General Assessment Regulations and Policy including Grade Descriptors

1. General provision for assessment and awards

1.1 The authority for approving programmes and granting awards rests with the Senate of
Queen Margaret University. Senate is also responsible for maintaining the academic
standards of these awards. One of the major mechanisms for the assurance of
academic standards is the assessment of students. These regulations and policy
provide the structure within which students shall be assessed and whereby their
assessment contributes to the achievement of the award.

1.2 These regulations and policy shall govern all taught programmes which lead to a
University award except where Senate shall determine otherwise.

1.3 Within the regulations and policy levels one, two, three and four refer to the full-time
year of undergraduate study. SCQF levels refer to the academic level of study (for
undergraduate programmes this is typically SCQF level 7 to 10 and for postgraduate
programmes SCQF level 11). Levels one, two, three and four do not map directly
onto SCQF levels, but the following will apply to the majority of modules:

For a part-time undergraduate student, a level typically spans more than a single
academic year.

1.4 Each student is enrolled on a programme and is subject to the regulations of that
programme, which in its turn is subject to the University’s overall regulations and
policy.

1.5 Students are subject to registration periods which stipulate the minimum and
maximum periods that they may be registered on a programme. These are detailed in
the University’s Registration Regulations.

1.6 An award will be conferred upon satisfaction of the following conditions:

• the candidate was a registered student of the University at the time of their
  assessment and has fulfilled all financial obligations to the University;
• the candidate has completed a programme approved by the University as leading
  to the award being recommended;
• the award has been recommended by a Board of Examiners convened,
  constituted and acting under regulations approved by Senate.

1.7 Senate is the ultimate authority in the University for the ratification of academic
decisions and may, in extreme circumstances, over-rule a Board of Examiners. It will
normally refer matters of concern back to the Board of Examiners for reconsideration.

1.8 Acting within the above principles, a Board of Examiners will exercise its judgement
in reaching decisions on individual candidates. It is responsible for interpreting the
assessment regulations for the programme, in the light of the University's
requirements and good practice in higher education and its academic judgement
should not lightly be questioned or overturned.

1.9 Appeals by students against the decisions of Boards of Examiners shall be subject to
University procedures and practices, as set out in section of the Governance and
Regulations dealing with Academic Appeals and Student Complaints and published
on the University’s Regulations, Policies and Procedures web page.

2.0 Context

2.1 The Student Experience Strategy is the key strategy for the delivery of taught
programmes of study at QMU and these assessment regulations and policy should
be read in conjunction with that Strategy.

2.2 Assessment is integral to the design of programmes of study leading to the award of
academic credit and to the award of degrees and diplomas. Programme content is
specified through regulations governing Programme Development, Modification,
Monitoring and Review, available from the University’s Regulations, Policies and
Procedures web page.

2.3 Assessment is the process of forming a judgment about the quality and extent of
learning in relation to the intended learning outcomes of a student’s programme of
study. In view of the variety of programmes, it is recognised that there is a need for a
variety of forms of assessment, which should reflect the aims of that programme of
study and the mode of study. Whatever the type of assessment, it should be fair,
valid, reliable, useful and transparent.

2.4 In addition to its role in relation to the maintenance of academic standards, an
equally important function of assessment is to develop effective student learning. In
this context, it is essential that assessment is both integrated into the learning
experience and that it motivates the learner.

3.0 Purpose of assessment

3.1 Assessment satisfies a number of related requirements, namely that it:

• is integrated with the process of student learning;
• demonstrates that a student has achieved the learning outcomes for their
  programme of study;
• justifies the award of academic credit based on actual student achievement;
• provides confidence in the maintenance of academic standards both internally
  and to external stakeholders;
• supports the evaluation and enhancement of programme design and delivery;
• provides meaningful feedback and feedforward to students on their performance
  on a programme of study which promotes learning and encourages reflection;
• provides meaningful information to employers, Professional, Statutory and
  Regulatory Bodies and other organisations on the knowledge and competencies
  of a graduate;
• supports the enhancement of programme design and programme delivery.

3.2 Additionally, assessment may be used as a diagnostic tool to determine the current
knowledge and skills of a student and to assist in the formulation of a programme of
future study.

4.0 Principles of assessment

4.1 Assessment regulations and policy establish a framework for the conduct of
assessment across all taught programmes.

4.2 Assessment regulations and policy establish sound procedures for the advanced
communication of assessment requirements (including assessment criteria), the
submission, conduct of examinations, marking and moderation of assessments, the
progression of students, the remediation of failure and the conduct of meetings of
Boards of Examiners. The regulations and policy ensure that academic standards are
maintained and that there is a retention schedule for copies of assessments and
feedback on assessments.

4.3 Assessment regulations and policy are reviewed on a periodic basis to ensure that
they remain fit for purpose.

4.4 As part of the procedures for the validation and review of awards, programme teams
are required to develop an assessment strategy which demonstrates a close
alignment with the full range of intended learning outcomes (including knowledge and
understanding, intellectual skills, practical skills and transferable skills) and mode(s)
of study of that programme, including the requirements of Professional, Statutory and
Regulatory Bodies.

4.5 Programme assessment strategies are designed to assess all intended learning
outcomes but should reduce the extent of assessment to the minimum required to
demonstrate the above and should avoid duplication.

4.6 QMU is committed to principles of best practice in assessment, as established by the
Advice and Guidance within the QAA Quality Code’s Assessment Theme, and any
subsequent updates to that publication.

4.7 QMU is committed to the principles of equality of opportunity. Assessment
regulations and procedures are designed to actively promote equality of opportunity,
and to be compliant with all relevant equality legislation.

4.8 QMU subscribes to the principle of anonymous marking. Anonymous marking shall
be used in assessments wherever practicable. Proposals for exemption for modules
that cannot be anonymously marked will be considered through the University’s
validation and review process or committee structure as appropriate.

4.9 QMU supports the principles of the award of credit and of credit transfer, as specified
by the SCQF, in all of its assessment procedures.

4.10 QMU supports the recognition of, and the award of credit for, prior accredited and
experiential learning as set out in the University’s Guidance on Recognition of Prior
Learning (RPL) found on the University’s Regulations, Policies and Procedures web
page.

4.11 QMU recognises the need for transparency in the assessment of students.

4.12 QMU recognises the need for a detailed student transcript, in accordance with the
European Diploma Supplement, as a means of communicating the achievement by a
student.

4.13 All modules which are designed to lead to the award of academic credit are
expressed in terms of learning outcomes that are capable of assessment and include
details of the assessment and of the assessment criteria to be employed.

4.14 All modules which lead to the award of academic credit come under the purview of a
Board of Examiners and are assigned, as appropriate, to an External Examiner.

4.15 The normal language of assessment is English, but exceptionally other languages
may be used where this is described as part of the definitive document for a
programme and, in these cases, the language of instruction and assessment will be
clearly shown on the student transcript.

4.16 Module descriptors specify the format of assessment but, as a minimum requirement,
QMU requires a student to submit a digital copy of all assessments, wherever this is
practicable. This digital copy acts as the archive copy of that assessment.

4.17 Feedback

Staff must make every effort to meet the QMU requirement of disseminating
assessment marks and feedback to students within the following timeframe:

For standard Undergraduate and Postgraduate programmes:

• SCQF Level 7 and SCQF Level 8 assessment: within a maximum of 20 working days of the assessment submission.
• SCQF Level 9 and SCQF Level 10 assessment (with the exception of SCQF Level 10 projects and dissertations): within a maximum of 15 working days of the assessment submission.
• SCQF level 10 projects and dissertations: within a maximum of 20 working days of the assessment submission.
• SCQF Level 11 assessment: within a maximum of 20 working days of the assessment submission.

For Integrated Masters and MSc Pre-registration programmes:

• Modules at SCQF Levels 7-11: within a maximum of 20 working days of the assessment submission.

Exceptionally, modules which are undertaken by both standard undergraduate programmes and Integrated Masters/MSc Pre-registration programmes, will be subject to a 20 day feedback period. Students on standard undergraduate programmes who are affected by this extended feedback period will be advised by the relevant Module Coordinator.

Working days equates to Monday to Friday, excluding University closure days. The
maximum of 15/20 working days includes all stages within the marking process and
applies to all staff. Only in exceptional circumstances should staff exceed the 15/20
working days requirement. Where this occurs, students must be informed of the
extension at least seven calendar days before the original deadline for receipt of
feedback.

QMU requires staff as a minimum to submit feedback and grading for each
assessment component on an appropriate pro forma (except where appropriate
alternatives are provided (e.g. audio feedback). This applies to coursework and
examinations. Feedback on course work will normally be individual. A digital copy of
this pro forma will act as the archive copy of the feedback and grade awarded for that
assessment. Pro formae are usually completed electronically and must be scanned
instead, if handwritten. Standard feedback may be provided to the full cohort for an
examination. However all students also have the right to request individual feedback
from the Module Co-ordinator.

4.18 A copy of student assessments and the related feedback pro formae will be kept
during the time that a student is matriculated, or as specified by the University’s
Records Retention Schedule.

5.0 Fairness, reliability and validity of assessment

5.1 Assessment can take many different forms, as dictated by the variety of programmes
and learning outcomes but, in all cases it should be:

• Fair, in that there should be equality of treatment across all programmes and that
  there should be a consistent approach to equality and diversity;
• Valid, that is the assessment can be shown to be relevant to the intended
  learning outcomes;
• Reliable, in that there should be consistency of processes and standards across
  the institution and that there should be comparability of both the volume and
  complexity of assessment in relation to credit and SCQF level;
• Useful, in that it contributes to the knowledge and competencies and
  employability of the learner;
• Transparent, in that the requirements of the assessment in terms of intended
  learning outcomes and assessment criteria are made clear to the student.

5.2 To maximise accuracy and fairness of assessment, programme teams are expected
to follow the procedures for marking, moderation and blind double marking set out
below. The terms ‘marking’, ‘moderation’ and ‘blind double marking’ are defined as
follows:

Marking

The process of assessing students’ work, taking into account QMU guidelines for
assessment feedback and the relevant criteria/mark schemes as devised by
programme and/or module teams.

Moderation

The process of confirming the consistency of the mark and feedback provided by the
original marker(s).

Blind double marking

Marking conducted without access to marks, annotations or comments from any
other marker. Both markers must use the relevant criteria and provide feedback to
students in the agreed format.

5.3 Where there are differences between first and second markers, these should be
resolved through a process of discussion and negotiation. On occasions where such
differences cannot be resolved through this method, the case will be referred to a
third marker. A single agreed mark is provided to the student as an outcome of the
above procedures.

5.4 If appropriate, Examiners may adjust the raw marks attained by students in individual
subjects, but the basis of the scaling must be reported to the Board of Examiners
who will be asked to endorse the scaling.

5.5 All assessed work should have associated marking criteria. These guides to marking
should be developed simultaneously with assessment instruments and, where
practicable, be approved by the External Examiner. Sharing of approved marking
criteria with students is a required feature of good practice. All feedback given to
students should relate to the agreed marking criteria.

5.6 Internal moderation

5.6.1 All elements of assessments for Honours projects and postgraduate dissertations (or
equivalent) at SCQF levels 9, 10, 11and 12 must be blind double-marked for the
whole cohort.

5.6.2 All summative assessments for undergraduate and postgraduate programmes that
are not blind-double marked must be moderated on a sampling basis as a means of
verifying the accuracy of marking. The size of the sample to be moderated must be at
least the square root of the total number of students (rounded to the nearest whole
number) taking the assessment plus all borderline fails (those that are within 2%
below the pass mark). The sample should include a range of performance and the
minimum size should be six pieces of assessed work.

5.7 External Examiner moderation

5.7.1 A sample as outlined above will be reviewed by External Examiners for assessment
leading to a named award.

5.7.2 External Examiners will normally only be required to moderate samples for an
individual module once per academic year. They will not normally be required to
moderate samples for reassessments or multiple occurrences of the module provided
the mode of assessment and marking team remain unchanged from the original
assessment. The Board of Examiners will determine whether the External Examiner
will be required to moderate additional samples for reassessment or an additional
occurrence of the module.

5.7.3 It is the responsibility of the Module Co-ordinator to select the sample to be reviewed
by the External Examiner. This need not be the same sample used for internal
moderation.

5.7.4 Further information on External Examiner arrangements for collaborative
programmes can be found in the Collaborations Manual.

5.7.5 In circumstances where an External Examiner has concerns about the submitted
marks for a sample of assessments, the External Examiner may not modify one or
more marks of the sample group of students but must review the marks of the whole
cohort. External Examiners may make recommendations only on the adjustment of
marks. It is the responsibility of the Programme Team to consider these
recommendations and take a final decision on the student mark.

5.8 Responsibility for assessment

5.8.1 In all cases Module Co-ordinators have responsibility for the conduct and quality
control of assessment in their own module(s). Programme Leaders are deemed
responsible for the quality of assessment across programmes and are accountable to
the Head of Division through the Programme Committee. Deans of School have
responsibility for assessment regulations and policy and staff development (as it
affects assessment) within the parameters set by the University and any relevant
Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies. It is expected, however, that this
responsibility will be delegated to Heads of Division.

5.8.2 Academic Administration are responsible for the maintenance and retention of records of all
provisional marks. The Student Records Office and the Academic Administration under the
direction of the Assistant Secretary, Registry and Academic Administration, will
maintain a central archive of approved final marks.

6.0 Forms of assessment

6.1 The form and balance of assessment for each module should be such as to provide
the most accurate assessment of the student's achievement of the module's aims, objectives and learning outcomes. Assessment may be by end-of-module
assessment; or by intermittent or periodic assessment undertaken during the course
of the module.

6.2 The module descriptor specifies the relative assessment pattern, including
weightings across components. The assessment pattern must be based on the
intended learning outcomes of that module.

6.3 Normally assessment will relate to some or all of the learning outcomes of a single
module. Where an assessment covers learning outcomes from two or more
modules, this must be clearly described in the module descriptors and the method of
attributing marks to each module should be clearly defined.

6.4 At the commencement of each module the Module Co-ordinator must advise the
enrolled students of the form of the assessment and the timing of the components
which make up the assessment. This will be consistent with the overall framework
established for the programme’s assessment, as specified in the module descriptors.

6.5 At the start of each programme, Programme Leaders will refer students to the
assessment regulations for the programme governing progression and award, and of
any changes thereto.

6.6 The University operates a Student Attendance Policy which can be found on the
University’s Regulations, Policies and Procedures web page.

Additional attendance and participation conditions may be in place for some
programmes, but must be made clear to students. Implications of non-attendance in
terms of eligibility to undertake assessments must also be made clear. These must
be approved through the University’s validation and review process or committee
structure as appropriate. 

7. Marks, grades and levels of performance

7.1 Assessment is primarily a matter of academic judgement, and the computational structure is designed to facilitate consistent judgements.

The full range of marks should be used in accordance with the grade descriptors in Appendix E.

7.2 A student’s overall performance on an undergraduate module will be given marks within one of eight grades as follows:

7.3 A student’s overall performance on a postgraduate module will be given marks within one of eight grades as follows:

7.4 These grades should be used in a consistent fashion at all levels of assessment whether it is judging a student’s overall performance; a cohort’s performance, a module grade, or a piece of assessed coursework.

7.5 The criteria for each of the grades above are listed in the Appendices.

7.6 Normally subjects will be assessed using marks and grades. However, in exceptional circumstances subjects may be assessed using grades only. This will be recorded in programme specific regulations.

7.7 If an undergraduate subject is assessed using a grade only, then the following grade-to-mark conversion scheme shall be used for the purposes of computation:

7.8 If a postgraduate subject is assessed using a grade only, then the following grade-to-mark conversion scheme shall be used for the purpose of computation.

In most cases, the mark is set at the midpoint of the band. However, the mark at Grade A* is limited to 85 to reflect the comparatively few marks likely to be awarded over 90%.

8. Award 

8.1 To gain an undergraduate award, a student must normally be a registered student at the University for at least one academic year. Minimum registration periods for postgraduate awards are set out in the University’s Registration Regulations.

To qualify for the following awards the student must fulfil the subject specific requirements for the name of the award and also:

Students may take credits from the SCQF level directly above or directly below subject to the guidance set out above and as defined in relevant documentation.

Ten SCQF Credits are equivalent to five European Credits (ECTS) therefore 120 SCQF credits equal 60 ECTS.

8.2 The classification of the award of the Degree with Honours will be based on the marks obtained in SCQF level 9 (20%) and SCQF level 10 (80%). Weighted aggregate scores will be rounded to one decimal place. The classification will be based upon the average mark obtained by combining the weighted results of all modules studied at SCQF levels 9 and 10. Any modules undertaken below SCQF level 9 and any modules taken whilst on an exchange arrangement will not be counted towards the Honours calculation.

Where a student has accumulated more than 120 credits at SCQF level 10, a maximum of 120 credits will be counted at SCQF level 10 for the purpose of the Honours calculation. All core modules at SCQF level 10 will count towards the Honours classification. The optional modules in which the student achieved the highest marks will be included in the calculation of the Honours classification. Additional optional modules at SCQF level 10 with lower marks will be counted towards SCQF level 9.

70 and above First Class

≥60% and <70% Second Class: Upper division

≥50% and <60% Second Class: Lower division

≥40% and <50% Third Class

8.3 The award of an Ordinary Degree can include an award with distinction, in cases where the average mark for the 120 credits (or equivalent) at SCQF level 9 or above is 65% or higher. Any modules undertaken below SCQF level 9 and any modules taken whilst on an exchange arrangement will not be counted towards the distinction calculation.

8.4 The award of taught Masters Degrees and Postgraduate Diplomas may include an award with distinction or merit. The award of Postgraduate Certificate is without distinction or merit.

A distinction is granted automatically if the weighted average mark (each module being weighted in relation to its size) - is 70% or over.

A merit is granted automatically if the weighted average mark (each module being weighted in relation to its size) - is 60% or over.

Only modules undertaken at SCQF level 11 will be used in the calculation for distinction or merit.

8.5 When granted an award a student will automatically be de-registered and must reapply if they wish to proceed to a higher or different award.

8.6 Where a student is admitted to the University at level four the classification will be based entirely on grades achieved during level four studies.

8.7 Where a student is admitted to a level and given additional credit at that level gained externally, the grades from that credit may contribute to the classification where the credit is at the appropriate SCQF level and where marks are available. Otherwise the classification will be based on grades gained entirely within the University. Any modules taken whilst on an exchange arrangement will not be counted towards the classification.

9. Decision on award classifications and distinctions in borderline cases (undergraduate degrees)

9.1 All weighted average marks falling 0.5 per cent or less below the classification or distinction boundary are automatically reclassified at the higher level.

9.2 All weighted average marks falling between 0.6 per cent and two percent below the classification or distinction boundary are deemed borderline cases.

9.3 For Honours degrees the final classification is determined by the marks across all SCQF level 10 credits. Borderline cases where any 60 or more credits (core or elective modules) are achieved in the classification above the boundary will be awarded the higher classification of degree.

9.4 For Ordinary degrees the final award is determined by the marks across SCQF level 9 credits. Borderline cases where any 60 or more credits (core or elective modules) are achieved in the distinction category (65% or above) will be awarded the degree with distinction.

9.5 Additional viva voce examinations involving the External Examiner should not be used in the consideration of borderline cases.

10. Decision on distinctions in borderline cases (postgraduate degrees)

10.1 All weighted average marks falling 0.5 per cent or less below the distinction/merit boundary are automatically reclassified at the higher level.

10.2 All weighted average marks falling between 0.6 per cent and two percent below the distinction/merit boundary are deemed borderline cases. In these cases the award of distinction/merit is determined by consideration of marks across all SCQF level 11 credits contributing to the Programme.

10.3 For standard 180 credit Masters programmes, borderline cases where 90 credits or more (core or elective modules) at SCQF level 11 are marked at 70% or above will be awarded the distinction.

For standard 180 credit Masters programmes, borderline cases where 90 credits or more (core or elective modules) at SCQF level 11 are marked at 60% or above will be awarded the merit.

10.4 For standard 120 credit Postgraduate Diploma programmes, borderline cases where 60 credits or more (core or elective modules) at SCQF level 11 are marked at 70% or above will be awarded the distinction.

For standard 120 credit Postgraduate Diploma programmes, borderline cases where 60 credits or more (core or elective modules) at SCQF level 11 are marked at 60% or above will be awarded the merit.

10.5 For non-standard Postgraduate Diploma and Masters programmes, i.e. Postgraduate Diploma Programmes rated at more than 120 credits, or Masters programmes rated at more than 180 credits, borderline cases where 50% or more of the total credits at SCQF level 11 are marked at 70% or above will be awarded the distinction. Exceptionally, programme specific regulations may be defined for such programmes, to be agreed at the point of validation or review.

For non-standard Postgraduate Diploma and Masters Programmes, i.e. Postgraduate Diploma programmes rated at more than 120 credits, or Masters programmes rated at more than 180 credits, borderline cases where 50% or more of the total credits at SCQF level 11 are marked at 60% or above will be awarded the merit. Exceptionally, programme specific regulations may be defined for such programmes, to be agreed at the point of validation or review.

10.6 Additional viva voce examinations involving the External Examiner should not be used in the consideration of borderline cases.

11. Decision on an award in absence of complete assessment information

11.1 Boards of Examiners have discretion to make an award in the absence of complete assessment information where it is established to the satisfaction of the Board of Examiners that:

• such absence is due to a valid documented cause, which would include, but not be limited to, a student’s illness;
• there is enough evidence of the student's achievement at the level at which they are being examined, which would normally equate to two thirds of the assessable work at that level, or evidence is subsequently obtained.

Where Boards of Examiners use their discretion to make an award in the absence of complete assessment information, the justification for this action should be included in the minutes of the meeting.

Awards may be recommended with or without Honours or distinction as appropriate. In order to reach such a decision the Board of Examiners may assess the candidate by any appropriate and reasonable means. Any such assessment will for the purpose of these regulations be deemed a first assessment.

The Board of Examiners has a duty to gain as much information about the candidate’s ability and performance as possible before making decisions.

Decisions made in the absence of complete information must aim to ensure consistency of standard and equality of opportunity for the student under consideration as compared with his/her peers. The student must not be put in a position of unfair advantage over other candidates for the award.

12. Withdrawing from a module and transfer between modules

12.1 A student withdrawing from a module up to the point at which 25% of the taught duration of the module has been delivered may provide the Module Co-ordinator with a written explanation of reasons for withdrawal. If the Module Co-ordinator accepts these as valid reasons, the student will suffer no academic penalty, i.e. the withdrawal will not count as a fail. The student will receive a transcript showing them as withdrawn and will receive no credit.

12.2 A student withdrawing from a module after 25% of the taught duration will be recorded as a fail.

12.3 A student wishing to transfer from one elective module to another will normally be permitted to do so within the first 25% of the taught duration of the module subject to the consent of both Module Co-ordinators. Only exceptionally will students be permitted to transfer between elective modules after this period.

13. Transcripts

13.1 The student’s assessment record or academic transcript shall specify for each module taken:

• the title;
• the credit points and the level;
• the academic year in which most recently taken;
• the grade and mark most recently obtained;
• the name of the University together with, if appropriate, the name of any other institution sharing responsibility for the student’s programme of study or research;
• the location of study;
• the language of instruction/assessment;
• decision on progress/award.

Academic transcripts are issued online following Boards of Examiners. They are issued on secure paper to exiting students.

The University’s transcript meets the requirements of the European Diploma Supplement.

Guidance on European Credit Points is provided for all students receiving transcripts in the accompanying Guidance Notes.

14. Terminology

For the purposes of these regulations the following definitions shall apply:

14.1 Component

A component is defined as an individual piece of assessment, for example an examination or an essay. Some modules will have one assessment component only. Others may have multiple components.

14.2 Reassessment

Reassessment means the opportunity to be reassessed in an assessment component which has been failed. The timing of the reassessment is at the discretion of the Board of Examiners but must allow the student sufficient time to prepare. Normally reassessment (as a second attempt) happens within the same academic year or shortly thereafter.

A student will be permitted a maximum of three attempts at any module. i.e. attempt one plus two reassessment attempts. Attempt three may be undertaken in the following academic year subject to progression regulations.

(MSc OT pre-registration - see programme exceptions)

14.3 Condonement of a module

Condonement of a module may occur where a student has not achieved a minimum pass mark in an undergraduate module at SCQF level 7 or SCQF level 8 and there are no programme specific assessment regulations that require the student to be reassessed.

15. Programme specific regulations

15.1 It is expected that programme specific regulations will be consistent with the University’s general assessment regulations.

Programmes may only apply more specific regulations where it is an explicit requirement of a professional body or where an explicit justification has been given as part of the formal validation process . Any exceptions must be approved through the validation or committee approval process and be clearly recorded in the programme document or relevant module descriptor.

Programme specific regulations for progression and award are written in the context of the University’s general assessment regulations; they should be interpreted in that context and, where they are silent, the University’s general assessment regulations are taken to apply. Programme specific regulations may cover the following points:

• the requirements for passing a module;
• modules which are not eligible for condonement
• the requirements for progression;
• the conditions and limits to the provision for reassessment of modules;
• the conditions and limits to the provision for repeating a level;
• the conditions under which a student shall be required to withdraw from the programme.

16.0 Assessment of a module

16.1 To pass an undergraduate module, a student must obtain at least 40% overall, and at least 30% in each component of assessment unless otherwise specified in the programme document or module descriptor. To pass a postgraduate module, a student must obtain at least 50% overall, and at least 40% in each component of assessment unless otherwise specified in the programme document or module descriptor. This regulation applies to the first attempt at the module only. Regulations for reassessment of modules are detailed below and in 14.2 above.

16.2 Where a student has achieved an overall mark of 40% or above (50% for postgraduate modules) but has fallen below the minimum permitted mark in an individual component, this will be shown as a qualifying fail on the academic transcript with a grade of Q.

16.3 Where a student is reassessed in an undergraduate module at a second or third attempt, the maximum mark that can be achieved for the module is 40%. Where a student is reassessed in a postgraduate module at a second or third attempt, the maximum mark that can be achieved for the module is 50%.

The nature and extent of the failure will not affect the student’s right to be reassessed.

17. Decisions on student progression

17.1 Student progression from one level of the programme to the next is at the discretion of the Board of Examiners taking into account the student’s performance in all modules and the amount of academic credit accrued during the year.

17.2 The main Board of Examiners is responsible for determining:

• whether the student remains in registration;
• the conditions governing the student’s progression;
• the award for which the student is eligible.

17.3 Where there is a tiered system of Boards of Examiners, the Module Board will have the authority to moderate and confirm marks and grades for each of the modules for which it is responsible, and determine the form and timing of any reassessment offered. The decision of the Module Board of Examiners may be overturned by the Progression/Award Board of Examiners following consideration of the full student profile.

17.4 Boards of Examiners may condone one failed 20 credit module per level at the first attempt for students at level one and level two (SCQF level 7 and 8) of an undergraduate programme, provided that a minimum overall mark of at least 37% has been achieved in the failed module and no individual component of assessment within the module falls below the minimum compensation level. The result will show as a condoned fail on the academic transcript and the student will be given credit for the module. Students who have failed more than 20 credits must undertake reassessments of all failed modules in the first instance. Once reassessment results are known, condonement may still be applied to one 20 credit module, provided that a minimum overall mark of at least 37% has been achieved in the failed module and no individual component of assessment within the module falls below the minimum compensation level and the student has no further failed modules on their profile.

Programme specific regulations may exempt some modules from eligibility for condonement.

A condoned fail will not affect any subsequent module selections.

17.5 Decisions on a student’s continued registration will be made at the end of each academic year, after reassessment results are known. The main Board of Examiners will take account of the following guidelines in making their decisions.

17.6 For undergraduate full-time students:

a) Pass modules rated to a total of 80 or more credits – continue in registration as a full-time student.

Normally full-time students undertake 120 credits in an academic year. Exceptionally, full-time students can take a maximum of 160 credits in any academic year. This regulation is intended to support students carrying forward modules and not to facilitate completion of studies in a shorter time than the usual minimum period of registration or to allow students to undertake additional optional modules in an academic session.

b) Pass modules rated to more than 50 credits and less than 80 credits – continue in registration as a part-time student but may not register for modules rated at more than 70 credits in the next year of study

c) Pass modules rated at 50 credits or less – required to discontinue registration

17.7 A part-time student allowed to continue in registration, wishing to transfer to full-time study, will have her or his application considered by the programme’s admission tutor. Transfer is not at the student’s discretion.

17.8 The only decisions available to the Board of Examiners on progress and award shall be:

• Continue – passed all assessments
• Required to be reassessed in the failed module(s) before continuing
• Continue – but required to be reassessed in the failed/deferred module(s) in next academic year
• Offered opportunity to repeat the entire level in next academic year before continuing
• Offered opportunity to be reassessed in next academic year as a part-time student before continuing
• Continue in part time registration (applies to part-time students only)
• No reassessment allowed – required to withdraw from course
• Decision deferred – outstanding assessments as a first attempt
• Decision deferred – outstanding reassessments
• Progress to placement
• Recommendation to Senate for specific awards

17.9.1 Undergraduate programmes of study are designed on four levels, normally corresponding with Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework levels 7, 8, 9 and 10, with conceptual and material progression being designed into the structure from level to level. Thus, it is expected that students will progress from level to level, and the structure of the programme and the timetables are developed accordingly. Although the above regulations may allow a full-time student to stay in full-time registration albeit without a completed level of study, it may not be possible to construct a programme around the timetable available which is academically coherent and which makes best advantage of the student’s time. In most cases students will be expected and advised but not required to complete a level of study before progressing to the next level.

17.9.2 Full-time undergraduate students may not normally proceed to level four study unless they are eligible for the award of an Ordinary Degree. Exceptionally, a student may be able to progress to level four study when falling short by only 20 credit points.

17.10 A student may cease to be registered for a postgraduate award if he or she:

a) fails to register on any module in two successive semesters without prior approval (unless enrolled on a dissertation)

b) is granted the award of PgCert, PgDip, MSc, MA, MBA, Executive Masters or MFA

c) fails to have the dissertation proposal approved after two submissions

d) accumulates fails as specified in regulations 17.12 and 17.13

e) fails the dissertation on two attempts

f) exceeds a period of registration of 24 months on the dissertation from the point of approval of the proposal

17.11 A postgraduate student will normally be permitted a reassessment attempt in up to two thirds of the taught modules on a programme. Should a student be unsuccessful at attempt two, they may be permitted a further reassessment attempt in a maximum of one third of the taught modules on a programme. Should a student breach these reassessment thresholds, they will be required to withdraw from the programme. A maximum of two attempts will be permitted for the Masters project/dissertation.

17.12 Individual postgraduate programmes with a non-standard structure may define programme specific regulations under which a student may be required to withdraw. These regulations should be broadly in line with the above principle. Programme specific regulations defined to meet the requirements of Professional Statutory and Regulatory Bodies should be approved by the validation panel, or through the relevant committee.

(MSc OT pre-registration - see programme exceptions)

18. Reassessment of a module

18.1 Reassessment is permitted in order to allow a student to make good an initial failure. This affords the student an opportunity to demonstrate the standard required to pass modules, and ultimately to gain an award. A student who has passed a module at the first opportunity shall not be entitled to a further assessment in order to obtain a higher grade.

18.2 The Board of Examiners may at its discretion allow an undergraduate student to be re-assessed in up to 80 credits in any one academic year. The Board of Examiners may at its discretion allow a postgraduate student to be re-assessed in up to two thirds of the taught modules on a programme as a second attempt, and one third as a third attempt.

(MSc OT pre-registration - see programme exceptions)

18.3 The Board of Examiners shall decide on the form of the reassessment (e.g. written examination, viva voce, or an additional assignment), taking into account the nature of the failed module and the nature of the failure. This may differ from the format of the first assessment and need not be the same for all students provided equity of experience is maintained. The Board of Examiners can allow for full or partial reassessment of the components as appropriate. Reassessment can take the form of a reworking or a new assessment, as determined by the Board of Examiners.

18.4 Normally, a student may not be given more than three attempts at any module.

(MSc OT pre-registration - see programme exceptions)

18.5 A candidate for reassessment is not entitled to be reassessed in components that are no longer part of the programme. A Board of Examiners may, at its discretion, make such special arrangements as it deems suitable in cases where it is inappropriate for students to be reassessed in the same elements, or by the same methods as at the first attempt.

18.6 All second attempt assessments shall normally take place before the commencement of the next session of the programme. They should be late enough to allow the students time to prepare themselves, and to avoid overload of assessment shall normally take place in the summer/autumn. Students cannot request an extraordinary exam sitting. Third attempt assessments may be required to be undertaken in the following academic year. For students required to undertake a third attempt of an assessment, attendance at the module is optional (unless otherwise specified by the Board of Examiners).

18.7 A student who is reassessed for a module failure in an undergraduate module, where there are no clear extenuating circumstances, shall be awarded no more than 40% on passing the reassessment. A student who is reassessed for a module failure in a postgraduate module, where there are no clear extenuating circumstances, shall be awarded no more than 50% on passing the reassessment.

18.8 All reassessment results shall be based only upon performance in reassessments; no marks may be carried forward from a student’s first attempt at the assessments. To pass an undergraduate module at reassessment, a student must achieve at least 30% in each reassessed component and a weighted average of at least 40%. To pass a postgraduate module at reassessment, a student must achieve at least 40% in each reassessed component and a weighted average of at least 50%.

18.9 A student who has been absent from an assessment, or who has performed badly due to illness or other cause, shall be allowed to take the assessment, and it shall be treated as a first assessment, subject to the reason for absence or poor performance being acceptable to the Board of Examiners or the Extenuating Circumstances Panel.

19. Assessment of students with a disability and of students whose first language is not English

19.1 Students with a disability 

19.1.1 If, through disability, a student is unable to be assessed by the prescribed method for the module, reasonable adjustments (as agreed by the Academic Disabled Student Co-ordinator) will be detailed within an Individual Learning Plan.

19.1.2 Arrangements for the assessment of students with a disability will be made prior to, or at the point of assessment. Further allowance or compensation for disability will not be made in the marking of assessed work.

19.1.3 Further information can be found about the Disability Service on the University’s website.

19.2 Students whose first language is not English

All students whose first language is not English will normally be permitted to use language-only dictionaries in examinations. Electronic dictionaries are not permitted (please refer to QMU Exam Regulation section). No extra time will be allocated for students whose first language is not English.

20. Penalties for word limits and late submission of assessment

20.1 In each piece of written work where a word limit is identified, students are required to include and clearly state the total number of words used. The number of words counted should include all the text, references and quotations used in the text, but should exclude abstracts, supplements to the text, diagrams, appendices, reference lists and bibliographies.

20.2 A piece of written work which exceeds the specified word limit by 10% or more will receive a maximum mark of 40% for undergraduate or 50% for postgraduate programmes.

20.3 Any student who submits work to be assessed after the assessment submission date and time, without the prior agreement of the Programme Leader, or without good or agreed cause, will have marks deducted according to the following criteria:

• if submitted, as a first attempt, after the deadline but up to and including six days after the deadline) a maximum mark of 40% can be achieved for undergraduate programmes and a maximum mark of 50% for postgraduate programmes
• if submitted, as a first attempt, seven days or more (including on the 7th day after the submission deadline) a mark of 0% will be awarded

Example (first attempt)

• if submitted after the submission deadline in a second or third attempt assessment, a mark of 0% will be awarded

21.0 Student responsibility in assessment

21.1 It is the responsibility of students to:

• familiarise themselves with the regulations for their programme. Students should consult their Programme Handbook and/or their Academic Tutor;
• recognise the role of assessment in the achievement and recognition of their learning;
• familiarise themselves with the examination periods (both first attempt and reassessment and make themselves available for the examination period);
• attend written examinations and observe the University’s Instruction to Candidates in Examinations (to be read out to students prior to the start of examinations). In brief, these require candidates to attend in good time, to bring their matriculation card, not to communicate with other candidates, not to cheat, not to disrupt the event, to complete the answer paper as instructed, not to bring into the hall any unauthorised material and not to remove any part of an answer paper from the hall;
• attend all other types of assessment, for example, practical examinations, class tests and presentations;
• submit all work for assessment in accordance with the requirements for their programme;
• provide evidence, in advance of the Board of Examiners, of any extenuating circumstances. This evidence is normally written by an independent source such as a medical practitioner and should be forwarded to the Academic Administration in the first instance. Students should be aware that Boards of Examiners will take account of all certificated or verified evidence submitted on behalf of students in their deliberations on individual performance.

21.2 If a student fails to attend examinations or submit work for assessment without good cause, the Board of Examiners has the authority to deem the student to have failed the assessments concerned.

21.3 Students are not permitted to substantially reproduce the same piece of course work for more than one assignment, except where they are explicitly required to do so by the assignment specification.

21.4 If a student is found to have cheated, or attempted to gain an unfair advantage, the Board of Examiners, following a recommendation from the Dean or Disciplinary Panel, has authority to deem the student to have failed part or all of the assessment and to determine whether or not the student shall be permitted to be re-assessed. Students must ensure the proper acknowledgement of the borrowings from other sources, whether published or unpublished. Divisions should provide guidance on how such borrowings should be acknowledged in a manner appropriate to that discipline.

21.5 Fraudulent practices such as copying, collusion, plagiarism (i.e. the presentation by an individual of another person’s ideas or work, in any medium, published or unpublished, as though they were their own) are serious academic offences and will incur appropriate penalties. Students must not submit work of which they are not the author as if it is their work. Such work would include, but is not limited to work obtained from an essay bank or website essay writing service, or produced by an Artificial Intelligence language model programme. Such presentation is cheating and will be dealt with under the University Code of Discipline. Students are urged to seek advice from academic staff or staff of the Effective Learning Service if they are in any doubt about the foregoing practices. All students are expected to seek clear guidance on the form and manner in which assessments are to be completed. If a student has engaged in fraudulent practices as described above, for whatever reason, they are encouraged to declare this before such work is marked, and to seek guidance on how to make good their standing with the subject and the University.

21.6 Serious cases of cheating and plagiarism will be referred for consideration through the University’s disciplinary procedure. Undertaking fraudulent practices can result in a student being required to leave the University.

21.7 QMU has a policy to use the TurnItIn UK plagiarism detection system, or other equivalent systems, to help students avoid plagiarism and improve their scholarship skills. This service is available to all matriculated students at QMU. Academic staff may submit student work to TurnItIn UK or another equivalent system.

22.0 Responsibility of other individuals and bodies in assessment

22.1 Senate, through its Student Experience Committee, has responsibility for:

• the development of assessment regulations and policy;
• monitoring the use of these regulations and policy by the Schools;
• periodically reviewing and revising these regulations and policy.

22.2 The Deans of School have responsibility for ensuring that:

• programmes within that School conform to these regulations and policy;
• assessment processes are approved and reviewed;
• assessment processes are secure;
• through the annual monitoring process, there is reflection on student performance in assessment and in relation to programme learning outcomes;
• periodic review of assessment strategies are conducted;
• staff are supported in the development of assessment strategies and practices;
• students are involved in the evaluation of assessment strategies;
• External Examiners are briefed on these regulations and policy;
• issues arising through the implementation of these regulations and policy are conveyed to the Student Experience Committee.

22.3 Programme Leaders have responsibility for:

• assuring that academic standards are maintained through the effective use of this policy and its local implementation via the programme definitive document;
• monitoring the outcomes of assessment and reporting these outcomes to the School.

Programme Leaders have delegated authority from Deans, and work in partnership with Heads of Division, to oversee the management of their programmes.

22.4 Module Co-ordinators (with appropriate academic staff) have the responsibility for:

• designing assessments that both conform to these regulations and policy and which assess the specified learning outcomes and which make reasonable adjustments to meet the needs of all learners;
• ensuring that feedback is provided on student performance in relation to assessment outcomes;
• providing feedback on summative assessment in accordance with the timescales specified in regulation 4.17. Staff should note that ‘working days’ equates to Monday to Friday, excluding University closure dates, i.e. part-time working or periods of annual leave should not result in an extension to the 15/20 working day maximum. The maximum of 15/20 working days includes all stages within the marking process (i.e. marking, cross-marking, collation of marks and feedback, sending marks and feedback to the Academic Administration, dissemination of marks and feedback to students by the Academic Administration) and applies to all staff, including Visiting Lecturers.
• clearly specifying the date by which a student can expect to receive feedback on each summative assignment. This date must be communicated to the student at the same time as the assessment deadline. Where a student has been granted an extension, the timescale for receiving feedback will be adjusted accordingly. In exceptional circumstances, the original date communicated to students for receipt of feedback may be extended. Any such extension must be communicated to students at least seven days before the original deadline for receipt of feedback.
• attending Boards of Examiners for the presentation of their module results.

23.0 Project supervision

23.1 All project supervision meetings with undergraduate and taught postgraduate students must be documented, signed by both student and supervisor, and filed as a record of the supervisory process. Documentation should include the date and duration of the meeting and a summary of the discussion. Arrangements for doctoral candidate supervision records are set out in the University’s PhD and Professional Doctorate Regulations.

23.2 The time allocated to supervision of Honours projects and dissertations should normally be no less than three hours and not more than five hours per student. These minimum and maximum time allocations apply only to supervisory meetings with students and do not include time taken to read draft work. Guidance on the time allocation for postgraduate project and dissertation supervision is available in the relevant programme documentation.

23.3 Early in the academic year all supervisors should hold an initial meeting with their supervisees to discuss key elements of the process, including expectations, regulations, terms of reference and operational procedures. This meeting could be held as a joint meeting between a supervisor and all of his/her supervisees. A record of all meetings between a student and their supervisor should be lodged in the student file at the time of submission of the project or dissertation.

23.4 Staff members should normally read and give feedback on one draft only and should not mark or re-write this work.

24.0 Academic dishonesty and plagiarism

24.1 Introduction

24.1.1 The University’s degrees and other academic awards are given in recognition of the candidate’s achievement. Plagiarism is therefore, together with other forms of academic dishonesty such as personation, falsification of data, computer and calculation fraud, examination room cheating and bribery, considered an act of academic fraud and is an offence against University discipline.

24.1.2 Plagiarism is defined as follows:

The presentation by an individual of another person’s ideas or work (in any medium, published or unpublished) as though they were their own.

24.1.3 In the following circumstances academic collusion represents a form of plagiarism:

Academic collusion is deemed to be unacceptable where it involves the unauthorised and unattributed collaboration of students or others work resulting in plagiarism, which is against University discipline.

24.1.4 QMU has a policy to use the TurnItIn UK plagiarism detection system, or other equivalent systems, to help students avoid plagiarism and improve their scholarship skills. This service is available to all matriculated students at QMU. QMU tutors may submit student work to TurnItIn UK, or another equivalent system.

24.2 Referencing

Students’ attention is drawn to the Library's guide to referencing  

24.3 Prevention

24.3.1 All members of staff should explain to their students at the start of each session that plagiarism and academic fraud are unacceptable forms of cheating, which will be penalised severely. Such warnings should be repeated during the session and are especially necessary where dissertations, projects or coursework are substantial elements of the curriculum. Every opportunity should be taken to reinforce this message by incorporating it in published material such as Programme or scheme guides and, in the case of postdoctoral candidates, by its inclusion in the Research Degrees Code of Practice/Doctoral Candidate Handbooks (PhD and Professional Doctorate).

24.3.2 These warnings should be accompanied by specific advice from Divisions about what constitutes plagiarism and academic fraud. For example, such advice should indicate where a particular discipline makes the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate use of acknowledged or unacknowledged sources; what is regarded as acceptable collaboration between students undertaking joint project work; and what is expected of a dissertation or thesis. Dissertations should clearly indicate whether it is an original contribution to knowledge or a critical survey of published material. Training students to make such distinctions is part of the academic process and should be formally and publicly acknowledged as such. This is particularly significant since some of the cases arising stem from genuine ignorance on the part of the students who have never received guidance on how to acknowledge sources properly.

24.3.3 Scrutiny of academic work should be sufficient to ensure that signs of plagiarism or unacceptable levels of co-operation, whether intentional or not, are detected at an early stage and brought to students’ attention through tutorial guidance and in some cases perhaps by written warning.

24.3.4 Dissertation supervisors and other academic staff responsible for assessment and guidance should be aware of cultural relativities that may affect some students’ approach to referencing. In providing guidance, staff will be expected to acknowledge cultural differences and to exercise appropriate sensitivity.

24.4 Identifying, reporting and investigating

Procedures for identifying, reporting and investigating plagiarism are published separately in the University’s Plagiarism Policy 

Undergraduate Descriptors

Approved by the University Senate on 30 June 2021
Applicable to all new and existing modules being delivered from September 2021
onwards

Grade A* 80% and above

Outstanding performance, exceptionally able – pass

• Articulates an outstanding understanding and interpretation of the relevant information,
  key theories and concepts presented by the assessment
• Demonstrates outstanding knowledge of appropriate reading through extensive
  references to appropriate scholarly sources
• Shows outstanding problem solving, creativity, originality, critical thinking, analysis and
  evaluation
• Presents outstanding discussion in a logical, connected and progressing structure, and
  valid conclusions
• Displays an outstanding ability to appraise evidence and synthesise concepts,
  knowledge and theory
• Shows an outstanding reflexive awareness of value judgements and assumptions
  embedded in the subject or discipline

Grade A 70-79.9%

Excellent performance – pass

• Articulates an excellent understanding and interpretation of the relevant information, key
  theories and concepts presented by the assessment
• Demonstrates an excellent knowledge of appropriate reading through frequent
  references to appropriate scholarly sources
• Shows excellent problem solving, creativity, originality, critical thinking, analysis and
  evaluation
• Presents excellent discussion in a logical, connected and progressing structure, and
  valid conclusions
• Displays an excellent ability to appraise evidence and synthesise concepts, knowledge
  and theory
• Shows excellent reflexive awareness of value judgements and assumptions embedded
  in the subject or discipline

Grade B 60-69.9%

Very good performance – pass

• Articulates a very good understanding and interpretation of the relevant information, key
  theories and concepts presented by the assessment
• Demonstrates a very good knowledge of appropriate reading through references to
  appropriate scholarly sources
• Shows very good problem solving, creativity, originality, critical thinking, analysis and
  evaluation
• Presents very good discussion in a logical, connected and progressing structure, and
  valid conclusions
• Displays a very good ability to appraise evidence and synthesise concepts, knowledge
  and theory
• Shows very good reflexive awareness of value judgements and assumptions embedded
  in the subject or discipline

Grade C 50-59.9%

Good performance - pass

• Articulates a good understanding and interpretation of the relevant information, key
  theories and concepts presented by the assessment
• Demonstrates good knowledge of appropriate reading through some references to
  appropriate scholarly sources
• Shows good problem solving, creativity, originality, critical thinking, analysis and
  evaluation
• Presents a good discussion in a logical, connected and progressing structure, and valid
  conclusions
• Displays a good ability to appraise evidence and synthesise concepts, knowledge and
  theory
• Shows a good reflexive awareness of value judgements and assumptions embedded in
  the subject or discipline

Grade D 40-49.9%

Satisfactory Performance – pass

• Articulates a satisfactory understanding and interpretation of the relevant information,
  key theories and concepts presented by the assessment
• Demonstrates satisfactory knowledge of appropriate reading through some references to
  appropriate scholarly sources
• Shows satisfactory problem solving, creativity, originality, critical thinking, analysis and
  evaluation
• Presents a satisfactory discussion in a logical, connected and progressing structure, and
  valid conclusions
• Displays a satisfactory ability to appraise evidence and synthesise concepts, knowledge
  and theory
• Shows satisfactory reflexive awareness of value judgements and assumptions
  embedded in the subject or discipline

Grade E 30-39.9%

Unsatisfactory performance - fail

• Articulates partial understanding and interpretation of the relevant information, key
  theories and concepts presented by the assessment
• Demonstrates partial knowledge of appropriate reading through limited references to
  appropriate scholarly sources
• Shows insufficient problem solving, creativity, originality, critical thinking, analysis and
  evaluation
• Presents limited discussion of logical, connected and progressing structure with
  incomplete conclusions
• Displays a limited ability to appraise evidence and synthesise concepts, knowledge and
  theory
• Shows insufficient reflexive awareness of value judgements and assumptions embedded
  in the subject or discipline

Grade F 0-29.9%

Unsatisfactory performance- fail

• Articulates little or no understanding and interpretation of the relevant information, key
  theories and concepts presented by the assessment
• Demonstrates little or no knowledge of appropriate reading or references to appropriate
  scholarly sources
• Shows ineffective or no problem solving, creativity, originality, critical thinking, analysis
  and evaluation
• Presents ineffective or no discussion of logical, connected and progressing structure with
  incomplete conclusions
• Displays little or no ability to appraise evidence and synthesise concepts, knowledge and
  theory
• Shows little or no reflexive awareness of value judgements and assumptions embedded
  in the subject or discipline

Postgraduate Descriptors

Approved by the University Senate on 30 June 2021
Applicable to all new and existing modules being delivered from September 2021 onwards

Grade A* 80% and above Outstanding performance, exceptionally able – pass 

• Articulates an outstanding critical understanding and interpretation of the relevant
  information, principal theories, concepts and principles presented by the assessment
• Articulates an outstanding critical understanding that integrates most, if not all, of the
  main areas of the specialist discipline
• Demonstrates outstanding, extensive, detailed and critical knowledge, informed by
  current discipline developments
• Displays an outstanding ability to critically appraise scholarship and evidence, and
  synthesise concepts, knowledge and theory
• Applies a range of specialist and/or professional skills, techniques or practices aligned
  with the discipline
• Demonstrates an outstanding ability to communicate knowledge (written, verbal,
  practical, visual)
• Demonstrates an outstanding critical awareness of the scope and application of
  disciplinary and interdisciplinary scholarship
• Shows an outstanding reflexive awareness of value judgements and assumptions
  embodied in the subject
• Demonstrates outstanding originality, creativity or innovation in the application of
  knowledge and / or practice
• Displays outstanding potential to undertake research or be a leading practitioner within a
  specialist area

Grade A 70- 79.9% Very good performance – pass

• Articulates a very good critical understanding and interpretation of the relevant
  information, principal theories, concepts and principles presented by the assessment
• Articulates a very good critical understanding that integrates most of the main areas of
  the specialist discipline
• Demonstrates very good, extensive, detailed and critical knowledge, informed by current
  discipline developments
• Displays a very good ability to critically appraise scholarship and evidence, and
  synthesise concepts, knowledge and theory
• Applies a range of specialist and/or professional skills, techniques or practices aligned
  with the discipline
• Demonstrates a very good ability to communicate knowledge (written, verbal, practical,
  visual)
• Demonstrates a very good critical awareness of the scope and application of disciplinary
  and interdisciplinary scholarship
• Shows a very good reflexive awareness of value judgements and assumptions embodied
  in the subject
• Demonstrates very good originality, creativity or innovation in the application of
  knowledge and / or practice
• Displays very good potential to undertake research or be a leading practitioner within a
  specialist area

Grade B 60- 69.9% Good performance – pass

• Articulates a good critical understanding and interpretation of the relevant information,
  principal theories, concepts and principles presented by the assessment
• Articulates a good critical understanding that integrates some of the main areas of the
  specialist discipline
• Demonstrates good breadth, detailed and critical knowledge, informed by current
  discipline developments
• Displays good ability to critically appraise scholarship and evidence, and synthesise
  concepts, knowledge and theory
• Applies a range of specialist and/or professional skills, techniques or practices aligned
  with the discipline
• Demonstrates a good ability to communicate knowledge (written, verbal, practical, visual)
• Demonstrates a good critical awareness of the scope and application of disciplinary and
  interdisciplinary scholarship
• Shows a good reflexive awareness of value judgements and assumptions embodied in
  the subject
• Demonstrates good originality, creativity or innovation in the application of knowledge
  and / or practice
• Displays good potential to undertake research or be a leading practitioner within a
  specialist area

Grade C 50- 59.9% Fair performance – pass

• Articulates a fair critical understanding and interpretation of the relevant information,
  principal theories, concepts and principles presented by the assessment
• Articulates a fair, critical understanding that integrates a few of the main areas of the
  specialist discipline
• Demonstrates a fair breadth, detailed and critical knowledge, informed by current
  discipline developments
• Displays a fair ability to critically appraise scholarship and evidence, and synthesise
  concepts, knowledge and theory
• Applies a range of specialist and/or professional skills, techniques or practices aligned
  with the discipline
• Demonstrates a fair ability to communicate knowledge (written, verbal, practical, visual)
• Demonstrates a fair critical awareness of the scope and application of disciplinary and
  interdisciplinary scholarship
• Shows a fair reflexive awareness of value judgements and assumptions embodied in the
  subject
• Demonstrates fair originality, creativity or innovation in the application of knowledge and /
  or practice
• Displays fair potential to undertake research or be a leading practitioner within a
  specialist area
• Submission/assessment meets the standards of SCQF Level 11

Grade D 40-49.9% Unsatisfactory performance – fail

• Partial knowledge, understanding and interpretation of the relevant information, principal
  theories, concepts and current discipline developments
• Partial understanding of the breadth and depth of the discipline
• Limited ability to critically appraise scholarship and evidence, and synthesise concepts,
  knowledge and theory
• Insufficient application of specialist and/or professional skills, techniques or practices
  aligned with the discipline
• Demonstrates insufficient ability to communicate knowledge (written, verbal, practical,
  visual)
• Demonstrates a limited critical awareness of the scope and application of disciplinary
  and interdisciplinary scholarship
• Shows insufficient reflexive awareness of value judgements and assumptions embodied
  in the subject
• Partial demonstration of originality, creativity or innovation in the application of
  knowledge and / or practice
• Displays limited potential to undertake research or be a leading practitioner within a
  specialist area
• Submission/assessment does not meet the standards of SCQF Level 11

Grade E 0-39.9% Unsatisfactory performance - fail

• Little or no understanding and interpretation of the relevant information, principal
  theories, concepts and current discipline developments
• Little or no understanding of the breadth and depth of the discipline
• Inaccurate appraisal of scholarship and evidence, and synthesise concepts, knowledge
  and theory
• Ineffective application of specialist and/or professional skills, techniques or practices
  aligned with the discipline
• Ineffective communication of knowledge (written, verbal, practical, visual)
• Demonstrates little or no critical awareness of the scope and application of disciplinary
  and interdisciplinary scholarship
• Consistent lack of reflexive awareness of value judgements and assumptions embodied
  in the subject
• Little or no demonstration of originality, creativity or innovation in the application of
  knowledge and / or practice
• Displays little or no potential to undertake research or be a leading practitioner within a
  specialist area
• Submission/assessment does not meet the standards of SCQF Level 11

General

Programme specific regulations may supersede these regulations where specified in the programme document.

Students on pre-registration healthcare programmes should check their programme handbook to clarify regulations relating to progression. There may be limits on the number of credits that can be carried to the next level of studies.

For most pre-registration healthcare programmes it is not possible to condone a module (regulation 17.4). Details will be provided in the programme handbook.

Pre-registration postgraduate Occupational Therapy

Students on the MSc/PgDip Occupational Therapy (pre-registration) programme should note the following programme specific regulations:

14.2  Reassessment means the opportunity to re-sit an assessment component which has been failed once only. Normally reassessment happens within the same academic year or shortly thereafter. The timing of the reassessment is at the discretion of the Board of Examiners but must allow the student sufficient time to prepare.

14.3   A student who has been reassessed and has failed an assessment for the second time may be offered the opportunity to repeat the module in its entirety with full reassessment facilities. This is at the discretion of the Board of Examiners. The timing of the repeat module and attendance requirements are at the discretion of the Board of Examiners and will be notified to students.

17.12 Individual postgraduate programmes with a non-standard structure may define programme specific regulations under which a student may be required to withdraw. These regulations should be broadly in line with the above principle. In other words, students will normally be allowed to accumulate at least three failures, but will not be allowed to fail 50% of the taught modules at the first attempt. Programme specific regulations defined to meet the requirements of professional bodies should be approved by the validation panel.

18.2  The Board of Examiners may at its discretion allow an undergraduate student to be re-assessed in up to eight taught modules (equivalent to 80 credits) in any one academic year. The Board of Examiners may at its discretion allow a postgraduate student to be re-assessed in up to four taught modules during the course of their studies.

18.4  Normally, a student may not be reassessed in a module more than once, other than when the module is repeated.