BCE’s assessment policy is a statement within which the examination board operates its assessment/examination. The assessment of standards of performance lies at the heart of the experience of candidates and the expectations of the stakeholders of the exam board. It is integral to the Registered Centres’ teaching and Learning Strategy and the responsibilities of the board to its candidates, responsible authorities and prospective employers. The internal and external trust and confidence in the integrity of the assessment of standards and procedures of the board are central to the claims which we make about our awards and qualifications.
The purpose is to enable the Board to operate assessment for programmes, within a consistent set of principles and guidance notes.
The Ofqual Code of Practice, identifies: quality, consistency, accuracy and fairness in the assessment and awarding of qualifications. The Board’s policy on marking and moderation is intended to provide consistency of approach.
We recognise that there are differing practices that take place with regard to the marking of examinations and that they have been developed in accordance with local requirements to reflect the nature of the examination. This policy aims to provide consistency through the identification of a common set of definitions to which all staff within the organisation are expected to work.
Particular attention should be paid to mechanisms for dealing with candidates at the border, pass/fail line.
Double marking take place for assessment components were the examinations officer deems it to be necessary. In most cases, second marking and/or moderation are considered to be sufficient processes to ensure the consistency and equity of marking.
Second marking of assessment components when the moderation process reveals a concern about the consistency of marking that or where there is a specific requirement for second marking to take place.
Moderation is a process where a subsequent and separate marker reviews a sample of marked assessment. Review considers the quality and accuracy of marking and may lead to changes to marks and feedback. In moderation, however, the overriding principle is to ensure the accuracy and consistency of the marker. This allows for overall rescaling where necessary. Structured samples are often used as the basis for moderation. Moderation differs from second marking because it is not a marking activity but a review process.
In the event of a disagreement between markers, a process of discussion should be used in the first instance with a view to agreeing a mark. Where this is not successful, the matter is referred to the head of the Assessment panel for consideration and resolution. An External Examiner may be consulted. Ultimately, the decision of the Assessment panel is final in agreeing the marks.
We recommend Statistical Analysis for the use by the Registered Centres, so that they can compare the final candidate’s examination results to the final progress reports.
The Assessment Panel is responsible for overseeing the marking of examinations. The purposes of an Assessment panel are:
To agree the marks obtained by each student
To consider recommendations from centres extenuating circumstances and academic misconduct during examinations
To make recommendations to Programme Development & Services on the award of Certificates, Diplomas and Advanced Diplomas as appropriate.
To consider examiner comments
To report to CEO any recommendations concerning the content, operation and assessment of the examinations
Duties of Internal Examiners
To prepare examination and re-sit examination papers together with model answers that should be provided to the External Examiner(s) for consideration and approval by the Management
To mark examinations and projects/coursework
Attend assessment meetings
Takes an overview of the programmes
Quality assurance role in relation to assessment
Quality enhancement role through comments and advice on course structure, content and delivery
To review the assessed work
To approve recommendations
To report on the examination standards of the exam, the student performance, and the soundness and fairness of processes for the assessment and determination of examination results
Marking Framework
The marking framework is a set of specifications of valuing, measuring, describing and comparing learning achievements within the exam board’s programmes. The framework is concerned with the demonstration of learning achieved, how much learning and at what level, and is designed to include learning from a wide range of centres, both national and international.
The purpose of the marking framework is to use a “common language” of credit to describe learning achievements.
Project/Coursework assessment guidelines
The assessment guideline is used to ensure consistency.
20% answering the question in detail.
20% accuracy of references, source material and evidence. Use of bibliography.
50% content and depth of understanding/research. This is broken down as follows:
abstract, introduction and acknowledgement 5%
relevance 10%
arguments/facts put across 15%
detailed analysis 15%
conclusion, bibliography, references 5%
10% presentation, spelling, grammar and structure
Assessment guidelines of written exam
Each essay question carries 20 marks. Marks are awarded for:
- core knowledge
- detailed answers. (short answers not acceptable)
- ability to argue/interpret
- use of diagrams
- calculations
- presentation, spelling and grammer
We have provided the following indicators for the respective grades:
Distinction
A Distinction does not equal perfection, however it shows:
• evidence of wide, critical reading, beyond recommended works in many cases, and demonstrating an excellent awareness of the topic.
• imaginative, often original argument and analysis backed by command of details, and also demonstrating a sophisticated awareness of the broader context of a particular problem.
• signs of individual reflection and thought.
• fluency and cogency of expression, maturity of style and ‘sparkle’.
• breadth of coverage, with a good awareness of links and interconnections.
• clear focus on the question.
• relevant and accurate answers.
• competent arguments, demonstrating conventional understanding of issues and problems and backed up by examples and use of evidence.
Credit
An answer based upon extensive and comprehensive research/reading, with a good use of material in support of argument, and a sound awareness of issues reflected in the reading;
• well structured around an argument, with emphasis upon analysis, and expressing own opinions intelligently, fluently and clearly.
• clearly focused upon the question, with presentation of appropriate evidence.
• a confident, lucid (and often concise and focused) style, with sound grasp of good conventions.
Pass
• reasonable body of knowledge, although it may not be used to its full effect.
• occasionally an answer that misses the point of the question, but demonstrates a solid body of research and argument.
• relevant knowledge, but may be superficial, incomplete or inaccurate.
• argument is either unstructured or with limited focus upon essay question asked.
Fail
• poorly structured and written, with poor attention to vocabulary and grammar.
• comprehensive failure to answer question or to understand it, so that few, if any sections of the essay relevant to question posed.
• very poor style, on occasion verging on incomprehensible - often includes problems with spelling, grammar.
• no attempt to answer the question
Can the Examiner Raise marks
This is left to the discretion of the examiner. However, 69% is not the same as 70%, hence, we recommend examiners to exercise caution.
Award Regulations
To qualify for a Certificate, Diploma or Advanced Diploma, candidates must have passed all the subjects.
The overall aggregate mark for each subject is calculated using the overall percentage marks achieved in each paper. Exempted subjects will be excluded from the weighting. The coursework/project is regarded as a subject, hence, if candidates fail the coursework, they can not get the award, until they pass.
Good Practice Policy
The Examination Board’s vision is “to be the best in all that we do – bringing together examination rigour with the world of practitioners, preparing our candidates to be successful, demonstrating excellence and serving BCE as the examination board for “academics and professionals”.
We recognise that practice often develops over long periods, however, we also acknowledge that practice which meets agreed policy and regulation is to be accepted in its own right for being committed to effective delivery and management.
We define good practice as:
a. Effective practice that goes beyond basic policy or regulation
b. Innovation that enhances the learning and experience for candidates
c. Practice that has been developed to meet a particular identified need
Identification of Good Practice
We recognise that good practice is identified formally through reflection or review of the delivery and management of provision. The core processes through which such formal identification of good practice takes place are:
Annual Programme Evaluation.
This is an important process in being able to record innovations and developments within the discipline.
Examiners’ Reports.
Examiners’ reports are particularly useful mechanisms for identifying examples of good practice since the appointee is normally benchmarking the programme(s) against comparable provisions within the professional qualifications sector.
Periodic Programme Review.
In a periodic programme review, the programme team is responsible for compiling a self-evaluation document which should include potential areas of good practice.
Registered Centre Reports.
Registered centres are responsible for introducing our programmes to the world, hence, their views are vital.
BCE’s assessment policy is a statement within which the examination board operates its assessment/examination. The assessment of standards of performance lies at the heart of the experience of candidates and the expectations of the stakeholders of the exam board. It is integral to the Registered Centres’ teaching and Learning Strategy and the responsibilities of the board to its candidates, responsible authorities and prospective employers. The internal and external trust and confidence in the integrity of the assessment of standards and procedures of the board are central to the claims which we make about our awards and qualifications.
Moderation is a process where a subsequent and separate marker reviews a sample of marked assessment. Review considers the quality and accuracy of marking and may lead to changes to marks and feedback. In moderation, however, the overriding principle is to ensure the accuracy and consistency of the marker. This allows for overall rescaling where necessary. Structured samples are often used as the basis for moderation. Moderation differs from second marking because it is not a marking activity but a review process.