1. Brunel University Briefing for External Examiners Spring 2014
Derek Milligan
Director of Academic Programme Development

2. Topics Panels of Examiners Boards of Examiners
  Mitigating Circumstances Panels
  Regulations

3. Panels and Boards are responsible directly to Senate
Senate Regulation 4 governs Panels of Examiners, Boards of Examiners and Mitigating Circumstances Panels

4. Panels and Boards of Examiners Combined Purpose
To ensure:
Fairness to all students and each student
Rigour of assessment
Robustness of the results and decisions
Maintenance of Standards

5. Assessment Waypoints Specify assessment tasks and criteria
Approval of tasks and criteria
Students take
Mitigating circumstances
Marking/Grading
Moderation (Internal and External)
Panels of Examiners
Boards of Examiners

6. Panels of Examiners - Purpose
To verify and confirm the marks/grades for each module/block
Not to look at individual students (unless error or additional info presented)
May make specific recommendations to Boards concerning particular assessments
Implement Senate Regulations
Mitigating Circumstances Panels are different
– see later

7. Senate Regulation 4.64
A Panel of Examiners shall not confirm grades/marks for an assessment block until it is satisfied with the integrity and fairness of the assessment(s) leading to the grades/marks. Where the Panel of Examiners has insufficient confidence in the integrity and fairness of the outcomes of an assessment, it shall take appropriate action in order to achieve sufficient confidence. The Panel of Examiners may require the reconsideration by assessors of the grades/marks for the complete cohort of students taking an assessment. Only in exceptional circumstances may the Panel directly adjust the grades/marks for a particular assessment and must then must record the justification and rationale for the adjustment. Grades/marks for an individual student may not be adjusted, unless they have been wrongly recorded or additional information is presented.

8. Role of External Examiners at Panels
Full membership of the PoE (including voting)
Contribute to the collective academic decision-making
Have a distinct influence on the PoE (through their independence and their overview)
EEs are not empowered to change marks or grades – all decisions are made collectively
May ask to inspect any documents involved in the assessment process
See SR4.122 – 4.132

9. Issues for Panels Potential Assessment Design Errors Academic Judgment
Moderation effectiveness
Extraordinary factors
Adjustment of Results
Justification of Actions
Recording of Decisions at all stages!

10. Design Errors Potential Locations: Learning Outcomes Coverage
Element Weightings
Assessment Specification
Sub-element combination method
Assessment Criteria Specification
Marking/Grading strategy
Moderation process

11. Academic Judgement
The vast majority of the collective academic judgement is exercised in PANELS, not in Boards, of Examiners
Boards are more about judgement by academics, rather than academic judgement – but there may be extraordinary academic judgements needed

12. Boards of Examiners - Purpose
To receive confirmed marks/grades from Panels
To consider individual student profile of achievement
To take into account mitigating circumstances and determine appropriate actions
To decide on progression and re-assessment or
To recommend to Senate appropriate awards for each student
Implement Senate Regulations and
NB Boards now have few powers of discretion within the regulations (compared with the old regulations) – but all decisions must still be justified

13. Role of External Examiners at Boards
Full membership of the BoE (including voting)
Contribute to the collective academic decision-making
Have a distinct influence on the BoE (through their independence and their overview)
EEs are not empowered to change marks or grades/progression/classification unilaterally – all decisions are made collectively
Assure themselves that due process followed and appropriate consideration and decisions have been made by the BoE
See Senate Regulations SR4.122 – 4.132

14. Issues for Boards Mitigating Circumstances Academic Judgment
Progression and Re-assessment
Awards
Extraordinary Decisions - Discretion
Justification of Decisions
Recording of Decisions at all stages!
Condonation, Set-Aside & Borderlines (UG pre-2009 only)

15. Board Discretion Potential Locations: Action re MCs
Treatment of AP(E)L – NB New processes will obviate need for BoE discretion
Extraordinary situations
Re-assessment (mainly PG)
Condonation/Set-Aside/Promotion across boundaries/Re-assessment (UG Old SR2 only)

16. Mitigating Circumstances Panels
Report to Board of Examiners
Consider MC submissions from students
Have no access to academic results when considering cases
Consider the likely impact on studies/assessment
Accept or reject MCs
Make decisions directly re coursework submission deadlines with MCs
All other accepted MCs -> Board of Examiners
MC Panel will identify serious cases to the BoE
SR4 governs treatment of MCs + see Guidance on MCs

17. Actions re MCs by Boards
See Senate Regulations 4.43 – 4.51
Essentially, Boards can take any appropriate action it sees fit except:
The marks/grades for individual assessment elements (e.g. exam script, piece of coursework, etc) may not be changed – i.e., the actual level of performance recorded for an individual assessment (confirmed by a PoE) cannot be altered.

18. Grounds for Appeal (SR6)
6.5       A student may appeal against the decision of a Board of Examiners on any of the following grounds:
a      that there exist circumstances materially affecting the student's performance which were not known to the Board of Examiners when its decision was taken and which it was not reasonably practicable for the student to make known to the Board beforehand;
b      that there were procedural irregularities in the conduct of the examinations and/or assessment procedures, including assessment of coursework, of such a nature as to create a reasonable possibility that the result might have been different had they not occurred;
c      that there is evidence of prejudice, bias or inadequate assessment on the part of one or more Examiners.
6.6       No appeal shall be allowed on the grounds that, although the decision of the Examiners was properly made, the Board of Examiners is alleged to have erred in its judgement of the academic standard achieved by the student.

19. Documentation
For all summative assessment there should be a complete documented audit trail for all assessments –
all the way from specification of an individual piece of assessment and its checking
through marking and moderation
to Panel and Board decisions

20. Senate Regulations Undergraduate Programmes & Awards
SR2 (2009 onwards)
SR2 (pre-2009 entry, very few students now)
Postgraduate Programmes & Awards
SR3 (2006)
SR3 (2013 onwards)
Assessment in Taught Programmes
SR4 (combined)

21. Old UG (pre-2009) Regulations
Progression and Awards based on % average + gaining of 360 credits
Compensatory mechanisms
Condonation (at BoE discretrion)
Set-aside (at BoE discretion)
Best 100 credits
Trailing allowed
No limit but much BoE discretion on volume of re-assessment

22. Current Regulations (SR2/3)
Transparency of Standards of Awards
Equity of Treatment
University Grade Descriptors are Primary Standards Reference
Grades are primary performance measure
Defined minimum grade profile requirements for awards
Credit is not “awarded” – credit is solely a volume/weighting metric
“Core” assessments can be defined (must be passed at threshold level)
Reassessment volume right = limit

23. Current UG (2009) Regulations
De-modularised Regulations (Assessment Blocks & Study Blocks)
17-point grade scale (A*,A+,A,A-,…F) with % mark equivalence defined
Progression and (Threshold) Award based on Grade Profile over defined volume of Credit
Classification based on combination of GPA + volume in class
No compensation/condonation mechanisms
No Trailing allowed (Except for some cases of MCs and with individual Senate approval)
Integration of Sandwich placements into degree

24. UG Integration of Sandwich Placements (SR2 2009-, 2.46-48)
Special award name (defined in the Programme Specification) available for sandwich students who have passed (D-) the placement assessment.
For this special award the placement module grade is included in the Level 2 grade profile for award.
Percentage contribution to Level 2 of the placement module is defined in the Programme Specification.
All students who have failed the placement module (or who choose not to have it included in the award grade profile) are eligible for the standard (non-sandwich) award.
2013/14 is second year of awards with integrated sandwich placements

25. UG Grade Scale 90 and above 1 A* 17 80-89 A+ 16 73-79 A 15 70-72 A- 14
Indicative
Mark Band
Degree
Class
Equivalent
Grade
Grade Point
90 and above 1 A* 17
80-89 A+ 16
73-79 A 15
70-72 A- 14
68-69
2.1 B+ 13
63-67 B 12
60-62 B- 11
58-59
2.2 C+ 10
53-57 C 9
50-52 C- 8
48-49 3 D+ 7
43-47 D 6
40-42 D- 5
38-39
Fail E+ 4
33-37 E
30-32 E- 2
29 and below F

26. Pre-2013 PGT (2006) Regulations
Progression and (Threshold) Award based on Grade Profile over defined volume of Credit
Masters Pass, Merit, Distinction Classifications
Classification based on minimum grade profile for class
No compensation/condonation mechanisms
SR3 for 2013/4 onwards provides alignment with current SR2
De-modularised Regulations (assessment & study blocks)
Finer grade scale
Use of GPA for Classification

27. Old PGT Classification (2006-)
Masters Distinction minimum profile:
120 cr A (incl Dissertation) + 30 cr B + 30 cr C
Masters Merit minimum profile :
120 cr B (incl Dissertation) + 60 cr C
Masters Pass minimum profile :
120 cr C (incl Dissertation) + 60 cr D
PGDip minimum profile : 60 cr C + 60 cr D
PGCert minimum profile : 30 cr C + 30 cr D

28. Old UG (pre-2009) Classification
L3:L2 weighting 2:1
% Average over best 100 credits at L2 & L credits awarded
3rd: 40% average
2.2: 50% average
2.1: 60% average
1st: 70% average
Variable Bordelines
Condonation and set-aside used to award credit when module not passed – at BoE discretion
Please note that very few, if any, of Bachelors awards at 2013/14 BoEs will be under these regulations

29. Current UG (2009-) Classification
L3:L2 weighting 2:1 as before
Two-stage classification decision
Test 1 – limits of sub-threshold credit volume (determines eligibility for 3rd)
Test 2 – Minimum GPA + In-class Volume (determines classification)
Please note that almost all Bachelors awards at 2013/14 BoEs will be under these regulations

30. Current UG Classification – Test 1
Maximum credit volume of assessment blocks containing core assessments below D-
Maximum (non-weighted) credit volume of non-core Grade Band E (E+,E,E-)
Maximum credit volume of non-core Grade F
Level 2
Level 3
Level 2 + 3
1st
2.1 20
2.2 40
3rd 60

31. Current UG Classification – Test 2
Class
1st
2.1
2.2
3rd
Volume of grades (weighted) in Class or better
Minimum weighted GPA
At least 33% of grades (weighted) in Class or better
14.5
11.5
8.5 NA
At least 41% of grades (weighted) in Class or better
13.5
10.5
7.5
At least 50% of grades (weighted) in Class or better
12.5
9.5
6.5
At least 58% of grades (weighted) in Class or better
5.5
At least 66% of grades (weighted) in Class or better
4.5
At least 72% of grades (weighted) in Class or better
3.3

32. Classification Example 1
Level 2 Profile (20 cr blocks): BB-CC+DE (E non-core)
Level 2 GPA: /6= 8.5
Level 3 Profile (20 cr blocks): AA-BB-CD
Level 3 GPA: /6= 11.16
Test 1:
No core credit below D- = 0 
Grade F credit = 0 
Non-core credit in E band = 20 at Level 2
=> maximum class = 2.1
Test 2:
Overall weighted GPA = (8.5+(11.16x2)) /3= 10.27
Consider for 2.1 with weighted GPA = 10.27
Needs 50% in 2.1 Class to get a 2.1
Proportion of weighted grade B- or better =
1/3 at L2 and 2/3 at L3 = (1/3 +2/3 +2/3)/3 = 55.55%
=> Classification is 2.1
Grade
Grade Point A* 17 A+ 16 A 15 A- 14 B+ 13 B 12 B- 11 C+ 10 C 9 C- 8 D+ 7 D 6 D- 5 E+ 4 E 3 E- 2 F 1
Maximum credit volume of assessment blocks containing core assessments below D-
Maximum (non-weighted) credit volume of non-core Grade Band E (E+,E,E-)
Maximum credit volume of non-core Grade F
Level 2
Level 3
Level 2 + 3
1st
2.1 20
2.2 40
3rd 60
Class
1st
2.1
2.2
3rd
Volume of grades (weighted) in Class or better
Minimum weighted GPA
At least 33% of grades (weighted) in Class or better
14.5
11.5
8.5 NA
At least 41% of grades (weighted) in Class or better
13.5
10.5
7.5
At least 50% of grades (weighted) in Class or better
12.5
9.5
6.5
At least 58% of grades (weighted) in Class or better
5.5
At least 66% of grades (weighted) in Class or better
4.5
At least 72% of grades (weighted) in Class or better
3.3

33. Classification Example 2
Level 2 Profile (20 cr blocks): BB-CC+DE (E non-core)
Level 2 GPA: /6= 8.5
Level 3 Profile (20 cr blocks): ABCDDD
Level 3 GPA: /6= 9.0
Test 1:
No core credit below D- = 0 
Grade F credit = 0 
Non-core credit in E band = 20 at Level 2
=> maximum class = 2.1
Test 2:
Overall weighted GPA = (8.5+(9.0x2)) /3= 8.83
Consider for 2.1 with weighted GPA = 8.83
Needs 58% in 2.1 Class to get a 2.1
Proportion of weighted grade B- or better =
1/3 at L2 and 1/3 at L3 = (1/3 +1/3 +1/3)/3 = 33.33%
=> 2.1 not achieved
Consider for 2.2 with weighted GPA = 8.83
Needs 33% in 2.2 Class to get a 2.2
Proportion of weighted grade C- or better =
2/3 at L2 and 1/2 at L3 = (2/3 +(1/2 +1/2))/3 = 55.55%
=> Classification is 2.2
Grade
Grade Point A* 17 A+ 16 A 15 A- 14 B+ 13 B 12 B- 11 C+ 10 C 9 C- 8 D+ 7 D 6 D- 5 E+ 4 E 3 E- 2 F 1
Maximum credit volume of assessment blocks containing core assessments below D-
Maximum (non-weighted) credit volume of non-core Grade Band E (E+,E,E-)
Maximum credit volume of non-core Grade F
Level 2
Level 3
Level 2 + 3
1st
2.1 20
2.2 40
3rd 60
Class
1st
2.1
2.2
3rd
Volume of grades (weighted) in Class or better
Minimum weighted GPA
At least 33% of grades (weighted) in Class or better
14.5
11.5
8.5 NA
At least 41% of grades (weighted) in Class or better
13.5
10.5
7.5
At least 50% of grades (weighted) in Class or better
12.5
9.5
6.5
At least 58% of grades (weighted) in Class or better
5.5
At least 66% of grades (weighted) in Class or better
4.5
At least 72% of grades (weighted) in Class or better
3.3