Specialist Conference Paper - Summative Assessment Procedure, 2010

12th April Deadline for submission of Conference Papers

12th - 3rd Spec Conf Tutors (SCT) engaged in Grademarking all papers. (Please mark those that were
May moderated last time by Lead Tutors by 26th April as these will be moderated again this time.)

By 10pm Lead Tutors to send a list for their Specialism of any work for which the originality report is a
on 19th cause for concern.
April

26th April Lead Tutors to moderate papers for the same trainees whose papers they reviewed at draft
- 3rd May stage and report findings to David and Cheryl by 3rd May, feeding back to SCTs where
necessary. SCTs should make any necessary adjustments to assessment decisions in light of
Lead Tutor moderation. University team to moderate Lead Tutor work in the same way.

By 10pm SCTs to finalise all Grademark feedback with a clear assessment decision as the opening
on 3rd statement under General Comments.
May
Any papers adjudged to not yet meet the required standard are classed as Tutor
Reassessments. Guidance on what constitutes tutor reassessment is given on page 2.
Feedback on these papers should include 2 or 3 clear key action points, advice to access
academic writing support at the Centre where necessary and instructions to resubmit by
midnight on 24th May via the special link that will be provided in Blackboard after 3rd May.

3rd – 24th Papers that have met the required standard to be printed off by trainee and placed in the
May Specialist Practitioner File along with SCT’s feedback by 24th May.

24th May Deadline for resubmission of Tutor Reassessments and any remaining ‘extension to deadlines.’

By 10pm Resubmitted papers to be marked by SCTs by this date with a clear decision, which will be
on 7th either that the paper now meets the criteria and has passed or, where this is not the case that
June it is Referred.

Papers which meet the required standard should be printed off by the trainee along with tutor
feedback and placed in Specialist Practitioner File by 14th June.

Feedback on Referred papers should give guidance on how to prepare for presentation at the
Specialist Conference and advice to access support for this at their Centres. Lead Tutors to
provide the University with a list for their specialism of all students whose work is Referred.

1/2nd Jul Internal moderation of the Specialist Practitioner Files which will include outline, draft and final
paper with tutor feedback.

23rd May – Centres to review profiles for any trainees whose paper was Referred as at the 7th June and to
16th Jul make a recommendation to the University outlining whether they feel the trainee has met the
(credit module outcomes somewhere within the body of work produced for the Teaching a Subject
deadline) Specialist Module in the 2nd year, including the Specialist Practitioner File. Recommendation
and evidence to be submitted to the University by 16th July.

9th/10th Jul All papers to be presented at Specialist Conference. SCTs to write a report for the University
and on any papers that had not met the required standard as at 7th June, describing the extent to
16th/17th which the presentation addresses the issues raised in feedback. (A standard form will be
Jul provided for this purpose)

16th Jul External moderation of Specialist Practitioner File and credit deadline. University to review
recommendations from Centres along with report on presentation from the SCT. Any trainees
who still have not fulfilled the module outcomes to be Referred for consideration at CAB (27th
 August). Centres to provide support for trainees who have been Referred on the module.

27th Aug Referred trainees considered at Course Assessment Board (CAB) – confirmed referrals
returned to trainees for further work to be submitted to the Resit CAB by 11th Sept

17th Sept Resit CAB

Please use both annotation in Grademark and the General Comments Box at
the bottom of the page when feeding back to students. Do, however, keep
an eye on the number of annotations you add as papers covered in your
comments may cause anxiety to some students. Please endeavour not to
use the same annotation more than three times, for example many scripts
had excessive use of the ‘Harvard Reference’ comment at the last
moderation.

Assessment Criteria for Final Submission of Conference Paper

Papers need to show evidence of meeting module outcomes and relevant LLUK units
of assessment, full details of which appear in the module handbook, a rationalised
version of this is as follows:

• Relationship of conference paper to current developments or debates

• Relevance of conference paper to you, your learners and other specialists

• Evidence that you have tackled a challenging aspect of teaching your subject

• Engagement with key pedagogical issues in the teaching of the subject

• Evidence that you have evaluated/critically evaluated the teaching or learning

of your subject and explored ways of improving practice

• Evidence of engagement with relevant literature; referencing

• Tutor’s recommendations for potential dissemination of paper or ideas for follow

up papers

Please use these points as general indicative guidance rather than as a ‘tick list.’ For
example, a paper that tackles a very challenging aspect of teaching the subject but
doesn’t necessarily refer to a current development or debate would be adjudged to
have passed.

In the last bullet point, we are thinking particularly of the case where you feel the
trainee has submitted a paper that would be good enough for wider dissemination.
Where you feel this to be the case, you might recommend a publication to which they
might submit it, or an external conference where it could be delivered. Alternatively,
you may feel that the paper raises interesting questions that could form the basis of
some follow up work, particularly in light of any attendant discussions raised at the
Specialist Conference and you could take the opportunity to point this out to trainees
in your feedback at this stage.

The difference between Intermediate, Honours and Masters level lies in the trainee’s
ability to analyse, evaluate and engage with relevant literature. We would
progressively expect more criticality from the higher levels and a closer, more
analytical engagement with the literature.

Students should endeavour to keep within 10% of the Word Count (1,500-2,000 at
Intermediate Level and 2,000 at Honours Level) and tutor feedback should reflect this.
However, going over the word count should not be an issue leading to tutor
reassessment, unless the excess is very large or the excess is due to the inclusion of
lots of irrelevant material or swathes of inappropriately long quotes – in other words,
where the paper is weak in other regards than simply being beyond the word count.
With this in mind, excess wordage should not be penalised, though feedback on the
final paper should still point out where reductions could have been made.

General Guidance on Feedback

Bearing in mind the criteria above, the moderation last year highlighted some areas
where weak papers that were nonetheless adequate were being inappropriately
classed as tutor reassessments. In order to support tutors in making appropriate
decisions, the following guidelines should inform your decisions.

Grounds for Tutor Reassessment:

Please classify work that falls under the following descriptions as tutor reassessment,
requiring further amendments for resubmission by 16th June.

1. Seriously under-theorised work

2. No reference to the Subject Specialism
3. Poor grammar, rendering the line of argument incoherent
4. Major factual inaccuracies that invalidate the line of argument
5. A paper wholly reliant upon unsubstantiated comments and personal opinion
6. Plagiarism (please make sure that David Powell (d.powell@hud.ac.uk) and
Cheryl Reynolds (c.reynolds@hud.ac.uk) are advised of these cases by 19th
April.)

In general terms, we felt that where a paper was weak, two or three clear action
points were adequate to ensure that it would meet the required standard.
Anything beyond this may be daunting to students. Please bear this in mind when
feeding back.

Not grounds for Tutor Reassessment:

Please accept work that falls under the following descriptions as having passed. You
are still advised to provide feedback to students on the weaknesses of their paper but
please do so in the context of making suggestions for how they might strengthen it for
when they distribute it to their peers at Conference rather than requiring amendments
to the paper for resubmission

1. An attempt has been made to Harvard Reference but it is still incorrect - reflect
this in your feedback but don't make this a grounds for tutor reassessment
2. Significant grammatical errors are present but the line of argument is coherent
despite these errors.
3. Limited use of theory.
4. Some factual inaccuracies or misconceptions in the context of an otherwise
adequate discussion.
5. Some unsubstantiated comments and personal opinion
6. Use of first or third person
7. Word Count- reflect this in your feedback but don't make this a grounds for
tutor reassessment unless the disparity if very large or it includes lots of
spurious material or quotations

Treatment of Late Submissions after 12th April 2010

If the student has been granted an ‘Extension to Deadline,’ please continue to accept
their submissions and to turn them around at your earliest convenience, classing them
as either ‘Tutor Reassessment’ or ‘Pass’ as normal. The normal extension period is
one week, extending to two for those student for whom you feel you have evidence in
the extreme.

If the student reapplies for a further extension they must fill in a new Extension to
Deadline form. Please point out that extensions beyond the 24th May 2010 may
militate against the paper receiving summative feedback before the Conference,
which may impact on the quality of their presentation and any consequent assurance
that the Paper has passed at close of Conference. These submissions may be Tutor
Reassessments, in which case the trainee will need 3 weeks to respond to your
feedback and this may carry them beyond the conference.

If a student who has not been granted an ‘Extension to Deadline’ submits a paper
after 12th April 2010, please explain to them that, in view of the lateness of the
submission and in the absence of an extension, you are able to provide them with
minimal formative feedback with a view to helping them be adequately prepared to
deliver their conference paper in July. You should not, however, provide full
summative feedback until after the close of Conference. Please class all these papers
as Refer.
Based on the quality of these Referred papers and of the trainee’s presentation in July,
we will ask you at the end of the Conference whether you recommend the Paper be
considered a Pass or whether it is still, in your view, a Refer.