Proceso de recuperación de la batería de alta tensión

3.1 Regulation 32 of A3 Regulations for taught programmes provides guidance on marking covering the protection of the identity of candidates and the distribution of scripts for marking.

Assessment and External Examiners

71

3.2 Students who are absent from an examination without having been granted

authorisation or who fail to submit material for assessment or who submit after the deadline without authorisation should receive a mark of zero (Regulations 18.5 and 19.5 of A3 Regulations for taught programmes). Examiners are not required to mark illegible answers (Regulation 32.2 of A3 Regulations for taught programmes).

3.3 Generic marking criteria for written work are available (see Generic marking criteria: undergraduate on page 153 and Generic marking criteria: taught postgraduate on page 157). School Boards may issue programme/subject specific criteria of criteria for other types of assessment that map on to the generic criteria and these should be presented to the College Assessment Board as part of the Board’s assessment scheme.

3.4 School Board assessment schemes should detail the local policies and variations permitted under the regulations covering:

 penalties/guidelines for exceeding word limits

 progression rules

 scheme(s) for the transfer of marks from another institution (see Translation of credits/marks attained through study away from the College on page 159)

 use of the various models in the Marking framework

 discipline specific marking criteria

3.5 The A3 Regulations for taught programmes state that “the identity of candidates shall be withheld from all Examiners so far as is practicable until the complete marking process has been conducted” (Regulation 32.6). Candidate numbers are issued to students by the Examination Office on an annual basis at the start of the academic year. Wherever practicable, summative assessment should be submitted using candidate numbers rather than names. Acceptable exceptions to this policy include practical examinations and assessment conducted for small cohorts where

handwriting style or subject matter can easily be matched to a candidate.

3.6 It is important that candidates see anonymous marking as only one of the methods by which the integrity and fairness of the examination process are protected; other methods include double marking, moderation, the requirement that oral examinations be conducted by no less than two examiners acting together, the application of common marking criteria and the role of External Examiners.

3.7 Where a student has been permitted personalised examination provision, for most programmes, a note is attached to the completed examination script explaining to the examiner that the student has a specific learning disability and asking for this to be taken into account when marking for sentence structures and spelling. However some professional programmes do not permit the note to go with the examination script (for further information on personalised examination provision see

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/campuslife/services/examinations/exams/pep/pep.aspx ). 3.8 Prior to the start of the examination period the candidate number key will be emailed

to the Chair’s of the Programme Boards.

3.9 Departments/Schools will need to ensure that marks arising from each examination period are recorded on the SITS database by the agreed deadline.

3.10 A candidate’s examination script is not classed as ‘personal data’ under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). However, any marks or comments on an examination script constitute ‘personal data’ which the candidate is entitled to see by submitting a subject access request (for which there is a special examination script pro-forma). Examiners should be judicious in their choice of language when writing on a script, in the knowledge that the student may gain sight of the script at a future date. Further

Assessment and External Examiners

information in respect of data protection can be found at:

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/governance/freedom/index.aspx.

3.11 The College Assessment Board has agreed a statement on academic honesty and integrity which sets plagiarism, collusion and cheating within the context of the academic community (see Academic honesty and integrity on page 161). Students will be required to sign and attach a statement to each piece of work submitted for assessment indicating that they have read and understood the College statement on plagiarism and that the assessment they are submitting is their own work.

3.12 Where an Examiner identifies a case of suspected plagiarism in assessed work or suspects any other form of cheating, s/he should refer the matter to the Chair of the relevant Programme Board of Examiners. No mark should be assigned to the work and consideration of the student’s results should be held in abeyance until the matter has been resolved. Minor cases of plagiarism or similar (eg collusion) can be

considered under the expedited examination misconduct procedure. For further information see Guidelines for examiners: plagiarism and related forms of cheating on page 165.

3.13 The College Assessment Board has agreed two policy documents on feedback: Feedback guidelines for students (see page 169) and Key principles to effective assessment feedback for staff (see page 171). Departments/Schools should ensure students are familiar with the guidelines for receipt of feedback, and that feedback is provided to students in a timely manner, normally no longer than 4 weeks from the date of submission of coursework