university of exeter presentation template

University of Exeter on Overleaf

Quick start.

The University of Exeter is providing Overleaf Professional features for all students, faculty and staff who would like to use a collaborative, online LaTeX editor for their projects. Overleaf Professional features include real-time track changes, unlimited collaborators, and full document history.

Overleaf is designed to make the process of writing, editing and producing your research papers and project reports much quicker for both you and your collaborators. Overleaf can also be linked to other services to best fit into your workflow.

Claim your Overleaf Professional upgrade by signing up (or signing in) below. You’ll need to link your account to your University of Exeter single sign on.

Join a community of authors at University of Exeter

Log in with SSO processing…

Welcome to the quick start guide to Overleaf. We've put together some useful resources and links in the sections below, and if you have any questions about how to get started please let us know and we'll be happy to help!

All Students

Try out the overleaf editor with built in tutorial.

If you'd like to dive straight into the editor, simply click the button to create a new paper using our quick-start template. A short tutorial will walk you through the main features to quickly get you started.

Browse the Overleaf template gallery

You can find a selection of featured templates , or check out our full template gallery for more ideas and inspiration.

Take our free course to quickly master the LaTeX essentials

If you're new to LaTeX, we've put together a free online course to help you learn the basics. If you have never used LaTeX before, or if it has been a while and you would like a refresher, this is the place to start.

Research Staff

Find a journal template.

Through our partnerships within the publishing community, we provide a selection of academic journal templates for articles and papers. These templates automatically format your manuscripts in the style required for submission to that journal.

Edit in Rich Text mode or directly in LaTeX

Overleaf provides an intuitive and easy-to-use manuscript editor (our rich text mode), which is especially useful if you or your co-authors aren't familiar with writing in LaTeX.

If you prefer to edit directly in LaTeX, you can! Overleaf provides a full collaborative online LaTeX editor you can switch to at any time.

Submitting your articles to journals, repositories and more

You can also submit your paper directly to a number of journals and other editorial and review services via the publish menu in the editor. Simply open the publish menu from any document and follow the appropriate 'Submit to ...' link.

Teaching Staff

Introducing students to latex.

Overleaf has several on-demand webinars available that address a variety of beginner, intermediate, and advanced topics.

Help students understand LaTeX errors

Addressing errors as they happen helps ensure that your LaTeX project continues to compile and look the way it should.

Show your class how to turn on track changes for review

Overleaf offers an impressive collection of collaboration features, and your institutional subscription provides all users with access to the powerful track changes feature.

Featured LaTeX Templates

FAQ & Help

Who should i contact if i have questions about overleaf or the university of exeter license.

Please use our contact form and we'll make sure your question gets to the right person in our team. You can also visit https://www.exeter.ac.uk/it/help/ .

I'm new to Overleaf, how should I get started?

We've put together a short How do I use Overleaf help page to give you pointers on exactly that :)

How do I upload an existing LaTeX project into Overleaf?

Here's an FAQ on how to import existing LaTeX documents into Overleaf .

What packages does Overleaf support?

Overleaf supports the packages listed here .

No Search Results

• Sharing your work with others
• Track changes and comments
• Joining an institutional subscription
• Using the Overleaf history feature
• Helpful how-to guides

Get in touch

Have you checked our knowledge base ?

Message sent! Our team will review it and reply by email.

Email: 

Doctoral College

Planning, Preparing, and Presenting a Research Poster: Hints and tips for the Research Showcase 2023

Katy Humberstone , PhD candidate in Languages, Cultures and Visual Studies , and first place winner in the Humanities Arts and Social Sciences (HASS) category of the Research Showcase poster competition last year, has created a guide for how to plan, prepare and present your research poster.

Below are brief snippets from the guide- the full guide is available on ELE .

• First things first, consider the programme/software you want to use

First of all, have a think about the programme or software you wish to use to create your poster. At this stage, it’s OK to have a little play around with different options – particularly if you’re not used to a particular software – and ultimately decide what’s best for you. The key is to ensure that you format your page to fit to an A0 size, as required by Doctoral College (you can easily find the dimensions of an A0 size online).

• Look out for all things design: Font and layout

I know it probably sounds obvious, but I am a strong believer that poster layout and font choices really do make a difference to the overall visual effect of your piece! It is therefore important to consider this alongside the actual content of your poster itself. Whichever structure you go for, just ensure that the piece is easy to follow, and provide arrows or other ways of directing the reader, if you think this might facilitate their engagement.

Be sure to choose a select few fonts which are easy to read (you might want to consider, for example, a font for your title and subheading-level text, and a main font for the more detailed text).

Can you spot the path-like structure in my poster?

• Text and image balance is the aim of the game

In addition to deciding on a particular shape or pattern your poster will follow (as above), it is also important to consider obtaining a balance between text and image. If you follow the ‘less is more’ rule text-wise, then you’re all set. Also be savvy about the sorts of images which you use to illustrate your points, and that any visuals/photos/graphs/symbols all help to enhance the written work rather than detract or distract from it.

• Think about your target audience and write for them

The poster competition is a particularly wonderful opportunity to explain your project to academics, students, and the broader public. You need to somehow strike a balance in your poster content so that it makes sense to someone both inside, and outside your discipline.

When drafting my Poster last year, I found it easier to take a perspective ‘from the outside’ in order to properly consider the sort of discipline-specific knowledge which I could be taking for granted and would therefore need further explanation to a broader audience.

A core section of my poster (methodology), breaking-down my methodological choices

• Draft, re-draft and, yes…draft again!

Linked to my previous two tips on design and wording (yes, I did say that they were all quite interconnected!), be aware that drafting and re-drafting is a very normal (if essential) part of the poster creating process! You may find that you end up with a layout or font which does not quite work, or a text and image balance which is a little…well…imbalanced! Alternatively, you might feel, after taking a step back, that some concepts or ideas need further expansion for your audience.

• Convert to PDF every so often

While engaging in the redrafting phase, you might like to export your draft as a PDF now and again. The aim of the PDF export game is to envisage what your poster might look like once it is printed, and check for any loss of quality in images while exporting your contribution to the required format. This is important because your final submission to the Doctoral College will need to be in PDF format.

• Adding layers through the digital

A popular choice among the submitted posters last year was to incorporate a QR code into the poster itself, to link to additional digital information about the PhD project. I created a small blog page, with a few embedded street view ‘walking tours’ of the urban landscape in Mexico which I’m focusing on for my PhD, using Google Blogger . You might also consider doing something similar with a simple blog page, or you could link to existing additional resources on the web, in order to enhance your discussion and provide an added layer of engagement. In sum, the choice is yours, and the opportunities are endless with these digital ‘layers’!

The QR code on my poster, inviting the audience to engage on a walking tour. Scan it yourself with your device to see what I created!

And…that’s it!…Now go forth and make an awesome research poster. I’m very much looking forward to seeing all your final contributions in the Forum this summer – good luck!

Handy resources referenced in this piece:

https://www.blogger.com/about/?r=1-null_user

https://www.canva.com/en_gb/

https://www.exeter.ac.uk/research/doctoralcollege/events/research-showcase/postercompetition/

https://inkfactorystudio.com/blog/learn-visual-notes-beginners/

https://prestosketching.com/2021/01/14/a-guide-to-sketchnote-layouts/

For students

• Current Students website
• Email web access
• Make a payment
• iExeter (students)
• Programme and module information
• Current staff website
• Room Bookings
• iExeter (staff)
• Finance Helpdesk
• IT Service Desk

Popular links

• Accommodation
• Job vacancies
• Temporary workers
• Future Leaders & Innovators Graduate Scheme

New and returning students

• New students website
• Returning Students Guide

Wellbeing, Inclusion and Culture

• Wellbeing services for students
• Wellbeing services for staff
• Equality, Diversity and Inclusion
• Israel, Palestine, and the Middle East
• PGR Student Handbook
• University of Exeter Business School

Research Writing and Thesis Requirements

PGR degrees are examined primarily on the basis of a piece of research presented in the form of a thesis submitted within the prescribed period of study. You will be examined about your thesis at the end of your programme. The production of that thesis is, therefore, your main task. In order to undertake this work you will need a well-focused research topic, a knowledge of the existing secondary literature on the subject, a well thought out methodology for tackling the research, access to the necessary primary sources required and the ability to produce a well-structured argument in lucid and well-presented prose. Many ancillary skills may be required to do this: knowledge of languages, palaeography, information technology, the latest theoretical and methodological approaches in your discipline, interview techniques and questionnaires to name but a few. 

Successful research students understand the task in hand, plan their work carefully, acquire the training and skills required, and take a systematic approach to research and writing, always keeping their deadline for submission clearly in view. They are helped in this task by supervisors, with whom they work closely. A thesis needs to conform to accepted academic conventions, to avoid plagiarism and to follow the ethical guidelines laid down for research. 

Students must work within strict deadlines laid down for completion, which vary according to the type of degree being taken and the registration status of each student. The progress of each student is monitored by the PGR Support team, which decides on any changes to a student’s status.

Requirements of a Research Thesis

You need to know what you have to achieve in your research in order to obtain your degree. A thesis must conform to standards laid down by the University and to follow proper academic conventions. The PhD demands a higher standard than the MPhil. 

• TQA Manual, Chapter 11 – Presentation of theses/dissertations for degrees in the Faculty of Research .
• MPhil regulations
• PhD regulations

Presentation of Thesis

The TQA Manual,   Chapter 11 - Presentation of theses/dissertations for degrees in the Faculty of Graduate Research: statement of procedures   details the format and presentation of the thesis must be closely followed. These provide information on all aspects of the overall layout of a thesis, including word length (up to 100,000 for a PhD and 60,000 for an MPhil), division into chapters, the scholarly apparatus. As of March 2020, you are no longer required to print and bind a hard copy of your thesis for submission, as we now follow an   electronic thesis submission   procedure. If your examiner requests a hard bound copy, our PGR Administration team will arrange for a copy to be printed and sent to your examiner. If you would like a hard copy of the thesis to refer to in your viva, it is your responsibility to arrange for your copy to be printed. 

If you would like to see an example of a successful thesis please ask your supervisor to show you one. 

In addition to the general formatting rules, research and writing in the Business School normally follow particular conventions and in part your thesis will be judged upon its adherence to them.

Alternative Form of Submission

Changes to the guidance on the presentation of theses have been made resulting in a re-definition of what we mean by the term ‘thesis’ which reflects the wide variety of ways in which research is carried out and assessed. This allows, for example, for the production of a thesis in an alternative format, which may include either:

a) The presentation of part or all of the thesis in an alternative format e.g. it may be a multimedia document (e.g. an element or the thesis in its entirety, which is presented in a format appropriate perhaps for presentation at a conference; OR

b) A constructed text such as a piece of art, or a record of professional practice in the form of a series of case-studies, which must be accompanied by a commentary.

You must seek advice from your supervisor and   PGR Support Team   as early as possible into your degree if you wish to consider the use of an alternative thesis format.

Business School Discipline Thesis Norms

Different disciplines within the Business School may expect “norms” in the way that research degrees are presented. Whilst for many Business and Management Schools these norms are unspoken rules, we have defined the most common ways that theses may be presented. Over the last few years, we have found that the 3 study thesis is becomiong more popular across all disciplines, although this is the primary thesis style in Economics and Finance. 

It is important to note that the structure of the thesis depends very much on the project itself and is to be agreed by the student and supervisor prior to upgrade, and preferably within the first few weeks of planning the research.

If you are unsure which format your thesis will take, you should discuss with your supervisory team in the first instance. They can share examples of other thesis in your subject area.

Research Misconduct

The University expects its staff and students to maintain the highest standards for the conduct of research. As such the University has procedures in place that govern academic/research conduct for graduate research students. ‘ Research Misconduct – Procedure for Graduate Research Students suspected of Research Misconduct ’ is specific to graduate research students, and defines research conduct in the context of the range of activities undertaken by those doing research. 

You are expected to review this procedure and ensure that you understand your responsibilities under this Procedure, and that you understand the definitions of misconduct. You should also be aware that any work submitted to a member of your supervision team either in full, in part, or as a draft will fall under the provisions of this Procedure, as will any work handed to a member of staff. 

If you are in any doubt as to what constitutes Research Misconduct and how to avoid it please talk to your supervisors or your Discipline DPGR.

Research Data Management and Open Access

There are a number of benefits to making your research and thesis available via Open Access:

• Increases citations and the visibility of your research
• Helps to build your research career
• Increases chances of further funding opportunities and collaborations
• Meets the transparency/openness agenda

The key points of the University’s   Open Access Research and Research Data Management Policy for PGR Students  are as follows:

A copy of your final thesis/dissertation will need to be   submitted to the institutional repository ,   Open Research Exeter (ORE) , prior to the award of your degree.

Research Papers

• PGR students should make the published peer-reviewed research papers and conference proceedings they produce whilst affiliated with the University available on Open Access according to funder requirements and as soon as publisher restrictions will allow.
• PGR research papers should be made available on Open Access, by depositing a copy of the paper in   Open Research Exeter (ORE) .
• Published research papers should include a short statement describing how and on what terms any supporting research data may be accessed.

  Resear ch  Data

• PGR students should always comply with   funder policy   and   University policy   on research data management.
• Responsibility for ongoing, day-to-day management of their research data lies with PGR students. Where the PGR is part of a project, data management policy will be set and monitored by the Principal Investigator (PI) and the PGR will be expected to comply with project guidelines.
• The lead PGR Supervisor is responsible for advising the PGR student on good practice in research data management.
• PGR students and their supervisors should discuss and review research data management issues annually, addressing issues of the capture, management, integrity, confidentiality, security, selection, preservation and disposal, commercialisation, costs, sharing and publication of research data and the production of descriptive metadata to aid discovery and re-use when relevant.
• A  checklist  to support PGRs and their supervisors in the annual research data review is available.
• At the end of the degree, PGR students should register selected research data in   Open Research Exeter (ORE) . Information about the data should be included as a statement in the thesis record using the Description field. When legally, commercially and ethically appropriate, this selected research data should also be made available on Open Access in an appropriate repository.
• unprotected intellectual property which you, your sponsor or any other 3rd party has the intention to use
• sensitive information that may need to be withheld from public view
• commercially sensitive material that may belong to your project sponsor
• Please contact   [email protected]   if you require any further advice.
• It is not School policy that students must provide the School with a copy of the final version of the thesis. However, it would be courteous of students to offer their supervisors a personal copy of the final thesis

Research Data Management Guidance

In order to save time and effort later on in your degree, before you start collecting or creating research data or materials research students should consider the following:

Further Information

The following links provide further help and guidance on Open Access and research data management:

• Research Data Management Survival Guide for New PhD Students .
• Open Access guide for PGRs 
• Research data management  
• Further help and advice is available via   [email protected]  or   [email protected] .

There are also training sessions on Open Access and Research Data Management as part of the  Researcher Development.

• Back to PGR Student Handbook index

Connect with us

Information for:

• Current students
• New students
• Alumni and supporters

Quick links

Streatham Campus

St Luke's Campus

Penryn Campus

Truro Campus

• Using our site
• Accessibility
• Freedom of Information
• Modern Slavery Act Statement
• Data Protection
• Copyright & disclaimer
• Privacy & cookies

University home | Studying | Research | Business and community | Working here | Alumni and supporters | Our departments | Visiting us | About us

• Intranet Home
• About the Faculty
• Information about staff
• Information for staff only
• 2. You and the College of Humanities
• 3. Academic support
• 4. Your wellbeing
• 5. Your programme
• 6. Your modules
• Degree classifications
• Marking scheme
• Draft essay policies
• Double-marking and moderation
• Assessment procedures for students with dyslexia or learning difficulties
• Cheating and plagiarism
• Submitting work
• Extensions, Deferrals and Mitigation
• Going over the word limit
• Calculating your word count
• Missing an Individual Assessed Presentation
• Missing an Assessed Group Presentation
• Missing an exam
• Illegible handwriting
• Assessment procedures for disabled or ill students
• Assessment procedures for overseas (incoming exchange) students
• Using a dictionary in exams
• Ethics clearance
• Failing your module
• Receiving results
• Re-taking an assessment
• External Examiners
• Study Abroad Mark Conversions
• Referencing
• Assessment criteria for Humanities coded modules
• 8 Employability matters
• 9. Useful terms
• Undergraduates
• Postgraduate taught
• Postgraduate research
• Year Abroad

7.7 Submitting Work

7.7.1 Essay presentation

• Check your subject handbook for any specific requirements for your Department
• Use a clearly readable font such as Times New Roman or Arial
• Use minimum of 11 point font size unless otherwise advised by your department
• Learn how to use accents when quoting in languages other than English
• Use double-spacing and clear margins of at least 2.5 cm all around
• Number your pages
• Use the referencing system recommended by your department (for clear and accurate guidance, see  https://libguides.exeter.ac.uk/referencing )
• Add your student number to the top of all pages (in the interest of marking anonymity, please do not include your name)
• Keep a copy of the work you hand in (correct version)
• All printed work should be printed double-sided unless otherwise advised by your department.

7.7.2 Coursework Submission and eBART (NB There are different processes for Streatham and Penryn)

Most coursework hand-ins involve submission via our electronic system, E-BART. Please see the Online Submission Student Handbook for full details on how to submit work.

If you notice that a scheduled assignment is not showing on your E-BART record, please let your local Info Point know. If you have applied for, and been granted mitigation (see relevant section in this Handbook), this will show on your E-BART record. 

7.7.3 Deadlines

For Humanities subjects, the standard deadline is 12 noon on the published submission day and so you must submit by 11.59:59 at the latest. Work which is late (without approved mitigation - see relevant sections in this Handbook) by up to one hour will receive a penalty of 5% of the total marks available for the coursework and work that is more than one hour but up to 14 days late will be capped at a maximum of the bare pass-mark for the programme. See section 7.8 and here for more information. 

You are able, if you wish, to hand in work early. If you are required to submit your work in person (e.g. creative portfolios) at one of the Info Points, please do not leave this to the last minute in case of queues at the desk. 

7.7.4 "Turnitin"

One of the tools used at the University of Exeter to help ensure academic integrity and honesty is Turnitin. This is a computer programme which we use to check for similarities, against material within the Turnitin database which includes a wide range of publications and texts. To ensure clarity, fairness and consistency across the University all programmes use Turnitin for written work submitted for marking. Our policy can be found in the Academic Conduct and Practice regulations. 

7.7.5 Further Advice and Guidance

There are plenty of sources of advice and guidance. All students have access to an Academic Honesty and Plagiarism site on  ELE  (this should show on the left hand side of your screen when you log in). There is also a  general site , useful online  referencing guidance  and your academic or personal tutors will also be happy to help. 

7.7.6 Submitting Work Twice

Please note that you may not submit the same work for two different assignments, or as part of two different assignments (whether on the same module or on different modules), unless the instructions for a specific piece of work explicitly allow such repetition. Where there is a degree of overlap or resemblance between the work submitted for two different assignments, please consult the tutors of the modules about the appropriate course of action.

Home | Contact us | Staff | Students | iExeter (Staff and Students) | Site map | 中文网

• Alumni and supporters
• Our departments
• Visiting us
• Academic Partnerships Handbook
• Approval and Revision of Taught Modules and Programmes Handbook
• 1 - Introduction
• 2 - Setting and submission of assessments
• 3 - Examinations
• 4 - Assessing students with disabilities

5 - Marking

• 6 - Feedback
• 7 - Assessment, progression and awarding committees
• 8 - Progression
• 9 - Classification of awards
• 10 - Mitigation: Deadline extensions and deferrals
• 11 - Consequence of failure in assessment
• 12 - Academic conduct and practice
• 13 - Review and publication of degree outcomes
• Annex A - Examination papers and rubrics
• Annex B - Examination major incident procedures
• Annex C - Programme / discipline committee
• Annex D - Faculty assessment, progression and awarding committee
• Annex E - University assessment, progression and awarding committee
• Annex F - Mitigation
• Annex G - Scaling Guidance
• Annex H - Template for reporting on the internal review of degree classifications
• Annex I - Template for preparation of the annual external Degree Outcomes Statement
• Annex J - Generalised timeline for annual internal review of degree outcomes and preparation of external Degree Outcomes Statement
• Annex K - Sharing of Examination Papers or Questions Investigation Guidance
• Annex L - Viva Voce Process
• Credit and Qualifications Framework
• Exceptional Circumstances Handbook
• External Examining Handbook
• Learning and Teaching Support Handbook
• Postgraduate Research Handbook
• Quality Review & Enhancement Framework
• Student Cases Handbook
• Special Provisions for Online Programmes (including those offered in partnership with Keypath Education)
• Special Provisions for Healthcare Programmes
• Special Provisions for Degree Apprenticeships
• Special Provisions for Programmes with Accreditation Licenced by the Engineering Council

Chapter 5 - Marking

5.1 Principles for Marking Assessments 5.2 Pass Mark for Individual Modules 5.3  Anonymity 5.4  Viva Voce 5.5  Moderation and Sampling 5.6  Generic Mark Scheme 5.7  Marking Criteria 5.8  Scaling of Marks 5.9  Marking the Work of Students with ILPs or Diagnosed with Specific Learning Difficulties (where competence of language is not being assessed) 5.10 Marking Criteria for Group Work Assignments

• All marking must be based on the quality of students’ work and be free from bias or prejudice ( see 5.3 ).
• No module’s marking should rely solely on the judgement of one marker.
• All summative assessment must be subject to moderation.
• Where the anonymity of candidates cannot be assured independent double marking must  be applied to a sample.
• All Faculties (or delegated Schools)  must publish marking criteria for all assessment.
• The relevant marking criteria must be applied consistently.
• It must be explicit that the responsibility for proofreading students' work lies with the student.
• Staff must signpost students to appropriate proofreading support and tools, such as those provided by Study Zone. 
• Staff must be willing to use the whole range of marks when marking assessment(s). Where a marking scheme is introduced which does not use the full scale of marks this must be clearly communicated to students.
• The pass mark for individual modules at Levels 3-6 is 40%. Marks below 40% constitute failure.
• The pass mark for individual modules at Level 7 is 50%. Marks below 50% constitute failure.
• Where a student on an undergraduate programme is taking a module at Level 7 the module must be marked according to the normal postgraduate marking criteria for the module and the marking scheme for postgraduate modules.
• Where a student on a postgraduate programme is taking a module at Level 6 or below, the module must be marked according to the normal undergraduate marking criteria for the module and the marking scheme for undergraduate modules. The mark obtained must be used in the calculation of the credit-weighted mean for the programme as a whole (i.e., there must be no ‘scaling' of marks).
• The mark obtained must be used in the calculation of the credit-weighted mean for the programme as a whole (i.e. there must be no ‘scaling’ of marks).
• The most effective means of demonstrating that marking is free from bias or prejudice is to ensure that students’ assessment is anonymous. All assessments should be anonymous. However, the University recognises that this is not always practically possible. Where assessment cannot be anonymous, Faculties (or delegated Schools)  must ensure, and be able to demonstrate, that marking is fair, reliable, consistent and transparent. Students must be fully informed of the marking criteria and processes.
• The viva voce provides the marking team with a means of determining whether work submitted by a candidate is their work. This is achieved by assessing the thoroughness of the candidate’s understanding of the submission, and the candidate’s ability to explain and justify its contents.
• Marking and moderation are conducted anonymously in line with the University’s guidelines and therefore a student would only be identified once it had been determined that a viva voce is required.
• This process will allow a member of the marking team together with a senior academic (e.g. Head of Department, Chair of APAC or Director of Education) to interview a student to discuss the submitted work to establish the authenticity of the material.
• The implementation of a viva process will allow concerns to be appropriately measured and evidenced before a decision is made as to whether or not these concerns should be pursued through the University’s academic conduct procedures. The Viva Voce process is outlined in Appendix L.
• Moderation is the process used to assure that assessment outcomes are fair and reliable, and that assessment criteria have been applied consistently. Any moderation method must be proportionate to ensure fairness, reliability and consistent application of the criteria.
• Independent double marking: where a piece of work is marked by two markers independently, who agree a final mark for the assessment. Neither marker is aware of the other’s mark when formulating their own mark.
• Double open marking: where a piece of work is marked by two markers, who agree a final mark for the assessment.
• Calibration of marking within teams of multiple markers, in advance of team members marking their own batch of assessments. Calibration involves the scrutiny of a sample of submissions being graded by all markers collectively. The sample should be sufficient in number to ensure the grading approach being taken by all markers is consistent. Following calibration processes, the subsequent moderation processes may be limited to scrutinising (i) submissions that are borderline (e.g. within 1% of a class boundary), and (ii) other submissions considered to be in need of moderation by the module lead.
• Check marking: where an assessment is read by a second marker to determine whether the mark awarded by the first marker is appropriate.
• Where double marking or check marking is applied as the method of moderation the marking team should agree a final set of marks for the whole cohort and if they cannot agree a final mark, a third marker should be used to adjudicate an agreed mark.
• These processes should also identify the marking patterns of individual markers to facilitate comparisons and identify inconsistencies.
• Where model answers are agreed by staff marking assessments, it is allowable for these assessments not to be moderated. However, the model answer must be reviewed and agreed by at least two markers in advance.
• The sample must  be representative and cover the full range of marks;
• The sample must be sufficient to assure the APAC and External Examiner(s) that the requisite academic standards have been maintained, and that all marking is fair, reliable and valid (i.e. free from bias or prejudice, based on the quality of students’ work, and consistent with the relevant marking criteria);
• APACs and External Examiners must be informed of the methodology (or methodologies) by which assessments are selected for internal moderation, so they can advise on its sufficiency and appropriateness.
• The sample should not be the same sample as used in external moderation;
• The selected sample should be proportionate to the risk to standards posed by each module/assessment, bearing in mind the credit-weighting of the assessment, the experience of the primary marker, and historic trends, such as whether the module or assessment are new or have recently changed in structure/format, or if marks have previously had to be adjusted as a result of moderation/scaling;
• Where responsibility for assessing full submissions (as opposed to selected sections/questions) is distributed amongst a team of multiple markers, marking calibration processes should occur in advance of each marker marking their batch of assessments, in the following circumstances: a new team (or team member) is undertaking the marking, the form of assessment is new, and/or the module is new (or significantly revised);
• Where possible, the sample should include at least one item marked according to the marking guidelines for specific learning difficulties.
• Where a cohort includes a submission(s) made via an alternative form of assessment (as per the Inclusive Practice within Academic Study policy), the sample should include at least one alternative assessment item.
• For modules, where there is only one primary marker, at least XX% or a minimum of XX (whichever is greater) of the submitted assessments, but to a maximum of XX submissions in total. (E.g. (a) at least 10% or a minimum of 10 (whichever is greater) of the submitted assessments should be moderated, but to a maximum of 25 submissions in total; or (b) at least 5% or a minimum of 5 (whichever is greater) of the submitted assessments, but to a maximum of 15 submissions in total .)
• For modules, where multiple markers are used to mark a batch of assessments, sampling  should  be undertaken as above with regard to each marker rather than with regard to the whole batch of assessments. (This does not apply (i) where each member of the marking team takes responsibility for marking specific sections/questions: in that situation standard sampling should be undertaken as above, or (ii) where marking calibration processes are undertaken in advance of team members marking their own batch of assessments.)
• The University has a generic mark scheme (that draws on QAA 1 and SEEC 2 guidelines) that characterises the level of complexity, demand and relative autonomy expected of students at each Level of the curriculum (as detailed in the Credit and Qualifications Framework ). The generic mark scheme can be found here .
• All marking criteria must be consistent with the University's published percentage boundaries (see Chapter 9 ) for degree classification.
• To ensure consistency all summative marking processes should be numerical, unless an alternative scheme has been approved by the Pro-Vice Chancellor and Executive Dean (PVC) and has been clearly communicated to students.
• External Examiners must have an opportunity to comment on the assessment criteria and model answers for all summative assessments.
• The purpose of scaling is to rectify anomalies in module and/or component mark distributions that arise from unanticipated circumstances and should be used in exceptional circumstances only. Hence, the assessment criteria and practices for any module that has its marks scaled should be reviewed, in consultation with the module/ programme External Examiner, in order to reduce the chance that scaling will be necessary in subsequent years. Guidance for scaling is set out in Annex G . The guidance should be read in the context of this Handbook, and the provisions of this Handbook remain in force.
• APACS will be provided with descriptive module statistics (mean, median, and standard deviation) based on a comprehensive reference dataset of the student cohort performance in the current academic year and comparable historic mean module marks from the three previous academic years, where they are available Historic mean module marks from academic years that have been designated as Exceptional Years, will be excluded. APACs will undertake this comparison at module level, noting that scaling will normally be undertaken at module level rather than at individual component level.
• APACS will then consider the application of appropriate adjustments to correct any statistically significant deviation. For example, should a module show a distribution of student attainment significantly below that of previous year groups, then the APAC will consider scaling the cohort results to make them comparable with the attainment in previous years. Where a module has been run for the first time in the current academic year, an appropriate composite historic mean based on appropriate cognate module(s) will be used for the comparison or reference made to programme level and/or year group metrics.
• The raw marks, together with the rationale under which they were awarded, must always be made available to the Assessment, Progression and Awarding Committee.
• Scaling must not unfairly benefit or disadvantage a subset of students (e.g. failures). This means that any scaling function applied to a set of marks must be monotonically increasing, i.e. it must not reverse the rank-order of any pair of students. The definition of any scaling function used (its domain) must encompass the full range of raw marks from 0 to 100%. For example, 'Add 3 marks to all students' or 'Multiply all marks by a factor of 0.96' are both valid scaling functions. 'Add 4 marks to all failures and leave the rest unchanged.' is not acceptable because it would cause a student whose raw mark was 39 (a fail) to leapfrog a student who got 41 (a pass).
• External Examiners must always be consulted about the process.
• All decisions  must be clearly recorded in the minutes of the Assessment, Progression and Awarding Committee (APAC), and must include details of the rationale for scaling, any noted objections (and any responses to these objections) and the impact on marks.
• The system used to identify modules as potential candidates for scaling must be transparent.
• For guidance on a range of accessibility issues, including marking guidelines, refer to the Services' Advice for Staff website.
• Marking criteria for group work assignments must include whether the marks will be allocated individually or to the group, and how they will be allocated.
• If peer assessment is used, the criteria for this should also be included, as well as how this will contribute to the overall mark. Please also see further guidance in Chapter 10 of the Learning Teaching Support Handbook: Peer and Self Assessment in Student Work: Principles and Criteria.
• Further information on group work assignments and strategies for Learning and Teaching which provide an inclusive experience for all students is provided in the Education Toolkit: https://universityofexeteruk.sharepoint.com/sites/EducationToolkit/SitePages/Guidance-for-Assessed-Group-Work.aspx

1 Quality Assurance Agency frameworks for higher education qualifications and credit

2 Southern England Consortium for Credit Accumulation and Transfer 

Last reviewed October 2023

Updated January 2024

Back to top

Using our site  |  Freedom of Information  |  Data Protection  |  Copyright & disclaimer  |  Privacy & Cookies  | 

Referencing

• Faculty of Environment, Science and Economy
• Faculty of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences
• Faculty of Health and Life Sciences
• Referencing Styles
• Using generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT in academic work
• Checking the accuracy of your references
• Referencing Software
• Further support
• Frequently asked questions

University of Exeter Students' Guild Reference Right Campaign  

ASK: Academic Skills @ Cornwall

Explore each tab to learn the basics of referencing

• Using Cite them Right
• Referencing tutorial
• Selecting and evaluating your sources
• Referencing a source found in another author’s work (Secondary referencing)

This guide brings together all the key information on referencing and has links to information about all the referencing styles used at the University.  

You’ll need to know what referencing style your department is using. Your lecturer may have already told you this or it may be in your course handbook. If you’re not sure you can check your Faculty and Programme information from the menu to the left of this page. 

If you are already familiar with how to reference and how to incorporate references into your writing through paraphrasing and quoting, you might want to go straight to the Referencing Styles  page. Here you can find your specific referencing style. 

*The University has produced its own guidance for styles not covered by Cite them right. Visit the  Referencing styles  page for more information. 

Watch the video below for an introduction to making the most of university referencing guidance

Complete the  Cite Them Right Tutorial  to learn the principles of referencing.

Once you launch the tutorial you can choose your referencing style in order to tailor the tutorial guidance and questions.

After you have finished exploring the various topics, you can choose to take an assessment to test and document your knowledge.

When writing at university you will use information from a range of different sources. Your tutors will direct you to some but others you will have to find for yourself. You need to select these sources carefully and acknowledge them in your work by providing in-text citations and a reference list, or in some disciplines, footnotes and a bibliography.

You need to evaluate your sources to assess their reliability, authority and validity before you decide to use them. As a general rule, you should not refer to sources such as book reviews, Wikipedia or lecture notes in your work. Do not use or refer to essays that you have found online as these may come from ‘essay mills’ and are therefore not reliable sources. For further guidance on evaluating sources, take a look at the Evaluating Sources LibGuide Tutorial .

It is good practice to avoid secondary referencing 

Watch a video on secondary referencing

Imagine you are reading a blog post from 2021 called ‘Creating a Forest Food Garden: Higher Education that is disruptive by Design’, written by Perpetua Kirby, John Parry and Daphne Lambert.  

It is located on the British Educational Research Association (BERA) website.  You want to include the following information from the blog in your assignment. How would you reference this? 

Paradoxically, this requires a slowing down to attend to feelings and perspectives as a means to identify what to transform together in response to the urgency of the environmental crisis (Kirby & Webb, 2021).  

It is good practice in this situation to find the article written by Kirby and Webb (the primary source).  

You can then read it directly and paraphrase the point they are making. This means you can also include their article as an in-text citation and in your reference list in the normal way. 

It is not accurate to paraphrase or quote the highlighted sentence and cite it as being the words of Kirby and Webb when you haven’t read their article.  

The highlighted sentence is actually an interpretation of their words by the authors of the blog (which we would refer to as the secondary source). 

How to include a secondary reference if you need to 

If you are unable to find a primary source to check the information yourself, you can include what is called a secondary reference, which is fully transparent about where the information came from.  

Secondary references should be kept to a minimum in your assignment. 

Check your specific referencing style for how to format a secondary reference, the example below uses APA referencing style: 

In-text citation for the above example 

Kirby and Webb (2021, as cited in Kirby et al., 2021) suggest that …  

… (Kirby & Webb, 2021, as cited in Kirby et al., 2021) 

Your reference list would just include the Kirby et al. blog, as this is the source you have actually read. 

You can learn more about plagarism and how to avoid it here.

• Next: Faculty of Environment, Science and Economy >>
• Last Updated: May 13, 2024 4:17 PM
• URL: https://libguides.exeter.ac.uk/referencing