External Examiner Induction The External Examiner at Anglia Ruskin: Organisational Structure Paul Baxter Head of Quality Assurance 18 th May

5 Faculties 29 Departments 50+ Programmes Numerous pathways and modules Anglia Ruskin’s Organisational Structure

Faculty Department A Department B Programme A1 Programme A2 Pathways Programme B1 Programme B2 Programme A3

Anglia Ruskin’s Organisational Structure Faculty of Science & Technology Built EnvironmentDesign & Technology Surveying Programme Construction Programme Architecture & Planning Programme Design & Engineering Programme Technology Programme Pathways

Anglia Ruskin’s Organisational Structure Business School Department 1Department 2Department 3 Undergraduate Programme Postgraduate Programme Professional Programme

Deans of Faculty Associate Deans (with responsibility for quality assurance) Directors of Studies Heads of Department Programme Leaders Pathway Leaders Module Leaders Key Postholders in the Faculties

Key Central Postholders Lesley Dobree, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Quality & Enhancement) Malcolm Morrison, Director of Academic and Quality Systems Office Paul Baxter, Head of Quality Assurance Chris Collins, Institutional Quality Assurance Officer (External Examiners & TQI) Jo Duggan, Secretary Faculty Quality Assurance Officers

External Examiner Induction The External Examiner at Anglia Ruskin: The Two-Tier Assessment Process Paul Baxter Head of Quality Assurance 18 th May

modules academic standards (including mean marks, standard deviation and comparison with performance from previous years/assessment periods) considering the performance of students enrolled on modules approving the marks achieved by students on modules; moderating where appropriate awarding credit for the achievement of students on modules determining the necessary action to retrieve failed modules Tier One: Departmental Assessment Panels

considering the overall performance of students registered on pathways receiving and confirming recommendations on claims of mitigating circumstances awarding credit to students on modules passed by compensation confirming eligibility for awards on the basis of accumulated credit in accordance with the Pathway Specification Form (PSF – Anglia Ruskin’s version of the Programme Specification) conferring awards Tier Two: Faculty Awards Boards

Expectations of External Examiners regular attendance at, and participation in, assessment panel/board meetings and discussions academic standards approve proposed assessment tasks prior to use (tier one: DAP) moderate assessed student work (tier one: DAP) comparability: other UK HEIs and external reference points fairness and due process annual report(s) ALL ON BEHALF OF THE ANGLIA RUSKIN SENATE

provide advice and guidance to Module Leader / Module Team / Assessment Panel / Awards Board recommend changes where necessary support should not be unduly withheld the external examiner is a member of an Assessment Panel / Awards Board; has no extra powers all decision are Assessment Panel / Awards Board decisions Powers & Limitations

An external examiner should not be: personally associated with the sponsorship of students required to assess colleagues who are students involved with Anglia Ruskin placements or training Impartiality

Head of Department / Dean of Faculty Faculty Quality Assurance Officer Associate Dean (with responsibility for quality assurance) Chris Collins, Institutional Quality Assurance Officer (External Examiners & TQI), Quality Assurance Division Jo Duggan, Secretary, Quality Assurance Division Paul Baxter, Head of Quality Assurance Lesley Dobree, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Quality & Enhancement) dedicated address for all queries: dedicated webpage: Support we provide…

External Examiner Induction The External Examiner at Anglia Ruskin: Key Assessment Regulations Paul Baxter Head of Quality Assurance 18 th May

Curriculum Details Assessment is prescribed in the Module Definition Form (MDF) and modules are in multiples of 15 credits (permitted variants are 15, 30, 45 and 60) This is the approved version and assessment can only be changed via modifications process (must include watermark) Module Guides are issued to students and provide detailed information, expanding on details provided in the MDF Assessment relates directly to module learning outcomes. Assessment volume is regulated according to new guidelines Module learning outcomes relate to pathway learning outcomes. Pathways are described on the Pathway Specification Form (PSF)

Curriculum Details (cont.) Modules of 30 or more credits may run over two semesters; each level must include one module of 30 or more credits Level one semester one modules will not be assessed by examinations New assessment criteria and marking standards describe 0, 1-29%, 30-39%, 40-49%, 50-59%, 60-69% and 70%+ (see Appendix to Senate Code of Practice on the Assessment of Students) Independent Learning modules Major project PDP / Progress files

The Qualifying Mark minimum level of achievement for each element of assessment in a module, as detailed on the MDF default value: 30% qualifying mark must be obtained in all elements of assessment in order for module to be passed (eg: Coursework mark of 60% and Examination mark of 26% = Overall module mark of 43% = FAIL) may be set at a higher level, usually for professional reasons, agreed at approval stage DAPs cannot waive this requirement

the pass mark for the module at all levels is an aggregate of 40% students are entitled to one re-assessment attempt at a module if the first attempt is failed where a module is failed at the first attempt, students will be re- assessed in those elements of assessment where the mark is <40% where a module is failed at the first attempt, elements of assessment where the mark is 40%+ are not re-assessed the module mark after re-assessment is capped at 40% (NB: previously element marks were capped at 40%). Highest element marks achieved used to calculate module mark after re-assessment the Qualifying Mark must be achieved to pass at re-assessment Module Assessment

1)Pass No Re- assessment 2)Fail Re-assess CW only 3)Fail Re-assess CW2 and EX 1)n/a 2)CW mark on re-sit: 50% 3)Marks on re- sit: CW2: 50% EX: 28% 1)CW (50%)35 EX (50%)50 Total43 2)CW (50%)26 EX (50%)58 Total42 3)CW1 (30%)44 CW2 (30%)28 EX (40%)38 Total37 1)n/a 2)Pass 40% 3)Pass 40%

1 st Attempt Student 1CW50% EX34% Total42% Student 2CW34% EX32% Total33% Why Cap Modules? 2 nd Attempt No re-assessment For this student CW50% EX34% Total42% (capped at 40%) but if 50% CW mark is cappedCW40% EX34% Total37% - FAIL

Compensation based on the principle of preventing students with marginal failure, but who have performed strongly elsewhere, having to undertake further re-assessment. only applies at undergraduate level for awards which attract 120+ credits not permitted for Major Project modules applied at the earliest opportunity in the assessment process (eg: as soon as the student becomes eligible) specific modules and/or pathways can be exempted from compensation; agreed at approval stage no discretion; if all criteria are satisfied, compensation is applied

The following criteria must be satisfied: modules of total value of 75+ credits must be passed at the level under consideration (includes AP(E)L credit) the mean result of the fine graded modules within the 75+ requirement is 45% or higher the module mark of the module being considered for compensation is within the range 30-39% all qualifying marks, as stated on the MDF, have been achieved Compensation (cont.)

Limits to volume and level of compensation: Honours Degree: maximum of 45 credits in total and 30 credits at any one level Ordinary Degree, Foundation Degree, Dip. HE: maximum of 30 credits in total and 30 credits at any one level HND, HNC, Cert. HE, PGCE (level 3): maximum of 15 credits Grad. Dip., Uni. Dip., Acc. Cert.: maximum of 15 credits Compensation (cont.) Compensation is formally determined and undertaken by the Awards Board and results in the award of credit and a “Pass (by compensation)” result. The module mark remains unchanged

The Awards Board can make one of the following decisions: transfer to an alternative pathway where the failed modules are not required and (some of) the modules already attained can contribute to the new pathway transfer to the Faculty Framework Award (where approved) confer highest available intermediate award enforced student withdrawal from the University Options under Continuation Regulations

Transitional Regulations Three categories of pathway Category A: “long life” 15/30 pathways, whose title continues in and thereafter Category B: “populated non-continuing” 15/30 pathways, whose title does not continue in Existing students to take 15/30 credit modules but to retain on graduation the award title for which they are currently registered Category C: “short life” 10/20 pathways, to continue with 10/20 credit curriculum for finite period, approved on individual basis by 15/30 Project Board

Transitional Regulations Assessment issues for new learning (all 3 categories) number of module attempts use of qualifying mark capping of failed modules compensation mitigation replacement designate modules after two failures in a module award classification

Transitional Regulations Cat ACat BCat C “old learning”Curriculum 1. Curriculum 1. Curriculum 1. (before Sept 2006)Regulations RegulationsRegulations “new learning”Academic Academic Curriculum 2. (wef Sept 2006)RegulationsRegulationsRegulations 1. including former number of reassessment attempts 2. but Academic Regulations for new procedures (mitigation, student review, short/long term extensions, appeals, assessment offences)

External Examiner Induction The External Examiner at Anglia Ruskin: Approving Assessment Tasks and Moderating Assessed Work Chris Collins Institutional Quality Assurance Officer (External Examiners & TQI) 18 th May

Items that require external examiner approval: examination papers other major items of assessment External examiners need: the relevant Module Definition Form (MDF) the relevant Module Guide the published marking scheme indicative answers (where available) sufficient time Approving Assessment Tasks

Purpose: to comment on suitability of tasks with regard to level and academic standards and comparability with similar provision elsewhere The external examiner is therefore looking for: evidence of appropriate academic standards clarity fairness coverage Approving Assessment Tasks

Moderating Assessed Work All assessment methods which contribute 25% or more to the overall assessment of a module are moderated sampling: minimum of 8 or 10%, whichever the greater; to cover range of performance and all locations of delivery presented with agreed marks for all candidates at all locations of delivery – not a second or third marker posting of work/attendance prior to meetings access to all work

can propose, for individual assessment tasks, the moderation of all marks up, down or request complete re-marking cannot change individual marks External Examiner recommendation; Assessment Panel decision Moderating Assessed Work

External Examiner Induction The External Examiner’s Annual Report Chris Collins Institutional Quality Assurance Officer (External Examiners & TQI) 18 th May

standard template for both Tier One (DAP) and Tier Two (FAB) incorporating former TQI requirements additional standard template for non-modular Assessment Boards (NMABs) one report should be provided for each duty (Tier One, Tier Two or NMAB), where appropriate templates circulated in late May in hard copy and available electronically from the dedicated webpage: submitted from July onwards directly to the Quality Assurance Division (not faculties/departments) deadline of end of September The Annual Report

circulated by the Quality Assurance Division to relevant faculty/departmental staff also read by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Quality & Enhancement), Director of Academic & Quality Systems Office, Head of Quality Assurance and Institutional Quality Assurance Officer (External Examiners & TQI) individual students should not be identified comments in Sections 7d of Tier 1 report and 4d of Tier 2 report submitted to the Senate included as part of the annual monitoring process written response to be provided within two months of receipt part of contract; no report = no fee! The Annual Report

claim for fee and expenses made on form F15 separate fee should be claimed for each duty F15 sent to the Quality Assurance Division ‘hard copy’ when the annual report is submitted full completion of F15 facilitates prompt payment guidance available from the Quality Assurance Division regarding completion of annual reports and F15 forms Tel: (Chris Collins) or (Jo Duggan)