Assessment Regulations

The School awards the following undergraduate and postgraduate qualifications based on successful attainment of credits and descriptors:

A 'programme' is a structured set of teaching and learning activities with defined outcomes in a subject discipline, approved by the School to lead to a recognised qualification upon meeting the required credits and descriptors. Programmes consist of modules related to the discipline, each defined by a subject matter, credit volume, learning outcomes, and summative assessments. Modules may also determine progression between levels.

Key information on programmes and modules, including descriptors, credit values, teaching systems, and assessment briefs, is detailed in their specifications available via the Automated Governance System (AGS). These specifications and the academic regulations define the requirements for the School's awards.

The School follows the OfS principle that qualifications are awarded based on demonstrated achievement rather than years of study. This is achieved through a credit and descriptor system where students earn credits by completing modular assessments successfully. Summative assessments on undergraduate and postgraduate modules are designed to confirm that students have met the expected learning outcomes, achieved the necessary credits, and are progressing toward their qualification.

Formative feedback is integral to the School’s learning and teaching strategy. Throughout modules, students complete formative assessment tasks and have opportunities to receive actionable feedback through AI-supported tools, staff and peers. This feedback helps students identify how to improve future work, prepare for summative assessments and develop their ability to give constructive feedback to others. Summative assessments may also provide formative feedback.

The School ensures that all assessments for higher education courses are designed and conducted in a manner that enables the effective assessment of each student’s technical proficiency in the use of the English language, in proportion to the level and content of the course.

Assessment instruments must therefore require students to demonstrate appropriate command of English for the relevant FHEQ level, including the ability to communicate ideas, knowledge, and arguments clearly, accurately, and coherently in English, whether in written, oral, or digital form.

Module Leaders are responsible for confirming, at the point of assessment design, that assessment tasks include and weight the demonstration of English language proficiency appropriately for the discipline and level. This confirmation shall form part of the internal moderation documentation submitted with each assessment brief.

Where a course or module primarily assesses a language other than English, or where specific allowances are strictly necessary under the Equality Act 2010 (for example, reasonable adjustments for certain disabilities), this requirement shall be applied only to the extent compatible with law. Such exceptions must be evidenced and approved by the Director of Education and recorded in the module file.

External Examiners shall consider, as part of their annual report, whether assessments across the programme enable students to demonstrate technical proficiency in English appropriate to the award level, and shall comment on the effectiveness and consistency of this aspect of assessment design and marking.

These assessment regulations ensure that assessments are:

• Effective
• Valid
• Reliable
• Credible
• Aligned with sector-recognised standards

The module leader must draft summative assessments for undergraduate and postgraduate modules according to academic regulations and submit them for moderation. They must involve their teaching teams in this process, seeking appropriate feedback. These assessments should align with the module's learning outcomes, sector-recognised standards, and credit values.

Summative assessment drafts are reviewed by an internal moderation panel, coordinated by the Director of Education. This panel, comprising relevant School academic staff, will evaluate the assessments to ensure they:

• Assess learning outcomes to the required standards
• Are rigorous and appropriate for the module level
• Evaluate the content, knowledge, and skills taught
• Accommodate a broad range of student abilities

Module leaders must address feedback from internal moderators and send the revised assessment to the external examiner. The full process must be checked and approved by the Director of Education before a paper can be used as a summative assessment. Once approved, assessment papers should be shared with the module team in a timely manner before the assessment to ensure they are properly informed and prepared for their implementation.

The School uses Generic Assessment Criteria at Levels 4-7 to determine student classifications based on demonstrated outcomes. These criteria are aligned with SEEC Credit Level Descriptors for Higher Education and Subject Matter Benchmarks, also following OfS sector-recognised standards ('School Descriptors').

Assessment criteria are based on:

• Knowledge and Understanding
• Intellectual Skills
• Technical/Practical Skills
• Professional/Transferable Skills

All undergraduate and postgraduate module leaders must use these criteria when drafting summative assessments and marking criteria to ensure standards and consistency.

All draft summative assessments for undergraduate and postgraduate modules must include bespoke assessment marking criteria detailing the outcomes required for each classification. These criteria, together with appropriate marking guidance, indicative content or model answers where suitable for the assessment format, must be aligned with the general level-specific Generic Assessment Criteria to ensure consistency and uphold standards.

After a summative assessment for undergraduate or postgraduate modules, the module leader must organise a meeting with all markers from the Teaching and Assessment Team to ensure consistent marking and application of assessment criteria. The module leader is responsible for providing the marking team with all necessary materials, including the assessment brief, generic and specific criteria, appropriate marking guidance, indicative content or model answers where relevant, and any other necessary instructions.

Marking should follow these principles:

• Adhere to academic regulations.
• Base grading on academic judgement.
• Use only the material provided by the module leader.
• Employ the full range of marks.
• Treat all students equally and fairly.
• Ensure consistent marking standards for all papers.
• Report any issues to the module leader promptly.

If a student answers more questions than required in an exam, and it is unclear which answers they intended to submit, markers must use the first answers provided in sequence.

All papers must undergo internal scrutiny.

Double marking involves two independent markers assessing a student's work separately, each using the stated assessment criteria to provide their own marks and comments. All summative assessment components of Final Project Modules, including the Final Report, Presentation and Artefact, must be double marked. Double marking may also be required where specified by PRSB regulations.

Moderation involves another marker reviewing a sample of marking and feedback for appropriateness, consistency and fairness. This applies to all undergraduate and postgraduate modules except Final Project Modules, for which all summative assessment components require double marking. A 25% sample of scripts, including all fails and borderline cases within 2 marks of grade boundaries, must be reviewed by an internal moderator. If the moderator approves the marks, they stand. If not, a second moderator will be chosen, and if there is still disagreement, the papers will be remarked by a different marker. The module leader must then review the final marks to decide overall consistency and conformity.

After internal scrutiny and final checks by the module leader, a 25% sample of scripts from all grades, including fails and borderline cases within 2 marks of grade boundaries, along with materials specified in the External Examiner Regulations, must be sent to the external examiner for review. The external examiner will provide their feedback to the module leader.

After completing all marking, internal, and external scrutiny on undergraduate and postgraduate modules, the module leader must submit the marks to the Module Examination Board (MEB) under the Examination Boards and Academic Appeal Regulations. The MEB reviews and ratifies the marks, determines progression, and the Programme Examination Board (PEB) uses these marks to decide on awards.

Markers for undergraduate and postgraduate modules must provide comments explaining the rationale behind the awarded marks. These comments should assist with internal and external scrutiny and help students understand their marks, especially for progression.Feedback must be provided in a form appropriate to the assessment format and recorded in a separate feedback section. Where the assessment is a written submission, feedback may also be provided within the body of the work. Students should be informed of when and how they will receive feedback, which should be within 20 working days of the assessment deadline. Students should be informed of when and how they will receive feedback, which should be within 20 working days of the assessment deadline. If this timeline cannot be met, staff must consult the module leader and inform students of the revised date and reason. Additional feedback opportunities, such as module-level feedback and model answers, should be provided, particularly before reassessment for students who have failed.

Students on undergraduate and postgraduate modules may request supervised access to their summative assessments, feedback, and model answers. Students who fail an assessment must be offered this opportunity before their reassessment. To improve accessibility, assessments and feedback must be available at convenient times, with clear communication to students via the AGS.

In accordance with the Equality Act 2010, the School may grant reasonable adjustments for students’ learning and assessments, such as extra exam time, deadline extensions, or marking aids for conditions like dyslexia or dyspraxia. These adjustments must be recorded on the student’s profile in the Automated Governance System (AGS), following data protection rules. Requests should ideally be submitted before the module begins but can be made any time before an assessment. Post-assessment considerations are handled under the extenuating circumstances process.

If a programme is accredited by a Professional, Statutory, and Regulatory Body (PSRB), the specific conditions for awards will be detailed in the programme’s specifications.

Assessments will be retained and managed according to the School’s data retention, privacy, and data protection policies.

After summative assessments, assessment papers or briefs, criteria, rubrics and appropriate marking guidance, including indicative content or model answers where relevant, must be stored and made available online.

The School’s academic regulations, including the Assessment Regulations, Academic Misconduct Regulations, Research Ethics and Governance Code of Practice, and the Free Speech and Academic Freedom Policy, enforce academic integrity as central to its standards.

The School enforces a blind marking policy for all undergraduate and postgraduate modules, ensuring that staff involved in marking, including for first and second marking and examination boards, do not know the student's name or identity. Exceptions occur when blind marking is impractical, such as for live, recorded, role-playing, group or reflective assessments. Students must use only their ID numbers on assessments and not include their names. If anonymity is compromised, assessors must still avoid letting the student’s identity affect their academic judgement.

Student identity will be verified for invigilated examinations and any scheduled live or recorded assessments where identity verification is required. For submission-based assessments, including essays, artefacts, final reports and other submitted assessment outputs, students must sign a declaration affirming that the work is their own before submission.

Students taking the same summative assessment for a module must be subject to the same assessment conditions. Examinations should take place within the same scheduled examination period. Coursework should be released at the same time and subject to the same submission deadline. Each submission-based Research Module assessment component should be subject to the same published deadline for students taking that component. Scheduled presentations and other live assessment activities should take place within the same published assessment window. This is subject to reasonable adjustments and extenuating circumstances. The module leader must ensure the integrity of the assessment is maintained.

Markers must adhere to the academic regulations, base their marking on academic judgement (which is final), use only the materials provided by the module leader, employ the full range of marks, and ensure fair and consistent marking for all students. Any issues should be reported to the module leader immediately.

Students must adhere to correct academic practices, including proper referencing and citation of sources. The School’s Academic Misconduct Regulations apply if these practices are not followed. Students will be trained on avoiding academic misconduct during their modules and should familiarise themselves with the Academic Misconduct Regulations. The following are considered forms of academic misconduct:

• Plagiarism (explicit): Submitting work, with or without consent, that is not originally created by the student without proper acknowledgment.
• Collusion: Collaborating with another student on assessed work (when not expressly permitted) and presenting the joint work as one's own.
• Fabrication: Falsifying academic results, data, sources, or references.
• Duplication: Submitting the same or similar work for academic credit more than once without acknowledgement.
• Cheating in invigilated exams: Gaining an unfair advantage through copying from unauthorised material, another student’s script, or communication with others.
• Impersonation: Assuming another person’s identity to gain an unfair advantage.
• Ghostwriting: Submitting work completed wholly or partially by someone else, or providing material to another student with the intention of committing academic misconduct.
• Unethical behaviour: Violating ethical standards, such as failing to obtain ethical approval, coercing or bribing participants, or misusing privileged or private information.
• Negligence: Repeated poor academic practice that can be considered academic misconduct.

Students must not submit the same substantive piece of work for more than one summative assessment. The academic misconduct regulations will apply if this rule is breached.

Once a student has passed a module, they cannot attempt to improve their mark.

For all undergraduate and postgraduate modules, the School will:

• Provide study and pastoral support;
• Facilitate extensions;
• Assist with extenuating circumstances;
• Allow students to retake assessments up to two times after a first attempt if they fail, while maintaining sector-recognised standards.

The undergraduate and postgraduate programme specification must include details of core and optional modules available, and each module specification must specify the:

• Module name;
• Module description;
• Credit value;
• Level;
• Learning outcomes;
• Teaching system, student workload, and activities;
• Summative assessments and weightings;
• Module content;
• Programmes on which the module appears.

The Academic Regulations, including assessment regulations, programme and module specifications, assessment briefs, Generic Assessment Criteria, and other relevant information, must be available to students on the School's website and through the AGS.

For all undergraduate and postgraduate programmes, the schedule of summative assessments, including examination dates, coursework submission windows and deadlines, Research Module submission deadlines and scheduled presentation dates, will be published through the AGS. Assessments will be scheduled on weekdays within the School’s operating hours.

If attendance or live participation is required for a summative assessment, including a presentation, role-playing activity or other synchronous assessment component, this must be approved during validation or periodic review and clearly stated in the relevant assessment information.

An assessment brief must be provided for all modules and assessments, including the following details:

• Module name
• Module description
• Credit value
• Level
• Learning outcomes
• Description of the summative assessment, including its format, required outputs, word counts or duration where applicable, and weighting.
• Assessment criteria
• Summary of applicable regulations
• Dates
• Contact information for further help

Each module in undergraduate and postgraduate programmes must be assessed independently of other modules.

Each module must be assessed within the semester it is delivered, except for Final Project Modules.

For taught modules, the final learning week and subsequent assessment period will be used for revision, consolidation, assessment preparation and summative assessment. Coursework may be released during the final learning week and must be completed within the published coursework submission window. Examinations will take place during the published examination window.

Final Project Modules will follow an approved research, supervision and assessment schedule set out in the AGS. 

Assessment schedules, including examination dates, coursework submission windows and deadlines, Research Module submission deadlines and scheduled presentation dates, must be published through the AGS. Assessments will be scheduled on weekdays within the School’s operating hours.

Dates for all summative assessments will be published on the website and AGS. Students will also receive personalised notifications from AGS.

All undergraduate and postgraduate modules are assigned one of the School’s 8 teaching systems.

Summative assessments are assigned to modules according to their learning outcomes, teaching system, credit value and the nature of the knowledge and skills being assessed.

Research modules, including the Masters Final Project as the capstone project, use three approved assessment components: Research Module Assessment: Final Report; Research Module Assessment: Presentation; and Research Module Assessment: Artefact.

Taught modules may use one or more of the following approved assessment formats, as specified in the module specification and assessment brief: Invigilated Exam; Analytical Essay Coursework; Technical Analysis and Solution Assessment Coursework; and Simulation and Role-Playing Coursework.

The approved assessment formats, combinations and weightings for each module are specified in the module specification and assessment brief.

Module teams must follow the New Programme and Module Approval and Modification Regulations to change summative assessments on undergraduate and postgraduate modules.

For the Final Masters Project, students are required to develop and submit an artefact that provides a practical response to the problem identified in their agreed project proposal and examined in the Final Report.

An artefact is the applied output of the research project. Depending on the programme and nature of the problem, it may take the form of a prototype, model, system, framework, analytical tool, implementation or business plan, proof of concept, or another appropriate practical solution. The artefact should demonstrate how research, programme knowledge and relevant methods have been applied to address the identified problem.

Students will receive guidance on how to define requirements, develop and refine an appropriate solution, and use an implementation lifecycle to progress from the identified problem to an evaluated artefact. The Module Leader and project supervisor will provide further academic support during the development of the project.

Throughout their programme modules, students will also complete formative assessment tasks and have opportunities to receive actionable feedback from AI, staff and peers. This will help students improve future work and develop their ability to give constructive feedback to others.

The artefact should provide an appropriate and credible practical response to the problem set out in the agreed project proposal.

Students should use an appropriate implementation lifecycle: a structured process through which the problem and requirements are defined, a solution is designed and developed, and the resulting artefact is tested, evaluated and refined.

The nature of the artefact will depend on the programme, research problem and agreed project. It should demonstrate appropriate application of relevant programme knowledge, research and professional practice. This may include technical, strategic, commercial, organisational, professional, ethical or legal considerations where relevant to the project.

The artefact should be sufficiently developed to allow its rationale, development, effectiveness and limitations to be critically examined in the Final Report and communicated through the Presentation.

Markers will use the Generic Level 7 School Marking Criteria to mark this assessment and determine the final grade.

Markers will consider the appropriateness and quality of the artefact as a response to the identified problem, the application of relevant knowledge and methods, the quality of its development and refinement, and the extent to which the relevant module learning outcomes have been demonstrated.

The final grade for this assessment reflects the marker’s academic judgement across the relevant learning outcomes and the weighting of the Artefact within the capstone project.

When it come to the Final Masters Project, students are required to deliver a presentation on their research and the artefact they have developed. The presentation assesses their ability to communicate their research process, findings, decisions and implications clearly and professionally to specialist and non-specialist audiences.

Students should explain how they identified and investigated the problem, applied relevant knowledge and methods, and evaluated the resulting solution. They should also address significant practical, professional, ethical or other constraints encountered during the project and explain how these informed their approach.

Students will receive guidance on effective presentation and communication. The Module Leader and project supervisor will provide further academic support during the development of the project.

Throughout their programme modules, students will also complete formative assessment tasks and have opportunities to receive actionable feedback from AI, staff and peers. This will help students improve future work and develop their ability to give constructive feedback to others.

Students will deliver a 20-minute presentation outlining their research process, the development and evaluation of their artefact, their use of the implementation lifecycle, and the principal findings and conclusions arising from the project.

The presentation will be video recorded for marking and moderation and assessed against the relevant learning outcomes and assessment criteria for the research module.

Markers will use the Generic Level 7 School Marking Criteria to mark this assessment and determine the final grade.

Markers will consider the clarity and effectiveness of the presentation, communication of the research process and findings, explanation and evaluation of the artefact, justification of key decisions, and the extent to which the relevant module learning outcomes have been demonstrated.

The final grade for this assessment reflects the marker’s academic judgement across the relevant learning outcomes and the weighting of the Presentation within the Final Masters Project.

As part of the Masters Final Project, students are required to submit a final report demonstrating how they have conducted independent research, applied critical thinking and developed a systematic understanding of their chosen area of study in producing their artefact.

The final report enables students to demonstrate originality in applying knowledge and techniques, appropriate use of established research methods and tools, and the ability to evaluate the development and effectiveness of their artefact. It also provides an opportunity to communicate research findings, interpretations and conclusions clearly to specialist and non-specialist audiences.

Students will receive guidance on how to prepare, structure and submit the final report. The Module Leader and project supervisor will provide further academic support during the development of the project.

The final report should be approximately 10,000 words.

It should define and contextualise the problem being addressed, engage critically with relevant literature, explain and justify the development of the artefact, and evaluate how effectively the artefact addresses the identified problem.

Students should explain the research methods, tools and techniques used, how the artefact was developed and tested, what refinements were made, and how the implementation lifecycle informed the project.

The report should synthesise relevant knowledge and concepts from the programme with the student’s own independent research and demonstrate achievement of the relevant module learning outcomes.

Markers will use the Generic Level 7 School Marking Criteria to mark this assessment and determine the final grade.

Markers will consider the quality and independence of the research, critical engagement with relevant literature, application of appropriate research methods, development and evaluation of the artefact, quality of analysis and conclusions, and the extent to which the relevant module learning outcomes have been demonstrated.

The final grade for this assessment reflects the marker’s academic judgement across the relevant learning outcomes and the weighting of the Final Report within the capstone project.

This is a time-limited examination undertaken during the summative assessment period under the School’s remote invigilation conditions to support quality and academic integrity.

The examination enables students to demonstrate achievement of the module learning outcomes, particularly in relation to knowledge and understanding, and where relevant professional and transferable skills.

Questions may include problems, issues or dilemmas reflecting situations students could encounter in professional practice. Students are expected to synthesise and apply their learning to analyse the issues and reach sound, reasoned judgements.

To support preparation, formative assessment activities, including quizzes, dialogues and an AI-augmented assignment, are built into the module. Students receive actionable feedback from AI, staff and peers to help improve future work and develop their ability to give constructive feedback to others.

The examination will last 2 hours for a 15-credit module and 2.5 hours for a 30-credit module.

It will be conducted remotely under the School’s invigilated examination conditions.

It will include a mix of questions aligned with the relevant module learning outcomes.

Each question will carry a specified weighting.

Markers will assess responses using the School’s Generic Level 7 Marking Criteria.

The overall examination mark will be calculated from the weighted marks awarded across the questions.

This coursework requires students to produce an analytical essay in response to a question, or related questions, based on a defined area of the module. Its purpose is to assess students’ ability to interpret a technical or conceptual question independently, undertake relevant research, critically analyse evidence and perspectives, and communicate a coherent and well-supported academic argument.

Students will be set an analytical question, or related questions, addressing a discrete area of the module. They will be expected to research the topic, consider different or competing perspectives, evaluate relevant evidence and develop a reasoned response supported by appropriate sources. The assessment particularly develops and tests interpretation, research, critical thinking, argumentation and academic writing, alongside achievement of the relevant module learning outcomes.

Students will practise analytical writing, in particular through AI-augmented assignments, and develop their ability to interpret questions, research effectively, evaluate evidence and structure coherent arguments. Module Leaders can provide further support, particularly through consultation.

In the virtual learning environment (VLE), students will complete formative assessment tasks, such as quizzes and assignments, and have opportunities to receive actionable feedback from AI, staff and peers. This will help students identify how to improve future work and develop their ability to give constructive feedback to others.

Students should respond directly to the analytical question set and demonstrate that they understand what it requires, including the significance of terms such as discuss, analyse, evaluate, interpret and critically assess.

The essay should draw on relevant and appropriately varied academic, professional and other credible sources. Students should critically engage with the evidence they use, consider alternative or competing perspectives, and develop a clear line of argument rather than provide a purely descriptive account.

Arguments, interpretations, opinions and conclusions should be clearly explained and supported by appropriate evidence and reasoning. The work should follow an appropriate academic essay structure, use consistent referencing and include a bibliography. Formatting, grammar and spelling should also be checked before submission.

The specific question, word limit and any additional requirements will be provided in the assessment brief.

Markers will use the Generic Level 7 School Marking Criteria to mark this assessment and determine the final grade.

Markers will consider the quality and depth of the analysis, the relevance and critical use of research, engagement with different perspectives, the coherence and justification of the argument, the clarity of academic writing, and the extent to which the relevant module learning outcomes have been demonstrated.

The final grade reflects the marker’s academic judgement across the relevant learning outcomes.

This coursework assessment requires students to develop a solution to a complex problem in a simulated context, then analyse and reflect on the solution, the decisions they made, and the theory underpinning their approach. It assesses students’ ability to develop practical solutions, critically evaluate their work, and demonstrate their understanding of the module’s technical and theoretical concepts.

Coursework Assessment Structure

Part 1: Solution Design Artefact

• Students will develop a solution to a complex problem presented within a simulated domain and submit an appropriate artefact, such as a prototype, model or detailed design plan.
• The artefact should demonstrate the application of relevant module concepts, tools, techniques and architectures.
• Students should take account of relevant professional, ethical and practical considerations when developing their solution

Part 2: Analytical Report

• Alongside the artefact, students will submit an analytical report of up to 1,500 words evaluating and reflecting on their solution.
• The report should explain the problem, describe the design process and justify the key decisions made.
• Students should critically evaluate the effectiveness of their solution, identify potential improvements and relate their analysis to relevant theoretical and technical concepts from the module.

The final grade will be based on the artefact (60%) and the analytical report (40%).

Artefacts will be assessed on technical accuracy, creativity, and how well they address the problem using module concepts.

The report will be evaluated based on clarity of analysis, justification of design decisions, depth of critical reflection, and alignment with learning outcomes.

Marking will adhere to the Generic Level 7 School Marking Criteria available on the website.

This coursework requires students to take on a defined professional role within a realistic scenario related to the module. Students must interpret the situation, apply relevant knowledge, exercise judgement and determine an appropriate response.

The scenario may involve competing stakeholder interests and commercial, technical, organisational, legal, ethical or professional considerations. Students may also need to respond to new information or changing circumstances.

The assessment focuses on application of knowledge, professional judgement, decision-making, adaptability and communication.

In the virtual learning environment (VLE), students will complete formative activities that mirror simulation-based tasks involving organisations, projects, professional roles and workplace challenges. These activities will provide opportunities to practise decision-making and receive actionable feedback from AI, staff and peers.

Students will receive a scenario, an assigned role and a defined task.

They should identify the key issues and stakeholders, undertake relevant research and determine an appropriate course of action.

Students may be required to produce professional outputs such as a recommendation, briefing, action plan, stakeholder communication or recorded response.

Where the scenario develops, students should adapt their response appropriately and explain and justify their decisions using relevant evidence and module concepts.

Specific requirements will be provided in the assessment brief.

Markers will consider students’ interpretation of the scenario, application of module knowledge, professional judgement, quality and justification of decisions, adaptability, communication and overall professionalism.

Marking will adhere to the Generic Level 7 School Marking Criteria available through the VLE. The final grade reflects the marker’s academic judgement across the relevant learning outcomes.

All School examinations are online and open book.

Students must check and confirm their exam dates and consult the module leader with any questions. Registering for a module implies an attempt at its assessments unless written notice of withdrawal is given by the School's published deadline. Non-attendance without approved extenuating circumstances will result in a 0% mark.

If a student starts an exam, it is considered an attempt, and the assessment will be marked in line with the School's policies, including those on extenuating circumstances.

To ensure assessment integrity and prevent academic misconduct, the following security measures apply:

• Assessments must be taken at either:
  • The School library or designated areas
  • A private room outside the School, with no other person or device present
• Device camera(s) must be available and will automatically record the environment every few seconds and securely store the footage on the School's cloud servers for 3 months. This can be achieved using:
  • A dual camera system (front and back)
  • A single camera with a suitably large mirror
• During a live exam, the student must not leave the room or be out of view of the camera.

All exams are time-limited, open-book. Those taken in a private venue, such as the student’s home, during the designated assessment period, must follow these controlled conditions to ensure quality and academic integrity: 

• Exam Format: Students should familiarise themselves with the exam format in advance and consult their module leader with any questions.
• Access and Timing: Exams will start at the date and time specified in the assessment schedule and will be conducted via the School’s AGS platform or mobile app. Students must use a device meeting these requirements:
  • Operating System: Android or iOS
  • Functionality: Working microphone; a dual camera system (front and back), or a single camera with a suitably large mirror
  • Connectivity: Reliable internet
  • Storage: At least 2GB of free space
• Authentication: Students will log in using 2-factor authentication, and a real-time audio/visual camera feed will confirm their identity.
• Pre-Exam Steps: Students must complete the preliminary steps outlined in the AGS at least 10 minutes before the exam begins. Late completion (more than 30 minutes after the start) will result in a 0% mark, subject to extenuating circumstances policy.
• Exam Integrity: While students may refer to course materials, they must not consult others. The School's misconduct policy applies to all assessments.
• Timing and Completion: The exam will end automatically at the scheduled time. Students are responsible for managing their time.
• Absence and Issues: Students who are registered and do not withdraw are considered to have attempted the exam and will be marked accordingly. Absence without valid reasons will result in a 0%. For technology issues, students should inform the module leader immediately and submit an extenuating circumstances application. The School will notify students of any system-wide issues and alternative arrangements if necessary.

Where a student does not have access to the conditions of remote examination they may take the exams on School premises instead. If so, they should provide one week's advanced notice for the arrangements to be put in place.

Students should bring with them a valid photo ID as proof of identity. This should normally be a student’s electronic School Mobile ID. This photo ID should be produced to the invigilator for verification upon arrival at the examination and then securely stored out of reach for the duration.

Students will be admitted to the examination room 10 minutes before the stated commencement time for the examination to complete the pre-exam steps outlined in the AGS

After entering the examination room, no student may read or otherwise appraise themself of the work of another student; nor is communication between students in writing, speech or gesture or by electronic devices permitted.

The exam will start at the scheduled time.

Students will not be allowed into the exam room more than 30 mins after an exam has started. They will not be permitted to take the exam and will be awarded 0%. They will be subject to the extenuating circumstances policy.

Any student in breach of these examination room regulations will be reported immediately after the conclusion of the examination period and a hearing will be arranged at the earliest possible opportunity. For serious breaches of the rules, such as proved 'cheating', severe penalties may be applied, including the withholding of an award.

Invigilation:

All students must complete identity verification using their School mobile identification or other suitable photo ID, such as a valid passport or photo driving licence before starting the examination. Where students do not have photographic proof of identity they should speak to an invigilator before the start of the examination. The student should be asked to remain behind at the end of the examination for their identity to be verified through the Technology Team via the student records system.

Invigilators should:

• Check students’ identity against their photo ID;
• Take whatever action may become necessary in an emergency. If, for example, a fire alarm causes an interruption to the examination, the invigilator should ensure that students evacuate the room quietly and, as far as possible, should keep them under examination conditions until such time as the examination can be restarted or an alternative decision is taken. The invigilator, using discretion, may allow the students additional time, if possible, on return to the room. The time allowed should be equivalent to the time lost. If the interruption occurs in the closing stages of the examination, this may not be feasible and in such cases, students should be advised to complete the necessary information on the front of their answer books and hand in their work. The circumstances and action is taken, must be fully detailed in the invigilator's report. The student should be allowed to continue with the examination having had their attention drawn to the fact that a report will be made to the President about the incident; if the unauthorised material is portable, it should be confiscated immediately and submitted with the invigilator's report form. The invigilator initiating the action must enter a full and detailed account of the evidence on the invigilator's report form, including the student's examination number. The Principal Invigilator must submit a full report to the President within two working days of the examination.
• All incidents, including illness, absence from the examination room (other than the occasional visit to the toilet), late arrivals, and breaches of the examination room regulations, must be entered on the invigilator's report forms.
• The Principal Invigilator should warn students of the approach of the end of the examination at a time deemed appropriate (15 minutes is generally considered to be adequate).
• The Principal Invigilator should announce the end of the examination and instruct all students to stop writing and remain seated until instructed to leave. Students may be allowed to complete any details which may be required on the front of the answer book such as their student number and the number of questions answered.

The School will endeavour to accommodate requests for religious observance if exams coincide with religious festivals and holy days, where feasible. 

The policy for religious observance applies only to scheduled exams. Deadlines for assessed coursework will not be extended for religious observance, so students should plan their work accordingly.

Students must submit a formal written request via the AGS, using the 'Religious observance and examination arrangements' form, to the Director of Education as soon as possible. 

Approval of an alternative exam time will consider exam integrity, feasibility, and the importance of the religious observance. Rescheduled exams must occur within the standard exam period. The Module team will notify the Module Examination Board of any changes. The Director of Education's decision is final.

The School does not accept religious observance as a valid reason for Extenuating Circumstances.

Students are responsible for understanding assessment requirements, including criteria, formats, word counts, submission methods and deadlines. They should consult their module leader with any questions. All submission-based assessments, including analytical essays, technical assessment artefacts and reports, simulation and role-playing coursework outputs, Research Module Assessment: Final Report and Research Module Assessment: Artefact, must be submitted through the Automated Governance System (AGS) by the specified deadline, unless the approved assessment brief specifies another submission method. Where another submission method is not expressly specified, submissions by email or any other method will not be accepted. If a student cannot submit via the AGS, they must contact the module leader and submit an extenuating circumstances application. The decision will be based on a systems check and the student's communications. In case of a widespread system issue, the School may grant an automatic extension and notify affected students by email. Students should keep a copy of their work.

All written and other technically compatible work submitted via the AGS will be subject to plagiarism, similarity and academic integrity checks using integrated software where applicable. Artefacts and other assessment outputs that cannot be checked using such software will be subject to academic integrity checks appropriate to the assessment format.

Students must submit all work for assessment by the published deadline or any granted extension, whether on an ad hoc basis, through reasonable adjustments, or as part of a support plan.

Each member of a group must submit their project individually.

No further submissions are allowed once work is formally submitted for assessment.

A student who registers for a module is deemed to have registered for its assessments unless they have formally withdrawn through the system. Failure to submit work by the deadline will be subject to the late submission rules below, unless extenuating circumstances apply.

Work submitted after the published deadline will be deemed late, unless an application for extenuating circumstances is approved.

• Submissions to the AGS within 24 hours of the deadline will incur a 10% deduction if passed, but not fall below the pass mark. If extenuating circumstances are accepted, the full mark will be awarded. Marks below the pass mark will remain unchanged.
• Submissions made after 24 hours of the deadline will be marked but awarded 0%, unless extenuating circumstances are accepted, in which case the full mark will be given.

Late submission penalties apply only to the late assessment element, not to the entire module.

If an assessment task with multiple parts is submitted late, the entire task is considered late if any part is overdue. If each part has a different deadline, only the late part will incur a penalty.

The module leader will specify whether the presentation is online or in person, along with the date and time. Students must join the presentation at least 10 minutes early. They should be prepared to verify their identity via the AGS or with their ID card and follow all instructions given by the assessor. Students should ask any questions before the assessment begins. The assessor will signal the start of the assessment and notify students when 5 minutes and 2 minutes remain. Students must consult the provided instructions and assessment criteria during their presentation.

Module leaders will inform students with learning support plans about their presentation arrangements.

Assessors will record presentations, and the videos will be used for marking and moderation, in accordance with the School's data and retention policies.

Students must attend their presentation on the scheduled date and time. A student who registers for a module is deemed to have registered for its assessments unless they have formally withdrawn through the system. Missing a scheduled presentation will result in a mark of 0% for that assessment component, except in cases of intermission or extenuating circumstances. Starting a presentation will be treated as an attempt at that assessment component, and the School's policies, including those on extenuating circumstances, will apply.

The Academic Board oversees the standards and quality of the School's undergraduate and postgraduate programmes and assessments and enforces the assessment regulations. It has delegated some responsibilities to the Director of Education and Examination Boards, who must report back to the Academic Board. The Director of Education ensures compliance with assessment regulations, provides training for staff, and manages processes related to assessments, including drafting, moderation, marking, scrutiny, and presentation of marks. The Director reports to the Academic Board, which can question them and request actions to uphold programme standards and quality.

The roles and responsibilities of the Examination Boards are detailed in the Academic Regulations, including the Examination Boards and Academic Appeal Regulations and Module Results and Award Conferment Regulations.

The AGS manages various assessment activities, including providing access to programme and module specifications, assessment briefs, schedules, exam administration, work submission, similarity checking (anti-plagiarism), marking, and the recording and management of marks. It also facilitates the transmission of marks to the Examination Boards. The Education and IT Departments will collaborate closely on these tasks.

In cases of force majeure that severely disrupt the normal operation of these regulations, the Academic Board may suspend all or part of them if it is in the students' best interest and as a last resort.

When the Academic Board decides to suspend regulations, the Chair must publish a Suspension of Regulations Notice (SRN) to all staff and students via email. The SRN should detail the suspension's start and end dates, the relevant department or regulatory area (e.g., admissions, progression, assessment, Examination Boards), and any other pertinent information about temporary operational requirements.

The Director of Education must present a report on the suspension at the next scheduled Academic Board meeting to seek approval for any extension of the suspension's period or scope.