4. Assessment policies in the faculty
This chapter describes how the faculties’ assessment policies relate to the TU Delft vision on assessment (chapter 1), TU Delft wide assessment agreements (chapter 3), and how the policies can be divided into faculty level (4.1), programme level (4.2), and course level (4.3)qq.
4.1 Faculty assessment policy (faculty level)
Faculty assessment policies show how the TU Delft assessment framework is operationalised and integrated with the faculty’s vision on education, regarding the topics below. The operationalisation of these topics should comply with the content of this assessment framework, and especially with the TU Delft assessment agreements in chapter 3 and the quality requirements for assessment in 1.2. If programmes within a faculty differ in vision on education and in nature, the faculty could create only assessment policies on programme level instead of on faculty level. In that case, the faculty’s assessment policy lists the programmes’ assessment policies. If there is a faculty assessment policy, each programme will list their (more detailed) agreements in a programme specific assessment policies. These are discussed in 4.2 under ‘Programme specific assessment policy’.
| condition 12: | The directors of education ensure that their faculty has an up-to-date assessment policy which is in line with the TU Delft assessment framework and that operationalises the topics listed in 4.1. |
The faculty’s assessment policy addresses the following:
- Vision on assessment and its relation to the faculty’s vision on education, including the role and goal of and relation between summative assessment, formative assessment, feedback, and learning activities (see 1.1 for the general TU vision).
- Assessment policy, which at least includes guidelines / quality requirements for the assessment methods in the faculty, including graduation projects. The assessment policy complies with the three values and resulting 9 guidelines listed in 1.2, the TU wide assessment agreements, and the legal framework of the TU Delft and the faculty.
- Assessment procedures: how lecturers in the faculty deal with specific aspects of assessments. At least, the following procedures/guidelines are described:
- Four-eyes principle: How the four-eyes principle is implemented and who provides the second pair of eyes (e.g. peers, assessment expert) during:
- the development of the course’s assessment plan,
- the development of assessment for the different types of assessment (e.g. peer review of exams, project manuals, and rubrics), and/or
- the assessment of student work in different types of assessment (e.g. how many assessors assess exams, assignments and presentations, and does this number depend on the amount of ECs in the assessmentECs).
- Other procedures that ensure for objective assessment: How the faculty strives for objectivity during assessments, in addition to the four-eyes principle. Example: guidelines for calibrating the assessment of projects with the assessors, mandatory use of rubrics, requirements for rubricsrr, etc.
- Score-grade transformation / cut-off score:
- For exams, the formulas/procedure for score-grade transformation and/or for the determination of the cut-off score, with and without guessing correction.
- Guidelines on in what cases the score-grade transformation may be adapted (standard: only adapt regular assessment, not resits).
- Where the score-grade transformation and (if applicable) its adaptation is registered (e.g. cover page exam/assignment description, LMS (Brightspace) announcement if changed).
- Test result analyses and follow-up action: Whether and how to execute test result analyses and what the required follow-up actions are per assessment type.
- Student inspection of graded assessments: How to organise student reviews of graded assessments.
- Resits and repairs: What the policy on offering resits (for exams and presentations) and repairs (e.g. revisions to written deliverables, or additional or replacing assignments for projects, reports, field trips) is, and whether there are restrictions on access, or on the grade that can be achieved. Examples: only access to additions/revisions if a minimum grade was achieved in the regular assessment; maximum grade for the addition/revision due to receiving extra feedback and time.
- Fraud and plagiarism: How to prevent and detect fraud and plagiarism.
- Archiving: How and how long to archive assessments, student work, and feedback within the national and TU Delft guidelines (see 3.8).
- Student assistants / teaching assistants (synonyms): How and under which conditions teaching assistants (TAs) can be involved in assessments: limitations on tasks that TAs are allowed to carry out, mandatory trainings for TAs in relation to these tasks, etc.
- Change of assessment: How to change the assessment in a course: what is the procedure to change the assessment in a course before and after the publication of the assessment in the study guide? Who needs to give approval and who needs to be consulted? What is the timeline?
- Recycling previous assessments: If and under what conditions exam questions and projects/assignments can be recycled.
- Graduation projects: policy concerning the assessment of the BSc and MSc graduation projects and/or other significant projects.
- Special provisions: description of the organisation and (referral to) procedures for special assessment provisions for students with e.g. a disability or chronic illness.
- Four-eyes principle: How the four-eyes principle is implemented and who provides the second pair of eyes (e.g. peers, assessment expert) during:
- Assessment organisation: lists the roles and responsibilities concerning assessments in the faculty, including the accountability and responsibility for the implementation of the assessment policy. This part will be in line with 5.1, and Appendix D.
- Assessment competence and professionalization: description of mandatory assessment courses for certain functions (UTQ), and a description how the faculty stimulates assessment professionalization for examiners and other stakeholders.
- Quality assurance of assessments by the board of examiners and the faculty’s educational management. It should describe the following aspects of assessment reviews of both course assessment as well as of graduation projects & degree audits:
- Action plan: the plans and actions concerning assessment quality for the coming 6 years.
- Formats of the faculty: the formats that the faculty uses to monitor the consistency of their education and assessments on the three levels (programme, course, and assessment). See Appendix C.1 for a list of examples of formats.
4.2 Programme assessment plan (programme level)
Each bachelor and master programme has a curriculum that contains a combination of assessment methods that has been composed in a well-considered and motivated manner. This combination of assessment methods is called ‘the programme assessment plan’. It is linked to the final attainment levels, (FALs, also called ‘intended learning outcomes’ / ILOs, or ‘exit qualifications’) of the programme. The format of the programme assessment plan can be part of the faculty’s assessment policy.
| condition 13: | The programme directors ensure that their programme has an up-to-date programme assessment plan that is in line with their faculties’ assessment policy, and that operationalises the topics listed in 4.2. |
To ensure that:
- The programme assessment plan covers all FALs33
- The programme assessment plan has appropriate assessment methods for the FALs
- Individual graduates master the FALs
- The planning of assessments and deadlines is feasible for students and focusses on learning, has (in the BSC programme) no more than 2 summative assessments/deadlines per 5 EC8,21, and has no more than 2 summative assessments/deadlines per week8,21, unless the faculty or programme deviates from these standards as described in their assessment vision and policy
A programme assessment plan contains at least:
- Overview of FAL contribution per course, preferably based on the courses’ assessment plans and taking the taxonomy level into account (see 4.3)
- Overview of assessment methods per course, preferably per FAL
- Overview of percentage of individual grading per course
- Overview of spread of assessments and deadlines over the year
-
In order to give students uniform and fair assessment experiences throughout the programme, and to ensure that lecturers demonstrate a uniform feedback cultured for students, programmes create a programme specific policy on the topics below to facilitate a consistent assessment experience within the programme. Faculties and programmes can choose to describe these topics in the faculty’s assessment policy instead.
- Formative assessment policy: how the programme defines and uses formative assessment within the didactical concept of the programme: the goal and role of formative assessment and feedback over courses of the programmeuu, the number of formative assessments, etc.
- What assessment types the programme distinguishes and uses (see 3.1, Assessment taxonomy).
- Policy on open-book and/or closed-book exams: when are closed-book exams appropriate, and in what cases could students have access to paper/digital books, dictionaries, formula sheets, or internetvv.
- How the programme ensures that course grades reflect the performance of individual students, also in case of group assignmentsww.
- What the repair possibilities are in case of a failing grade for exams (resit) and other assessments like projects, practical/programming/etc. labs, field trips, etc. (additional assignment, new versions), and whether there are e.g. entry requirementsxx, standard deadlines/plannings or maximum grades for these repairs.
- Spread and number of assessments/deadlines: maximum number of assessments and deadlines per EC and per week for students without study delay.
- Deadline policy for individual students: Extending a deadline for individual students is formally the same as providing an extra examination opportunity, for which the board of examiners should give permission. This can only occur in case of exceptional, personal circumstances, and only after a visit to the academic counsellor and an application to the BoEx. In case of other arrangements (e.g. specific procedures in which someone else is mandated to make a deadline decision based on clear guidelines), include this in the programme specific policy.
- A format for the assessment plans of courses (see 4.3, only if there is no such format on faculty level).
- What taxonomy/taxonomies the programme uses. Standard taxonomy is the TU Delft adaptation of Bloom’s Taxonomy34.
4.3 Course assessment plan
| condition 14: | The course examiners ensure that their course has an up-to-date course assessment plan that shows how the learning objectives are assessed formatively and summatively. The course assessment plans are in line with the applicable programme assessment plan and faculty assessment policy, and operationalise at least the topics listed in 4.3. |
-
Each course has an assessment plan. A summary of the assessment is published in the study guide. The examiner communicates details of the assessment before the start of the course via the LMS (Brightspace) and typically discusses these during the first lecture of the course. The format of the course assessment plan can be part of the faculty’s assessment policy and/or programme’s assessment plan.
A course assessment plan contains at least:
- The learning objectives, properly formulated:
- LOs are formulated on the appropriate level of the taxonomy in use by the programme.
- It should be clear to what FAL the LO is contributing.
- An overview of formative and summative assessment method(s) that demonstrate
- which LOs are covered by which assessments,
- which LOs contribute to which FALs, and
- that students get feedback on each LO performance before each summative assessment and that this preferably happens during formative assessment, and otherwise at least during learning activities.
- How the final grade is calculated,
- in case the student receives a passing grade in one go, and
- in case the student needs to repair a failing grade.
- In what week the summative and formative assessments and deadlines are planned.
- What the repair possibilities (resit, additional assignment) are for students with failing grades and whether there are e.g. additional entry requirements or maximum grades for these repairs.
- The learning objectives, properly formulated:
4.4 Graduation projects
| condition 15: | The programme directors ensure that their graduation projects have an up-to-date graduation manual that is in line with the programme assessment plan and with regulations. The manual contains the topics listed in 4.4. |
Each graduation project has a graduation manual for students that is in line with the programme’s programme assessment plan. The graduation manual contains at least the following summary of the information and regulations concerning the graduation project:
- Learning objectives and assessment criteria
- Information on assessment, including (hyperlinks to) the rubric (synonym: grading guide) and assessment sheet, information on feedback during the midtermyy (interim evaluation and/or feedback moment) and greenlight evaluation, and information on plagiarism
- Responsibilities of the course coordinator, the student, and members of the graduation team (assessors, supervisors, mentors, etc.) with respect to supervisions, feedback and the assessment during the project
- Planning & procedures, phases, and deadlines of the project. This can include registration, preparation, kick-off, midterm (interim evaluation and/or feedback moment), greenlight, presentations, final assessment, meetings, milestones, etc.
qq Interfaculty programmes, programmes that are joint degrees with other universities, and programmes that face specific national requirements can encounter conflicting policies. The same holds for service courses and free electives. In these cases, programmes (and courses) make an informed decision on what policy to follow.
rr Rubrics at least consists of descriptors per criterion of the following two levels: a) the level of just sufficient (the equivalent of a 6) and b) the level of the learning objectives (the equivalent of a 10). If applicable, it includes knock-out criteria and their required minimum level in order to qualify for feedback and/or grading. See TU Delft assessment manual16.
ss Examples: assessment committee of the BoE, assessment expert on behalf of the Educational Management Team
tt Examples: extremely high or low pass rates/average grades, complaints, reported exam incidents, etc.
uu Example: In the first semester of the bachelor, weekly homework counts for 10% of the final grade so that students pick up the required speed of studying. In Q3, students receive SA feedback on their voluntary homework. In Q4, students give each other good quality peer feedback on their homework assignments.
vv If students need to replicate knowledge or procedures according to the learning objectives, closed-book can be more appropriate (perhaps with a formula sheet), while in case of questions at the application, analysis, evaluation or create level, open-book exams can be more appropriate.
ww Examples: Minimum percentage of individual grading per course; Group assignment has an individual component
qq Examples:
o entry requirement for repair possibilities: minimum grade of 4.0
o maximum grade for repair possibilities: maximum grade of 6.0
yy The term ‘midterm’ in the context of graduation projects refers to an interim evaluation.