Academic Registry External Examiner Seminar 24 January 2011 Summary of 2009/10 External Examiner Reports Ian Shell, Sally Iles, Liz Morrow Quality Support

Academic Registry Outline action after last year’s seminar 2009/10 reports: summary report on standards issues from 2009/10 reports questions/discussion

Academic Registry Action from last year Discussion pointFollow up Consistency on: consulting EEs on proposed assessment tasks clarity on moderation process responding to EE feedback University Learning and Teaching Committee required Schools to action Small marking range for distinguishing PG pass/commendation/distinction Under review by University Learning and Teaching Regulations and Frameworks Task Group Use of restricted marking schemes Review EE report templatesWait outcome of sector review of external examining arrangements

Academic Registry 2009/10 reports 280 reports considered document mature, reflective & constructively critical process to safeguard academic standards QA procedures generally reported to be improving, transparent, meticulous, sometimes exemplary overview report (including feedback from this session) will go to University Learning & Teaching Committee and Academic Board then published on external examiners' webpageexternal examiners' webpage

Academic Registry Summary report on standards part A of report template asks for confirmation that standards are being maintained any ‘no’ here will be followed up at University Learning & Teaching Committee one ‘no’ on student performance qualified ‘no’ on process as anonymous marking not in place reservation on student performance/process in relation to practical examination at a partner institution

Academic Registry Part A questions The standards set for the awards are appropriate for qualifications at this level, in this subject In your view, is this statement correct? (yes/no) If you have stated ‘no’, please give reasons below A Student performance is comparable with similar programmes or subjects in other UK institutions with which you are familiar In your view, is this statement correct? (yes/no/not applicable) If you have stated ‘no’ or ‘not applicable’, please give reasons below B The processes for assessment, examination and the determination of awards are sound and fairly conducted In your view, is this statement correct? (yes/no) If you have stated ‘no’, please give reasons below C

Academic Registry Issues from 2009/10 reports external examiner arrangements assessment and marking student performance exam boards and regulations

Academic Registry External examiner arrangements 1 reports reflect rigorous & reflective dialogue between EEs and programme teams wealth of detailed subject-specific feedback on assessment process widespread acknowledgment of dedication & commitment of programme teams some requests for more contextual information, eg module/programme review information; one EE asks that reporting template includes a question on the student experience views

Academic Registry External examiner arrangements 2 appreciation of briefing information, external examiner seminar, web-page overall improvement reported in programme/module information provided to external examiners internal moderation generally more clearly conveyed - good practice is cited and ‘raises the bar’ improvement evident where EE workloads previously reported to be high still examples of unrealistic timescales, and exam board dates advised too late

Academic Registry Assessment and marking 1 assessment practice generally reported to be rigorous and fair extensive reference to creative and innovative assessment strategies significant improvement in quality of assessment feedback writing comments directly on scripts viewed positively others critical of hand-written feedback clustering of PG marks in narrow band (50-70) remains an issue

Academic Registry Assessment and marking 2 need for anonymous marking in coursework raised by some (piloted 2010/11 for implementation 2011/12) some suggest extended use of ‘turnitin’ in summative assessment some EEs feel compromised by early release of un-moderated marks prompt feedback vs rigorous QA views

Academic Registry Student performance widespread reporting of rigour in maintenance of standards improved international student performance (linked to better intake) extensive corroboration of consistent approach to collaborative provision new requirement to complete all components of assessment welcomed by some several requests for student performance data across modules

Academic Registry Exam boards/regulations exam boards well organised, staff well briefed and familiar with regulations discretion exercised fairly PEC/TEC procedure well established paperless boards more widespread, welcomed revised clause in Examiners’ Handbook (on EE confidentiality) remains an issue for EEs appointed by BSB/SRA graphical display of module results ‘misleading’

Academic Registry Questions/discussion less issues raised in reports this year, but your views on what we should follow up are welcome