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

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

3. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 13

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

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

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

17. 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. 18 Module Progression Pass/fail/refer/defer decisions Marking in % Must complete ‘module requirements’ –Attendance may be required

19. 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. 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 modules at discretion of board

21. 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. 22

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. 23

24. Stage 2 best 100 credits Module DEG205 is taken out of the calculation. Cumulative credits  DEG203 (20 credits) DEG202 (20 credits) DEG206 (20 credits) DEG204 (20 credits) DEG201 (20 credits) DEG205 (20 credits) 68%65%63%59%52%48% 20 credits40 credits60 credits80 credits100 credits NOT USED 24

25. Stage 3 best 100 credits Module DEG303 is taken out of the calculation. Cumulative credits  DEG302 (20 credits) DEG305 (20 credits) DEG309 (10 credits) DEG301 (10 credits) DEG304 (40 credits) DEG303 (20 credits) 65%63% 54%51% 20 credits 40 credits 50 credits 60 credits 100 credits NOT USED 25

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 26

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 27

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 28

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

30. 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. 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. 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. 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. 34

35. 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.