1. External Examiner Induction
Janet Lloyd
Head of Quality and Enhancement
2 November 2016

2. Session overview Role of the external examiner
Supporting external examiners
Overview of academic regulations
Two-tiered boards of examiners
External examiner reports

3. Vision 2025
How
“By pioneering exceptional industry partnerships we will lead the way in real world experiences preparing students for life.”
What
Why

4. Industry Collaboration Zones and Salford Curriculum+
ICZs Industry Collaboration Zones: uniting students, staff, the local community and industry in a multi-disciplinary, technology- enabled environment in the pursuit of the shared goals of knowledge, learning and innovation
Salford curriculum+ will deliver an education and student experience which is bold, distinctive and accessible, focused on student development and success

5. University Structure
The University’s academic structure is based on Schools:
Salford Business School
School of Arts and Media
School of Computing, Science and Engineering
School of Environment and Life Sciences
School of Health Sciences
School of Nursing, Midwifery, Social Work and Social Sciences
School of the Built Environment
and
Salford Languages

6. Programme Portfolio c. 200 UG programmes c.190 PGT programmes
c. 250 external examiners

7. Student Profile 2015/16 Full Time Part Time 19442 3206 Home
International
18536
4112 UG
PGT
PGR
16066
5754
828

8. Current climate
HEFCE revised ‘operating model’ for quality assessment in higher education
HEA – degree standards, will “design, test and implement a range of approaches to training of external examiners, and will explore approaches to the calibration of standards” in the UK (5 years)

10. Role of an External Examiner

11. Role Summary To ensure:
academic standards are appropriate for the award
national comparability of academic standards
assessment process is rigorous and fair, in line with the University’s policies and regulations

12. Expectations The University expects external examiners:
to become familiar with the University’s policies and programme information
to advise on programme/module content
to advise on articulation agreements/ routes

13. Expectations to verify and provide feedback on assessments
to moderate samples of student work
to attend ephemeral assessments where necessary
to meet with students where possible

14. Expectations to attend relevant Module/Programme Boards
to sign the record of awards
to ensure equivalence of standards where programmes are delivered by multiple partner institutions

15. Expectations
to ensure that the assessment process is rigorous and fair
to submit a written report annually by the published deadline (mid August)

16. External Examiner Induction Support for External Examiners
Annette Cooke
Quality and Enhancement Office
2 November 2016

17. Support Available Blackboard account
Website:
Queries:

18. External Examiner Induction Academic Regulations for Taught Programmes 2016/17
Annette Cooke/Helen Sharman
Quality and Enhancement Office
2 November 2016

19. Academic Regulations
Apply to all programmes (although there are some programme specific requirements)
Supplementary policies and procedures support the regulations (e.g. Assessment and Feedback, Personal Mitigating Circumstances)
Key documents available at

20. Late Submission Penalties
Assessment
Late Submission Penalties
Person Mitigating Circumstances
Compensation
Degree Classification & Awards
Academic Misconduct
Academic Appeals

21. Assessment Modules - one or two components of assessment
A students generally allowed:
One initial attempt to take a module (with attendance)
&
One opportunity to be reassessed in components of failed module(s)
one final opportunity to retake a module (with attendance)
Pass mark: UG PG
40%
50%

22. Assessed Work
Reassessment required, component marks are capped at the pass mark
At retake, module marks are capped at the pass mark
UG modules at one level must be passed before progression to next level
(i.e. limited opportunity to ‘trail a fail’)
All assessments - internal verification and moderation
Assessments contributing final award classifications - external verification and moderation by external examiners
External examiners cannot negotiate individual student marks

23. Assessment Marking Scales
Academic Regulations for Taught Programmes 2013/14
Assessment Marking Scales
All elements of assessment are mark out of 100 and recorded as a % mark, unless graded Pass/Fail
Level 7 (pass = 50%) Levels 3-6 (pass = 40%)
outstanding 90% – 100% outstanding
excellent 80% – 89% excellent
very good 70% – 79% very good
Good 60% – 69% good
satisfactory 50% – 59% fair
unsatisfactory 40% – 49% adequate
Inadequate 30% – 39% unsatisfactory
Poor 20% – 29% poor
very poor 10% – 19% very poor
extremely poor 0% – 9% extremely poor

24. Late Submission Penalties
Late submission penalties are:
Up to 1 working day late - penalty of 5 marks
Up to 2 working days late - penalty of 10 marks
Up to 3 working days late - penalty of 15 marks
Up to 4 working days late - penalty of 20 marks
More than 4 working days late, assessment becomes a non-
submission (and cannot be submitted/marked)
Late submission - if the original mark awarded…
was a pass, the penalised mark cannot go below pass mark
was a fail, no further penalty is applied

25. Late Submission Penalties
Assessment
Late Submission Penalties
Person Mitigating Circumstances
Compensation
Degree Classification & Awards
Academic Misconduct
Academic Appeals

26. Personal Mitigating Circumstances
By sitting/submitting an assessment, students are deemed to be fit to sit
PMC requests can be considered for:
Absence
Non submission
Late submission
Timescales for submission/consideration of PMCs
Board of Examiners must decide on the action for accepted PMCs:
Absence – offer replacement attempt
Non submission - offer replacement attempt
Late submission – remove late submission penalties

27. Compensation
Awarded in some circumstances for 20 credits (levels 3 to 6) or 30 credits (level 7)
Gives credit for the module, no change to module mark

28. Degree Classification
No discretion for students close to the next classification boundary
Non-standard degree programme mark (including top-up degrees) derived from all available credits at levels 5 and 6, i.e. no credits excluded from the calculation

29. Degree Classification
Standard Honours Degree
Programme mark is derived from:
25% of weighted mean mark for best 100 credits at level % of weighted mean mark for best 100 credits at level 6
(the programe mark for Integrated Masters programmes is based on levels 6 and 7 - under review)
Degree Classification Thresholds
Students registering before
2016/17
Students registering from
First
68.50%
70.00%
Upper second
59.00%
60.00%
Lower second
49.50%
50.00%
Third
40.00%

30. Students registering before Students registering from
Foundation Degrees
Programme mark is derived from:
25% of weighted mean mark for best 100 credits at level % of weighted mean mark for best 100 credits at level 5
Students registering before
2016/17
Students registering from
68.50% = FD with Distinction
70.00% = FD with Distinction
59.00% = FD with Merit
60.00% = FD with Merit

31. Awards with Merit and Distinction
Postgraduate Diploma (PgDip)
Programme mark derived from best 120 credits at Level 7
Programme mark of at least 70.00% = PgDip with Distinction
Programme mark of at least 60.00% = PgDip with Merit
Masters Degree
Programme mark derived from 180 credits at Level 7
Programme mark AND Project Stage mark of at least 70.00% = Masters with Distinction
Programme mark AND Project Stage mark of at least 60.00% = Masters with Merit

32. Academic Misconduct
Cases are considered by School Academic Misconduct Panel or University Disciplinary Panel
Possible penalties:
- Mark of 0 for the assessment
- Mark of 0 for the module
- Mark of 0 the module, all other modules at same level kept to minimum pass mark

33. Academic Appeals Grounds:
personal mitigating circumstances were not notified to the Board of Examiners and there was good reason for this
there has been a procedural irregularity in the assessment process
that the Board of Examiners has acted in a way which is manifestly unreasonable

34. Boards of Examiners
Boards of Examiners are responsible for ensuring that:
institutional regulations and policies on assessment, progression and award are operated correctly
the guiding principle of fairness is operated
marks/awards are appropriate for qualifications at the level and subject
objectivity and consistency is operated
marks and decisions are accurately recorded
sensitivity and confidentiality are maintained

35. Functions of Module Boards
Consider student performance across a module cohort
Mark ratification and recording
Consider profile of component/module marks including average and standard deviation
If concerns are raised, empowered to make formulaic, across-the-board changes to sets of marks or (if practicable) to ask internal and external examiners to revisit scripts
Collective decision making

36. Functions of Programme Boards
Consider individual student performance
Make decisions on progression and the award of qualifications, acting on the basis of marks ratified by the Module Board
Determine the award of compensation and requirements for reassessment/retake
Ensure personal mitigating circumstances decisions/academic misconduct penalties are recorded and applied as appropriate
Collective decision making

37. Role of External Examiner
May attend any meeting of a Board of Examiners
Attendance at Module Boards is normally expected as they operate on a discipline-specific basis; external examiner comment is particularly welcome
At Programme Boards, the External Examiner principal function is the oversight of the fair operation of the assessment process
Attendance requirement at Programme Board may be met by a single External Examiner

38. Role of External Examiner
If unable to attend a meeting, the external examiner shall be available for consultation
External examiners sign the record of awards from the Board of Examiners’ meeting attended, endorsing the assessment outcomes/processes

39. External Examiner Induction
External Examiner Reports, Responses and Action Planning
Dr Janice Allan
Associate Dean Academic (Assurance)
School of Arts and Media
2 November 2016

40. What happens with your Report?
EE Reports considered by programme team before the Progamme Leader drafts a response
Responses are checked by the relevant Associate Dean Academic to ensure that all key issues are addressed and that actions are appropriately SMART
You should normally receive the response to your report within four weeks of its submission
Reports and responses are also considered at the first Staff-Student Committees of each academic year to involve students
Reports will also be discussed at each School’s Quality Standards and Enhancement Committee (SQSEC) to identify both cross-programme issues and to help disseminate identified good practice

41. PMEP and the Monitoring of Actions
All actions recorded on the Response are transferred to Programme Action Logs (part of the University’s Programme Monitoring and Enhancement Policy)
Progress on actions will be recorded throughout the semester before being checked by Directors in January
At the same time, School-level actions will be recorded and monitored via a School Action Log, which will be considered by a University-level body
Where serious issues have been raised, EEs can expect an in-year update on progress in resolving them
Reports which raise serious issues involve an additional layer of scrutiny via the Quality and Enhancement Office