External Examiners’ Briefing Day 22 February 2016.

External Examiners’ Briefing Day

22 February 2016

Brunel University London External Examiners’ briefing 2016 2

Presenters

Professor Mariann Rand-Weaver, Pro Vice-Chancellor for Quality Assurance and Enhancement

Dr Amanda Harvey, Associate Dean (Quality Assurance), College of Health and Life Sciences

Mr Ruaidhri Donnelly, Head of Quality & Standards Assurance

Plus: Dr Bryan Mase and Dr Jane Lawrie, Associate Deans (Quality Assurance)


Briefing outline

• Overview of External Examiner role

• External scrutiny and moderation of assessments

• Panels and Boards of Examiners

• Programme and Award Regulations

• External Examiner annual reports

Welcome


Brunel academic structure

Three large Colleges, each led by a Dean, supported by Vice-Deans Education and Associate Deans Quality Assurance

• Business, Arts and Social Sciences (CBASS)

• Engineering, Design and Physical Sciences (CEDPS)

• Health and Life Sciences (CHLS)

Larger Departments have ‘Divisions’ for different subject area – your appointment as an External Examiner is likely to cover a large slice of a particular Division.


Current activities and developments

• QAA Review taking place 14-18 March 2016

• New Education strategy and International strategy

• Major Portfolio review now concluding


Input from External Examiners

Brunel greatly values your work and considers and acts on your reports

We also welcome any feedback about today’s event

Role overview


Appointment

• Senate Regulation 4 governs the appointment of and role of External Examiners

• At least 1 External Examiner per award bearing Programme

• Appointment normally for 4 years but may be extended by one further year

• External Examiners nominated by Heads of Department and appointed by Senate

http://www.brunel.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/437063/SR4-with-effect-from-1-September-2015.pdf


Main functions

• External scrutiny of assessment-setting

• External moderation of summative assessments

• Involvement in Panels and Boards of Examiners which confirm grades and awards

• Other meetings with staff/students as agreed (e.g. project presentations)

• Annual Report (to the VC) on academic standards, assessment processes, student performance, and comparability of overall standards with those of similar programmes in other UK HEIs


Brunel’s Regulations

All published at www.brunel.ac.uk/about/administration/senate-regulations

• SR2 – Undergraduate programmes/awards (Levels 1, 2, 3)

• SR3 – Postgraduate Taught programmes/awards (Level 5)Note that “levels” are not the same numbers as FHEQ.

• SR4 – Assessment, Boards & Panels of Examiners

http://www.brunel.ac.uk/about/administration/senate-regulations

Scrutiny and external moderation


Scrutiny of summative assessment tasksAll summative assessments should be scrutinised by a subgroup designated by the appropriate Panel of Examiners, consulting the External Examiner(s), before final approval by the Panel. [SR4.4]

• External Examiners' views should be sought on all examination papers and other assessments (e.g. proposed coursework titles) at Level 2, 3 and Masters Level, before the papers are printed or other assessments notified to students.

• Assessment criteria, marking schemes, and/or indicative answers should be provided (also see University Grade Descriptors)

• Consider whether the questions: a) are expressed clearly;

b) adequately assess the intended learning outcomes;

c) are in accordance with the overall assessment strategy for the programme;

d) are of an appropriate standard;

e) are associated with appropriate assessment criteria.

• Changes proposed by the External Examiner under should only be rejected with good reason after discussion with him/her.


External moderation of summative assessments

External Examiners will be provided with [SR4.85]:

• Samples of assessed work (covering full range of student achievement; at least 10% of cohort, or 20% for UG projects / PGT dissertations; all work where class size <10)

• Full set of provisional grades

• All internal moderation or double-marking records (indicating any adjustments already made)

Don’t need to study each piece of work in detail; but consider [SR4.86]:

• Is the work of appropriate standard and comparable with other UK HEIs?

• Do grades/marks assigned reflect the marking criteria, published grade descriptors and intended learning outcomes?

Findings feed into Panel of Examiners consideration/confirmation


External moderation arrangements

• Samples of student work should be:• Sent prior to the Panel of Examiners (discuss how with the

programme team – e.g. electronically via Blackboard)

• Or, by agreement, available on the morning of the Panel meeting

• You should also be invited to any ‘live’ assessment events, displays, performances etc; or given opportunity to see video recordings (discuss with the programme team)

• You may be asked to moderate placement assessments

All assessed material should be available if you want to see it, either on the day of Panel of Examiners or on request.

Panels of Examiners

Brunel University London 17

Panels and Boards of Examiners – overall role

Common purpose is to ensure:

• Fairness to all students and each student

• Rigour of assessment

• Robustness of the results and decisions

• Maintenance of academic standards

Different types of decision-making:

• Panels are where collective academic judgement is exercised

• Boards confirm that processes have been appropriately carried out, and make decisions on things like reassessment – but extraordinary academic judgements may also be needed

Chairing Boards of Examiners and Panels of Examiners


Panels of Examiners (PoE) – purpose

Panels of Examiners are where collective academic judgement is employed and EEs have a vital role to play

• Key role: to verify and confirm the marks/grades for each module/block

• Do not look at individual students (unless error or additional info presented)

• May make specific recommendations to Boards concerning particular assessments

See Senate Regulations 4.52 to 4.56


Issues for Panels of Examiners

• Potential assessment design errors

• Academic judgment

• Moderation effectiveness and issues

• Extraordinary factors/events

• Re-marking/adjustment of results (see next slide)

• Justification of actions

… and ensure recording of decisions at all stages!


If a Panel identifies a problem

If the Panel is not satisfied with the fairness or integrity of assessments/marking, it should not confirm grades/marks

• Appropriate action to take is normally for the assessors to reconsider grade/marks for all affected students

• Only in very exceptional circumstances may the Panel scale grades/marks for a particular assessment; if so must then record justification and rationale

• Grades/marks may not be adjusted for individual students (unless wrongly recorded, or additional information is presented)

[SR4.55]


Role of External Examiners at Panels

• Full membership of the Panel of Examiners

• 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 SR4.93 – 4.99]

Boards of Examiners


Boards of Examiners (BoE) – purpose

• To receive confirmed marks/grades from Panels of Examiners

• To consider individual student profile of achievement

• To take into account mitigating circumstances and determine appropriate actions

• To decide on progression and re-assessment

• To recommend appropriate awards for each completed/withdrawn student

• Implement Senate Regulations 4.45-4.51 and 4.57-4.66

• NB Boards now have few powers of discretion within the regulations – but all decisions must still be justified

Brunel University London External Examiners’ briefing 2016

Role of External Examiners at Boards

• Full membership of the BoE

• Contribute to the collective academic decision-making

• General responsibility for all areas covered, not just your own area of specialist focus within this

• Have a distinct influence on the BoE (through independence and overview)

• EEs are not empowered to change marks/grades or progression/classification decisions unilaterally; all decisions are made collectively

• Assure themselves that due process has been followed and appropriate consideration and decisions have been made by the BoE

• See Senate Regulations SR4.93 – 4.99

24


Vice-Chancellor’s Representative (VCR)

• Award Boards must have a VCR present in order to make awards

• VCR is an experienced member of University professional staff with a good understanding of the Regulations

• VCR has authority to stop the Board should any irregularities come to light, and reports back to the VC on any issues

• VCR (and Assistant VCR, where present) take formal record of BoE decisions – you sign this! – for release to students


Issues for Boards

• Mitigating circumstances

• Progression and re-assessment

• Awards

• Extraordinary decisions – discretion

• Justification of decisions

… and recording of decisions at all stages!


Board discretion

Limited scope:

• Action re. Mitigating Circumstances

• Re-assessment timing

• Extraordinary situations

Brunel University London

Mitigating Circumstances (MC Panels)

“A serious or significant unforeseen event, and its consequences, which have significantly impaired the academic performance of a student in one or more assessed activities”

Role of MC Panels (which don’t include EEs) is to:

• Accept or reject MC submissions from students (considering likely impact on studies/assessment, but with no access to academic results/profile in considering cases)

• Make decisions directly re coursework submission deadlines with MCs

• Report to Board of Examiners on all other accepted MCs (identifying serious cases)

See Senate Regulations 4.26 – 4.31, plus further Guidance for Mitigating Circumstances Panels and Boards of Examiners

Chairing Boards of Examiners and Panels of Examiners 28

http://www.brunel.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/432789/Mitigating-Circumstances-Guidance-for-MC-Panels-and-Boards-of-Examiners.pdf

http://www.brunel.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/432789/Mitigating-Circumstances-Guidance-for-MC-Panels-and-Boards-of-Examiners.pdf


BoE actions re. Mitigating Circumstances

• Board paperwork will show where a student’s results have been affected by MCs (as accepted by MCs Panel). Only Chair and Externals should have sight of actual personal details

(which may inform decisions on reassessment timing etc.)

• Actions should minimise disadvantage to students while preserving the integrity of standards and awards. Normal BoE action should be to permit (uncapped) reassessment Need to decide reassessment timing (esp. for severe MCs) Other potential actions: academic decision to assign a grade based on

student’s wider performance/profile; or extraordinary action if agreed with Chair of QAC

• Marks/grades for individual assessment elements (e.g. exam script, coursework essay), as confirmed by PoE, may not be altered.

[See SR4.40-41]

Programme and Award Regulations


Programme and Award Regulations (SR2 and SR3)

Principles –

• Transparency of standards of awards

• Equity of treatment

• De-modularised Regulations (Assessment Blocks and Study Blocks)

Also note existence of ‘old’ Regulations – may still apply to some students who have previously taken abeyances


Brunel’s 17-point grade scale• Grades are the primary

performance measure, as used in award calculations (not marks – though mark equivalence is defined)

• University Grade Descriptors are the primary reference for academic standards

32

Indicative Mark Band

Degree class

equivalentGrade Grade

Point

90 and above 1 A* 1780-89 1 A+ 1673-79 1 A 1570-72 1 A- 1468-69 2.1 B+ 1363-67 2.1 B 1260-62 2.1 B- 1158-59 2.2 C+ 1053-57 2.2 C 950-52 2.2 C- 848-49 3 D+ 743-47 3 D 640-42 3 D- 538-39 Fail E+ 433-37 Fail E 330-32 Fail E- 229 and below Fail F 1

Non-submission Fail NS 0


Grading and marking at point of assessment

• Departments define whether they are entering marks or grades at element level (by programme)

• SITS (student records database) is set up with details of assessment elements and weightings For Grade entry – SITS assigns a grade point for each element

and calculates weighted average of grade points.

For Mark entry – SITS finds weighted average of marks and assigns corresponding grade point for assessment block

• All calculations and requirements for award are then grade-based


Progression and Award rules

• Defined minimum grade profile requirements for progression and threshold awards

• “Core” assessments can be defined (must be passed at threshold level)

• Classification determined by simple GPA requirement

• “Borderline” mechanism is strictly deterministic (no BoE discretion)

• No compensation/condonation mechanisms other than strict borderline mechanism

• Standard reassessment rules across University; reassessment volume right = limit


Core assessments or assessment blocks

• ‘Core’ indicates an assessment block, or element within this, which must be passed with a grade of at least D- (for undergrads) or C- (for postgrads) in order for the student to progress or be awarded

• Core status for specific blocks/assessments must be defined in the programme specification

• All Masters dissertations and all UG Final Year Projects must be designated as core


Undergraduate Sandwich Placements

• Sandwich students who have passed the placement assessment (minimum grade D-) are eligible for a different award title – normally a “with professional development” suffix

• This award is calculated slightly differently: The placement module grade is included in the Level 2 grade profile for

award.

Percentage contribution of the placement module to Level 2 is defined in the Programme Specification.

• All students who have failed the placement module are eligible for the standard (non-sandwich) award

• Students who did badly in the placement and would get a better classification under the standard award should be offered the choice between them by the Board

[See SR2.42 to 2.44]


UG Final Awards – Honours Bachelors

Set out in SR2 Appendices. Based on Level 2 and Level 3 Weighted Grade Profile (1:2 weighting of credit between L2:L3)

• Requirements for Other UG Awards (Integrated Masters, Ordinary, DipHE, CertHE) are also set out in SR2 Appendices

37

Class

Maximum credit

volume of Grade F

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-)

Minimum

weighted GPA*

Level 2 Level 3 Level 2 + 3

1st 0 0 0 0 0 14.02.1 0 0 20 0 20 11.02.2 0 0 40 20 40 8.03rd 0 0 40 40 60 NA


PGT Final Awards – Master’s

Set out in SR3 Appendices.

• Requirements for PGDip and PGCert Awards are also set out in SR3 Appendices

• If dissertation can be included in the profile for a PGDip award, this must be set out in programme specification

38

Class

Maximum credit volume

of Grades E+, E, E-, F

Maximum credit volume of

assessment blocks containing

core assessments

below C-

Maximum (non-weighted) credit volume of non-

core Grade Band D (D+, D, D-)

Minimum Taught Part Weighted

GPA*

Minimum Dissertation

Grade

Distinction 0 0 0 14.0 A-Merit 0 0 0 11.0 B-Pass 0 0 30 NA C-


UG Final Awards – borderline mechanism (PGT very similar)

Set out in SR2 (and SR3 for PGT) Appendices

39

Volume of grades (weighted by assessment block credit value and by Level weighting) in Class or better

Class

1st 2.1 2.2

Minimum Weighted GPA

At least 41% of grades (weighted) in Class or better 13.5 10.5 7.5




At least 58% of grades (weighted) in Class or better 11.5 8.5 NA

At least 62% of grades (weighted) in Class or better 11.0 NA NA

At least 66% of grades (weighted) in Class or better 10.5 NA NA


Entitlements to reassessment (UG)

• Defined rights to, and limits of, reassessment.

• Not at discretion of Boards of Examiners (unless MCs)

• Entitlement to reassessment where student fails to achieve D- (Level 1, 2, 3) or C- (Level 5) in a block or a core assessment (or fails to achieve a pass in a pass/fail assessment)

• Reassessment volume limit (for each Level) is maximum 60 credits at Level 1, or 40 credits at Level 2, 3 or 5

• Grades for reassessments are capped at D- (Levels 1-3) or C- (Level 5)


Entitlements to reassessment (PGT)

• Same general principles as for UG

• Reassessment grades capped at C- (threshold grade)

• Entitlement to reassessment in taught part assessments, up to a maximum of 60 credits, where student fails to achieve C- in a block or a core assessment (or fails to achieve a pass in pass/fail assessments)

• Students may submit a dissertation even if they cannot achieve a Master’s degree by doing so

• For dissertation – may revise and resubmit for first-attempt fails between E- and D+; but no resubmission permitted for F-grade dissertation fails or non-submissions

External Examiner Annual Reports


Report submission

• All External Examiners submit a report annually to the Vice-Chancellor – by 31st July each year

• Request for reports and reminders sent out by the Quality and Standards Office

• Pro-forma/web form provided for the report

• You will be sent a formal response detailing how the University is following up if you raise any concerns

• External Examiners may also write in confidence to the Vice-Chancellor at any time during their period of appointment about any matter relating to their duties


Response and publication

• College required to respond to the comments made in the External Examiners Report both directly to the External Examiner and in their annual monitoring reports

• University will provide a central response to broader issues, particularly regarding regulations

• External Examiner reports and University responses published to current students and staff. Web page also available to External Examiners.

• Fees paid once EE reports are received

Your questions?


Further support resources

Guidance and resources about all aspects of these processes are available at

www.brunel.ac.uk/about/quality-assurance/external-examiners

and

www.brunel.ac.uk/about/quality-assurance/assessment

The formal Regulations are published at

www.brunel.ac.uk/about/administration/senate-regulations

http://www.brunel.ac.uk/about/quality-assurance/external-examiners

http://www.brunel.ac.uk/about/quality-assurance/assessment

http://www.brunel.ac.uk/about/administration/senate-regulations

Thank you

Please fill out one of the feedback sheets about today’s event

Date post:	20-Jan-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	violet-richardson
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

External Examiners’ Briefing Day 22 February 2016.

Documents