# data[].attributes.body
As a long term goal the group feels that the hybrid version is what we should aim for - after some consultation to fine tune the criteria - but that for second and third year students the imposing of a new marking criteria could be very scary.

We need to make sure that the new criteria is a good fit for the broad variety of units that we teach and for the different criteria we are assessing.

Roll out slowly to Y1 first and make sure that the assessment criteria fit for the assessments we are delivering.

# data[].attributes.body
This turned into a conversation about whether its for the best to have Y3 being 75% of the whole degree, esp when this now rests on 5 pieces of work??

# data[].attributes.body
overall feeling is we should go with Option 1 SoGs criteria - more familiar and simpler/clearer than hybrid or Uni-level (which is more like an official audit/quality style framework). Uni-level can remain in the background

do we need to provide more guidance on assessment and marking for group project work?

we have single paragraphs describing 12, 13, 14 etc - but a single paragraph for 15+16, 17+18

would be useful to have a general sense of recent graduate outcomes eg what % get a 1st

# data[].attributes.body
The "professional and Life Skills" column is problematic even for group work assessments as it implies that everybody contributes the same and that is rarely the case.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Whichever approach we take this group felt it was very important that students can see that the progression of the criteria means that they can be rewarded for good work in Y1 but that they also need to 'up the game' from Y1 to Y2 to Y3.

2. This group liked the new criteria that contains an opportunity to reward life skills such as group work etc.

3. Students need to be given an opportunity to understand what 'good work' looks like and to develop those skills throughout the programme.

# data[].attributes.body
Suggestion of using Option 2 Table 1 for inducting new staff and Table 2 as the main criteria in everyday use

# data[].attributes.body
Could we add a statement about how marks are generated when a student demonstrates, say, excellence in one or more criteria and much weaker performance in other criteria

# data[].attributes.body
Different marking systems for different years:

(-): Students may be confused

(-): Some units might move/operate across years

(-): Too complicated system would slowdown the marking process

(+): Students know that they need to progress, set the expectation, send a clear signal to students

(+): Having some guidance can be useful for consistency across makers

(+): Useful for moderations

(+): Give you some information/descriptions when marking

Different components in the marking system:

Key: Students get the clear feedback, easy and consistent mark and moderation, easy communications between makers and HPTs, A range of language you can draw on

(-): Students may feel each component weights the same

(-): Complicate the moderation and marking process, and communication process

(+): Guide the gaze

# data[].attributes.body
Slightly off-topic, but we felt that, given the big changes to summative assessments, is a discussion of how we handle formative assessment across Units worthwhile?

# data[].attributes.body
I have never personally been convinced by having grading criteria that vary by year (level). It's a good idea in principle but, in practice, I suspect it becomes too complicated, particularly in application, and that it is within the complication that errors and appeals arise. It's up to others, of course, but I would advocate for the virtue of simplicity and keeping things as they are. What do the students think?

# data[].attributes.headline
Add comments to the sticky notes or make your own sticky note

# data[].attributes.subject
Add comments to the sticky notes or make your own sticky note

# data[].attributes.body
Very detailed

Extremely long

# data[].attributes.body
Corresponds to the university categories

Aligned with our previous system

A bit more differentiation by year

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
OPTION 1 SoGS UG Criteria for Grading updated