Assessment and feedback in relation to each module on the Programme, shall be governed by Joint Assessment, Marking and Feedback Policy.
Different marking scales are used by SU and DMU. The marking scale used for assessment within a module, and for the overall module mark, is determined by the Joint Academic Board and is specified in the module descriptor. The relationship between the marks is:
a. A pass mark at DMU is 60% and for SU modules at all levels on the programme it is 40%.
b. Marks above the pass mark are mapped as5: 𝑐𝑛= [−0. 05𝑢𝑘2 +13𝑢𝑘+100]/9
c. Marks below the pass mark are mapped as6: 𝑐𝑛=||1.5𝑢||
d. SU 99% is mapped to the DMU scale as 99% rather than DMU 100%.
e. Irrespective of the scale being used, no mark can be greater than 100%, or less than 0%.
f. The implementation of the mapping between scales is through a lookup table (See Appendix 1) with marks specified as integers. A separate mapping table is used for each direction.
Total continuous assessment marks and examination marks are each rounded up to the nearest integer out of 100; when combining to give the total module mark the result is rounded to the nearest integer.
To pass a module, a student must undertake the approved assessment for the module and meet all specified requirements for a pass in the module. In most cases this is a requirement to achieve an overall module mark above the module pass mark (i.e. 40% SU scale), but some modules may specify additional conditions.
Redemption
Where a candidate has failed a compulsory module, they can redeem failure by taking the resit component which will be based on the initial assessments (combined) and weighted 100 per cent of the overall module mark.
The overall module mark attainable for resits shall be capped at the minimum pass mark for levels 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Resits shall be taken at the next available opportunity and during the prescribed resit period.
Repeat of the Level
Where a candidate is required to retake the year (due to academic failure), all components of the retake modules are reattempted, and any previous marks/credit will be forfeit.
Award and Progression Boards
The Joint Management Board and its subsidiary, the Joint Academic Board, has overall responsibility to ensure that both institutions provide overall module marks (to include component marks for each element of assessment) for each student studying its modules in an accurate and timely manner and to ensure that all marks are moderated in accordance with the Joint Assessment, Marking and Feedback Policy.
Initially, and following strict marking conventions, provisional marks for continuous assessment shall be determined and recorded on the assessment system at both institutions.
These marks, combined with the ‘final assessment’ usually taken at the end of the teaching session, will give the overall module mark, to be considered at the Joint Programme Award and Progression Boards.
The provisional marks and decisions from the Joint Award and Progression Boards will then be submitted to the overarching University Progression and Awards Boards for each institution which shall confirm the progression and award decisions.
A separate Extenuating Circumstances committee that reports to the Joint Award and Progression Boards will also consider evidence of extenuating circumstances relating to individual students.
Membership of the Joint Programme Award and Progression Boards:
Chair: Professor Sarah Jones
Programme Director: Dr Tabetha Kurtz-Shefford (SU)/Dr Cao (DMU)
Deputy Programme Director: Shihui Yu (DMU)
Chief External Examiner: Dr Rui Zheng
Internal Examiners: All teaching members from the Joint Programme
Secretary: TBC
Joint Programme Award Board – Terms of Reference
- To ensure that Award and Progression regulations relating to the JEP are applied consistently, and those standards are maintained.
- To confirm marks for modules taught on the programme from both institutions.
- To receive recommendations on extenuating circumstances and finalise marks.
- To make recommendations on provisional awards for ratification by the respective University Award Boards at each institution.
- To make recommendations on exit qualifications.
- To draw up subject level pass lists/result endorsement forms and ensure that these are signed by a Chief External Examiner.
The External Examiner(s) must be available for consultation at this meeting and are also required to sign the result endorsement forms following the meeting.
Joint Programme Progression Board – Terms of Reference
- To ensure that Assessment and Progression regulations relating to the JEP are applied consistently, and those standards are maintained;
- To confirm marks for modules taught on the programme from both institutions;
- To receive recommendations on extenuating circumstances and finalise marks;
- To determine progression decisions, with reference to the common regulations, and to award supplementary assessments;
- To draw up subject level pass lists/result endorsement forms and ensure that these are signed by a Chief External Examiner.
Rules for Progression and Awarding Credit
The following progression regulations shall apply to the Double Degree programme LLB Maritime Law (SU) LLB Law (DMU) in collaboration with Dalian Maritime University (DMU).
Presentation of Marks for Non-finalists
When determining progression issues, the Joint Programme Progression Board shall be presented with all marks of assessment undertaken during the academic year.
Presentation of Marks for Finalists (Level 6)
The Joint Programme Award Board shall consider the result profiles of final year students and make recommendations on final award outcomes to the respective Award Boards of each Institution. The results profile of the relevant students presented to the Joint Programme Award Board will include:
The Final Year results
The results of modules pursued during previous Levels of Study but which contribute towards the awarding process (Levels 3, 4 5 and 6).
Anonymous Marking
Please read in conjunction with the Joint Assessment, Marking and Feedback Policy.
Students registered to the programme will be anonymised by student number, and names will not be used when marking. Staff will not take steps to identify any students by their student number.
All student assessments submitted via the Digital Learning Platform (DLP) at each institution will be marked in an anonymous state to ensure there is no (conscious or unconscious) bias in marking. Work submitted outside of the DLP, or which requires specific marking approaches (e.g. specific marking guidelines) will be identifiable by student number only.
There are necessary exceptions to anonymity where assessments include ‘in-person’ (including virtual) elements including (but not limited to) performance, practical work, presentations, fieldwork, placements, clinical skills and some team or group assessments.
The School of Law will inform students where specific assessments may not be marked anonymously.
Disclosure of Identity
Please read in conjunction with the Joint Assessment, Marking and Feedback Policy.
Student names will not be used while marking is taking place, and for as long as practically possible thereafter. The Joint Academic Board acknowledges that:
- Preserving the anonymity of a student's marks may not in all cases preserve the anonymity of the student;
- Candidates who have submitted an application for extenuating circumstances, or require reasonable adjustments, may need to have their assessment(s) identified in order to consider what further action might be necessary;
- Anonymity is not maintained for final degree classifications.
Schools may conduct Subject Level Assessment Boards either anonymously or by name. The Joint Progression and Awards Boards will not be anonymous and will be conducted by name.
Disclosure of Marks
A distinction should be made between provisional marks and confirmed marks.
Please refer to the University’s Joint Assessment, Marking and Feedback Policy and Accuracy of Published Marks.