- Part 1 - Key overarching policies and principles of UCL
- Part 2 - Curriculum planning and design
- Part 3 - Learning, teaching and assessment
- Part 4 - Student recruitment, admission and reception
- Part 5 - Student support and guidance
- Part 6 - Staff support and development
- Part 7 - Academic quality review, monitoring and feedback framework
- Part 8 - Management and organisational framework
UCL Service Standards for the Provision of Feedback to Students on Assessed Work
contact: Derfel Owen, Secretary to UCL Academic Committee
1. A consistent feature of the comments that UCL students provide both through course questionnaires, and at an Institutional level has been the quality and timeliness of feedback they are given on assessment exercises performed during their programme of study.
2. At present a range of methodologies are used by UCL Departments and individual programmes to provide a critical assessment of students’ strengths and weaknesses based upon assessment (both formative and summative) of work during the programme of study.
3. Currently, student feedback can take the form of oral discussion with tutors or programme organizers and lecturers, group discussions, and individual written feedback.
4. UCL has now revised its assessment strategy and as part of this strategic revision has identified the need for service standards to be adopted across UCL to ensure our students receive appropriate and timely feedback on their work in order to enhance the learning experience and maximise academic performance.
5. In all modes of assessment during a programme the student should expect feedback to occur within 1 calendar month of the deadline (including weekends and vacations) for submission of each piece of assessed work (but not including end of year unseen examinations or end of module summative unseen examinations). Departments are encouraged to provide this in a shorter timeframe if they wish.
6. Feedback to students on the assessed work can take the form of:
a. Individual discussions of the strengths and weaknesses and opportunities for improvement
b. Group discussions whereby thematic areas are developed to illustrate strengths and weaknesses within the group as a whole
c. A written feedback sheet indicating the areas in (a) preferable within the context of specific headings which are likely to be developed in a subject specific fashion.
7. If for whatever reason a Department or course organiser cannot ensure that the 1 calendar month deadline (including weekends and vacations) is met then they must indicate by direct contact with the students on the module through email/moodle when the feedback will be provided. It would be unusual if the extra time needed by the Department or course organisers would exceed one week i.e. 5 calendar weeks in total.
8. In the context of research projects/dissertations/long essays etc. at undergraduate level and at taught postgraduate level, supervisors will be required to provide feedback to students on the draft report on a minimum of one occasion if it is provided to the supervisor by a deadline specified. Taking account of subject specific requirements, Departments should specify what form of feedback students should expect.
9. The nature of the feedback will vary between different subject areas and academic disciplines and therefore as part of UCL’s commitment to quality enhancement the sharing of proforma within and between Faculties will be encouraged by the creation of a website in which examples of the proforma’s being used can be posted.
10. Students are issued with one candidate number per year so the link between candidate numbers and names must remain confidential for the full academic session.
11. In circumstances where feedback is not provided within the timescale, students should bring the matter to the attention of the Departmental Tutor or Head of Department who would take action as necessary. If students remained dissatisfied then the matter should be referred to the Faculty Tutor.
(c) UCL (University College London) 2010
The content (comprising text and images) of this document is copyright
(c) UCL (University College London). All rights expressly reserved.