External Examiner Induction

1. External Examiner Induction • Iain Rowan • David Blackwell • Jessica Greenlees • Stuart Sutcliffe

2. External Examiner Induction • About the University • Roles and Responsibilities • Reporting • Academic Regulations • Collaborative Provision

3. About the University “one of a new generation of great civic universities – innovative, accessible, inspirational and outward looking; with international reach and remarkable local impact.” 19,905 students enrolled.

4. 19,905 students (by headcount)

5. Level of study

6. Fees Status

7. Mode of attendance

8. University Academic Strategy • Enhancing the Student Experience • Focus on Student • Strategic aims that characterise the student journey • Quality Management – assurance & enhancement • Enhancement themes

9. Roles & Responsibilities • Confirmation of standards by: • Scrutinising proposed assessments • Sampling completed work • Ensuring fairness, compliance with University regulations • Advising on proposed changes • Liaison with other examiners • Comparing with benchmark statements and Framework for Higher Education Qualifications • QAA Code of Practice for External Examiners • National Credit Framework

10. Moderation • First, fails and sample internally moderated • Similar sample sent to externals for moderation • Minimum • Projects, dissertations usually double marked • Extent depends on subject, prior control

11. Adjustments to marks • For whole cohort only • May move boundaries at programme board • Advise prior to board as moderation • Board is responsible for actual marks

12. Viva Voce • Sampling • Assist board eg illness • Resolve differences

13. Extenuating Circumstances • Extension of 72 hours can be authorised by module leader • Student’s responsibility to present with appropriate evidence • Must be submitted before board • Extenuating Circumstances panel used • Generally deferred attempt given • Fit-to-Sit

14. Academic Integrity and Academic Misconduct • Covers • Plagiarism • Collusion • Submitting others work • Cheating • Raising Awareness • Penalties • Turnitin

15. Anonymous Marking • Implemented for all examinations only • Checking procedure in place • Check tied to moderation

16. Programme Documentation • Module Guides • Programme Handbooks • adapted for off-campus provision

17. Assessment Boards • Module Boards consider pass/fail • Programme Boards determine progression, awards • May be combined • generally are for Masters • Increasingly combined at Undergraduate level

18. Module Progression • Pass/fail/refer/defer decisions • Marking in % • Must complete ‘module requirements’ • Attendance may be required

19. Module Progression • Referred in elements • other marks stand • Referred element capped at 40% • Full second attempt allowed with attendance • marks capped at 40% • Compensation within modules provided pass at 40% achieved overall (NB programme specific regulations may apply)

20. Programme Progression • Undergraduate Degrees • Only 20 failed credits may be trailed into L2, L3 • Cannot proceed to level three unless all level one requirements are met • Asked to leave if performance is ‘unsatisfactory’ • Masters only carry modulesat discretion of board

21. Programme Progression • Compensation at programme level of one module (20 credits) per level by right; up to further 20 credits at discretion of Board, provided that: • 45% average in other modules • All assessment submitted for the module • No compensation at Masters

22. Degree classifications From 2010/11, all degree classifications calculated using the new Academic Regulations. However, Boards will exercise discretion in case of: • Students who have intercalated or studied PT.

23. The process • Marks for the best 100 credits obtained at Stage 2 are averaged (weighted by module size – e.g. 20 credits get twice the weight of 10), and the same is done for the best 100 credits obtained at Stage 3. • These are combined so that the Stage 3 average carries more weight than the Stage 2 average (it counts four times more: 80% of the classification; Stage 2 is 20%). This final figure determines the degree classification.

24. Stage 2 best 100 credits Module DEG205 is taken out of the calculation. Cumulative credits

25. Stage 3 best 100 credits Module DEG303 is taken out of the calculation. Cumulative credits

26. A worked example Working out the Stage 2 credit-weighted average (20x68)+(20x65)+(20x63)+(20x59)+(20x52) = 6140 6140/100 = 61.4 credit-weighted Stage average Working out the Stage 3 credit-weighted average (20x65)+(20x63)+(10x63)+(10x63)+(40x54) = 5980 5980/100 = 59.8 credit-weighted Stage average Weighting the Stages 61.4 x 20% = 12.28 59.8 x 80% = 47.84 Adding the Stages to give the final result 12.28 + 47.84 = 60.12% = 2:1

27. Notes on the process • Pass/fail modules, or other modules which don’t lead to a mark aren’t counted. • Modules which are marked, where the mark is 0, are counted. • Modules which span the 100 credit boundary – the eligible credits are used. • 2% borderline for exercise of discretion

28. Transitional regulations – the old classification system Median system Mid-point of level three marks (60th credit) Safeguard of 100th credit Level two is taken into account Programme Specific Regulations

29. Foundation Degrees with Commendation • At least 65% in each module contributing to the top 100 level 2 credits

30. Masters with Distinction and Merit • Distinction - 60 credits at >70% • Merit – 60 credits at > 60% • Programme Board specifies which modules • Normally project/dissertation • May be programme specific regulations

31. Reporting • Standards, level of challenge • Free text under headings • Good practice and areas for enhancement • Specific information on delivery at each collaborative partner as appropriate • Within six weeks of final board • To Chair of Academic Board via Academic Services • Directly to VC if seriously concerned • Boards MUST respond formally to External Examiner • Annual Overview Reports

32. Collaborative Provision • Partners in the region, UK and overseas • Different models of collaboration - pre/post partner review terminology • Academic quality and standards the same as or equivalent to on-campus • Student experience the same as or equivalent to on-campus

33. Collaborative Provision cont’d Monitored by link person • centre leader role • for international, private UK and FECs outside the region • usually one per partner per faculty • main communication pathway between partner and faculty • at least 2 visits/year • faculty partnership leader role • for all FECs in the region • has oversight of faculty provision at the partner • works with faculty programme leaders who visit and communicate regularly with the partner

34. Collaborative Provision cont’d Also monitored through • annual monitoring • by the partner by subject area/programme • by the centre leader / faculty partnership leader • which feed into the main programme annual review.

35. Collaborative Provision cont’d An External Examiner • is associated with a programme / module of study • covers all cohorts from both on and off-campus • will sample assessment from all cohorts on and off-campus • could be involved with assessment boards that cover on and off-campus • will cover all sites where this programme is delivered in his/her report making specific reference to good practice or issues at a particular partner. A separate sheet within the report must be completed for each partner delivering the programme / module. Note: EEs are not required to visit partners unless there is a need to moderate work, assess practical sessions, performances, exhibitions, etc or hold vivas.