These are the examination conventions for the Software Engineering Programme at Oxford; they should be read in conjunction with the programme specification, the admissions policy, and the award regulations.

Board of Examiners

The University appoints a board of four examiners to oversee all assessment activities on the Programme: one of these examiners is external to the University; another is the Programme Director; the remaining two—including the chair—are drawn from the academic staff of the Software Engineering Programme.

The Board meets three times a year—in each of the three University terms—to review the assessment of assignments submitted since the last meeting, consider the performance of candidates who have entered the final examination for an award. In reaching their decision, they will follow the conventions described below.

Submissions

Assignment submissions will be accepted only from those who have registered for the assignment component of the taught course in question, and must be accompanied or preceded by a corresponding, assignment acceptance form, completed and signed by the author. Electronic submissions are preferred, via the Programme website. Paper versions, or additional material, may be submitted by post or hand. Only material that arrives before the deadline will be considered.

Each assignment has an indication of expected extent (typically the equivalent of 20 pages of text), and the submissions whose extent is considerably greater than this may not be considered in full. Students are advised to keep a copy of their work: the Programme cannot award credit for postal (or electronic) submissions that fail to arrive intact.

Documents should be presented using a font size of at least 10pt, and with an A4 page size. Colour may be used, but students should ensure that no essential information would be lost were the documents to be printed or copied in black and white.

It is not possible to re-take an assignment. Instead, candidates may register for the assignment part of a later course in the same subject, and any submission that they make will be considered in the normal way.

Assessment and moderation

Submissions for each assignment are marked by appointed assessors: normally the lead lecturer in the subject concerned. Each assessment is then moderated by an examiner (the assessor and the moderator must be different individuals), and the moderated assessment report is then made available to the student.

Each dissertation is marked twice: once by an appointed assessor, and again by one of the examiners. The two markers' reports are considered by the Chair of Examiners, who will take steps to resolve any significant differences—commissioning further reports if necessary—before the next meeting of the Board of Examiners, where the grades will be finalised.

Assessors are proposed by the Chair of Examiners, and their appointment is subject to the review and approval of the University Proctors.

Grading: written assignments

All submissions are given a numerical grade between 0 and 100, interpreted as follows:

• a mark between 0 and 49 denotes a fail: a student will have: demonstrated only a limited ability to comprehend the subject, and little or no ability to apply the concepts, tools, and techniques; failed to attempt, or to complete successfully, certain, essential aspects of the assignment task.
• a mark between 50 and 69 denotes a pass: a student will have: demonstrated understanding of the subject, and an ability to apply those concepts, tools, and techniques relevant to the assignment task; shown that they are able to complete certain, essential aspects of the assignment task successfully; (which aspects, or combinations of aspects, are deemed essential to a demonstration of competence and understanding will depend upon the subject area and the nature of the task).
• a mark between 70 and 100 denotes excellence: a student will have: demonstrated a convincing understanding of the subject, encompassing at least that part of the subject addressed in the assignment; shown that they are able to complete the whole of the assignment task successfully, or that they would be able to do so with relative ease following a small amount of consultation or feedback; provided some evidence that they are capable of reflecting upon—understanding the reasons for, and the context of—the assignment task itself.

Typographical errors, minor misunderstandings regarding syntax and semantics, small omissions, or confusion regarding the precise expectations of the examiners, need not detract from an assessment of excellence.

The assessors are asked also to consider the following guidelines, in terms of the application of core concepts, ideas, techniques, methods, or tools, the quality of explanation or reflection, and the correspondence to a model solution.

• 50–59: indicates knowledge and understanding of the concepts, as demonstrated through routine application to a situation that, though novel, fits within a standard prescription; with adequate documentation, a factual or minimal explanation of work presented; satisfying the basic criteria for competence.
• 60–69: indicates an appreciation of the applicability or effectiveness of techniques, as demonstrated by the selection of appropriate techniques in novel situations; with a good explanation of the approach taken, and the motivation for choices made; addressing most if not all of the assessment criteria.
• 70–79: indicates knowledge and understanding of the underlying mechanisms determining the applicability and effectiveness of different techniques, as demonstrated by deeper, reasoned arguments in support of selection; an account of the context of the work and clear consideration of alternative approaches; close, but not good enough to serve as a model solution.
• 80–89: indicates a wider appreciation of applicability and effectiveness, as demonstrated by an understanding of the alternative perspectives, and of the scope or possibilities for improvement, integration, or innovation; good enough to serve as a model solution, such as might be distributed as an indication of how the assignment task ought to be addressed.
• 90–100: indicates an ability to successfully extend or innovate, as demonstrated by an outline of a new argument, a new approach, a new solution, or a suggested extension to theory or practice; a possible improvement upon the model solution as originally envisaged by the assessor, either in terms of presentation, detail, or clarity, or through the inclusion of some aspect not previously considered.

Grading: dissertations

A slightly different interpretation is applied in the assessment of the project and dissertation, where students set and report upon their own assignment tasks:

• a mark between 50 and 69 denotes a pass. A student will have demonstrated an ability to select and apply appropriate principles and techniques, and to reflect upon their application in a specific domain.
• a mark between 70 and 100 denotes excellence. A student will have demonstrated an ability: to select, apply, extend, and adapt these principles and techniques to novel situations; to evaluate the potential for application across different domains.

The application should be sufficiently challenging as to allow scope for a convincing demonstration of professional competence and academic ability at Masters' level, and the student's understanding must be clearly demonstrated through a coherent, logical presentation of context, application, and reflection.

The assessors are asked also to consider a set of guidelines, in terms of the application of concepts, ideas, techniques, methods, or tools, and the quality of explanation or reflection:

• 50–59: indicates knowledge and understanding of the concepts, as demonstrated through routine application to a situation that, though novel, fits within a standard prescription; with adequate documentation, a factual or minimal explanation of work presented; satisfying the basic criteria for competence.
• 60–69: indicates an appreciation of the applicability or effectiveness of techniques, as demonstrated by the selection of appropriate techniques in original situations; with a good explanation of the approach taken, and the motivation for choices made.
• 70–79: indicates knowledge and understanding of the underlying mechanisms determining the applicability and effectiveness of different techniques, as demonstrated by deeper, reasoned arguments in support of selection; an account of the context of the work and clear consideration of alternative approaches; close, but not good enough to serve as a model for how this should be done.
• 80–89: indicates a wider appreciation of applicability and effectiveness, as demonstrated by an understanding of the alternative perspectives, and of the scope or possibilities for improvement, integration, or innovation; good enough to serve as a model or exemplar.
• 90–100: indicates an ability to successfully extend or innovate the underlying principles or techniques, independently of specific application domain; dissertations marked at this level are exceeding expectations, in terms of depth and clarity, or through the presentation of some significant insight or contribution.

Assignment selection

In the case of awards in Object Technology or Software and Systems Security, the selection of submissions considered by the examiners must include a numerical majority of subjects chosen from the schedules for the awards in those areas. If this condition is not satisfied, then students may wish to transfer to the corresponding award in Software Engineering prior to examination.

Each award requires the submission for assignments in a minimum number of different subjects: 4 for a PGCert, 8 for a PGDip, and 10 for an MSc. If this requirement is exceeded, then the examiners will consider the most favourable selection of submissions: those that produce the highest average grade, while fitting the selection criteria of the award (if applicable).

Results

Successful candidates will have achieved an average mark of 50 or above in the written assignment submissions considered; successful candidates at MSc level will have achieved also a mark of 50 or above for the dissertation. The examiners must be satisfied that the overall profile of scores reflects an appropriate breadth of knowledge and understanding: no more than 25% of the written assignment submissions considered will have been awarded a mark lower than 50.

Candidates awarded a distinction for excellence will have achieved an average mark of 70 or above in the written assignment submissions considered; candidates awarded a distinction at MSc level will have achieved also a mark of 70 or above in the dissertation. The examiners must be satisfied also that the overall profile of scores reflects an excellent level of knowledge and understanding: no more than 25% of the written assignments considered will have been awarded a mark lower than 70.

The results of examination will be published as soon as possible after the Examiners' meeting. Candidates who do not wish their names to appear on the published lists should indicate this upon their examination entry form, or inform the Programme Office in advance of the meeting.

Any candidate who fails to satisfy the examiners is given three terms in which to retrieve the situation: through the submission of additional written assignments, or the submission of a revised dissertation (for the MSc only). This additional period of study begins with the start of the next term following the publication of results. No further extensions or intermissions are possible.

If a candidate fails to satisfy the examiners in respect of their intended award, but satisfies the examiners in respect of another qualification offered by the Programme, then they may be offered a choice between failure (and possible resubmission), and the award of the other qualification.

Conduct

Every submission to the Programme is preceded or accompanied by a declaration that it is the author's own work except where otherwise indicated. If part of the submission is based closely upon the work of another person, then this must be properly acknowledged: not to do so would be plagiarism, something that is seen as unacceptable in our academic culture. To help them avoid this, participants in the Programme are given guidance on the proper acknowledgement of sources.

Cases of unintentional plagiarism—arising from a misunderstanding of the degree to which a source should be acknowledged, or the form of the acknowledgement required—will be referred to the Chair of the Board of Studies, who may recommend that no credit is awarded for part (or all) of the submission in question. The candidate will be provided with further advice and guidance, and asked to provide written confirmation that they understand and agree with the Examiners' interpretation.

Cases of intentional plagiarism—where there is intent to deceive—will be referred to the University Proctors. The same is true of cases of unintentional plagiarism in which no agreement can be reached, and any appeals regarding the Chair's decision. The Proctors may make recommendations regarding credit; they may also decide that the candidate should not be allowed to proceed any further with the Programme.

The assignments for taught courses are examinations of the University of Oxford, as are the project and dissertation component of the MSc. The wider University Regulations regarding examinations apply to all registered students on the Programme:

• http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/examregs/

Appeals

The examiners and assessors are not permitted to discuss assessment results with candidates. If a candidate requires further explanation of a grade, or the feedback provided, they should contact their supervisor, or the Director of Studies.

It is possible to appeal against grading and examination decisions. Such an appeal should be made within one month of the publication of the decision concerned, and will need to be based upon questions of procedure, rather than of academic judgement. The student should write a short note explaining why they believe that the decision should be reconsidered.

In the first instance, any appeal should be directed to the Programme Office, who will attempt to resolve the issue through careful checking. If the issue remains unresolved, the appeal will be forwarded automatically to the Programme Director.

Should the Programme Director decide that the appeal has merit, then the issue will be discussed by the Board of Examiners. The outcome of this discussion will be communicated to the student via the Programme Office. If the Director considers the appeal without merit, this will also be communicated to the student.

If the student is not satisfied with the outcome of the discussion, or with the decision made by the Programme Director, then they may take the matter further. They should put their concerns in writing, and send them to the University Proctors via the Senior Tutor of their college.

back to the handbook contents page...