These norms lay down the rules appliable for the evaluation of students studying at the Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences (FPCE) at the University of Coimbra. These evaluation norms are based on the framework provided by the "Educational Regulation of the University of Coimbra" (Regulation 321/2013), which must be consulted as a guiding source in any situation not specified herein.
1. The FPCE considers two evaluation schemes: one at the end of the first semester and the other at the end of the second semester of the academic year.
2. Each of these schemes has two evaluation periods: a normal and a re-sit evaluation period.
3. In the cases properly regulated and listed below there will be a special period of evaluation that shall take place after completion of the second semester’s re-sit period:
a) working students;
b) firefighter students;
c) military students;
d) students who are high performance athletes;
e) young leaders of an UC association and/or student member of UC bodies;
f) students with special educational needs;
g) UC athlete students;
h) students involved in cultural activities of UC;
i) students participating in recognised university merit activities;
j) students involved in student mobility programmes;
k) students who join or have been placed through special schemes;
l) final year students;
m) students who are parents;
n) students with a disease or injury
i. Contagious, infectious diseases certified via a document issued by the family doctor or health authority, indicating the length of absence;
ii. Serious, chronic or of prolonged recovery diseases, certified by the family doctor or specialist;
iii. Hospitalisation or hospitalisation extension evidenced, respectively, by a hospital statement or a medical certificate.
o) students who have missed the examination of the regular or re-sit evaluation period due to the death of their spouse, of the person who lived in partnership with them; or of a first degree direct line relative, or the like, within 30 days after the death. In the case of death of other relative or similar, in a direct or 2nd degree line, that period is 10 days;
p) attendance before a police, judicial or military authority, duly evidenced, on the day of the exam;
q) students who profess a religious faith whose day of rest or worship is not Sunday.
4. Other exceptional cases will be subject to the Pedagogical Council’s decision, upon a request submitted by the student.
1. For evaluation purposes, there are the following forms of examination:
a) Type A: individual written tests (test, attendance or examination, report with compulsory oral defence);
b) Type B: review of existing literature and empirical studies or field work, with or without compilation of a report and with or without presentation in class;
c) Type C: practical work or laboratory-type work, to be carried out during practical or theoretical and practical classes, with or without compilation of report;
d) Type D: oral tests;
e) Type E: development / implementation of projects;
f) Type F: participation in lectures or in other activities certified by the teacher in charge of the Course Unit (maximum 5%);
g) Type G: occasional work done as part of the student’s participation in research carried out by teachers. This type of examination must be accompanied by an alternative form of evaluation (maximum 5%).
2. At the beginning of the course unit, each teacher shall decide if the evaluation tests types B, C, D, F and G will be carried out individually or in a group, and shall announce the decision on the NONIO platform.
3. In no case can class attendance be considered an evaluation criterion or an eligibility condition for sitting an examination.
1. Course unit evaluation is organised according to two schemes - Periodic Evaluation (point No. 1.1.) and Final Evaluation (point No. 1.2.):
1.1. Periodic Evaluation
1.1.1. In each course unit this evaluation scheme involves holding a maximum of three (3) types of tests, of which one must be of an individual nature.
1.1.2. The evaluation of course units with the highest number of theoretical or theoretical-practical classes can be carried out only by attendances or written tests.
1.1.3. When the evaluation comprises one or more attendances or written tests (examination type A), one of them can be held on the date of the final examination of the normal evaluation period.
1.1.4. In course units where the evaluation of knowledge and skills requires one or more components that cannot be included in the final examination, evaluation in the unit will not be completed. In these circumstances, the student must re-enrol in the following academic year to perform, with passing marks, the component or components missing.
1.1.5. In the case provided for in paragraph 1.1.4., the classification of the test(s) in which the minimum mark(s) required have already been achieved will be retained for a period of only one academic year.
1.1.6. Students who do not achieve the minimum pass mark(s) or wish to improve their grades have free access to the re-sit evaluation period, subject to the provisions of paragraph 1.1.4.
1.2. Final Evaluation
In each course unit this evaluation scheme involves conducting a test of type A and / or D, and must involve the whole of the subject matter taught, and may take one of the following forms:
a) written examination;
b) face-to-face written and oral examination;
c) face-to-face oral examination;
d) report with mandatory oral defence.
2. Unit courses follow the principle of contemplating the offer of two evaluation schemes. Students must choose one of them by the third week of the start of classes each semester. This decision must be registered by the student on the NONIO platform.
3. Having regard to the nature of a course unit and following a reasoned proposal by the teacher, the evaluation can be made following only one of the evaluation schemes. In this case, the teacher should ask the Educational Council permission for his/her unit course to be evaluated following only periodic or final evaluation. This must be done by the end of May of the previous academic year. The Educational Council should regulate the maximum number of unit courses to be evaluated, following only one of the schemes.
4. Where the result obtained is less than 40% of the maximum rating assigned for each test of type A, B, C and E, the student may only rewrite or re-sit them in the re-sit evaluation period, subject to paragraph 1.1.4 of Article 3.
1. For approval purposes, the grade achieved must be equal to or higher than 50% of the maximum achievable rating.
2. In any kind of test it will be up to the teacher's decision to hold na additional test considered of suitable type, in the following cases:
a) Where students achieve a final grade between 40% and 50% of the maximum achievable rating;
b) if they wish to try for mark improvement.
3. In both cases set out in point 2 above, the following conditions must be observed:
a) The decision on the form of the additional tests must be announced on the NONIO platform, at an early stage of the teaching of the respective course unit;
b) The timing of these tests must not affect the legal deadlines for the disclosure of ratings prior to the re-sit evaluation period.
4. The test classification shall be rounded to one decimal place, a fraction of not less than five hundredths being required for rounding up.
2. To pass each course unit students must achieve not less than 40% of the maximum achievable rating in any of the tests carried out.
3. The final classification in each course unit shall be calculated based on the marks obtained in each evaluation test, through a formula announced by the teacher in charge on the NONIO platform, at the beginning of the respective semester.
The final classification in the degree shall be the average of the marks achieved in the various course units, weighted by the respective ECTS.
1. For evaluation purposes, students must register for the course units in which they want to be assessed.
2. A student who is in arrears of completed course units may sign up again for evaluation purposes, in up to a maximum of 24 ECTS, in the semester when those units are offered.
1. In cases where the final classification results from weighting more than one evaluation test, the student has the right to know the results obtained in each of these elements.
2. The results of the final evaluation, whatever the method adopted, shall be disclosed no later than fourteen (14) calendar days after the completion of the relevant test.
3. If the decision to attend an evaluation test depends on previous classifications, they shall be disclosed in the academic information system a minimum of three (3) consecutive days before the date set for the test.
4. If the teacher of the course considers the period referred to in paragraph 2 insufficient, he may request, in duly substantiated form, that the relevant Educational Council) fix a suitable longer period.
5. If the deadline referred to in paragraph 3 is not met, the student is entitled to a new evaluation test for the course unit in question, provided that the request is made within two working days after the release of the previous classification, upon which the management suppiness ort services, having heard the teacher in charge, shall set a new date taking into account the student's evaluation schedule.
1. Students who, in the normal and/or re-sit evaluation periods, have not obtained the minimum required rating in one or more tests of types A, B, C and E, may repeat or rewrite that (those) test(s) in the corresponding half of the following academic year.
2. In the case provided for in paragraph 1, classifications equal or higher than the minimum required rating will be kept for only one academic year.
1. Students who wish to improve the mark obtained in a course unit, in the same academic year, except for thesis, dissertation, probationary period, project or similar, may do a new evaluation test in the re-sit period, subject to paragraph 1.1.4 of Article 3.
2. Students who wish to improve the marks obtained in any course unit, except for the thesis and probationary period, in previous year(s) through test-taking or by credits may do so freely, as long as the course unit(s) is/are still in operation. For this purpose they must sign up for and attend the course unit in question, being subject only to the maximum number of 24 ECTS. The mark improvement is considered a new registration.
3. The preceding paragraphs also apply to independent course units.
4. Mark improvement in the probationary period course unit requires a new registration and a new probationary period with a new supervisor.
5. In case of re-enrolment for mark improvement on the dissertation or project, the supervisor may refuse to supervise the same theme.
6. In situations of mark improvement, it is the highest rating obtained that is taken into consideration.
7. There can be no mark improvement in the academic year in which the student obtained a certain classification if the evaluation involves presentation and/or work in the classroom or resulting from group work.
8. In the year following the completion of the course cycle, registration in units of the same cycle of studies is possible, up to a maximum of 60 ECTS, except where the School or Faculty responsible for the study cycle does not allow it.
1. There are no limitations on the number of course units in which students may be assessed, in each re-sit evaluation period.
2. In the special evaluation period, students whose situation is duly regulated may carry out tests in accordance with the provisions of Regulation of Special Rights of Students of the University of Coimbra.
3. Access to the special evaluation period is also allowed to final year students:
a) ‘Final year student’ shall be the term applied below to one who, having passed all course units in which he/she was registered, completes the course.
b) The final year student has the right to undergo examinations up to a maximum of two annual course units or equivalent, from those belonging to the course in which he/she is enrolled and is a final year student.
c) The special evaluation period for final year students takes place after the re-sit period of the 2nd semester, for courses with an even number of semesters, and after the re-sit evaluation peiod of the 1st semester, for courses with an odd number of semesters.
d) The final year student may still use the exceptional evaluation period to apply for the special period of the current academic year to be brought forward, if he/she has just one course unit per semester to complete, but must do so within two (2) working days before the exceptional period. By applying for this bringing forward, however, the student loses the possibility of taking advantadge of the following special period, in case he/she needs it.
4. Given its specificity, the evaluation of Probationary Periods and Dissertations/Theses of Master courses will be subject to specific regulations.
The examination schedule is drawn up under the responsibility of the Director and announced by the beginning of the academic year to which it relates, after hearing the Educational Council.
1. Fraud or attempted fraud committed during evaluation of a course unit, by violating the basic principle of academic honesty, prevents the evaluation and leads to the student’s immediate removal from the curent enrolment in the course unit in question.
2. The teacher must inform the Director accordingly, for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings.
3. If, at a date subsequente to the granting of the degree, it is found out that a student has committed fraud or plagiarism in test(s) or work essential to the obtaining of the degree, particularly relating to dissertation, project work, probation report, thesis or similar, his/her respective classification is cancelled and the respective degree removed.
Cases not covered by these Rules shall be considered by the Educational Council, and the general rules of the following Regulations of the University of Coimbra applied:
iii) Special Rights of Students; and
iv) for the Discipline of Students.