Version 12

University of Bristol

 

ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES

 

1.   These guidelines establish a University code of good practice for a range of assessment procedures for undergraduate and taught Masters degrees.

 

2.   Assessment is at the heart of the learning experience for students and serves many purposes.  These include: providing a means for measuring student achievement; enabling students to progress or to receive a licence to practise, enabling students to obtain feedback on the quality of their learning and giving staff a means to evaluate the effectiveness of teaching and consistency of practice. Assessment methods and their application are integral to the interdependent curriculum design/teaching and learning/assessment cycle and should reflect the learning outcomes at all stages of the programme. Staff should be aware of the impact that assessment has in shaping students’ dispositions towards learning, their understanding of goals and their motivation.  In view of the value of the different types of assessment for the student learning process, it is essential that assessment methods and procedures are carefully planned to reflect learning outcomes. In particular, staff need to determine why a particular assessment method is the best way of evaluating student performance in a chosen element or module.

 

3.   It is accepted that, in practice, there will need to be departures from the guidelines arising from the precise nature of the learning outcomes, assessment methods and resource limitations at departmental level.  Departures from the guidelines should be submitted for approval to the Dean of Undergraduate or Graduate Studies, who will where appropriate consult the Working Group of Undergraduate or Graduate Deans and/or the relevant Faculty Committees.  It is the responsibility of the Chair of the relevant Board of Examiners to notify the Undergraduate or Graduate Dean of departures from the guidelines

 

4.   Assessment procedures should be transparent for all of the participants, from students to External Examiners.  All internal and External examiners should ensure that they are fully informed on the procedures.

 

5.   The guidelines should be used in consultation with a number of other University and external documents, listed in Appendix 6.  The documents in Appendix 6 that are available from the TSU web page are grouped under a special Assessment section. [The web page will be updated to include this document and to include the special Assessment section]

B.        Types of assessment

 

These guidelines are concerned with all forms of assessment (see Glossary at Appendix 1 for definitions of terms). Three particular types of assessment are covered: diagnostic (identifying student abilities and skills); formative (i.e. part of the student’s learning process); and summative (e.g. used as part of the final degree classification) assessment.

 

1.      A wide range of types of work can form the basis for assessment and a range of assessment methods is available (examples at Appendix 2)

 

2.      Different forms of assessment can (and where appropriate should) be used to test different types of skills.

 

3.      Departments need not employ all of the forms of assessment referred to in Appendix 2 but the range should be sufficient to enable the full spectrum of knowledge and skills (both subject specific and generic) embodied in the programme aims and objectives to be assessed individually or cumulatively in an appropriate way.

 

4.      It is not regarded as good practice to rely on a single form of assessment within a programme.

 

5.      Programme aims and objectives, curriculum design, teaching and learning methods, and learning outcomes should be integrated with appropriate types of assessment in order to achieve an overall coherence.

 

6.      Students should be given clear and full information at the outset of the degree and at the beginning of each session in departmental and unit handbooks on the nature, timing and weighting of the assessment hurdles that they need to negotiate, and the implications of failure, if any.

 

 

1.      Explicit marking criteria (i.e. the broad learning outcome knowledge and skills requirements which are taken into account in awarding assessment marks and which form the basis for the determination of the final degree classification) are necessary in order to enable consistent standards of marking and judgement to be maintained.  They can also provide students with a clear statement of what is expected of them and provide guidance on how performance can be improved.

 

2.      Each Faculty should establish generic marking criteria relating to the classification of degrees (see Appendix 3).  Faculty marking criteria should be supplemented at the level of individual programmes and/or units, to reflect discipline specific learning outcomes.  Marking criteria should take into account the relevant nationally set subject benchmarks.

 

3.      Marking criteria should be made available to both staff and students, and specified in departmental and/or unit handbooks.

 

4.      Marking criteria are different from model answers and more prescriptive marking schemes which (for example) assign a fixed proportion of the assessment mark to particular knowledge, understanding and/or skills.

 

5.      Boards of Examiners should determine whether the extent to which the marking criteria are satisfied can vary between individual candidates, whether a candidate’s strengths in one area can offset shortcomings in another and whether consideration should be given to factors such as differences of approach, style and interpretation.

 

 

This section applies to all assessment, including supplementary assessments and/or re-sit examinations, e.g. controlled and timed examinations (seen or unseen) taken in the prescribed examination period, oral examinations, assessed coursework, projects, dissertations etc. A comprehensive but not exhaustive list of types of assessment is given at Appendix 2.

 

Many forms of assessment can be used for both summative and formative purposes.  The table that forms part of Appendix 2 suggests appropriate forms of marking for summative assessment.

 

 

1.      Faculties and/or Departments should establish mechanisms (such as a Board of Examiners’ meeting), to scrutinise assessment tasks set, to ensure they are of an appropriate standard and are consistent with the programme aims and objectives, content, learning outcomes and assessment methods.  The timing of these mechanisms need to take account of any assessment tasks students may be required to undertake at the end of or during teaching block 1.

 

2.      Setting assessments is the responsibility of the whole department, not individual examiners.  It is not regarded as good practice to rely solely on one internal examiner for the setting of assessments.

 

3.      External examiners should be sufficiently involved in the scrutiny of assessment tasks to enable them to fulfil their primary role in assuring the academic standards of programmes of study.  To facilitate this, they should be supplied with all of the relevant information relating to aims and objectives, contents, anticipated learning outcomes, assessment methods, marking criteria and any model answers.

 

 

Please see the table at Appendix 2 for appropriate forms of marking for different types of summative assessment. The aim is to ensure accuracy and consistency of marking, for the individual student and within the unit.

 

1.      Anonymous marking should be employed wherever practicable.  Where anonymous marking is not practicable, departments should justify their practice as a departure from these guidelines.

 

2.      The less prescriptive the assessment (i.e. the lower the expectation of conformity to a model answer), the more necessary it is to ensure an effective moderation strategy.  The glossary at Appendix 1 suggests examples of moderation methods.

 

3.      The University recognises that in the case of summative assessment, some examination boards will choose to adopt double marking as academically desirable (see Appendix 1 for a definition of double marking).

 

4.      Marks on classification borderlines (49, 59 etc.) should be avoided or awarded purposefully. Each Faculty should have a clear policy on whether or not borderline marks may be used and whether this policy applies to elements, units or programmes, or combinations of the three. If borderline marks are awarded, their status as raisable marks at each level of assessment must be defined.

 

5.      Detailed marking criteria for: assessed group work; the assessment of oral contributions; and peer (student) assessment, should be established and made available to students and examiners.

 

6.      It is recognised that there are particular difficulties in providing for the second marking/moderation of oral contributions.  As long as oral assessment remains a small component of the overall assessment mark it should be accepted that the benefits that stem from this form of assessment more than compensate for any limitations in the moderation procedure, particularly where oral skills form one of the learning outcomes.  Audio and/or visual recording of presentations or group work together with a formal record of how the assessment mark was arrived at form the main sources of evidence upon which moderation can rest.  All such evidence should be made available for moderation.

1.      All Examiners are subject to the University Guidelines for Heads of Department and Examiners.

 

2.      The internal examiner(s) is/are normally the person/people responsible for marking a student’s work in the relevant unit.  The names of all internal examiners should be submitted to the relevant Faculty Board or Boards for approval during the course of the Spring Term.

 

3.      The departmental or school examinations officer should be appointed by the Head of Department/School.  His/her role is that of organiser and co-ordinator of the department’s assessment processes, from the preparation of examination papers provided by internal examiners to the accurate recording of examination marks and their presentation to the Board of Examiners.

 

4.      Either an internal examiner or the examinations officer should be nominated by the Head of Department to take responsibility for liaising with the external examiner.  It must be clear to all concerned who will undertake this contact role.

 

5.      The examinations officer should identify marginal/borderline candidates and inform External Examiners in advance of the Board.

 

6.      There should be an established procedure, agreed by the Board of Examiners, whereby medical or other circumstances which might influence a student’s final classification are brought to the attention of the External Examiners and dealt with at the Board.

 

1.      All assessed work should normally be capable of being independently moderated and made available in case it needs to be moderated by the external examiner(s).

 

2.      Boards of Examiners should determine the range of assessed material and, where appropriate, the evidence relating to the award of marks for that assessed work that will be subject to moderation.

 

3.   Boards of Examiners should establish guidelines concerning the range of scripts that External Examiners should sample as part of the moderation process and which scripts should be brought specifically to the attention of the External Examiners.  For example, External Examiners might be asked to look at all Fail, First Class and borderline papers. Where internal double marking takes place Externals should be asked to adjudicate on disagreements between internal examiners.

 

4.   Boards of Examiners should determine which elements of the formative work that is also used for summative purposes should be subject to moderation and it should establish a mechanism to verify the authenticity of that work (i.e. that is the student’s work as it was submitted).

 

5.   Where formative work is also used for the purposes of summative assessment (as in the case of coursework), departments should have in place a system that ensures students’ work is available for moderation, by a means that ensures the marked work is identical to that originally submitted.

 

6.   Students should be informed at the outset of their degree studies and at the beginning of each academic year of any obligation to make available assessed work which might be required for the purpose of moderation.

 

 

 

1.      Heads of Department/chairs of Boards of Examiners should be responsible for conveying the contents of External Examiners’ Reports to their departments as part of an on-going process of assessment review.  The matter should appear as an item on the agenda for a subsequent departmental or Examiners meeting and a record of any agreed alterations in assessment practices must be kept.  External Examiners should be given formal written feedback on the discussion of their Reports and consequent changes in assessment practices. The departmental responses should be forwarded to the relevant FQAT.

 

2.      Minutes of Boards of Examiners should record adequate details of the discussion of borderline cases and where individual medical or other extenuating circumstances are presented.  A record should be kept of how any decisions were taken - i.e. by consensus or vote.  Where the Board of Examiners is not the Faculty Board the minutes should be reported (as an agenda item) to the relevant Faculty Board.

 

3.   It is the responsibility of the Board of Examiners to draw the Faculty Board’s attention to issues it wishes to raise.

 

1.      A designated member of  the Board of Examiners must take responsibility for overseeing the processing of marks at all stages of the assessment procedure

 

2.      Procedures at departmental level must be established to enter and check the marks for each individual piece of assessed work which form the basis for Examiners’ Meetings.

 

3.   Back-up systems should be put in place when electronic storage and transmission systems are in operation.

 

 

Practice should be consistent with the University’s Modularisation Guidelines

Students should be aware of the existence of penalties for not meeting deadlines.  These  should be clearly specified in writing to students and staff at the beginning of the programme and unit.  See Appendix 4 for examples of graduated penalties (Department of Law).

 

 

1.      In order to maximise learning opportunities, it is good practice to provide students with feedback on assessed work. Feedback on diagnostic and formative assessment should provide students with a clear idea of how their performance can be improved in the future.  Guidance should be given on both the academic content and the presentation of that content.

 

2.      All formatively assessed work should be returned according to a declared schedule. The department should have a mechanism for auditing adherence to this schedule.

 

 

 

 

Information on what constitutes academic misconduct in respect of assessment (including clear definitions of plagiarism, collusion, cheating, impersonation and the use of inadmissable material) should be presented in departmental handbooks together with specific guidance on the consequences of such misconduct. University Guidelines on Plagiarism can be found in the Rules and Regulations for Students booklet produced annually by the University Secretary and available via the Office of the Secretary’s website (www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/Secretary/). Departmental examples of policy in dealing with plagiarism can be found at Appendix 5. It may be necessary for individual departments to develop additional guidance on what constitutes academic misconduct, to reflect the relevant academic discipline.

 

 

JB/GC/PR

§              20 October 1999

§              Revised by GC following consultation with faculties and 2 March 2000 meeting of Working Group of Undergraduate Deans/16.3.00

§              Subsequently revised by GC and PR following meeting with FQAT Chairs 5.4.00

§              Further revisions by GC and JB following meeting of Education Committee 4.5.00, for consideration by Working Group of UG Deans 19.5.00

§              Further revisions by UG Deans on 19.5.00, for approval by Education Committee 1.6.00

§              Further revisions agreed by Education Committee on 1.6.00

 

 

 

Assessment – QAA definitions:

      Assessment is a generic term for a set of processes that measure students’ learning, skills and understanding.

      Diagnostic assessment enables attributes or skills to be identified in the learner that suggest appropriate pathways of study, or learning difficulties that require support and resolution

      Formative assessment is designed to enable the learner to obtain feedback on his/her progress in meeting stated objectives (learning outcomes) and reviewing goals.

      Summative assessment provides the means whereby a clear statement of achievement or failure can be made in respect of a student’s performance in relation to stated objectives.

[Further information can be found on pages 2 and 3 of the (draft) QAA Code of Practice for Assessment of students, ref. CL1/00, 16 February 2000]

 

Double marking: student work is independently assessed by more than one marker. It is advisable for each marker to keep a record of all marks awarded and to make his/her own notes to indicate the rationale for awarding each mark. Departments where double marking is used are advised to devise brief notes to assist markers, incorporating the requirement for individual record-keeping as outlined above.

 

Marking criteria: the learning outcome knowledge, understanding and skills requirements that are taken into account in awarding assessment marks.

 

Marking scheme: a detailed structure for assigning marks where a specific number of marks is given to individual components of the answer.

 

Model answer: the examiner’s perception of what an answer should be, made available to and moderated by the external examiner.

 

Moderation: Methods of moderation include:

§              Sampling, either by an external examiner or by an internal second marker;

§              Additional marking of borderlines, firsts and fails

§              Additional marking where there is significant disparity between the different elements of assessment for an individual student, in a unit or across the programme;

§              Additional marking where there is significant disparity between the marks of different markers in a particular unit or programme;

§              Numerical scaling.

The less prescriptive the assessed task (i.e. the lower the expectation of conformity to a model answer), the more necessary it is to ensure an effective moderation strategy.

 

QAA: Quality Assurance Agency

 

Sampling: (see Moderation, above)

 

Second marking: (see Double marking above)

 

 

 

 

·        Unseen examinations (including multiple choice papers)

·        Assessed essays

·        Open book examinations

·        Progress tests

·        Supervised practicals, including labs, field work and assessment of clinical skills

·        Viva voce

·        Oral presentations

·        Seminars

·        Peer assessment

·        Poster presentations

·        Individual research projects

·        Group projects

·        Self-assessment

·        Computer based assessment (eg. Use of question banks or multiple choice questions)

·        Data analysis

·        Book reviews

·        Library assessments/projects

·        Performances

·        Compositions

·        Notebooks (relating to field and/or practical work)

·        Portfolios

·        Creative writing

 

 

 

The following table suggests appropriate forms of moderation for summative assessment.

 

APPENDIX 2a

 

Appropriate forms of marking for summative assessment

 

	Anonymous	Double	Moderation
Unseen Exams	ü	ü*+	üo
Assessed essays	ü*	ü*	ü
Open book exams	ü	ü*+	üo
Supervised practicals			ü
Viva voce
Oral Presentations			ü
Seminars			ü
Peer assessment			ü
Poster presentations	ü		ü
Individual projects	ü*	ü	ü
Group projects			ü
Self-assessment			ü
Computer-based Assessment	ü
Data analysis	ü
Book reviews	ü		ü
Library assessments/projects	ü		ü
Performances		ü*
Compositions	ü*	ü*
Notebooks	ü		ü
Portfolios	ü*		ü
Creative writing	ü*		ü

* When practicable

+ Where the marks contribute to the degree result

o When double marking is not practicable and/or where the marks do not contribute to the degree result

 

 

 

 

All assessed work in the Faculty of Arts is marked in percentage terms on a scale of 0-100 in accordance with the following convention:

 

First Class                                                        70-100

Upper Second Class                 60-69

Lower Second Class                50-59

Third Class                                           45-49

Ordinary                                                           40-44

Fail                                                                     0-39

 

The guidelines below relate to all assessed work in the Faculty and are intended for examiners and students alike. They set down the various criteria by which examiners judge the classification appropriate to a candidate’s assessed work. The extent to which these various criteria are satisfied varies between individual candidates and examiners should give due consideration to differences of approach, style, interpretation and degree of effort and allow a candidate’s strengths in one area to offset shortcomings in another. Where a department assesses a very particular area of expertise requiring specific skills to be demonstrated, additional criteria will be provided in the departmental handbook.

 

 

Shows thorough understanding and knowledge of the subject, in both breadth and depth, and demonstrating a capacity for intellectual initiative and evidence of insight and original thought. Displays very good to excellent critical judgement in the selection, analysis, interpretation, comparison, evaluation and integration of material from a range of sources. Demonstrates the ability to construct an argument and advocate a viewpoint with a high level of internal consistency, a high quality of organisation and style of presentation (including spelling, punctuation, grammar, referencing, etc.) and with well-chosen illustrative examples.

 

 

Shows sound understanding and knowledge of the subject, in both breadth and depth, with evidence of clear thinking. Displays good critical judgement in the selection, analysis, interpretation, comparison, evaluation and integration of material from a range of sources. Demonstrates the ability to construct an argument and advocate a viewpoint with a good level of internal consistency, a good quality of organisation and style of presentation (including spelling, punctuation, grammar, referencing, etc.) and with relevant illustrative examples.

 

 

Shows a reasonable understanding and knowledge of the subject. Displays evidence of thought and variety in the selection of source material and an ability to analyse, interpret, compare and evaluate. Demonstrates ability to construct an argument and advocate a viewpoint with reasonable level of internal consistency, an acceptable quality of organisation and style of presentation (including spelling, punctuation, grammar, referencing, etc.) and with illustrative examples, although with limitations in some of these aspects.

 

 

Shows some knowledge of the subject but with limited understanding. Evidence of weaknesses in some areas such as the coverage of the topic, analytical powers, ability to construct an argument, internal consistency, organisation and style of presentation (including spelling, punctuation, grammar, referencing, etc.). Use of sources is largely lacking in relevance, uncritical or inadequate. In general, a rather poor quality of structure and expression and a poor grasp of the issues involved.

 

 

Shows some limited knowledge of the subject but with a clear lack of understanding and/or misunderstanding. Poor coverage of the topic and poorly presented, with evidence of inability in such areas as the construction of an argument, ability to analyse, internal consistency, organisation and style of presentation (including spelling, punctuation, grammar, referencing, etc.). Irrelevant, uncritical or inadequate use of sources. In general, a very poor quality of structure and expression with little capacity for grasping the issues involved.

 

 

Shows little if any knowledge of the subject and an absence of understanding and/or serious misunderstanding. Inadequate or very poor coverage of the topic and poorly presented (including spelling, punctuation, grammar, referencing, etc.), inability to construct an argument and an absence of analysis, internal consistency and organisation. Unacknowledged, inadequate or non-existent use of sources. In general, an unacceptable quality of structure and expression with no grasp of the issues involved.

 

 

The Department has adopted the following policy in relation to the submission of assessed work:

 

1.  All assessed work questions will be handed out from, and should be returned to, the Departmental Office (Room 2.14) on the second floor.

 

2.  You will receive a cover sheet with your assessed essay titles.  You must fill in this sheet, including the declaration at the bottom, and attach it to your essay.  Do not remove the declaration.

 

3.  Assessed work is marked on an anonymous basis.  Make sure that you receive your examination number, and that it is written on every page of the finished work before it is handed in.   Do NOT write your name anywhere, except on the tear-off declaration at the bottom of the cover sheet.  There is no need to submit the essay in a plastic cover, but make sure that all the pages are clipped firmly together.

 

4.  The stated deadline for submission must be adhered to.  You have plenty of time to complete the work and should not leave it to the last moment.  If you are word processing the work, leave yourself plenty of time to get it printed.  Avoidable computer problems, such as failure to make back-up copies, will not usually be viewed as a valid reason for late submission.

 

5.  Late submission, without an extension and without a satisfactory explanation, will be penalised by a reduction of marks.  The penalty for late submission will be a reduction of 5% per working day or part thereof.  The maximum penalty for late submission will be 40% (i.e. a penalty of eight working days).  Any assessed work handed in after the start of the summer examination period (22 May 2000) will be given a mark of 0%.

 

6.  A candidate who needs to obtain an extension prior to the deadline may obtain this from the Departmental Examinations Officer.  S/he is the only member of the Department able to grant an extension.  (If s/he is unavoidably absent, consent should be sought by reference to the Head of Department.)  Such permission may be obtained up to and including the day before the submission date.  No extension will be given on the day of submission.  Any essay submitted, without an extension, after the deadline must be accompanied by a written explanation if you wish to avoid imposition of the penalty.

 

7.  You are responsible for ensuring that the work reaches the office before the deadline.  You are advised to deliver it by hand.  Do not rely on others to deliver it for you.  You may submit by post, but you should use recorded delivery.  You may not submit by fax.

 

8.         All work will be date stamped when received by the office.  You will be given a receipt.  Keep it.

 

 

 

'Plagiarism' means passing off another person's work as your own, and is considered a serious offence in the academic world - whether it relates to a member of staff stealing someone else's research ideas, or to a student copying the work of a laboratory partner (see the University’s Examination Regulations for further details - included in the Rules and Regulations for Students booklet available from the faculty office or via the Web at:  www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/Secretary/).

 

If people are working together in the same laboratory group, one would expect their results to be identical.  The conclusions drawn from the results, on the other hand, should be individual work, and should be written in each student's own words without collusion.  Computer programs should differ substantially not just in the names of variables.

 

If you want to copy the ideas or paraphrase the words of another author (in an essay, for example) there is no problem provided that you indicate clearly what the source is.  You should not normally hand in material containing whole sentences of another author’s work. If you do need to do this, the extracts must be shown as such by means of quotation marks, indentation, or italics, and explicitly acknowledged.  It must not be possible for a reader to gain the impression that the work is your own.

 

It is good practice to include an ‘Acknowledgements’ section (if appropriate) in every piece of coursework you submit.  Breaking any of these guidelines can lead to accusations of plagiarism.  Unless there are exceptional circumstances, any piece of work containing plagiarised material will suffer an appropriate reduction of mark. Additional penalties may be imposed under the Examination Regulations by:

 

·      awarding reduced marks (or even no marks) for the unit containing the assessment

·      reducing the student's class of degree

·      or excluding the student from the award of a degree.

 

2.         Department of Law guidelines

 

The Department takes plagiarism and cheating in examinations, assessed work or dissertations very seriously.  Both the Law Society and the General Council of the Bar are similarly concerned, and the Department is required to notify them of any Law graduate who has been found guilty of such an offence.  If an examiner suspects that either plagiarism or cheating has taken place he/she is under a duty to report his/her suspicions to the Chairman of the Board of Examiners under the University's general Examination Regulations.  It is then the Chairman's duty to consider the matter and to make a report to the Board of Examiners.  If an offence is found to have been committed it may result in a reduction in the mark (or no mark at all being awarded) for the assessment in question and/or disciplinary action being taken against the student.

 

 

Plagiarism consists of a person using the words or ideas of another as if they were his/her own.  The University regards plagiarism as a very serious offence.  At the very least, it is a misuse of academic conventions; where it is deliberate and systematic, plagiarism is cheating.

Plagiarism can take several forms:

 

(a)   Presenting substantial extracts from books, articles, theses and other published or unpublished works, such as working papers, seminars and conference papers, internal reports, computer software, lecture notes or tapes, and other students' work, without clearly indicating their origin with quotation marks and references such as footnotes;

(b)  using very close paraphrasing of sentences or whole paragraphs without due acknowledgement in the form of reference to the original work;

(c)  quoting directly from a source and failing to insert quotation marks around the quoted passages.  In such cases it is not adequate merely to acknowledge the source.

 

To avoid inadvertent plagiarism, be careful in your note-taking.  If your notes include quotations or paraphrasing, make sure that this fact is recorded (with page numbers where necessary) so that you do not mistake the work of another for your own and so that you can source the material in your final draft.

 

 

A thesis, dissertation, essay or other coursework which is not undertaken under formal examination conditions and which counts towards a student's degree or other academic award must be the student's own work.  Accordingly, the following forms of cheating will also be treated with the utmost seriousness:

(a)  submitting work written by someone else on your own behalf;

(b)  submitting another student's work, whether or not it has been previously submitted by that student;

(c)   two students separately submitting the same piece of work on which they have illicitly collaborated.

 

 

Cheating in an examination includes the following:

(a) Having unauthorised items or texts at your desk in the Examination Room during the examination;

(b)  making use of unauthorised items or texts during the examination;

(c)  copying from the script of another candidate during the examination;

(d)  dishonestly receiving help from another person during the examination;

(e)  dishonestly giving help to another person during the examination;

(f)  acting dishonestly in any way, whether before, during or after the examination, so as to obtain      an unfair advantage in the examination;

(g)  acting dishonestly in any way, whether before, during or after the examination, so as to assist another candidate to obtain an unfair advantage in the examination.

 

 

You are permitted to take unannotated copies of statutes or statute books into certain examinations.  In the past, difficulties have arisen as to the precise meaning of the term `unannotated'.  For the avoidance of doubt the following interpretations apply:

 

(a)  you are permitted to highlight or underline sections of statutes;

(b)  you are permitted to use markers to indicate the place in the book at which particular statutes are to be found.  You may write on such markers to indicate the name of the statute or the number of the section, but for no other reason;

(c)  no writing of any kind is permitted on the statute or within the statute book.

Plagiarism (stealing the thoughts or writings of others and presenting them as your own) is a very serious offence.

It is an important part of a student's academic development to acquire judgement when drawing on the work of others.  The ability to précis a writer's views rather than reproduce them verbatim et literatim is an important and essential skill for the historian.  The selective use of quotations is both permissible and desirable, but they must be acknowledged and the bibliographical references cited.  Students are also expected to exercise judgement in reproducing the structure of a writer's argument in their essays, and to avoid becoming unduly dependent upon one or two items of reading.  It is not the case that to avoid plagiarism students have to produce a complete set of original ideas for their essays; rather, a good essay is a careful balance between your own views and those of established authorities, with the phrasing and structure of an essay being entirely of your own creation.  Obviously, the copying of another student's work, either in part or in whole, also constitutes plagiarism.

 

 

All students are strongly advised that it is in their interests to keep the originals of all of their assessed essays (or to keep copies) in the event that the Department wishes to verify the authenticity of any written work.  Students should also be aware that the Department photocopies a selection of submitted essays each year to guard against plagiarism.

 

 

 

 

University

 

University Calendar (updated annually), containing Ordinances and Regulations for all awards

 

Guidelines for Heads of Department and Examiners (August 1998)

(www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/Registrar/TSU/guide001.htm)

 

Code of Practice for the Ultimate Disclosure of Examination Results agreed by Boards of Examiners

(www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/Registrar/TSU/guide013.htm)

 

Guidelines for anonymous marking (available from the Examinations Office)

 

Modularisation Guidelines

(Undergraduate: (www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/Registrar/TSU/guide012.htm)

(Postgraduate: (www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/Registrar/TSU/pgmod10.htm)

 

Faculty examination guidelines (e.g. the Giles Guidelines in the Faculty of Social Sciences)

 

Rules and Regulations for Students

(www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/Secretary/)

 

University Guidelines on Plagiarism

 

External

 

QAA Code of Practice for External examining

 

QAA Code of Practice for Assessment of students (draft format only as at March 2000)