoid plagiarism by always acknowledging the sources of the material you have used, including software and information on the web. If you copy a passage of text verbatim, clearly mark the entire extent of the quotation by using quotation marks or italic font, and cite its source. Unpublished work such as an email or a conversation should be recorded as a "private communication". Treat lecture materials as published materials too.
  • In programs submitted for assessment, do not "re-invent the wheel": if you find a piece of code written by someone else that does what you want, use it. However, be sure to include a comment acknowledging its source and making clear that you understand how it works.

Collusion

A student colludes if they give or receive an unfair advantage by working with someone else. The Students' Handbook gives the following advice.

Guidelines on mutual assistance and collaboration:

  • If an assessment is completed by students working in pairs, or in groups, you should be given explicit guidance about the level of acceptable collaboration within each pair or group. In some assessments, you may be given explicit encouragement to involve other students in a specific aspect of your work, such as evaluation and testing. Aside from such explicitly permitted exceptions, the following guidelines apply.
  • While an open assessment is in progress, you may discuss it with your fellow students only to understand the nature of the problems or questions set, not to find out how to solve or answer them. What you submit must be your own work. Do not collaborate when producing the solution or answer to an assessment. Do not copy another student's work, and do not allow another student to copy yours. If in doubt as to whether you may seek or give assistance of some kind, ask the member of staff who set the assessment.
  • When writing an essay or report for an open assessment, discussion and collaboration are permissible in the initial process of determining the nature and requirements of the question. You will then need to select relevant pieces of information from available sources and to evaluate their usefulness and consistency. In this process of selection and evaluation, often involving careful analysis and judgement, you are not permitted to work with others. Do not share your own notes or drafts for an essay or report. All information used in your essay or report drawn from any source other than your own work and ideas must be explicitly referenced.
  • When an assessment requires the development of hardware or software, discussion and collaboration are again permitted in the initial process of examining and clarifying requirements (though only the setter of the assessment can rule on any perceived ambiguities). The subsequent work of design, implementation and testing should essentially be done alone. If you need a minor piece of specific information (eg. the symbol for some primitive operation, or the meaning of a particular diagnostic) it is acceptable to ask another student, but the design and detailed method of solution must be your own work.

Investigation and penalties

The University has specified policies, guidelines and procedures for the investigation of suspected misconduct, and for the determination of any penalty to be applied:

The main responsibility for dealing with misconduct rests with Chair BoE, who for each case recruits appropriate colleagues to form an investigative committee. Anyone who has good reason to suspect academic misconduct in relation to assessed work should inform Chair BoE without delay.

The penalty for a student found guilty of academic misconduct depends on how much of an assessment is affected, and what contribution the mark for that assessment makes to the overall mark at the end of the programme. Typically, in addition to the loss of some or all of the marks for that assessment, penalty points are subtracted from the student's overall mark at the end of the programme before their final result is determined. For a second offence, the normally penalty is that the student's registration with the university is terminated.

Appeals

Appeals to the department

Written feedback and script-access sessions should provide sufficient information for students to understand and accept their marks in almost all cases. However, occasionally a student may have good reason to object to some aspect of an assessment, or to query their mark for it. They should first discuss their concerns with the member of staff who set the assessment.

If matters are unresolved, the student may write formally to Chair BoE. They must state specific grounds on which they claim that an assessment was unfair, or that a mark they have been awarded is incorrect. Regulations (2.9, 6.5) clearly state that students have no right of appeal against the academic judgement of examiners: opinions such as "I thought this question was rather hard" or "I think my description deserved 9/10, not 6/10" are not sufficient grounds for complaint.

Any written complaints to Chair BoE receive a written reply from Chair BoE, placed on record with ASO. If upheld, a complaint may result in a revision of marks. Or it may be recognised in a formal note to BoE, to be taken into account when considering borderline cases.

Appeals to the University

Regulations (2.8, 6.7) permit students to appeal against recommendations or decisions of BoS, BoE or the university senate about the outcome of their assessment. Appeals must be submitted to the University's Special Cases Committee. For details of the appeal procedure, and the form to be used to make any appeal, see:

Appendix A: example cover-page for an open assessment

Appropriately styled and set out, the cover of an open paper might read like this, with a module number added in the top-right corner.

Appendix B: example rubric for a closed exam paper

Appropriately styled and set out, the cover of a closed-exam paper might read like this, with a module number added in the top-right corner.

Appendix C: undergraduate standards

This appendix gives illustrative criteria indicating standards to be expected in the work of undergraduate students awarded different degree classes. Criteria are given for each of the main kinds of assessment. They are not definitive, nor are they directly used by BoE when deciding final degree classes. But they may serve as a broad guide to both staff and students in their work on assessments.

Ordinary Pass (Mark range: 35-39)

  • Exam answers show basic knowledge of the subject, some ability to explain it, and limited ability to apply it in problem-solving.
  • Work submitted for open assessments, including projects, demonstrates some essential skills in practical design tasks such as programming. These may not extend to the development of complete solutions to computing problems, but there is fair understanding and use of systems built by others.
  • The project dissertation also shows slight evidence of independent thinking: it offers factual claims as a result of independent work, even if these are not fully supported by reasoned arguments.

Honours class III (Mark range: 40-49)

  • Exam answers show a fair understanding of most branches of the subject studied in the programme, an ability to explain these quite well and some success in related problem-solving.
  • Work submitted for open assessments, including projects, demonstrates most of the practical design skills needed to achieve complete solutions to modest computing problems, for example those needed to work at different stages in the life-cycle of a system.
  • The project dissertation also reflects some success in independent study. It includes arguments based on results of independent work, assembling evidence and drawing appropriate conclusions.

Honours class IIii (Mark range: 50-59)

  • Exam answers show a sound knowledge of most branches of the subject studied in the program, and an ability to explain topics clearly and accurately.
  • Work submitted for open assessments, including projects, shows well-developed practical design skills, sufficient to develop complete solutions to significant computing problems, with good justification of the necessary technical decisions.
  • The project dissertation clearly reflects independent study beyond the direct suggestions in teaching material, and some ability to assess work from other sources critically. Conclusions argued from independent work are clearly reasoned and supported by evidence.

Honours class IIi (Mark range: 60-69)

  • Exam answers show a sound knowledge of almost all branches of the subject studied in the programme, and an ability to explain topics and the connections between them clearly and accurately.
  • Work submitted for open assessments, including projects, shows very well-developed practical design skills, demonstrated in the development of complete solutions to challenging computing problems, with a thorough justification of technical decisions.
  • The project dissertation shows independence of thought and some aptitude for research. It draws appropriately and critically on the work of others, within and beyond taught material, and successfully addresses fresh problems.

Honours class I (Mark range: 70+)

  • Exam answers show a thorough grasp of almost all branches of the subject studied in the programme, and the connections between them, and a deep and comprehensive understanding of some topics. This knowledge is very clearly articulated.
  • Work submitted for open assessments, including projects, shows highly refined practical design skills, sufficient to achieve solutions of excellent quality to challenging problems, perhaps by novel means. The evaluation of design decisions, successes and limitations shows mature understanding.
  • The project dissertation combines scholarship with originality to achieve impressive results. It provides clear evidence of ability in research.

Distinction level (Mark range: 80+)

Students whose final aggregate mark is 80% or more are recommended to the university for the award of a distinction. Work at this level is not only first class, it stands out as exceptional. For example, dissertations awarded marks in this range represent publishable work.

Appendix D: postgraduate standards

This appendix gives illustrative criteria for passing and distinction standards in the work of MSc students. Criteria are given for each of the main kinds of assessment. They are not definitive, nor are they directly used by BoE when recommending final awards. But they may serve as a broad guide to both staff and students in their work on assessments.

Pass (Mark range: 50-69)

  • Answers to exam questions, both oral and written, show a confident grasp of the main topics studied in the programme. Explanations are generally clear and accurate.
  • Work submitted for open assessments, including project work, demonstrates a good grasp of the most relevant concepts and techniques. Any software produced is well designed, appropriately tested and clearly explained. Sound judgements are evident in development work.
  • The project dissertation gives evidence of successful independent study. It draws appropriately on the work of others, reports clearly the results obtained and reaches sound conclusions.

Distinction (Mark range: 70+)

  • Answers to exam questions, both oral and written, are fluent and convincing. They show an ability to move between high-level ideas and low-level details, and to handle subtle points.
  • Work submitted for open assessments, including project work, demonstrates mature insight in making distinctions, drawing inferences, identifying flaws in published work, and developing new themes. It draws on literature beyond the course reading list, perhaps including literature from other disciplines.
  • In the project dissertation, references to texts are carefully integrated into a cogent argument, quotations are judiciously cited, and bibliographies are comprehensive. The dissertation shows strong independence of thought, an ability to work at the frontiers of research, and a mature appreciation of the significance and limitations of results obtained.

Paul Cairns, Chair BoE
May 2012

Colin Runciman, Chair BoE
19 June 2009

Approved by BoS on 24 June 2009; revised 17 July 2009, 29 September 2009, 12 March 2010, 19 April 2011