Assessment and Criteria

Assessment Criteria

The instructions given by VAMK University of Applied Sciences about assessment of learning in the quality assurance manual and process descriptions are used in assessment.

Assessment is performed by comparing the student’s attainment with the learning outcomes in the curriculum. The tasks in an exam must include a balance between easy, medium and challenging in such a way that each category includes one third of the tasks. Easy tasks refer to tasks that every student who has participated in the instruction should be able to complete and correspondingly difficult tasks are the ones the completion of which requires excellent or good skills and knowledge.

Grade scale

Completion of study periods is assessed by a grading scale of Excellent (5), Good (4-3), Pass (2-1), Fail (0). In exceptional cases the scale with Pass (HYV)/Fail (0) is applied. With regard to the second national language, the grades granted by the University of Applied Sciences, marked 1-3 correspond to Satisfactory and 4-5 to Good within public administration.

Decision on assessment, registration and giving information

By means of assessment, the attainment of the objectives of the study periods is directed and verified. Criteria for assessment are based on the objectives of the study period. The student must receive at the beginning of the study period full particulars on the criteria applied. The student also has the right to be informed about the application of assessment criteria on the study performance. The student’s right and obligation to participate in the teaching is defined in the assessment plans per study period.The student completes the study unit according to the requirements given in the plan of the study unit. The required performances related to the study unit have to be completed within two semesters following the end of the study unit.The student must get the assessment recorded in the student administration database within one month from the completion of the performance.

The students can follow and check up the grades they have received through the student database PEPPI.
The follow-up presupposes that the student has enrolled in attendance and that the student has the required username. In case the username/password has been forgotten, this can be renewed at the study affairs office.

Rectification of assessment

The student has the right to receive information on the assessment criteria applied on their own performance. An account on the assessment is supplied by the teacher who has made the assessment.

The student who is not satisfied with the assessment and the feedback given can submit a rectification claim in accordance with Degree board regulation and process.

Academic dishonesty and misconduct in exams and tasks

Any misconduct in exams and tasks/thesis in strictly forbidden at Vaasa University of Applied Sciences, based on Degree Regulation. Disciplinary measures are also in connection with scholarship criteria. Scholarships can be revoked for the whole duration of study right if student receives written warning.

Depending on the misconduct, the process is as follows:

Academic dishonesty has been demonstrated in an individual assessment task

The teacher rejects the performance and explains to the student why.
Information about the rejected performance is marked in Peppi.
The student retakes the rejected performance, or the dishonesty is taken into account in the assessment as indicated by the teacher.

If there is repeated academic dishonesty in assignments or cheating in exams or final assessments

The teacher informs Student Services, the Head of Education and Research, and the School Director about the situation.
The Head of Education and Research requests the student and teacher to write a statement about what happened.
Student Services, based on the description, prepares an invitation to a hearing, and the content of the invitation is approved by the School Director.
Student Services send the invitation to the hearing to the concerned student (in-person meeting or Teams meeting). The invitation describes the purpose of the hearing and the details of the case; the title of the invitation is “Hearing”. The student, teacher, Head of Education and Research, and School Director participate in the hearing. The student can request support from another person (this is mentioned in the hearing invitation).
The School Director acts as the chairperson of the hearing, and a representative from Student Services acts as the secretary. A memorandum of the hearing is prepared by Student Services, which the student has 3 business days to comment on. The memorandum is electronically signed by the School Director and the secretary.
Based on the statements from the student and teacher and the hearing, the School Director decides whether to issue a written notification to the student.
Student Services inform the student about the decision via encrypted email.
The Education Assistant records the event in the registry (decision and memorandum in Valmu). A corresponding note is made in the student services section of Peppi.
The student retakes the rejected performance, possibly on a new topic. The teacher sets the schedule for the retake.

If repeated academic dishonesty occurs in assignments or in the thesis

The teacher informs Student Services, the Head of Education and Research, and the School Director about the situation.
The Head of Education and Research requests the student and teacher to write a statement about the incident. Based on this description, Student Services prepares an invitation for a hearing, which is approved by the School Director before sending.
Student Services send the hearing invitation to the concerned student (either for an in-person meeting or a Teams meeting). The invitation describes the purpose and details of the hearing, titled “Hearing”. The student, teacher, Head of Education and Research, and School Director participate in the hearing. The student can request support from another person (this is mentioned in the hearing invitation).
A memorandum of the hearing is made, and the student has 3 business days to comment on it. After this, the chairperson of the hearing and the secretary electronically sign the memorandum.
Based on the statements from the student and teacher and the hearing, the School Director makes a recommendation to the rector for a possible warning according to the disciplinary procedure defined in Section 38 of the University of Applied Sciences Act.
The rector decides on issuing a warning and makes a separate decision (referred to as a “D-decision”), which is recorded in the management system.
The decision is communicated to the relevant parties (encrypted email to the student) and recorded in Valmu along with the memorandum. A corresponding note is made in the student services section of Peppi.
The student retakes the rejected performance, possibly on a new topic. The teacher sets the schedule for the retake.

If academic dishonesty continues despite of hearing and written warning

Student Services invite the student in question to the hearing. The hearing is attended by the teacher, the Head of Education and Research and the School Director. The School Director acts as the chairperson of the hearing, while a representative from Student Services acts as the secretary. The student has the option to request support from another person (this is mentioned in the hearing invitation).
A memorandum of the hearing is prepared. The student has 3 business days to provide comments on the memorandum. After this period, the chairperson of the hearing and the secretary electronically sign the memorandum, and it is forwarded to the rector.
The rector proposes to the university of applied sciences board the suspension of the student for a fixed term, not exceeding one year, as per Section 38 of the University of Applied Sciences Act.
The board makes the decision regarding the student’s suspension for a fixed term.
Information about the suspension is recorded in the Peppi system, and the decision and memorandum are stored in Valmu.