2. First, what have you been discussing during the day?

3. Topics 1.Judging FHEQ level of demand 2.Lack of alignment 3.Influence of input by supervisors 4.(Not) being a referee or adjudicator 5.Group work in which outcomes are shared 6.Collegial vs formal advice/reporting 7.Incompetence 8.Disappearing recommendations

4. External Examining My responses to the challenges – drafted before today! I’ll maybe just select a few.......

5. Problem Area 1: FHEQ level  Explore four sources of data  The basis for assessment  The evidence in (hopefully varied) students’ work  Discussion with teacher about the rationale of the assessment  Discussion (anonymously) with students - after results decided

6. Problem Area 2: Alignment  Check learning outcomes against demand of assessments – and teaching plans; in particular.....  Check demand of assessment against declared learning outcomes  Watch out for claimed outcomes not explicitly assessed  Watch out for assessed outcomes not quite in accordance with specification

8. Problem Area 3: Supervision  Ask supervisors to append a note of the advice and assistance they have given to students during the year  Ask students to initial this, or comment upon it  Suggest that this is an essential input to judgement, internal and external, if creativity and problem-solving are to be judged

9. Problem Area 4: Refereeing  Insist that your job is to advise the VC about the integrity and rigour of the process; and that you can't do that if you are a major player  Offer your advice on how problems of this type can be handled by the Board  Ask the Board to follow that advice, or decide, with reasons, not to!

10. Problem Area 5: Group work  Acknowledge this as a sector-wide issue, to be tackled collegially  Suggest requirements include keeping of records which identify who did what – with qualitative self- and peer-assessment accordingly  Suggest rewording of module descriptor, to reflect varying areas of development and achievement

11. Problem Area 6: Private/public?  First priority is fairness to current cohort, according to their experience  Next is collegial discussion of need for change and form of change  If this is agreed, and seems likely to be in place for next year, so report - but only in general terms  If a problem persists, report detail formally and illuminatively to the QA system

12. Consult a friend?

13. Problem 7: Incompetence  Present observed facts for which data is available  Offer no judgement  Ask for/expect a judgement to be made and action taken by the line manager  Decide if you do or do not support that decision

14. Problem Area 8: Lack of action  Sleep on draft correspondence  Concentrate on facts, not judgements  State clear recommendations  Use recorded delivery  Ask for decision on recommendations  Move steadily up seniority levels  Maybe opt to resign, stating why  That usually leads to prompt action

15. Two last questions to wrestle over, then