Assessment Policy and Procedure

1. Purpose and scope

This policy sets out how LIBT designs, approves, marks, verifies, moderates, and reports assessment, and what happens when a student fails or wants to resubmit.

This policy applies to all students on LIBT-awarded and QUALIFI-awarded programmes. Where QUALIFI's own rules on assessment structure, grading, or verification differ from this policy, QUALIFI's rules take precedence for QUALIFI-awarded programmes. This must be stated on the relevant programme specification. This policy is LIBT's own default and applies in full to programmes for which LIBT is the awarding body (including those with CMI accreditation).

Terms used in this policy (module, unit, credit, level, internal verification, moderation, external examining, grade boundary) are defined in the Glossary (LIBT Quality Glossary) and used consistently with that definition.

2. Principles of assessment

Assessment at LIBT is:

• Valid: it tests achievement of the stated learning outcomes at the standard set by the assessment criteria.
• Reliable: different assessors reach the same judgement on the same evidence.
• Fair and accessible: free from bias, and manageable for learners at the relevant level.
• Sufficient: it allows the learner to generate the evidence needed to demonstrate achievement.
• Transparent: learners know in advance what is expected and how it will be judged.

3. Assessment approval (before issue)

Before any assessment task is issued to students, it must be checked and approved. For every assessment task, the Internal Verifier (or a nominated deputy, not the author of the task) confirms in writing, before issue, that:

• the task addresses the module's Learning Outcomes and Assessment Criteria in full;
• the task is set at the correct level and is achievable in the time available;
• instructions to students are clear and unambiguous;
• grading guidance (see section 6) is attached.

An assessment task may not be issued to students until this approval is recorded.

4. Forms of assessment

• Diagnostic: used at enrolment or induction to inform programme and support planning.
• Formative: used during learning to give feedback and guide improvement. It does not itself count towards the final grade.
• Summative: used to judge whether the learning outcomes have been achieved at the standard set by the assessment criteria. It counts towards the module grade.

Assessors do not mark work where they have a conflict of interest; where one exists, a different assessor is assigned.

5. Submission

Students submit assessments through Canvas, LIBT's current Learning Management System, by the published deadline. Work submitted late without a prior agreed extension is not accepted and is recorded as a fail for that attempt. A student affected by circumstances beyond their control should request an extension or deferral under the Special Consideration Policy before the deadline, where possible.

6. Grading

Each module is graded against the following scale, used consistently across all LIBT-awarded programmes, including those carrying CMI accreditation or endorsement:

Grade	Range
Distinction	80–100
Merit	60–79
Pass	40–59
Fail	0–39

A learner must achieve a Pass standard against every Learning Outcome to pass the module. The overall programme grade is calculated from module results according to the rules of combination set out in the programme specification. QUALIFI-awarded programmes use QUALIFI's own grading scheme (see section 1).

The Marking Rubric (Appendix A) sets out the descriptors assessors use at each grade band, so that grading is applied consistently across assessors and cohorts.

7. Resubmission

Where a learner does not meet the Pass standard, they are given feedback and one opportunity to resubmit the failed element(s), by a deadline set at the time of the fail decision.

• Resubmitted work is capped at a Pass grade, regardless of the mark achieved, because it follows disclosure of what was needed to meet the standard.
• If the resubmission still does not meet the Pass standard, the learner has failed the module and must retake it, subject to the Academic Regulations on retake limits and fees.
• A learner who has already passed a module may not resubmit work to try for a higher grade. The Pass/Merit/Distinction grade is determined by the original submission only.

8. Feedback

All learners receive written, criterion-referenced feedback identifying what met the standard, what did not, and why, using the standard feedback template. Feedback is returned within the timescale set out in the Academic Regulations.

9. Internal verification (before results are confirmed)

Internal verification is the process of checking a sample of marked assessments to confirm that marking has been applied consistently and to the correct standard. It is distinct from assessment approval (section 3, which happens before marking) and from moderation (section 10, which happens after).

The Internal Verifier:

• has completed relevant training and has experience as an assessor;
• reviews a sample of marked work against the sampling strategy below;
• gives each assessor written, developmental feedback on their marking;
• sets a reasonable deadline for any corrective action (re-marking, revised feedback) and confirms it has been completed;
• records outcomes so they are available for external examining (section 11) and for the Awarding Body's own external verification.

Sampling strategy. The baseline sample is 10% of learners and units. This increases to 20% for a newly appointed assessor's first assessment cycle, and to 15% for a new or significantly revised unit. The sample always includes: the judgements of every assessor active in the period; work from every unit assessed; a spread of grade outcomes including any fails; and any work associated with a special consideration decision. The sampling rate increases to 30% where external examining or the Awarding Body's own external verification has flagged a concern, until the concern is resolved.

10. Moderation

Moderation is the standardisation check applied after first marking, across assessors and cohorts, to confirm the same standard has been applied throughout. Before results are submitted to the Awarding Body, an Assessment Group, consisting of the Internal Verifier plus representatives of assessors, tutors, and management, meets to:

• review the grade profile for anomalies;
• confirm resubmission judgements are correctly recorded;
• confirm special consideration outcomes are correctly recorded;
• confirm all learner work and records are available for external examining and external verification;
• confirm the results are ready for submission to the Awarding Body.

Grades are provisional until this moderation step and the Awarding Body's external verification are complete.

11. External examining

LIBT appoints external examiners to its programmes. Each external examiner provides independent scrutiny of a sample of assessed work every assessment cycle, to confirm LIBT's standards are comparable to the wider UK sector. The external examiner:

• reviews a sample of assessed work spanning the range of grades awarded, drawn from the internal verification sample (section 9) plus any work they request;
• has access to assignment briefs, marking criteria, moderation records, and a sample of internally verified feedback;
• submits a written report to the Academic Board each cycle, including any concerns and recommendations;
• is not involved in first marking, internal verification, or moderation, so their scrutiny remains independent.

The Academic Board considers each external examiner report and records what action, if any, is taken in response. Where an external examiner raises a concern about a specific module or assessor, the internal verification sampling rate for that module or assessor increases to 30% (section 9) until the concern is resolved.

12. Malpractice

Suspected malpractice is dealt with under the Assessment Malpractice Policy, not under this policy. A malpractice finding may result in a mark or grade being withheld, reduced, or failed. See that policy for the full procedure and sanctions.

13. Appeals

A learner who believes there has been a procedural irregularity in the assessment process may appeal under the Academic Appeals and Complaints Policy. This policy does not itself provide a right of appeal.

14. Review

This policy is reviewed annually by the Academic Board. Any change must be checked against the Cross-Reference Map, in particular against the Academic Appeals and Complaints Policy, the Assessment Malpractice Policy, and the Student Handbook.

Company information: London Institute of Business & Technology Limited (LIBT) Hillary House, Prospect Hill, Douglas, IM1 1EQ, Isle of Man, British Isles.

---

Appendix A: Marking Rubric

Criteria	Distinction (80+)	Merit (60–79)	Pass (40–59)	Fail (0–39)
Content (alignment with assessment criteria)	Extensive evaluation and synthesis; substantial original thinking	Comprehensive critical evaluation and synthesis; coherent original thinking	Describes main ideas with some evaluation and original thinking	Largely incomplete, misses key concepts, or not relevant to the topic
Application of theory and literature	In-depth, expertly integrates literature	Clear, relevant application; fully integrates literature	Adequate application; uses literature to support ideas	Little or no evidence of application of theory or literature
Knowledge and understanding	Extensive depth beyond key principles	Comprehensive knowledge and understanding	Basic knowledge and understanding of key concepts	Little or no evidence of understanding
Presentation and writing skills	Polished, exceeds expectations at this level	Logical, coherent, demonstrates mastery	Orderly; minor errors that don't obscure meaning	Illogical or contains errors that interfere with meaning
Referencing	Advanced, consistent use of citation	Mastery of in-text citation and referencing	Adequate use of in-text citation and referencing	Little or no evidence of appropriate referencing