Assessment and Feedback

Formative assessment develops the knowledge and skills that you acquire from your courses. Formative assessment is a compulsory part of every course and may include class/seminar discussions and presentations; essays; problem sets; research proposals, mock examinations or quizzes. Formative assessment does not count towards your course mark or your overall degree classification. Instead, it is is designed to prepare you for the summative (assessed) work that you will complete later in the course. The feedback you receive from your formative work will help prepare you for your summative work.

We have set formative deadlines for the core courses which all our MSc students take:

For formative assignments (except MC408 and Methods) in the department, you should check the exact deadline with your course convenor or seminar leader. Feedback on formative tasks will normally be returned to students within three term weeks of the submission deadline, where students submit their work on time.

Summative assessment tests whether you have acquired the learning outcomes of each course. Summative assessment is a compulsory part of every course and may include a variety of methods including coursework (such as essays), closed book and take-home assessments, presentations and dissertations. Summative assessment does count towards your course mark course and your overall degree classification. Individual courses may be assessed by one piece of summative assessment or by a combination of different types of summative assessment.

The below table lists the summative assessment deadlines for master's courses in the department in the academic year 2024/25. Feedback on summative tasks will normally be returned to students within five term weeks of the submission deadline, where students submit their work on time. All feedback deadlines comply with the LSE Academic Code.

When writing assignments, students must adhere to the stated word limit. However, the Department of Media and Communications allows a 10% margin of error on word count, meaning students can write 10% over or under the stated word limit, unless specific course assignment guidelines state otherwise. For example, for an assignment of 3000 words, students should aim to submit no more than 3300 words and no fewer than 2700 words.

The word count must be recorded on the coversheet, which you must attach to the first page of your submission. Where the word count of an assignment is considerably over or under the limit (i.e., more than 10%) this will be taken into consideration during the marking process.

For all formative and summative coursework submitted to the Department of Media and Communications, including the dissertation, the word count will include:

• the main body of the text 
• titles, headings and subheadings
• abstracts
• directly quoted material
• footnotes and endnotes used to provide additional information to supplement the main body of the text

 The word count will not include:

• in-text (bracketed) citations, as used in referencing systems such as Harvard, APA, MLA and the Chicago/Turabian 'author-date' style
• footnote or endnote citations, as used in referencing systems such as Oxford and the Chicago/Turabian 'notes and bibliography' style
• the coversheet
• the Generative AI statement
• letters of notification (only used by students with My Adjustments)
• tables of content
• acknowledgements and dedications
• graphs, figures, tables, images, and captions referring to these
• appendices
• bibliographies and reference lists

Written coursework submitted to other academic departments may have different word count rules, so please check before submitting work if this applies to you.

If you have a summative assessment and you are worried that you will not meet the deadline, you should request either an Extension or a Deferral (see the 'Extensions, Deferrals and Exceptional Circumstances' section at the bottom of this page). If you don’t successfully request either of these, and you submit your work late, the penalties will be as follows:

• Coursework (including essays, projects and dissertations)
  Five marks will be deducted for coursework submitted within 24 hours after the deadline. A further five marks will be deducted for each subsequent 24 hour period (this includes weekends, public holidays and School closure days) until the coursework is submitted. Coursework more than five days late will only be accepted with the permission of the Chair of the Sub-Board of Examiners.
• 7-Day take-home assessments
  Within the first 24 hours after the assessment submission deadline, five marks will be deducted for every half-day (12 hours), or part of a half day the assessment is received late. This will result in a maximum penalty of ten percentage marks for the first 24 hours. For beyond the first 24 hours after assessment submission deadline, ten marks will be deducted for the first 24 hours as above then five percentage marks will be deducted per 24 hour period (not limited to working days) the assessment is late, or 24 hour period, thereafter.

If you do submit an assessment late, then it is important that you submit an Exceptional Circumstances form (see the 'Extensions, Deferrals and Exceptional Circumstances' section at the bottom of this page), which allows the Department to consider any circumstances you were experiencing at the time which may have affected your ability to submit work by the deadline. 

All summative coursework in the Department is marked using a system called ‘moderation’. Moderation is an established and widely used system of marking in UK academia. Moderation aims to assure that assessments have been marked in an academically rigourous manner, fairly, with consistency, and with reference to agreed marking criteria. Initially, the first marker, who is either the teacher responsible for the course or a member of academic staff who has experience in the subject matter to the satisfaction of the Exam Sub-Board Chair, marks the pieces of work and writes notes justifying these marks. All courses are then moderated by a moderator, who is a member of full-time faculty. The role of the moderator is to review and verify marks and to oversee the consistency of marking in line with assessment criteria, the course aims, and the expected learning outcomes. The moderator performs this role through a review of the overall mark distribution and the reading of an appropriate sample of assessments.  In the unusual situation where marks cannot be confirmed, the first marker refers the marking outcome to the Exam Sub-Board Chair who will decide on what action, if any, is required, and whose decision will be final with respect to the internal marking procedure.

In the case of in-class work which is non-textual (e.g. presentations), an appropriate system of moderation is put in place to enable consistency and rigour in marking. This could be through joint observation of presentations and/or review of presentation reports. 

All dissertations are independently double-blind marked i.e. each marker marks the dissertation without having sight of the other marker’s mark or comments during the process. In the case of dissertations, one of the two markers, normally your supervisor, is assigned the role of ‘first marker’ and is responsible for arranging a meeting between both markers to discuss and agree upon a provisional mark for the dissertation.

In the Department of Media and Communications, our priority is to ensure that students have the best possible opportunity to develop their critical thinking, hone their analytical skills and refine their ethical sensibilities in relation to the opportunities and challenges that media and communications presents in theory and practice. Students also share these goals, but in addition, they want to develop and use associated skills (research, writing, presentation) in a way that makes sense to them in the context of their daily lives, and that will be useful for them once they leave LSE to pursue their careers. 

The departmental policy is based on the differentiation between AI-powered tools and generative AI tools.

• AI-powered tools use artificial intelligence to support (academic) learning, writing and research. They are now embedded in the ways in which students go about their day-to-day work, through tools like typing assistants, search engines, and referencing databases. Many of these use machine learning to identify and generate predictable outcomes (e.g. correct grammatical constructions in a particular type of sentence, or correct requirements for a particular referencing style).
• A sub-set of AI-powered tools, often called generative AI tools, use deep learning and Large Language Models (LLMs) to produce outputs that more closely mimic human activities, thought processes and outputs. These tools include Microsoft Co-Pilot, ChatGPT, Canva, Midjourney, and many others. Students tend to use generative AI tools to support their learning by activities such as summarising content, doing an initial survey of literature in an area, or simplifying articles and ideas. 

This departmental policy addresses the reality that AI-powered and generative AI tools are now part of the academic landscape, and the need to balance the use of these tools with ethical awareness about their use, as well as ensuring the integrity of students’ learning, assessment and achievement in the Department.

Fundamentally, we both encourage and expect students to be careful and reflective in their use of AI-powered and generative AI tools. They may be used to support, but not replace, your own intellectual effort both in class and in assessments, and when employed should be used sparingly, recognising that what may appear as a useful shortcut in the short term (for example, summarising literature in a particular area of media and communications scholarship) may limit the development of knowledge and insight in the longer term (for example, a more in-depth understanding of the different positions in the field and the nuance of their arguments). Moreover, the tools themselves present a range of ethical challenges – for example, in relation to their environmental impact, their use of intellectual property without permission, labour exploitation to train AI datasets, and equality of access to different generative AI tools (e.g. paid or unpaid versions).  

In line with these expectations, students must adhere to the following rules:

 During the year:

1. You may use both AI-powered tools and generative AI tools (based on deep learning) during the course of learning and teaching throughout the year, with the limits listed below. In the case of generative AI tools, you should be aware that these tools are far from perfect and may produce incorrect or nonsensical results. When using generative AI tools, you should always review the content they deliver against other sources to ensure accuracy and evaluate whether or not the output is actually useful for you.  Where you do use generative AI tools, we encourage you to use Microsoft Co-Pilot. The LSE has a site-wide licence for Co-Pilot, and this ensures that all students have access to the same level of generative AI support. 
2. You may not use generative AI tools to auto-translate the spoken content of lectures, because this contravenes the intellectual property rights of the teachers developing and delivering the content.
3. You may not use generative AI tools to auto-translate the spoken content during seminars, because this may also contravene intellectual property rights of the teachers, and of students who may be presenting or contributing. Seminars are designed to be participatory, and your role in this is essential. You should focus on reflecting on the topics and readings related to the seminar with your fellow students, and engage in the discussions wherever you can.

For assessments:

1. You may use AI-powered tools in the process of producing an assessment.
2. You may not use any generative AI tools (including Microsoft Co-Pilot) in the process of producing an assessment, including writing drafts of all or part of a proposed submission; producing assignment structures, titles or topics; or changing your own writing into a different style.
3. If, during the course of the year, you have used generative AI tools for learning about topics related to your assessment, you may of course use the learning you have developed while using them. However, you may not copy any of the content produced by a generative AI tool into your assessment (see examples below).
4. All assessments should be written in your own English, and you may support your writing with AI-powered tools such as editorial assistants or thesaurus tools. However, you may not use translation software for translating all or part of your assessment into English, from another language, for your submission, because your assessments should be your own original writing. Any writing that is not yours (e.g. citations from academic texts) should properly referenced back to its original source.

Using generative AI tools against these rules will be treated as a case of academic misconduct, with measures taken in accordance with the School’s expectations and policy on academic misconduct here.

 Examples:

 A student uses a generative AI tool (e.g Microsoft Co-Pilot) to obtain a summary of the theory of the Circuit of Culture model. They use this summary when reflecting back on their course readings and lectures on the topic, to develop their understanding prior to, and after a seminar on the topic – permitted

      - The student then uses the understanding they have developed to write their assessment on the topic – permitted

      - The student inserts the summary from the generative AI tool into their assessment on the topic – not permitted

 A student uses translation software to check the meaning of a word or phrase in a course reading, primary source or in lecture slides – permitted

 A student uses translation software to translate their original essay, from another language, into English, for submission – not permitted

 A student enters key terms into a search engine to search for theoretical literature relevant to a particular aspect of Development Communication - permitted 

 A student enters a series of bullet points into Canva and asks it to create a presentation based on them – not permitted

 A student uses Canva to draw a diagram of their conceptual framework for their dissertation – permitted

 A student is writing an assignment and uses referencing software to insert references into the body of an essay and compile the reference list – permitted 

Get the most from your feedback

The following handbook on How to Use Feedback Effectively, produced by the Department of Social Policy, gives excellent guidance on how to understand and use the feedback you receive. You can use it to support your engagement with feedback of all kinds, and to develop the ways you use the advice to improve your work.

Formative and summative assessment feedback

Throughout your MSc programme you will receive feedback in diverse forms and on a variety of aspects of the development of your understanding of the field of media and communications and on your performance.

During the year you will receive written feedback on your formative and summative assessment assignments. This written feedback can then be discussed with your academic mentor, supervisor and the course teacher for the assessed course.

After the conclusion of the dissertation marking process, you will receive written feedback on your dissertation. You will receive brief written feedback on your examinations within the department.

Information on the timeframe of feedback can be found in Section 2 of the LSE Academic Code.

Other kinds of feedback you will receive during the year

You will receive oral feedback during seminars with your seminar teachers as you develop your ideas and participate in seminar activities.

You will work in small groups in your seminars, interacting with your peers, who give you feedback on how your learning is progressing.

You will receive face to face feedback from your academic mentor in Michaelmas Term and from your dissertation supervisor in Lent and Summer Term. This feedback may be about your overall learning and progression, on a specific aspect of your development, or on your performance in a specific assignment.

You will receive oral feedback on the development of your dissertation ideas from your Supervisor during Feedback and Advice hours and during group supervision sessions. Feedback and advice hours of other staff are also good opportunities to receive feedback on the development of your dissertation ideas.

You also will receive oral feedback from academic staff providing any extra-curricular activities you register for during the year, for example, on essay writing, citation practice or language skills. You will receive feedback from mentors if you choose to engage in internship activities facilitated by LSE and by the Department.

Please note that there is no provision for summative work to be re-marked, and students are not permitted negotiate their provisional grade with staff.

The Department’s marking standards and the rigour of its processes are reviewed each year by the Department’s External Examiners who report to the Department’s Exam Sub-Board and to the School. We are confident that our assessment and marking processes are robust, and as such students are not able to call into question the academic judgement of markers.

Students may make an appointment to meet with the marker of their work, the course convenor, their academic mentor, or any other member of staff to discuss provisional grades and feedback, but as mentioned above, students cannot negotiate their grade or ask for work to be re-marked. It may also be useful to speak to LSE LIFE who can help students develop future work using the feedback they have received.

Students are permitted to submit Exceptional Circumstances, which will be considered by the Departmental and School Exam Boards. Individual marks cannot be changed as a result of the submission of Exceptional Circumstances, but the Exam Boards can take your circumstances into account when considering your final degree classification.

Students can review the following webpage for advice and guidance on Challenging Results once they have been released formally.