External Examiner Induction Viv Wilkins Alan Weale

2 OVERVIEW The University Recent Developments and Tiered Assessment Boards What Subject & Awards Externals are asked to do What Subject Externals are asked to do What Award Externals are asked to do What Subject & Award Externals are asked NOT to do The Modular Structure Undergraduate Regulations Classification Algorithm Postgraduate Regulations

University – 9 Schools School of Applied Sciences School of Art & Design School of Computing and IT School of Education School of Engineering and the Built Environment School of Health and Wellbeing School of Law Social Sciences and Communications School of Sport, Performing Arts and Leisure University of Wolverhampton Business School

Research Centres Institute for Learning Enhancement Centre for Developmental and Applied Research in Education Management Research Centre Research Centre in Applied Sciences Research Centre for Sport, Exercise and Performance Centre for Health and Social Care Improvement Centre for Art, Design, Research and Experimentation Engineering and the Built Environment Computing and Information Technology Law, Social Sciences and Communications Research Institute in Healthcare Science Research Institute in Information and Language Processing

Student numbers for * GenderTotal% Female % Male % Total % * 2008 HESA Return

Student Profile - Age Age on entryTotal% na90.0% 18 and under % 19 to % 21 to % 26 to % 31 to % 36 to % Over % Total %

Mode / Level of Study Mode of studyTotal% Full-time/Sandwich % Part-time958142% Total % Level of studyTotal% Undergraduate % Postgraduate432719% Total %

Ethnicity / Disability Ethnicity groupTotal % Black, Asian and Others % Not Known % White % Total % Disability allowanceTotal% Information not known/sought1620.7% Disability but not registered5462.4% No known disability % Registered Disability5122.2% Total %

DomicileTotal% Channel Islands & Isle of Man80.0 Eastern1650.7% Greater London3341.5% East Midlands5442.4% North East670.3% North West2191.0% Northern Ireland380.2% EU % Overseas % Scotland480.2% Yorkshire & Humberside1150.5% South East2841.2% South West1970.9% Wales1190.5% West Midlands % Total %

Review of our Assessment Boards: Our Aim Greater consistency across University Board decisions are robust and processes applied correctly All students are treated fairly and consistently Students receive accurate and timely grades for assessment 10

Other drivers were: Address concerns about tight marking deadlines Make better use of External Examiners’ time Define statistics to address External Examiner concerns Define who is responsible for what Create structure which allows sharing of good practice Move to position of 100% confidence in MIS 11

Outcomes of Review Merger and Rationalisation of Subject Boards School Progression and Award Boards Amendments to extenuating circumstances process 12

Outcomes of Review Subject External Examiners encouraged to spend more time in University on meaningful discussion Award External Examiners confirm due process and academic standards based on consistent application and appropriateness of regulations 13

Changes to Come University undertaking a curriculum development project called ‘Learning Works’ in 2009/10 In 2010/11 we will introduce a 20 credit framework for undergraduate courses. Externals may be consulted during the curriculum development phase this year. During 2010/11 the same process will occur for postgraduate programmes.

Tiered Boards Two Types: Module Results Boards –Consider the grades for individual modules in congruent subject areas Award Boards –Consider the profiles of individual students and determines if they meet the requirements for progression and/or award.

Module Results Board Pre-Board Meeting with External Examiners Formal Board

Subject External Examiners Prior to Formal Board Samples for moderation All results for modules Module summaries Statistics Pre-Board Chair’s report Schedule of meetings with academic team Meeting with students

Formal Module Results Board Short and focused Reduced membership Report and record pre-board activity Formally agree recommendations Receive a brief report from the External Examiner

Award Boards Pre-Board Meeting with External Examiners Formal Board

External Examiners’ Comments ‘I feel the processes of external examining (ensuring standards on a group of modules is correct) has merged into the process of quality assurance (ensuring all modules have appropriate standards). I am very aware that QA needs to be timely and I am pleased this has been tried, but I think this has been at the expense of the rigour of examining.’

‘I view the University's new procedure for the conduct of subject assessment boards, whereby consideration of module results is limited to those modules which an internal pre-board meeting has identified as meriting discussion, to be a retrograde step.’

‘I would like to congratulate the Faculty on the organisation and administration of this years Award Board. The new format and process of the board was professional and demonstrated a much appreciated improvement of time management in the length of the process from the External Examiners perspective. While the board was shorter in duration than previously I still had sufficient opportunity to contribute to the process, as did my fellow External Examiners.’

‘This year saw the introduction of a new selective sampling process which worked remarkably well given the time frame and the novelty of the system. Where required, External Examiners had full input and the whole process was open, transparent and effective.’

‘The assessment board was organised very differently and was much more effective because of this. The external examining role was previously under-used in the process of reading names to record progress and achievement. The new format allowed for a much fuller discussion and there was a sense of contributing to QA in action. I should like to commend both the process and the way in which the discussion was chaired. ’

25 WHAT SUBJECT & AWARD EXTERNALS ARE ASKED TO DO Attend the end of year Assessment Process Submit an Annual Report within four weeks of the last scheduled Assessment Board Make a statement about the standards demonstrated by the students with reference to attainment elsewhere and to external “benchmarks”

26 WHAT SUBJECT & AWARD EXTERNALS ARE ASKED TO DO Confirm that there is fair and consistent treatment of all students Be associated with attainment at Levels 4 and 3 Be consulted about minor modifications, and about changes to assessment regulations and programmes under review and re-validation

27 WHAT SUBJECT & AWARD EXTERNALS ARE ASKED TO DO Meet with students to: Fulfil the requirements of a Professional, Regulatory or Statutory Body To permit the external examiner to confirm that standards are appropriate in subjects that require a performance or similar activity Confirm the standards on programmes delivered in overseas and UK partner organisations Become familiar with the students’ experience of the programme

28 WHAT SUBJECT EXTERNALS ARE ASKED TO DO To determine the accuracy and consistency of internal marking of assessment tasks at level 2 and above by moderating a sample of students’ work. For HNDs and Foundation Degrees carry out the above in respect of Level 1 To confirm that assessment is carried out in accordance with the module regulations To confirm the continuing currency of the range of modules To approve assessment tasks for the following year

29 WHAT AWARD EXTERNALS ARE ASKED TO DO To confirm final awards (and degree classifications of honours students) To confirm progression decisions

30 WHAT SUBJECT & AWARD EXTERNALS ARE ASKED NOT TO DO Award Change grades of individuals or groups Viva students to obtain additional information to determine a grade or classification, except where required by professional body Subject Second mark assignments or exam scripts Arbitrate on internal markers’ grading disagreements Change grades of individual students Viva students to obtain additional academic information

31 THE MODULAR STRUCTURE UNDERGRADUATE 120 Credits taken at each level Modules 15 or 30 credits 15 credit modules 1 semester 30 credit modules 2 semesters POSTGRADUATE 15 OR 30 Plus Project/Dissertation

32 TYPES AND GRADING OF MODULES TYPES Core Core options Electives GRADING Undergraduate Grade Point Scale A16-FO For Levels 0 & 1 –A - F Postgraduate 6 Grades - A-D, E, F

33 UNDERGRADUATE REGULATIONS All but a small number of students on the 2008 Regulations Compensation at Levels 1, 2 and 3 2 new regulations in 2009/10

34 UNDERGRADUATE REGULATIONS CLASSIFICATION ALGORITHM Requirements for Honours Degree 360 credits 240 credits at Levels 2 & 3 Of these at least 120 MUST be Level 3 Up to total of 45 Level 2 and 3 credits marginally failed (E4) may be compensated Requirements for Classification 180 credits at Levels 2 & 3 Of these at least 90 at Level 3 Scaled for Direct Entrants

35 UNDERGRADUATE REGULATIONS CLASSIFICATION ALGORITHM 1 ST Grade Point Average =/> A14 2 nd Grade Point Average =/> B11 2iiGrade Point Average =/> C8 3 rd Grade Point Average =/> D5

36 UNDERGRADUATE REGULATIONS CLASSIFICATION ALGORITHM BORDER ZONES Two methods of identifying border zone candidates: Grade Point Average (GPA) and Profile  Aggregate: variable zones – wider for 1 st /2i than 2i/2ii and 2i/2ii wider than 2ii/3 rd  Profile: at least 105 credits in higher class than GPA Resolution the same for both methods: at least 60 Level 3 credits in a higher class or classes

37 POSTGRADUATE REGULATIONS No compensation between modules at PG level Re-sits permitted Awards PG Cert 60 Credits PG Dip120 Credits Masters 180 Credits

38 THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTION