/Institutions/University-of-Dubai/json/2024-2025/Shared-Content-local.json

/Institutions/University-of-Dubai/json/2024-2025/Shared-Content.json

Shared Content > Policies > The Educational Program > Examination Committee

Examination Committee

Policy 

In accordance with the CAA standard, 3.10.4 UD shall implement methods for the moderation and assessment of student work in which more than one individual independently marks or moderates an assessment or evaluates student performance. In addition, as per the CAA Standard 3.10.3, it is required that all faculty members develop and implement rubrics for all assessment tools.

UD shall employ either double marking or moderation, or both, as deemed appropriate for all summative assessments.

Double marking is recommended for assessments that are more subjective in nature, such as assessment of a graduation project, report, thesis or dissertation, presentation or demonstration of practical work, etc. Moderation is preferred for assessment tools such as written examinations, including midterm and final examinations.

1. Principles: 

• Fairness: All assessments will be moderated in a manner that ensures fairness to all students, regardless of background, ability, or circumstances.

• Consistency: Moderation procedures will be consistently applied across all programs and courses to maintain uniformity in assessment standards.

• Transparency: The moderation process will be transparent to students, faculty, and relevant stakeholders, with clear communication of assessment criteria and outcomes.

• Validity and Reliability: Assessments will be moderated to ensure they are valid measures of student learning outcomes and reliable indicators of achievement.

• Continuous Improvement: Feedback from the moderation process will be used to enhance assessment practices and improve the quality of teaching and learning.

2. Responsibilities: 

• Faculty: Faculty members are responsible for designing assessments that align with learning outcomes, providing clear assessment criteria, and submitting assessment materials for moderation.

• Moderators: Moderators, appointed by each Program Director, are responsible for reviewing assessment materials, ensuring alignment with course objectives and standards, and providing feedback to faculty members.

• Program Directors: Ensure that moderation processes are implemented consistently across all courses.

• Dean: Deans shall ensure the effective implementation of the Moderation of Assessment Policy within their respective college or school.

• VPAA: Provide strategic oversight of the moderation process across the university, coordinating with Deans and academic departments to ensure uniform policy application, and facilitating necessary support and resources for effective implementation.

• Students: Students are responsible for engaging in assessments honestly, adhering to academic integrity principles, and providing constructive feedback on assessment processes.

3. Moderation Procedures: 

The moderation process consists of 4 phases:

• Pre-Assessment Moderation: Before assessments are administered, faculty members are encouraged to seek input from peers or moderators to ensure the appropriateness, clarity, and fairness of assessment tasks and criteria.

• Post-Assessment Moderation: Following the completion of assessments, moderators will review samples of student work to evaluate consistency in marking, alignment with assessment criteria, and adherence to academic standards as per the following criteria

  1. one assessment marked as high, 

  2. one marked as medium, 

  3. one marked as low, and 

  4. all fails.

• Feedback and Reporting: Moderators will provide feedback to faculty on the outcomes of moderation activities, highlighting areas of improvement and best practices. See Appendix 1 for UD moderation report template.

• Appeals Process: A transparent appeals process will be in place to address any concerns or disputes regarding assessment moderation outcomes. Students and faculty will have the opportunity to submit appeals, which will be reviewed by an impartial panel according to established procedures.

4. Scaling

Scaling should only be undertaken in exceptional circumstances and should take place before marks are finalized but after other moderation mechanisms have been ruled out. 

5. Resolving differences in marks between moderators and markers

In cases where there is adjudication between the assessments of the first and second markers, a third marker will be engaged to provide an independent evaluation. The third marker's assessment will serve as the final determination in resolving discrepancies. This process aims to ensure fairness and accuracy in grading while maintaining the integrity of the moderation procedure. The selection of the third marker will be based on their expertise and impartiality, and their decision will be binding.

6. Record Keeping

Moderators are required to submit detailed reports on moderation activities to the relevant Program Director.

Moderation records must be securely stored in course files by program directors. Access to these records should be restricted to authorized personnel only, ensuring confidentiality and integrity of the information.

7. Training and Development

To ensure effective implementation of this policy, ongoing training and professional development opportunities will be provided to faculty and moderators. Training programs will focus on assessment design, moderation techniques, academic integrity, and the use of feedback for continuous improvement.

8. Review and Evaluation

This policy will be reviewed periodically to assess its effectiveness and relevance to evolving academic practices and standards. Feedback from stakeholders, including students, faculty, and moderators, will be solicited to inform revisions and improvements to the policy.

9. Compliance

All faculty, moderators, and students are required to comply with this policy and associated procedures. Non-compliance may result in disciplinary action in accordance with UD policies and procedures.