Assessment Policy and Procedures
University of Leeds
Assessment Policy and Procedures 2025-26
Document control grid
| Document control | |
| Policy/procedure title | Assessment Policy and Procedures 2025/26 |
| Date approved | 2 July 2025 |
| Approving body | TSEB |
| Implementation date | September 2025 |
| Version | V1.3 |
| Supersedes | Version 1.1 |
| Previous review dates | n/a |
| Next review date | June 2026 |
| Related Statutes, Ordinances, General Regulations | Academic Regulations; Ordinances VIII, XIII, XVI |
| Related policies | University Referencing Policy |
| Related procedures and guidance | External Examiner Handbook Examination Rules Mitigating Circumstances Guidance Academic Appeals Procedure |
| Policy owner | Programmes and Assessment [email protected] |
| Lead contact | Louise Powell, Head of Programmes and Assessment |
Contents
1 Purpose and Scope............................................................................ 3
2 Assessment Strategy......................................................................... 3
3 Module Assessment.......................................................................... 3
4 Submission of Coursework............................................................... 6
5 Module Marking.............................................................................. 10
6 Programme Progression and Award............................................... 12
7 Feedback to Students...................................................................... 17
1. Purpose and Scope
1.1. The purpose of this policy is to set out the principles and procedures which relate to assessment and feedback for taught programmes at the University of Leeds.
1.2. The policy underpins and should be read alongside the Academic Regulations for Taught Programmes.
1.3 The policy applies to all students undertaking taught programmes at Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQs) levels 3-7 at the University and its partners.
2. Assessment Strategy
2.1 Assessment at Leeds will be fair, inclusive and authentic and designed to support learning. Using digital technologies to deliver assessment and feedback practices and processes, we will ensure that assessment upholds academic standards and integrity whilst providing students with appropriate opportunities to demonstrate their potential and achievement. The Institutional Assessment Strategy was approved by Senate in June 2021.
3. Module Assessment
3.1 Scope and Definitions
3.1.1 ‘Assessment’ as used in this policy refers to all forms of summatively assessed activity, for example coursework assignment, online time-limited assessment (OTLA), presentation, test, portfolio, written examination.
3.1.2 The Quality Assurance Agency has defined summative and formative assessment as follows:
(i) Summative assessment: Used to indicate the extent of a learner’s success in meeting the assessment criteria to gauge the intended learning outcomes of a module or course. Typically, within summative assessment, the marks awarded count towards the final mark of the module/programme/award.
(ii) Formative assessment: Assessment with a developmental purpose, designed to help learners learn more effectively by giving them feedback on their performance and how it can be improved and/or maintained. Reflective practice by students sometimes contributes to formative assessment.
3.1.3 For apprenticeship programme End Point Assessments (EPAs), the requirements set out in the apprenticeship assessment plan, published by Skills England, will take precedence over this policy and associated procedures.
3.2 Examinations
3.2.1 An examination is an in-person invigilated assessment that is carried out under timed conditions. It may be held digitally i.e. using a device, or on paper or can also be oral or aural. All examinations must be held according to the Examination Rules, except where specific exceptions apply, e.g. in the case of in-class tests.
3.2.2 The University has designated examination periods. Examinations will ordinarily be held in January and in May/June, with reassessments in August. Examinations in Medicine, Dentistry, Healthcare and Online Distance Learning may differ and will be held at times announced by the relevant Schools. Other variations to examination scheduling will be by exception only, normally in the case of in-class tests and will be announced by the relevant Schools.
3.2.3 Unless otherwise stated by the relevant School, a completed examination script belongs to the University and should be archived.
3.3 Coursework
3.3.1 Coursework is a piece of work with a clear assessment brief describing the parameters of the work, a defined period of time in which to complete it and a clear deadline for submission. Coursework can have a variety of formats such as essay, portfolio, report, presentation or group work.
3.4 Online Time Limited Assessments (OTLAs)
3.4.1 An OTLA is an assessment which a student completes online with a limited timeframe from the release of the work to the required submission time. It is not invigilated. The specific assessment format can vary, in a similar way to coursework. Generally, students have a 48-hour window (or less) in which to complete an OTLA, with guidance on the recommended amount of time to spend on this.
3.5 Practical Work
3.5.1 Practical work is the assessment of a student’s practical skills or competence, for example clinical skills. Practical work will be defined either as an examination or coursework, depending on the particular parameters of the work. The regulatory information and/or assessment brief will be communicated to students by the relevant School.
3.6 Approval of Assessment Methods
3.6.1 Modules are assessed in line with the approved module specification, using methods appropriate for the level of study, the subject material, the method of delivery and the learning outcomes. There is a formal process through which the form of assessment for each module (e.g. examination, coursework) is agreed and approved in advance, as part of the module approval.
3.6.2 The reassessment of a module will normally comprise one or more assessments that are the same, or similar to, those used for the first attempt. If the reassessment method is different from the original assessment method, this will be described in the module specification. The assessment brief itself may or may not be the same as for the first attempt.
3.6.3 All assessments (for example the exam question, coursework task or approach to continuously assessed practicals) must be checked internally. The purpose of this is to consider the clarity of instructions to support completion of the assessment, and to consider the alignment with learning outcomes and the appropriateness of the marking scheme. This check is required when the assessment is set or amended for all components of summative assessment and is undertaken by at least one member of academic staff who is not the person responsible for setting the assessment. This applies to all forms of summative assessment.
3.6.4 Internal checks of module assessments must be completed before assessments are distributed to students and normally before the start of the module. Reassessments, where a different task is used, should normally be checked at the same time. Internal and external checks must record the outcome of the process and schools must retain records of the process.
3.6.5 Assessments, including assessment criteria and model answers where relevant, should be available to external examiners for scrutiny in good time before the assessment period. External examiners may request additional materials if required.
3.7 Registration for Assessments
3.7.1 Students are automatically registered for the first opportunity for each assessment, on each module on which they are formally enrolled. All assessments must be taken on the first occasion that they are offered in the year in which the module is studied, unless the parent School grants the student specific permission to defer the assessment, which must be documented. Reassessments (resits) must be taken at the next available opportunity, which is normally in August, unless the parent School grants the student specific permission to defer the assessment, which must be documented. Non-registration for a resit will mean that attempt is forfeited.
3.7.2 Marks for assessments which are not taken will be recorded as absent and given a zero mark.
4. Submission of Coursework
4.1 Coursework Deadlines
4.1.1 The deadline for submitting work must be made clear for each individual piece of assessment.
4.1.2 The School will avoid setting deadlines at times when students might find it difficult to seek support. All deadlines should be set at 2pm on the selected day, aligned to the following criteria: avoiding Fridays, established religious festivals, on the last day of term or on the first day of the formal examination periods. Any deadlines set at alternative times must have prior approval from the relevant Pro-Dean for Student Education.
4.1.3 Extensions to coursework deadlines for up to 14 calendar days from the original coursework deadline can be applied for through the process for mitigating circumstances. All applications for mitigating circumstances will be considered in line with the Mitigating Circumstances Policy. Under some circumstances, an extension will not be available. This can be due to the type of assessment that has been set, or, for example, the timing of the release of feedback. When an extension is not available, this will be made clear in the relevant assessment brief or in other school documentation.
4.1.4 See Section 4.11 for penalties applied for late submission where there are no mitigating circumstances.
4.2 Draft or Erroneous Submissions
4.2.1 It is a student's responsibility to ensure that assessments are submitted successfully and that the correct version has been submitted.
4.3 Resubmission of Own Work
4.3.1 The University’s approach to the resubmission of a student’s own work is described in Section 9.5 of the Academic Misconduct Procedure. However, in some cases submissions can be ‘re-worked’ in order to meet the module learning outcomes at the point of resubmission. If this option is available to students, the School will communicate the requirements clearly.
4.4 Academic Integrity and Misconduct
4.4.1 Academic integrity is a commitment to good study practices and shared values, which ensures that a student’s work is a true expression of their own understanding and ideas, giving credit to others where their work contributes. This University definition of academic integrity recognises that each individual has a responsibility to contribute honestly within our academic community. Guidance on Academic Integrity and Academic Misconduct is available for students and definitions of specific offences can be found in the Academic Misconduct Procedure.
4.5 Academic Integrity Tutorial and Test
4.5.1 Students sign a Declaration of Academic Integrity on registering, and for all assessment submissions. There is also a compulsory online academic integrity tutorial and test for all students. The tutorial comprises a series of short units and an associated end of tutorial test explaining good study habits (e.g. good note taking and referencing) as well as practices that undermine the integrity of academic work (e.g. plagiarism, collusion and third-party authorship). Further details are available in the Student Guide on the Academic Integrity Tutorial and Test.
4.6 Academic Integrity Education
4.6.1 All taught programmes provide specific advice regarding academic integrity and good practice in writing and, where appropriate, the production of other forms of academic work. The Library also provides detailed guidance and training materials related to academic integrity in the Academic Skills section of the Library website.
4.6.2 All cases of suspected academic misconduct will be considered in line with the Academic Misconduct Procedure or the University Disciplinary Regulations.
4.7 Use of Systems to Identify Academic Integrity (e.g. Turnitin)
4.7.1 Schools will provide their students with an introduction to the use of systems such as Turnitin at the commencement of their studies to support their understanding of academic integrity.
4.7.2 As part of a supervised teaching session, students should be allowed to see a similarity report based either on a model assessment or a draft of their work and perhaps resubmit as a learning exercise early during their academic career and before marks count towards degree classification. At FHEQ level 5 and above, students should not be provided with their similarity reports. Schools should run a similar exercise with anyone who is new to study at the University (e.g. new taught postgraduate students who may not have been made aware of Turnitin at undergraduate level, study abroad students, those entering with advanced standing, and online distance learning students).
4.8 Turnitin Reports
4.8.1 All similarity reports generated by Turnitin will be reviewed by the School, regardless of the percentage match indicated by the similarity index.
4.8.2 It is at the School’s discretion when similarity reports are checked, and whether this is before or after the marking is undertaken, but this must be around the time of the assessment and prior to the Assessment Board. Where plagiarism is suspected following consideration of a similarity report, it shall be for the School to determine whether or not the assessment will be marked. The Module Leader is responsible for checking the similarity reports. It is at the School’s discretion whether the marker checks the reports.
4.8.3 Turnitin Authorship reports are available where concerns (e.g. contract cheating) have been raised by the Module Leader or Academic Integrity Lead.
4.9 Referencing and Proofreading
4.9.1 All Schools shall select a single referencing style in accordance with the University’s Referencing Policy, and this must be specified in the relevant assignment brief.
4.9.2 The University’s policy on proofreading provides definitions of proofreading in the University of Leeds context.
4.10 Penalties for not meeting assessment requirements
4.10.1 Where an assessment requirement (e.g. the assignment length) is specified in an assessment brief, students must adhere to this. If a student does not adhere to the requirement(s) then it will be determined by the marker that the task has not been completed in accordance with the instructions and this will be reflected in the mark awarded, in accordance with the assessment criteria and the feedback given to the student.
4.10.2 Assessment parameters should be communicated in detail within the assessment brief (e.g. font size and inclusion of title page where page lengths are used, inclusion or otherwise of footnotes and tables if word count is used, timing of a presentation etc.).
4.10.3 Students must declare the length of their assignment, or their compliance with any other relevant parameters set out in the assessment instructions, on their submitted work.
4.11 Late Submission of Coursework
4.11.1 Coursework should be submitted according to published deadlines.
4.11.2 Penalties will be applied if work is submitted past the submission date unless an extension due to mitigating circumstances has been granted in which case they will be applied from the new deadline.
4.11.3 If the assessed work is submitted over 14 calendar days after the original submission deadline for any reason (including granted extensions), the submission will be deemed to have failed for non-submission (a day being a single 24-hour period).
4.11.4 The penalty is deducted from the mark for the assessment component that has been submitted late. For every period of 24 hours or part thereof that the assessment is overdue, 5% of the total marks available for that assessment component will be deducted. This includes weekends, bank holidays and University closed days. The penalty will only be applied until the threshold of 40 for undergraduate modules (FHEQ level 4, 5 and 6) and 50 for postgraduate taught modules (FHEQ level 7). If an assessment component receives a mark below this threshold before the application of penalties, penalties for late submission will not be applied. Penalties for late submission will be applied after other penalties are applied to the mark e.g. penalties for not meeting the assessment requirements.
4.11.5 Online time-limited assessments with a duration of 48 hours or less must be submitted within the time period stated. Late submissions will not be accepted in any circumstances.
5. Module Marking
5.1 Marking scales and pass marks are set out in the Academic Regulations (see section 7.5). All summative assessment will be marked anonymously except for those situations where this is not practicable (see Academic Regulations Section 7.6).
5.2 Suffixes may be added to module marks to indicate a particular status. Some suffixes also perform an action in the University’s student records system such as awarding or withholding credit.
5.3 The University does not permit interviews/viva voce examinations for the purpose of making a classification decision on selected individual cases.
5.4 The University does not award partial credit for a module. If the module is deemed to have been passed the student gains the entire credit for that module but will gain no credit if it is not passed.
5.5 All Schools are required to operate a flagging system for work submitted by students with specific learning difficulties (SpLDs) and other disabilities which affect written work. It is recognised that there may be different ways in which this is done, in accordance with different types of assessment. Guidance and template are available from Disability Services. The School must inform relevant students as to how the flagging system is conducted.
5.6 Moderation: Check Marking and Double Marking
5.6.1 As a minimum, all marking will be undertaken by an appointed internal first marker. After this, depending on the nature of the assessment, either a sample will be subject to check marking by a second internal marker, or an alternative process will be undertaken to verify the validity of the marking. The criteria for determining the check marking sample or the alternative process will be expected to include failed pieces; marking undertaken by multiple assessors; marking undertaken by new markers; assessment with a substantial weighting.
5.6.2 Check marking is defined as another member of staff, in addition to the first marker, sampling or auditing the marking across the module to review overall marking standards and consistency between individual markers.
5.6.3 Double marking is defined as work being marked independently by another member of staff in addition to the first marker.
5.6.4 Double marking is not a requirement but can be used some circumstances e.g. where it is specifically required by Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs).
5.6.5 If a difference of judgement cannot be resolved between the first internal maker and the check marker, or between both markers if double marking is used, a third person will be appointed to receive an explanation of the difference and to contribute to the decision on the final mark or set of internal marks. The third person will be someone with appropriate seniority and experience in assessment processes.
5.6.6 Consideration of distribution of marks and an assessment as to whether the overall outcomes are in line with previous years will take place at the Assessment Board.
5.6.7 The above moderation processes apply to all forms of summative assessment.
5.7 External Examining
5.7.1 The role of the external examiner, as set out in the External Examiner Handbook, is to ensure comparability of the University’s standards with those in other institutions and with national benchmarks. It is not to contribute to the assessment of individual students. If an issue is identified with the marking process during the sampling of work, an external examiner may require:
(i) Additional marking of all the student work within the group;
(ii) Additional marking of an element of the assessed work of all students within the group; or
(iii) Adjustment of the marks for all students within the group.
5.7.2 In exceptional circumstances, an external examiner may be permitted to determine an individual mark where they have been specifically invited to adjudicate between markers
5.8 Normalisation
5.8.1 Normalisation refers to a process of adjusting mark profiles for each module so that the overall average falls within an expected range. Normalisation is used only exceptionally and if a school does normalise marks for a module, particular attention will be paid to setting and marking of assessment in that module the next time it is offered.
5.9 Consideration and Publication of Module Marks
5.9.1 The School Assessment Board approves the module marks/grades for all students registered on modules that it parents. The School adopts the standard Terms of Reference and Membership for School Assessment Boards.
5.9.2 The University publishes final confirmed marks and classifications on Minerva. If provisional marks are made known by the School prior to this, it must be with the caveat that the final published marks may be higher than or lower than (or the same as) the provisional marks.
5.9.3 Once the University has published the formal decisions of the School Progression and Awards Board, module marks will not be changed. The only exception is if the School is instructed to make amendments by the University following a formal appeal or consideration of an exceptional case.
6. Programme Progression and Award
6.1 University Progression and Award Regulations
6.1.1 The criteria for progression/award are determined by the University’s regulations set out in the Academic Regulations, as well as by individual programme rules set out in the programme specification. The programme specification identifies the modules within any given programme of study that must be passed in order to allow progression/award. The Progression and Awards Board is required to implement decisions in accordance with the Academic Regulations and the programme specification. The School does not have discretion to vary the rules for individual students at the Progression and Awards Board.
6.2 Ad Hoc and Ad Personam Programmes
6.2.1 If there are exceptional circumstances, the School may consider varying the programme rules for a cohort of students (an ad hoc programme) or for an individual student (an ad personam programme). For example, the required combination of modules could be amended, or particular programme rules waived. This decision is taken in advance and is based on the circumstances affecting the group or individual. The decision is not taken by the Progression and Awards Board.
6.2.2 Any ad hoc or ad personam programme must be approved in advance by the relevant Faculty and Cross Institution Taught Student Education Committee or by the relevant Pro Dean/s Student Education acting on the Committee’s behalf. Once the ad hoc or ad personam programme is approved, this new programme is the one which will be applied by the Progression and Awards Board in considering the student’s results.
6.3 Progression and Awards Boards and Related Committees
6.3.1 The Progression and Awards Board has responsibility for approving module marks and making decisions about progression, award and classification. Schools adopt the standard Terms of Reference and Membership for Progression and Awards Boards. For apprenticeship programmes with integrated End Point Assessments (EPAs) where the University is the End Point Assessment Organisation (EPAO), the Progression and Awards Board (or EPA and Awards Board) also approves apprenticeship grades and awards.
6.3.2 The School Assessment Board normally meets after Semester 1 to agree recommended marks and grades for completed modules. These are published via Minerva. The marks/grades are provisional at this stage.
6.3.3 The School Assessment Board meets again after completion of Semester 2 to agree recommended marks/grades for completed modules. The marks/grades for all undergraduate Semester 1 and 2 modules (those at FHEQ levels 3, 4, 5 and 6) will be approved by the Progression and Awards Board (of which the external examiner is a member). The School Assessment Board normally meets again in September to agree marks/grades for August reassessments.
6.3.4 The Progression and Awards Board normally meets in June for undergraduate programmes and in October/November for taught postgraduate programmes. Where schools operate with non-standard timelines, the timing of these Boards will be communicated as appropriate.
6.4 School Special Circumstances Committee
6.4.1 The School Special Circumstances Committee is responsible for assessing all applications for mitigating circumstances and making recommendations to the Progression and Awards Board on any adjustment that the Board should make to accommodate those circumstances.
6.5 Referral to the University Special Cases Committee
6.5.1 The Progression and Awards Board can only exercise its powers within the context of the University’s rules and regulations, and in particular, the Academic Regulations and the programme specification. However, if following these procedures would, in the Schools’ opinion, lead to a perverse or unfair judgement, the School may make an application to the University Special Cases Committee to make exceptions to the rules.
7. Feedback to Students
7.1 When assessment is set, students will be told when and how they will receive feedback. The purpose of providing feedback will also be explained and students will be informed of who to contact should they want to discuss the feedback they receive.
7.2 Feedback (for summatively assessed work) will be provided to students within 15 working days of the published assessment submission deadline.
7.3 Feedback for final year/ research (capstone projects) will be returned within a timeframe to be agreed with the relevant Pro Dean/s Student Education and communicated by the teaching school.
7.4 The exception to this is where concerns relating to academic misconduct arise or where an extension has been granted beyond the published assessment submission deadline.
7.5 In exceptional circumstances, when these timeframes cannot be met, an alternative timeframe will be agreed with the relevant Pro Dean/s Student Education and clearly communicated to students.
7.6 Feedback on any assessment type (i.e. examination, OTLAs) taken during a formal examination period can be different from other assessment feedback. For logistical reasons, students may not receive detailed individual feedback within the normal timescale.
7.7 The University Retention Schedule articulates how long assessed work must be retained. Schools should provide students with information on how and when they are able to access their marked examination scripts for the purposes of feedback.