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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Role of an External Examiner

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support Available Blackboard account Website: http://www.salford.ac.uk/qeo/ExternalExaminers Queries: ExternalExaminers@salford.ac.uk

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

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 http://www.salford.ac.uk/qeo/ExternalExaminers

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

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%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Degree Classification Standard Honours Degree Programme mark is derived from: 25% of weighted mean mark for best 100 credits at level 5 + 75% 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%

Students registering before Students registering from Foundation Degrees Programme mark is derived from: 25% of weighted mean mark for best 100 credits at level 4 + 75% 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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