Induction For New External Examiners
Welcome
Professor Andrea Dlaska
(Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Learning & Teaching)
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Overview
1.
Welcome to the University of Surrey
(Professor Andrea Dlaska)
2.
Management Structure
Academic Structure
Regulatory Framework
(Ms Hilary Placito)
3.
Role and Function of External Examiners
Communication with the University
(Dr Svetlana Reston)
4.
Break (5 mins)
5.
Workshop: Case Studies
6.
Lunch (12.30)
7.
Meetings with Faculties
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Management structure
Academic structure
Regulatory framework
Ms Hilary Placito
Director of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Characteristics
•
Founded in 1891, Chartered in 1966
•
3 campuses – Stag Hill, Manor Park, Hazel Farm
•
Surrey Research Park – 150 companies based there
•
Surrey Sports Park
•
World of work
•
Subject coverage: Science, Engineering, Biosciences, Health and Social Care,
Veterinary Medicine, Business, Economics, Management, Law, Hospitality and
Tourism, Human Sciences English and Languages, Performing Arts (including
Guildford School of Acting)
•
Vision to become a leading national and international institution by 2017
(University Strategy: 2012-2017)
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Student population
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Student population
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Over 100 nationalities
Ethnicity – 63% white, 37% BME
Average UG tariff score 424 UCAS points
UG students – 26% over 21 on entry
Student demographic - c. 31% socio-economic class 4-7- ahead of OFFA target
83% UG student progression to year 2
Over 75% of students achieving a first or 2-1
Excellent employability record over a decade; over 1,000 placement partners.
96.9% of 2013 graduates in work six months after graduation, more than 80% in
graduate level jobs
• 91% student satisfaction in 2014 - 8th in the NSS overall standings
• PGT – c.20% achieve a Distinction
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Management organisation
President & Vice-Chancellor
VP & DVC
Academic Affairs
Directorate of
Quality
Enhancement
and Standards
VP & DVC
Research &
Innovations
PVC
Learning &
Teaching
VP & Registrar
VP Enterprise
& Growth
Chief Financial
Officer
Academic
Registry
Faculties
Arts and Human Sciences
Business, Economics and Law
Engineering and Physical Sciences
Health and Medical Sciences
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Academic organisation
Senate
University Learning
and Teaching
Committee (ULTC)
Senate Progression
& Conferment
Executive (SPACE)
Faculty Learning
and Teaching
Committees (FLTC)
Boards of Studies
Boards of Examiners
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Academic Years 2014/15 and 2015/16
Semesters (15 weeks)
Semester 1: October – January (Exams Boards in February)
Semester 2: February – June (Exams Boards in June)
Late Summer resit period: August (Exams Boards in September)
2014/15
2015/16
Induction for new students
29 September
28 September
Start Semester 1
6 October
5 October
Start Christmas vacation
22 December
21 December
12 January
11 January
Last week of Semester 1
2 February
1 February
Start Semester 2
9 February
8 February
Start Easter vacation
30 March
21 March
Start teaching after Easter
27 April
18 April
Last day of Semester 2
19 June
17 June
24 August
22 August
Start teaching after Christmas
vacation
Start 2-week Summer resits
period
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Programme structures
Modular
All undergraduate and postgraduate taught programmes
Credits
1 credit = 10 hours
15 credits for UG and PGT
30 credits and above only for projects and dissertations
Bachelor’s award 360/480 credits
Integrated Master’s award 480/600 credits
Master’s award 180/240 credits
Levels
Levels 4-6 - Undergraduate
Level P - Professional Training Year
Level 7 - Masters
Level 8 - Doctorate
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Regulations: key points (1)
•Pass mark: levels 4-6 40%, level 7 50%
•Core modules: all units of assessment must be passed, irrespective of the
aggregate module mark; compensation is not allowed to be applied to core
modules
•Compulsory modules: must be taken but can be compensated
•Compensation: 30 credits in first year, 15 credits thereafter (and for PGT), only
awarded after resit (except final year)
o aggregate mark at the level is 45% or above (levels 4, 5 ,6) or 55% or
above (level 7)
o lowest mark is above 30% (levels 4, 5, 6) or 40% (level 7)
•No trailing failed credits
o Summer resits for failed modules ≤45 credits
o Failing > 45 credits – have to retake the following year
•Resit mark capped at pass mark
•Possibility of a replacement module – one only
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Regulations: key points (2)
• Honours classification is based on weighted levels aggregate:
o Bachelors - 35/65 (levels 5/6)
o Integrated Masters – 25/35/40 (levels 5/6/7)
• Masters degrees grading system (Distinction, Merit, Pass) based on a
weighted average
• Intermediate exit awards:
o 120 credits at level 4 – Cert HE
o 240 credits (120 at level 5) – DipHe
o 300 credits (60 at level 6) – Ordinary degree
o 60 credits (45 at level 7) – PGCert
o 120 credits (90 at level 7) - PGDip
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Code of practice on assessment:
Overview
• Purposes:
o Integrity of assessment strategy
o Fairness and rigour in their application
o Transparency
• Principles:
o Assessment strategy for programmes
o Alignment with learning outcomes at programme and module level and
linked with grade descriptors
o Assessment is proportionate - not under or over assessed
o Feedback to students
o Variety of assessment methods
o Quality control (valid processes in place) / quality assurance
(mechanisms to check these)
o Learning support
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Code of practice on assessment:
Types of assessment
•
Balance of types of assessment within a module
•
Normally no more than 80% summative assessment by examination across
a programme
•
Unusual for a module to have only one unit of assessment or more than 5
•
Written examinations usually 2 hours
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Code of practice on assessment :
Marking
• Primary marking – mark and provide feedback
• Second marking – second academic checks marking, 100% or a sample in
large cohorts (10% of the total or 20 pieces of work)
• Double marking / Double blind marking – second academic marks the work ,
100% or a sample in large cohorts (10% of the total or 20 pieces of work)
• Double marking required for modules worth more than 15 credits
• Audit marking – technical checks
Marking of dissertations – “The member of academic staff primarily responsible
for guiding the student in his/her work leading to an undergraduate final year
project or dissertation and the postgraduate dissertation supervisor will not be
one of the markers.”
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Code of practice on assessment:
Marking procedures
• Agreement of marks
• Moderation of marks
• Normalisation/scaling of marks (has to be approved by the External
Examiner)
• Compensation (though it does not affect marks, only module results)
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
External Examining processes
External Examiners Reports
Communication with External Examiners
Dr Svetlana Reston
Quality Enhancement and Taught Programmes,
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
External Reference Points
• QAA UK Quality Code for Higher Education, B7: External Examining, October
2011
• QAA Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ)
• QAA Benchmark Statements
• PSRB Requirements
• Programme Specifications
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Internal Reference Points
• General Regulations (one set for undergraduate and postgraduate
regulations)
• Specific Programme Requirements (e.g. Professional Bodies, attendance),
programme specifications
• Boards of Examiners
• Codes of practice
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Code of practice for external examining
of Taught Programmes
• Based on QAA UK Quality Code for HE, Chapter B7
• Fairness, consistency and reference to University regulations
• Focuses on the roles and responsibilities
• Eligibility and term of office
• Lead External Examiner role
• Publication of External Examiner’s names
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Role of External Examiners
• Role of External Examiners is to ensure that :
o Academic standards are sound
o Assessment methods are appropriate
o Student achievement is comparable
o Comment on the consistency of procedural aspects
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Role and Function of External Examiners I
•
Consider the programme(s) as a whole, as well as any particular modular
components
•
Consider relationship between learning outcomes and assessment methods
•
Engagement with, not in the assessment process in various ways and stages
so as to offer informed judgements
•
Comment on draft examination papers for Level 5 and above
•
Meeting with graduating students
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Role and Function of External Examiners II
• Observe students (as appropriate)
• Review the level and range of marks, within and between modules, check for
consistency of marking
• Receive proportionately representative sample of student work across the full
ability range that contains:
o at least 10%, across the range,
o or a minimum of 20 scripts or pieces of work, whichever is the lesser.
• Verify marks
• MRes/Practitioner Doctorate vivas: on exceptional basis, where appointment
is agreed by Senate and is recorded as External Examiner/Assessor.
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Role and Function of External Examiners III
• Attend examination boards: attendance is compulsory where results are
being considered that contribute to final awards (Level 5, 6 and 7).
• Viva voce examinations
• Submit reports
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
External Examiner Report
• Report forms – Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
o (http://www.surrey.ac.uk/quality_enhancement/)
o Code of practice
o Notes of guidance
o Links to general regulations
o Links to external QAA pages updated
• Checklist – at the back of the External Examiner’s report
• Timescales:
o 3 weeks after the end-of-year Board for UG (no later than end of July)
o 3 weeks after the final Board for PGT (no later than end of November – beg.
of December)
• Report submission electronically to the QES at: externalexaminers@surrey.ac.uk
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Consideration process
• Vice-Chancellor / Deputy Vice-Chancellor
• Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
• Dean / Associate Dean Learning & Teaching
• Board of Studies/Programme Director/ Head of School/Department
• Lead External Examiner (where applicable)
• Students
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
KEY
Normal process
If there are serious
issues
AIs
Associated and
Accredited Institutions
APR
Annual Programme
Review
ARR
Annual Review Report
(AIs only)
BoS
Board of Studies
QES
Quality Enhancement &
Standards
ULT
C
University Learning and
Teaching Committee
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Communication
• Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards:
o Externalexaminers@surrey.ac.uk
o Dr Svetlana Reston, Quality Enhancement and Taught Programmes
(e-mail: s.reston@surrey.ac.uk, tel: 01483689108)
•
Faculty:
o Examinations Officer
o Exams & Assessment Teams (Faculty)
o Programme Director and/or Director of Studies
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Raising of serious concerns
• EE’s right not to sign the mark sheet(s), - inform the University’s Deputy
Registrar in writing, for submitting these remarks to SPACE.
• Write directly to VC and President of the University of Surrey
• If necessary, submit a separate confidential written report
• If not resolved, - contact QAA through its Causes for Concern scheme:
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/concerns-scheme-e.pdf
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Communication
Use of SurreyLearn
• “Good use of online resources and networking” – BMus/MMus Tonmeister
• “Very good use of VLE's potential, excellent programme management” - BA
Theatre (distance-learning course)
• “SurreyLearn is excellent…. ( samples are available online)” - BSc Sociology
programmes
• “Excellent, impressed by the online system used by Surrey” (in response to
“Organisation and administration” by the Department) – BSc Criminology and
Sociology
• “I applaud the University for moving to the use of the online platform and
sending materials that way” – BSc Politics programmes
“Dealing with the Department was excellent. Perhaps, the Department could
reconsider spending one day before the Board marking and send all scripts by
post or make them available on-line.” - /BMus/MMus Music, from 2012/13 report
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Communication: SurreyLearn
http://surreylearn.surrey.ac.uk
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
University IT account
• Information about your IT account will be sent to you from the relevant Exams
& Assessment team
• Your IT account will need to be activated via https://activate.surrey.ac.uk
before logging into SurreyLearn
• Please be aware that the full activation of your account can take up to 24
hours.
• If you require any assistance, please contact the University of Surrey User
Support Help Desk at usersupport@surrey.ac.uk
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
SurreyLearn Homepage
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
My Courses list
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Access to External Examiner area
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Example External Examiner areas
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Access to module areas
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Access to module areas
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
The assignment tool
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Communication
External Examiners’ Website
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
QUESTIONS?
For any further questions, please contact us via:
externalexaminers@surrey.ac.uk
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Case Study 1
After reviewing a selection of exam scripts from a couple of compulsory modules taken in
semester one, you feel that the marking has not been rigorous and is overgenerous. This is
compounded by question-setters providing vague and poorly structured model answers.
You did not attend the Exam Board convened after semester one so you sent a detailed analysis
and argument and request the Head of department consider re-marking or at least a review of
the marking on these two compulsory modules.
At the end-of-year exam board you find that nothing has been done and your views appear to
have been put aside. The module leaders maintain they have spoken to colleagues and see
nothing out of order with the marking. You feel marginalised and ask why there was no earlier
response to you. The module leaders reply that as far as they were aware this exam board was
the appropriate point to respond. You maintain that the marking of the modules does not meet
the standards you have experienced in other institutions. The chair of the exam board cuts short
any debate stating that there is no time now for review or re-marking as results and
classifications have to be with the exams office by the end of the day. Reluctantly, and for the
sake of graduating students, you agree to sign off the award lists but refuse to sign off the
module mark sheets. The chair of the exam board signs these off.
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Case Study 2
You noticed that there is a large failure rate (60%) on a core level 5 module. A
selection of scripts is available to you on the afternoon before the exam board.
There is no model answer or marking criteria for the exam paper and you see
that the exam has been marked by a team of staff.
Your analysis shows that the problem appears to arise from students getting
very poor marks on two questions and in your opinion some pretty harsh
marking of their answers. Both questions appear to have been marked by the
same member of staff. There is no evidence of double marking or second
marking on any of the scripts. From informal conversations you gather that staff
are not too worried by the high failure rate; it is a level 5 module and level 5
modules only account for 35% of the marks towards the degree classification.
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Case Study 3
You are an external examiner for a final year level 6 research project. You
noticed that one student submitted a final year research project that was shorter
than the rest of the sample and not diligently written up. The quality of the
research work is also questionable.
However the student was given a high first class mark (86%) for the project. You
requested to see the whole cohort and realised that in comparison with other
projects (including those of lower grades) this is anomalous. Nevertheless, both
project internal markers agreed on this high mark for this particular piece of
work. You noticed that in the case of the first marker, who is a highly
experienced member of staff and moderates a large number of other projects,
the marking and rationale for the mark on the marking sheet was not consistent
with their marking of other projects.
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Case Study 4
Analysing the final award classification statistics, you noticed that 91% received
a 2:1 and higher award classification of their degree. Over 50% of students
received a first class, which is well above the national averages for this subject
or in similar HE institutions.
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards
Case Study 5
You have some concerns about the samples of student work that you received.
For example in one final year module, you were sent the work of one group from
a total of 10 groups. This was the group where the internal markers had
disagreed and a third marker had been deployed to establish an agreed mark,
by using a “split the difference” approach. You find it difficult to judge the
appropriateness of this procedure as you have no other work to use as a
comparator.
In addition to this, during your discussions with some of the module tutors it
became clear that you were at cross purposes since they assumed (wrongly)
that you had access to the VLE and could view aspects of feedback there. You
realised that it is now a standard practice for students to submit their work for
assessment in electronic format and a number of tutors mark it in this format,
however, you did not receive any instructions on how to access this VLE
platform.
Directorate of Quality Enhancement and Standards