Marking, Assessment and Progression

Marking Conventions

This document summarises the Marking Conventions for the IAPT programmes and is based on the University Teaching Quality Assessment Manual.

Marking and Examining Procedure

Work submitted for assessment for modules or individual components of taught modules will normally be marked by a single examiner and moderated by another member of staff.  The marks awarded at that stage are provisional only.  The External Examiner in due course reviews a sample of the assessed work and the provisional marks assigned to benchmark the assessment process, and may recommend adjustments.  Any academic work marked as <40% (undergraduate degree) or <50% (postgraduate) and all clinical work that is failed will be second marked and reviewed by an external examiner.

Provisional marks are considered at the Examination Board which will meet at the end of the programme to consider final awards.  Results of students who have successfully completed the programme will be sent for ratification at the Vice Chancellor’s Executive Group meeting. Results of students who are unsuccessful will be considered at a Consequences of Failure Board.  This Board will make recommendations for the consequences of failure for individual students.  These recommendations will be approved (or otherwise) by the College Associate Dean for Education, who will submit recommendations to the Dean of Faculty for final approval.


Notched Marking Guidelines

With effect from the 2016/7 academic session, the CLES Education Strategy Group has agreed to implement a notched marking scheme to support consistency and reliability within the assessment process. Within the marking scheme only certain marks may be used within each grade.

The marks available for award are described in the marking criteria document which is available to download here: CLES Generic Notched Marking Guidelines



The following definitions are adopted for the purposes of this document:

Assessment: any work undertaken by a programme member that counts towards their degree or progression, including both examinations and coursework.

Level: A level is an indicator of the relative demand, complexity and depth of learning and of the relative autonomy and responsibility of the learner, associated with a module of a programme.

Deferral: A deferral means an assessment taken at a later occasion because either a programme member has been prevented from taking an assessment, or where an assessment was attempted, but the programme member is permitted to have another attempt.  Deferral decisions are made where the Board of Examiners decides there are adequate grounds, such as medical reasons or exceptional personal circumstances.  Where the assessment in question was a first attempt, the deferral will also be treated as a first attempt (i.e. marks are not capped). If the assessment in question was already a referred assessment, then the deferral will mean that the assessment taken at a later occasion is also treated as a referral.

Referral: A further attempt on the next normal occasion, following initial failure, at an individual assessment without the requirement to repeat any attendance.  Programme members may be referred in an individual assessment on one occasion only, and have a right to be so referred only following initial failure.

Repeat Study: A College has the option, following the failure of a candidate in all or part of a programme, of requiring a candidate to repeat a module or the whole programme.

Compensation and Condonement: In certain circumstances, a Board may decide to award credit for a particular module even though the pass-mark has not been reached.

Mitigation: The process by which a Board of Examiners may exercise its discretion, in appropriate and fully documented circumstances, such as medical reasons or exceptional personal circumstances, for example to:

  • grant a deferral for a module assessment attempted
  • raise a mark for a module or for an individual assessment component
  • disregard a mark for classification purposes (i.e. in the calculation of a credit-weighted mean mark)
  • leave module marks unchanged, but take account of mitigating circumstances in the determination of the award classification.

The minutes of the Board of Examiners must clearly identify all such cases and provide a brief justification for the decision.  Marks which have been modified through the consideration of mitigating circumstances are recorded in their modified form on programme member transcripts, and no reference is made to mitigation, in order to protect the privacy of the candidate.