External Examiners Welcome Introduction Administration Roles and responsibilities of External Examiners/Advisers The assessment cycle Remit of Boards and Committees Progression and Awards
Administration Appointment Examiners are proposed by the Faculty, and approved by the University External Examiners Sub Committee After approval, a letter and appropriate documents are sent from the Quality Assurance Frameworks and Processes (QAFP) team Thereafter, the Faculty/College will communicate key dates to the Examiner and liaise regarding specific duties
Administration Fees and Expenses A claim form should be submitted each year for all reasonable expenses incurred Expenses can be claimed at any time during the year, but you must submit your annual report before your examining fee will be paid – failure to submit your annual report may result in your tenure being terminated Receipts are required for ALL expenses claimed Ensure that you sign and date the form and send it to the correct person For more information on expenses claims allowances, please refer to the guidance on our website
Roles of External Examiners The primary role is to confirm that the awards made to students are comparable in standard with awards in UK higher education generally A second important role is to ensure fairness and equity to students The third role is to assist the University and the course team to maintain and enhance the quality of its courses
Roles of External Advisers & Mentors Subject advisers Appointed for their subject expertise and primarily confirm that the awards made to students are comparable in standard with awards in UK higher education generally Mentors Appointed for one year to support an inexperienced external examiner in ensuring that the proper processes of assessment take place
Rights & responsibilities of External Examiners (1) No recommendation for the conferment of an award above the level of Certificate of Higher Education can be made without the written consent of the external The external examiner must: be able to judge each student impartially confirm the standards for the awards are appropriate by referencing: relevant national subject benchmark statements framework for higher education qualifications university approval documentation any appropriate professional/statutory body requirements compare the performance of students
Rights & responsibilities of External Examiners (2) The external examiner must: be consulted about and agree to any major proposed changes to the approved assessment regulations attend examiners meetings – have right of access to all assessed work approve the form and content of proposed examination papers, coursework and other assessment that count towards the award see a sample of the work of all students proposed for the highest available award and for failure Be consulted following an appeal hearing where the decision of the board of examiners is to be changed and an award made to the student or a higher classification is to be awarded
Rights & responsibilities of External Examiners (3) The external examiner : has the right to moderate the marks awarded by internal examiners has the right to conduct a viva voce examination of any candidate must attend the meetings of the relevant examination committee / board of examiners report to the university on the effectiveness of the student assessment Please see Regulations C11.3.3 - C13.1.5 - C13.6
Disagreements Matters of principle Disagreements between external examiner(s) and Boards of Examiners Disagreements between external examiners External Examiners have the opportunity to raise serious matters of concern directly with the Vice-Chancellor Examiners may also contact the QAA directly via their “Concerns Scheme” where they have serious concern relating to systemic failings with the academic standards of a programme or programmes and have exhausted all published applicable internal procedures www.qaa.ac.uk/complaints/concerns/pages/default.aspx
External Examiners’ Reports (1) Need to include: comments on the curriculum, learning/teaching methods & resourcing the overall performance of the students in relation to their peers the strengths and weaknesses of students the structure, organisation, design & marking of all assessments the quality of teaching as indicated by student performance
External Examiners’ Reports (2) Should directly address the issues listed on the report form Must not identify individual students or members of staff Should be submitted electronically Can be rejected for being too short Are read within faculties and within the Quality Assurance Directorate Form the basis for internal university reports Will be anonymized and printed on our web pages
External Examiner Reports (3) Where you are examining a franchised or joint collaborative delivery of an award you are specifically asked to comment on that delivery within the report template. We would expect that you would elucidate which delivery of the award you are referring to in your comments.
Response to External Examiner Reports A written response is required from the course leader within 30 working days of their receipt of you report. Where an examiner has put a no against any of the first three items on the report summary page the report will be sent to the Deputy Vice-chancellor with responsibility for Quality Assurance and Student Experience and the Dean of Faculty for comment Where the examiner has raised particular issues of concern these will be addressed within the response and a proposed action plan to address the issues will be implemented or a reason given as to why the issues cannot or will not be addressed.
EXTERNAL EXAMINER FEES AND EXPENSES You will be sent from the QAFP team via e-mail around Easter time a link to our web pages where you will find: report templates and an expenses claim form to fill out when you have completed your examining duties You are required to fill out a risk assessment and insurance declaration for EACH year of your tenure for any car journeys that you make during your duties if you fail to do so then your travel expenses will not be paid to you
Contact Details Carol Blackall, QAFP, 0113 8123919 email@example.com Or firstname.lastname@example.org
The Assessment Cycle (1) Assessments approved by External Examiner(s) Coursework and deadlines Late submission penalties, (excludes Bank Hols / weekends or other days when the university is considered closed) Full Time-5% per day, Part Time-5% per 2 days 0% if more than 10 days late Written examinations Invigilators’ reports Marking and Internal Moderation Unfair Practice Investigations Boards Mitigation Panels
The Assessment Cycle(2) Examination Committees (Ratify module marks) Board of Examiners pre-meeting (internal) Board of Examiners (determine progression and awards) Results-on-line (within 5 working days) Re-assessment (no Examination Committee required) Reconvened Board of Examiners Appeal panels
Unfair Practice Boards : Remit for Proven Cases Requirement to undertake the assessment again at next available opportunity, normally a different piece of assessment Each case considered and on the basis of: the gravity of the case the circumstances of the case the level at which the offence took place whether the offence was a repeat offence Penalty imposed by UPB: Full Range of marks, cap at 40%, cap at 30% or fail level and required to withdraw Penalty implemented by BOE Letters of advice, warning, final warning and requirement to withdraw issued
Mitigation Panel: Remit From 13/14 University operates a fit to sit policy Established at school or faculty level Student requests mitigation and provides evidence Determines: Assessments affected and category of seriousness: A:very serious, range of options open to Board of Examiners B: sufficient to warrant deferral or Mitigation rejected Panel decides the extenuating circumstances category to be presented to Boards of Examiners and provides report for the Board
Examination Committee: Remit Determine the standard of student module assessment outcomes Consider amendment of cohort’s marks as appropriate (not individual students) Record credit where the student is not presented for progression or award For example part time, postgraduate etc. Notes cases of cheating, plagiarism and unfair practice and mitigation (spent?) Determine student progression (level 4 only) Results-on-line – within 5 working days
Board of Examiners: Remit Assess students in accordance with the regulations Consider mitigation outcomes Category A only Implement outcomes of Unfair Practice Boards Determine the outcomes of re-assessment (where relevant) Determine student progression Determine student awards
Reassessment Opportunity for re-assessment is given once only Any failed module (mark of < 40%) can be reassessed Each failed component within a failed module will be reassessed Student’s decision whether to take re-assessment opportunities unless a professional body requirement Maximum mark 40% for reassessed component
Progression from Level 4 to 5 from Level and 5 to 6 Students must: study modules worth 120 credit points at the level (20 credit modules) must submit work for every component of assessment achieve an average across the whole level of 40% or more pass (achieve 40% in) modules worth at least 100 credit points meet any Professional, Statutory or Regulatory Body (PSRB) requirements meet any determined prerequisites Students may: fail one module but must achieve no less than 30%
Foundation Degree – Merit, Distinction Available dependant on specific course regulations Merit – An average of level 5 module marks between 60% and 69% Distinction – An average of level 5 module marks 70% or more
Determination of Classification of Honours The average mark calculated from the best 105 credit points at level 5 weighted at 25% and the best 105 credit points at level 6 weighted at 75% Students enrolled on to former regulations (2011/12 or before) any borderline classification outcomes will be calculated using both this and the former methods whichever provides the better outcome for the student will be applied, ensuring no continuing student will be disadvantaged.
The Former Method Weighted Average: All level 5 average (25% weighting) plus All level 6 average (75% weighting) or Profiling: The attribution of a weighting to modules in each classification band (0.25 for level 5 and 0.75 for level 6). A cumulative total of more than 4 in a given classification band secures that classification.
Achievement of Masters Students must: study modules worth 180 credit points must submit work for every component of assessment achieve an average across the whole level of 40% or more pass (achieve 40% in) modules worth at least 160 credit points meet any Professional, Statutory or Regulatory Body (PSRB) requirements meet any determined prerequisites Students may: fail one 20 credit module but must achieve no less than 30% dependant on specific course regulations be awarded: – Merit for average between 60% to 69% – Distinction for average 70% or over
Outcome of Board of Examiners Decision codes – PA Pass Award – PP Pass Proceed – DE Deferred not allowed to proceed – DP Deferred – allowed to proceed (passed but may improve marks) – FW Fail withdraw (little evidence of engagement largely due to NS) – CP Components Pending – unable to progress to next level – FR Fail Repeat (failed less than or = 50% of level - repeat failed modules only) – FL Fail Level (more than 50% of modules failed – repeat the level) Final level only required to repeat failed modules
Contained Awards Undergraduate Certificate 60 credits Level 4 Certificate of HE 120 credits Level 4 Diploma 120 credits Level 4 + 60 credits level 5 Diploma of HE 120 credits Level 4 + 120 credits level 5 Bachelor Degree 60 credits at Level 6 Postgraduate Postgraduate Certificate 60 credits at Level M Postgraduate Diploma 120 credits at Level M