Nottingham Trent University
Collaborative Partnerships Office
Information for new External Examiners at Validated Centres
Contents
Overview
Page 2-3
External Examiner Reports
Page 4-9
Useful Contact Details
Page 10
Payment of Fees
Page 11
Academic
Standards
Handbook:
Section
Examining
and
7:
Quality
External
Page 12-21
Academic
Standards
and
Quality
Handbook: Section 15: Assessment
Principles and Policies
This is NTU’s policy – please see the
important note at the beginning of this
section.
Page 22-36
1 of 36/September 2012
OVERVIEW
ABOUT NTU
Nottingham Trent University (NTU) is a large, diverse and vibrant modern
university. It acquired university status under the Further and Higher Education
Act 1992. Its origins can be traced to the Nottingham Regional College of
Technology, the Nottingham College of Art & Design and the Nottingham College
of Education. Trent Polytechnic was established in 1970 and renamed as
Nottingham Trent University in 1989. NTU has 3 sites. The City campus and the
Clifton campus are within the city of Nottingham and are about 4 miles apart.
The third site, the Brackenhurst campus, was added in 1999 with the adoption of
Brackenhurst College, and is just outside the picturesque town of Southwell, 12
miles from the city centre.
NTU has over 25,000 students, of whom 7,700 are part-time. Undergraduates
account for some 20,000 students and postgraduates for about 5,000.
Additionally, as at September 2008 NTU had some 7,000 students on its
collaborative register of whom approximately 5,500 are studying overseas.
NTU’s Mission is ‘to deliver education and research that shapes lives and society’.
The University is divided into 3 colleges which together comprise 9 schools:
College of Business, Law and Social Sciences
 Nottingham Law School
 Nottingham Business School
 School of Social Sciences
College of Art & Design and Built Environment
 School of Architecture Design and the Built Environment
 School of Art and Design
College of Arts and Science
 School of Education
 School of Arts and Humanities
 School of Animal, Rural and Environmental Sciences
 School of Science and Technology
VALIDATION SERVICE
NTU has many collaborative partners, 22 of which have been awarded Validated
Centre status.
A validated centre is an institution which is approved to offer one or more
specified awards and where the institution has developed quality assurance and
supporting institutional systems to ensure the standard of the award on an annual
basis. The University retains responsibility for the approval of modifications to
existing courses, introduction of new courses and provides substantial input into
the quality assurance processes underpinning the courses of study offered.
Students studying and successfully passing a validated course at one of our
validated centres will be awarded a Nottingham Trent University certificate.
For more information on Validated Centres please visit the CPO website at the
following link:
2 of 36/September 2012
http://www.ntu.ac.uk/cpo
As an external examiner at a validated centre you are contracted to the centre
rather than the University and your fees and expenses are paid by the validated
centre. The validated centre is also responsible for your induction into the role,
setting out your responsibilities and duties and providing you with a copy of the
validated scheme of work. This guidance is offered in the spirit of partnership and
in addition to the information you will be provided by the validated centre.
CPO and CADQ
The Collaborative Partnerships Office (CPO) serves as a central source of
information about the University’s collaborative provision, partners and
developments; to advise on partnership arrangements, support their further
development, including due diligence and contractual arrangements; and to
facilitate fluency and consistency in complex relationships with partners engaged
with more than one school.
CPO manages the validated service arrangements and is the central point of
contact for all validated centres. If you have any queries with regards to
submitting your external examiner on line report please contact Julie Page in CPO
at Julie.page@ntu.ac.uk any other queries should be directed to your contact at
the validated centre.
The University appoints a verifier to each NTU validated course. The verifier is
normally an academic subject specialist, representing the University’s Academic
and Standards Quality Committee. Their role is to ensure, through a spirit of
partnership, that the academic standards, quality and subject health of the
provision are maintained. A verifier would typically visit the Validated Centre once
a year, usually for the examination boards. You will have the opportunity to meet
the verifier at this time. Part of the verifier’s role is to ensure that the external
examiner has been inducted by the validated centre and understands the
University’s reporting system.
The management of academic matters at NTU rests with the Academic Quality
and Standards Committee (AQSC). The Standards and Quality Management SubCommittee (SQMSC) and Validation Service Sub-Committee(VSSC) maintain an
oversight of quality and standards and make recommendations to ASQC
concerning appropriate action. AQSC also oversees the appointment process for
the recruitment of external examiners and reviews annually the institutional-level
issues arising from external examiner reports.
The Centre for Academic Development & Quality (CADQ) acts as the executive
arm of ASQC. Amongst its responsibilities is the implementation of external
examiner policy. CPO and CADQ work closely together on many aspects of
collaborative provision.
Validated Centres are responsible for the day-to-day liaison with external
examiners.
3 of 36/September 2012
EXTERNAL EXAMINER REPORTS
Guidance Notes
External Examiners must report annually to the University using the online
reporting system. These guidance notes provide instructions on completing this
report:
Accessing the report:
Type the following URL into the search engine:
http://www.ntu.ac.uk/apps/casq/ee/ui/pages/extexaminer/login.aspx
Or, click onto Academic Standards located at the bottom of the NTU website
homepage (http://www.ntu.ac.uk) and:
 select ‘Quality Assurance’;
 select ‘External Examiners’;
 select ‘Current and Prospective Examiners’.
You will then be able to click Electronic Version of the External Examiner Report
Form; this will bring you onto the ‘login screen’
The Online Reporting System for External Examiners
You are required to complete a number of sections of the report. These are
provided on separate electronic pages. You can progress through the form by
clicking on the ‘next’ button, or using the progression bar at the top of each
screen.
Each section has a set of questions to which you are required to respond ‘YES’ or
‘NO’. A response is required and it will not be possible to submit the form unless
these questions have been completed. The University extrapolates this
quantitative data to assure itself that courses of study are meeting stated aims
and learning outcomes and maintaining the standards of their awards.
Given the importance of the report to the University, we would strongly request
that after each section you provide a commentary where appropriate. Your
comments in relation to each of the sections are of particular interest and will be
used by the University to inform both annual reports and Periodic School Reviews.
Where appropriate would you also please highlight what you consider to be
particular strengths and distinctive or innovative features, or weaknesses, in the
course(s) examined.
You may find that there is some apparent overlap in a few of the questions you
are asked in the report. We would like to advise that each section of the report
seeks to raise slightly different considerations, i.e. standards, operation of
assessment processes, quality of learning, action taken on previous reports, etc.
Please do not name any individuals in this report, as it will be considered by
appropriate University Committees, which will include student membership. If
4 of 36/September 2012
you wish to refer to a candidate (for example, in respect of a dissertation) please
use the candidate’s examination number.
When should I complete my report?
You should return your completed report within 4 weeks of the Board of
Examiners meeting. Please note you will not be able to log on and complete your
report prior to your Board of Examiners meeting.
Time-out
Please note: to protect the security of the application, unless you click the “save”
button within 90 minutes from the opening of the page, the application will be
deemed as inactive and will close. You will lose any unsaved work if this
happens. Please ensure therefore that you activate the “save” button in the
timeframe above.
Logging onto the system
You will have been provided with a username and password with your
appointment letter.
The username is the email that you have provided. If your email, or personal
details change or they are incorrect please contact us via
adq.eeonlinereportqueries@ntu.ac.uk
The system will automatically generate a unique password for you, which will
normally consist of 8 letters and numbers. The username and password are case
sensitive.
Type your password and username and then press submit.
You have now logged into your personal reporting system.
The first time you use the reporting system there will be no reports visible.
Creating a report
Click onto ‘add new report’.
5 of 36/September 2012
If you are reporting on a single course, please click the relevant subject. If you
are writing one report for multiple subjects select the individual courses and press
the "ctrl" button located at the bottom left hand corner of your keyboard.
Now select the academic year for the new report. To do this please select the
appropriate reporting year from the ‘dropdown’ menu.
Press ‘create this report’.
6 of 36/September 2012
The first page of the report will look like this:
Please input the date of the Board of Examiners, the system will not allow you to
submit your report without this information.
Using the following progression bar as a reference you will be able to identify
which screens you have completed:
If you have completed all the mandatory input fields of a screen the related Part
will be ‘ticked’ on the progression bar. If you have missed a mandatory field this
will prevent you from submitting your report.
Please note: There are specific questions for examiners in their first year of
appointment.
If you decide to leave the system, having partially completed the report, please
ensure you press the ‘save for later’ button.
7 of 36/September 2012
You can submit your report once all Parts on the Progression bar are ticked.
Now press ‘Part H’. Pressing this button takes you to the submit screen – there’s
still one more button to press!
Press the ‘submit’ button within this section.
Once the report has been successfully submitted the following screen will appear:
8 of 36/September 2012
You will also receive the following eMail:
The next time you log onto the reporting system you will be able to see your
report history, which shows previous reports submitted and the date they were
submitted. Press the ‘view’ button to access any previous reports.
9 of 36/September 2012
USEFUL CONTACT DETAILS
Validated Centre Contact:
Name:
Position:
Centre:
Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail address:
University Contacts:
Address:
Nottingham Trent University
Burton Street
Nottingham
NG1 4BU
Telephone:
0115 9418418 (switchboard)
Collaborative Partnerships Office (CPO)
Contact name:
Position:
Direct Line Telephone Number:
E-mail address:
Julie Page
Collaborative Provision Senior Officer
(Validation Service)
0115 848 8181
julie.page@ntu.ac.uk
Contact name:
Position:
Direct Line Telephone Number:
E-mail address:
Chris Cox
Collaborative Partnership Manager
0115 848 8196
christopher.cox02@ntu.ac.
Centre for Academic Standards and Development (CADQ) – to be used in
Julie Page’s absence.
Contact name:
Position:
Direct Line Telephone Number:
E-mail address:
Nick Titmus
Senior Standards & Quality Officer
0115 848 8200
nick.titmus@ntu.ac.uk
10 of 36/September 2012
PAYMENT OF FEES
As an External Examiner at a Validated Centre you are contracted to the Centre
rather than the University. Your fees should be negotiated directly with the
Validated Centre, who are also responsible for paying your expenses.
Your report is submitted directly to NTU via the on line system. Your report is
read by CPO and CADQ, logged and forwarded on to the Validated Centre within 1
working day.
On receipt of your report the Validated Centre will contact you to arrange
payment of your fee.
11 of 36/September 2012
Version as at September 2012
To ensure you are referring to the latest version please check the website
at the following link:
http://www.ntu.ac.uk/cadq/quality_assurance/standards_quality/1141
19.pdf
Nottingham Trent University
Academic Standards and Quality Handbook
Section 7: External examining
CONTENTS
Sections
A. Introduction
B. Principles of external examining
C. Appointment:
Policy and Process
Criteria for appointment
Restrictions on appointment
Period of appointment
Extension of period of appointment
Letter of appointment
D. Induction and Briefing
E. Carrying out the role of the external examiner
Roles
Responsibilities
Rights
Entitlements
F. External examiners' reports
G. Chief external examiners
H. External examining of collaborative courses
I. Fees
J. Resignation of an external examiner
K. Premature termination of an external examiner appointment
L. Key issues in implementation
M. Links to External Examiner nomination forms on the CADQ website
12 of 36/September 2012
A. Introduction
1.
In support of its commitment to deliver high quality and continuously
improving courses, the University operates a system of external
examining. This system involves academics and practitioners of suitable
standing from outside the University in a process which is intended to
ensure the comparability of academic standards with other UK HE
institutions, deliver independent oversight of assessment processes and
give course teams the benefit of an impartial perspective on the running of
their courses. This system is informed by The Quality Code for Higher
Education, developed and maintained by the Quality Assurance Agency for
Higher Education.
B. Principles of external examining
2.
This University policy emphasises the importance of rigorous management
and enhancement of academic standards and quality. The external
examiner is a significant element in our standards and quality procedures
and brings an independent and impartial perspective to the process,
focusing particularly on the standards of our assessment processes and
ensuring the fair and equitable treatment of students in assessments.
Specifically, external examiners help the University to ensure that:
 the academic standard for each award and award element is set and
maintained at the appropriate level and that student performance is
properly judged against this;
 the assessment process measures student achievement against the
intended outcomes of the course appropriately, and is fair and
equitably operated;
 our awards are comparable in standard with those of other higher
education institutions;
 we receive expert external and independent opinion that can be utilised
to enhance the standards and quality of our courses.
3.
The principles outlined in this policy emphasise the reviewing and
monitoring role of the external examiner as part of the University's
moderation processes – external examiners do not act as second markers
and should not be used to reconcile differences between internal markers.
External examiner reports comment, through analysis and reflection, on
the standards and quality of our courses, as demonstrated by student
performance, and the appropriateness of the assessment process in testing
learning outcomes.
C. Appointment
4.
5.
6.
Policy and Process
At least one external examiner must be appointed to each University
award-bearing course (the same external may examine a group or cluster
of courses).
For new post-graduate, short courses or any course of up to one year in
length; an external examiner should be in place for the start of the course.
The course team is responsible for nominating an external examiner at
least six months before the commencement of their appointment. The
course team should ensure that potential external examiners are provided
with sufficient information to enable them to identify whether they can
carry out their responsibilities effectively. As part of this, the external
examiner should consult the CADQ website.
13 of 36/September 2012
7.
8.
9.
10.
Each nomination should be initially scrutinised and approved by the
appropriate School Academic Standards and Quality Committee (SASQC).
For Validated Centre Collaborative Provision, scrutiny of the nomination
should be by the EEAP (External Examiner Appointments Panel), following
approval by the Centre's Academic Board.
School approved external examiner nomination forms, signed by the Chair
of SASQC, should be forwarded to CADQ. Schools should use the standard
University nomination forms (which can be downloaded from the CADQ
website). Validated Centres should also use the standard form.
CADQ will ensure that the University's External Examiner Appointments
Panel considers the nomination. Nominations will be approved by the panel
and will be ratified by ASQC.
The name and institution of the external examiner will be published on the
relevant course pages of the NTU Online Workspace (NOW). Students will
be cautioned against attempting to contact the external examiner, and
external examiners are requested to refer any such attempted contacts to
the course leader.
Criteria for appointment
11.
Course teams, SASQC and the External Examiner Appointments Panel will
be guided by the following criteria when considering external examiner
nominations.
 An external's academic and/or professional qualifications, standing,
expertise and experience should be appropriate to the course in terms
of both level and subject.
 An external should have sufficient recent external examining or
comparable related experience to indicate competence in assessing
students in the subject. An external may be appointed with no previous
external examiner experience provided they have sufficient internal
examining experience or other relevant and recent experience or
training. Where possible, the examiner should join an experienced
team or work initially alongside the current external, or be subject to
other special induction arrangements. The nomination form should
include an appropriate supporting statement clarifying these points.
 The appointment should secure an appropriately balanced team that is
able to cover the academic and/or professional subject content. The
Dean/Head of the Validated Centre has a duty to ensure that the
appropriate number of externals is appointed to ensure adequate
expertise is available to cover the major areas of the course and cope
with the volume of student work.
Restrictions on appointment
12.
The following restrictions on appointments apply.
 An external must not be over-extended by the duties. S/he should
not concurrently hold more than the equivalent of two substantial
external examiner appointments. (If the external appears to exceed
this norm, the course team should provide supporting arguments,
for example that the phasing of assessments alleviates the
workload during an academic session).
 An external is expected to be impartial in judgment and should not
have any direct current ties with the University or its staff, or have
had any in the last three years. This applies also to external
examiners for Validated Centre Collaborative Provision.
 An external should not have acted as a consultant to a course team
within the last three years. Prior to their appointment an external
may have been a member of a panel established to approve the
course, however following their appointment they may not be a
14 of 36/September 2012



member of a panel established to review the course.
No external examiner may be appointed if by doing so a reciprocal
arrangement for external examining would arise.
An external should not normally be replaced by an individual from
the same institution.
Except in very large examining teams, there should be no more
than one external from the same institution.
Exceptions to this policy will only be approved where there are compelling
reasons set out on the nomination form.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Period of appointment
Following the approval of a new post-graduate, short course or course of
one year in length an external examiner should be appointed in time to
take up their duties at the start of the course.
A replacement external examiner should be appointed in time to take up
their duties on or before the retirement of the predecessor.
An external's normal term will be four annual reporting cycles but may be
longer in respect of new courses where the first output will not occur in the
first year of appointment.
For courses operating to the standard academic year, appointments will
run from the September of the first year to December of the fourth year,
e.g. from September 2011 to December 2015. For other courses,
appointments should run from the standard intake date and cover
referrals. For Validated Centre collaborative arrangements, the period of
appointment will be subject to a successful institutional review.
Extension of period of appointment/additional/reallocated duties
An application for an extension of the period of appointment or to add or
reallocate duties will be considered according to the standard procedures
using the separate nomination forms - EE2 and EE3 (copies available from
CADQ website).
To request an extension to the period of appointment there should be a
strong rationale for doing so. Only in exceptional circumstances may the
total period of appointment for an external exceed five annual reporting
cycles.
Application may be made to the External Examiner Appointments Panel to
vary the scope of responsibility of an external examiner without varying
the period of appointment. A rationale should be provided to support the
application.
Letter of Appointment
For all University-based courses, CADQ will send a set of general briefing
materials to each newly appointed external examiner via email as follows:
 a letter of appointment;
 a copy of the External Examining section of the Academic
Standards and Quality Handbook;
 a copy of the relevant Common Assessment Regulations;
 a copy of the Assessment Principles and Policies section of the
Academic Standards and Quality Handbook;
 a username and password to allow access to the online reporting
system
Hard copies of these documents are available on request.
For Validated Centre collaborative arrangements, letters of appointment
will be sent by CADQ but induction will be the prime responsibility of the
Validated Centre. The University Verifier may assist in the induction of new
15 of 36/September 2012
external examiners.
D: Induction and Briefing
22.
23.
Induction events organized jointly by CADQ and Schools will be held for
newly appointed external examiners.
The School will be expected to brief and induct external examiners fully on
all relevant aspects of the operation of the course as part of the induction
event. If an external examiner is unable to attend the induction event,
alternative arrangements should be made to brief the external as soon as
possible.
The briefing should cover:
 the external's responsibilities in relation to the overall external
examining team;
 details of any mentoring arrangements;
 the conduct of the Board of Examiner meetings;
 the dates, where set, or anticipated dates for on-site visits to
undertake the review of assessment samples;
 the dates, where set, or anticipated dates of the Board of Examiner
meetings;
 school policies in relation to notification of exceptional
circumstances, academic misconduct and decision making at the
borderline;
 the impact of any professional, statutory and regulatory bodies or
approved deviations from the common assessment regulations on
the decision making process;
 moderation procedures;
 course aims and outcomes, and those of the modules;
 assessment and teaching and learning strategies;
 assessment methods and marking scheme;
 assessment regulations including those for compensation;
 opportunities for reassessment;
 the extent of examiners' discretion;
 standards and quality reporting arrangements;
 the University's requirements and conditions for awards as set out
in the Academic Standards and Quality Handbook.
24.
Additionally, the following should be made clear:
 University policy on equal opportunities;
 the contractual arrangements - including fee and expenses, term of
appointment etc.
25.
As a minimum the external examiner should be provided with the following
documentation:
 a copy of the course and module specifications;
 the course handbook;
 external examiner reports for the past three years;
 a copy of the CSQR or relevant parts of it.
26.
Validated Centres are responsible for making their own arrangements for
the induction of external examiners, and should ensure that they receive a
comparable induction to that offered by the University.
27.
CADQ will periodically contact existing external examiners to inform them
about developments, as appropriate, in the University's academic
16 of 36/September 2012
28.
standards and quality arrangements. The CADQ website will also act as a
source of guidance to externals.
The course team will keep the external examiner informed about
appropriate developments to the course and module specifications.
E: Carrying out the role of the External Examiner
Role
29.
30.
The principal role of the external examiner is to monitor the academic
standards of courses and the internal moderation and assessment
processes and, in their judgment, to report on:
 whether the standards set for the course are appropriate for its
awards, award elements or subjects, by reference to published
national subject benchmarks, the national qualifications
frameworks, institutional course specifications and other relevant
information;
 the comparability of the standards with those of similar courses or
parts of courses in other UK higher education institutions;
 the standards of student performance in the assessments for those
courses or parts of courses which they have been appointed to
examine;
 the extent to which the processes for assessment and the
determination of awards are sound and have been fairly conducted;
 whether the action points in previous external examiner reports
have been acted upon, and standards and quality thereby
enhanced;
 strengths and distinctive innovative features in relation to academic
standards, the operation of the assessment process and the quality
of learning.
In order to perform these roles, the external examiner will be party to the
internal moderation process, normally sampling work that contributes to
the final award, through:

consideration, as requested, of the form and content of the
assessment tasks that are used to assess students;

reviewing a sample of assessed work on site at NTU (the
approximate size of the sample of assessed work to be reviewed by
the external examiner should be agreed with them at the start of
the course/module) - the University's moderation policy provides
indicative sample sizes (see I of Section 15 of the ASQ Handbook)
Guidance note
From 2010-11 it is the University’s policy that the review of
samples of assessed work undertaken by external
examiners should normally take place on site. This applies
to all external examiner appointments made after
September 2010. Transition arrangements for existing
external examiner appointments can be negotiated and
agreed at course level. The new policy seeks to mitigate
the potential risk of assessment samples getting lost
through the postal system, create some time saving
benefits for local marking and moderation and strengthen
networking opportunities between the course team and
external examiners.
17 of 36/September 2012

31.
occasionally, and at the request of the course leader or the Chair of
Board of Examiners, advising internal assessors on cases where
they cannot agree marks (but not to arbitrate on differences).
The following rights and responsibilities apply to the role of the external
examiner.
Responsibilities
 The external examiner is expected to attend the NTU induction
event for newly appointed external examiners. This excludes
external examiners for Validated Centre Collaborative Provision,
where the Validated Centre will conduct an appropriate induction,
and non-UK based external examiners where Schools will conduct
an appropriate induction.
 The review of assessment samples undertaken by external
examiners should normally take place on site. Exceptional
alternative arrangements require notification by the Academic
Team Leader to the School Academic Standards & Quality
Committee for approval.
Guidance note
The circumstances that will justify alternative arrangements
being put in place for external examiners to review
assessment samples off site will vary case-by-case. Schools
may wish to draw a distinction between the unexpected ‘one
off’ event relating to the unforeseen personal circumstances
of an external examiner and other situations relating to the
particular nature of the provision.
 An external examiner must normally be present at a Board of
Examiners meeting that agrees final awards (an external examiner
need not attend progression Boards). If exceptional circumstances
result in the external examiner being absent from such a meeting,
the external should subsequently indicate by written notification –
via the course leader – that he/she has been involved in the
assessment process and agrees with the decisions made at the
Board. In the case of Referral Boards, at least one external
examiner should be involved in the process but not necessarily
through attendance.
 The external examiner should always sign the conferment
statement to confirm that they have been involved in the
assessment of students and agree with the final recommendations
reached.
 The external examiner must submit an annual report in the format
prescribed by the University on the standards and quality of the
course(s) and awards for which they are responsible. This report is
used in the production of the annual Course Standards and Quality
Report (CSQR) and for course monitoring and enhancement
generally.
 In order to carry out the preceding responsibilities an external
examiner may, by prior arrangement with the appropriate School/
Validated Centre, meet students to assist him/her to judge the
overall quality and standards of the course(s). This does not give
the right to carry out viva voce examination of individual students.
 Assessment samples remain the property of the University and if
taken off site should be returned in a timely manner.
18 of 36/September 2012
Rights
 The external examiner has the right to be informed of major
changes to course(s) and may be consulted in advance about
proposed changes, particularly where they affect the course
award(s), title(s), outcomes or the assessment scheme, major
changes to modules or course closure. This will allow the external
examiner to comment on the changes from the perspective of his or
her responsibilities.
 The responsibility for moderation and for agreeing marks and
awards rests with all the members of the Board of Examiners. As a
member of the Board, the external examiner has the right to
contribute to discussions on the moderation of marks and on
decisions concerning marks and awards to individual students.
32.
For some courses there are subject and award external examiners.
Subject examiners exercise the above rights and responsibilities in relation
to a number of modules in a subject area, and are expected to attend
Subject Boards to consider the results for all students taking the modules
for which they have responsibility. Award examiners exercise these
responsibilities in relation to a named course or award. They are expected
to attend the Award Board.
Entitlements
33.
An external examiner has the following entitlements.
 The external examiner may report directly to the Vice Chancellor on
matters of major concern that pose a serious risk to the quality and
standards of a Nottingham Trent award, if serious issues are not
satisfactorily addressed by the Dean of School/Head of the
Validated Centre (or nominee).
 In the event of an external examiner disagreeing with a
recommendation for conferment, the matter should be decided by a
vote of Board members. If, following a vote, an external examiner
does not support the majority decision the matter should be
referred to Academic Board before the results are ratified. In such
cases, the external examiner may withhold their signature from the
conferment statement.
 If the external examiner has major concerns about the internal
moderation of marks from the samples they receive, they have
right of access to all student work that is assessed in their area of
responsibility for the purposes of further monitoring and checking.
 The external examiner does not have the authority to alter
individual marks. However, it may be appropriate for the external
examiner to recommend a review of marks in a particular mark
band.
F: External Examiners’ Reports
34.
External examiners (including those for Validated Centres) will make an
annual report, using the University’s online reporting format. The
reporting system can be accessed using the login and password sent to
each external examiner by CADQ with the appointment letter. External
examiners’ reports will be published on the relevant course pages of NOW.
 The report will cover academic standards, the quality of learning,
and the operation of the assessment process.
19 of 36/September 2012









The external is required to reflect, in his/her annual report, on the
level and appropriateness of the assessment procedures and
standards of student attainment in the light of his/her experience of
the subject provision nationally.
The external is also invited to comment on strengths and distinctive
or innovative features.
It is anticipated that an external examiner report will also include
comments and observations, which the team will wish to respond to
outside the rubric of the CSQR and within a reasonable timeframe.
The report must not refer to individual students or staff members
by name.
For courses that have multiple intakes and Board of Examiner
meetings, the external is only required to submit one annual report
as agreed between the course leader and the external.
At the conclusion of a Board of Examiners’ meeting, the external
examiner will normally be asked to raise verbally any concerns or
good practice that are likely to lead to action points in their report.
The report should be submitted via the NTU online external
examiner reporting system within four weeks of the Board of
Examiners’ meeting. The report is automatically received by CADQ,
the named School or Validated Centre contacts and the Vice
Chancellor.
The CSQR will contain responses to the action points raised in
external examiner reports. In some cases, the Course Committee
may wish to have more time to consider fully the action points, in
which case those outcomes will be reported in the next CSQR.
However, the current CSQR will always contain an initial response
to any pressing action points;
A copy of the CSQR will be sent to the External Examiner.
G: Chief external examiners
35.
36.
A chief external examiner may be appointed from within the team of
approved externals. The approval of the appointment of a chief external
examiner will be subject to the normal criteria set out above and the
person will be expected to have subject responsibilities within the team.
The additional responsibilities of a chief external will be decided in
conjunction with the course leader but are expected to include the
following:
 to confirm - by negotiation with other externals in the team - that a
consistent and acceptable standard is being maintained across the
course(s),
 to coordinate the work of the team of externals and to liaise as
appropriate with the course team(s),
 to act as mentor for new and/or inexperienced externals,
 to produce a summary report capable of publication on behalf of
the external examining team if agreed for the course.
H: External examining of collaborative courses
37.
The external examining arrangements for courses offered in collaboration
(all categories of collaborative provision, see Section 10 of ASQ Handbook)
with a partner institution(s) are equivalent to those that apply to courses
offered internally. This will include the criteria for selection and
20 of 36/September 2012
38.
39.
40.
41.
appointment, the roles, responsibilities and powers of external examiners,
and annual reporting.
Schools have responsibility for ensuring that the University's procedures
and policy on external examining are clearly communicated to their
collaborative partners.
In some forms of collaboration the precise external examining
arrangement may be varied to meet the needs of the partnership, e.g. the
requirement for on-site review of assessment samples can be more
flexible, the partner institution may scrutinise external examiner
nominations and reports before submission to the University or the partner
institution might provide payments or induction. Any such variations need
to be clearly specified in the course documentation for approval and
subsequently monitored and reviewed by the course team and School
through annual reporting and by CADQ through collaborative review.
Where courses are delivered with an overseas partner, the course team
will need to ensure that the external examiner has the necessary language
skills where instruction and/or assessment is not in
English or will need to ensure that translation arrangements are
sufficiently robust. In addition, it is expected that the external examiner
team will include at least one examiner with experience of UK higher
education.
In all collaborative arrangements, the University's EEAP is responsible for
the approval of external examiner nominations.
I: Fees
42.
43.
The School/Validated Centre determines the amount of the fee payable to
an external examiner. Payment of the fee is authorised on receipt of a
satisfactorily completed External Examiner Report Form. Payment of the
fee is processed by the relevant School.
Claims for expenses should be submitted to the School/Validated Centre.
J: Resignation of an external examiner
44.
Other than in exceptional circumstances (e.g. serious illness) an external is
normally required to give six months notice of resignation in order to protect
students on the course and the quality assurance arrangements associated
with it. A resignation should normally take effect at the end of an academic
year.
K: Premature termination of an external examiner appointment
45.
ASQC may terminate the appointment of an external examiner not
considered to be fulfilling responsibilities, on the basis of a recommendation
from the Dean of the School to which the external was appointed. Grounds
for the termination of appointment include:
 Failure to carry out properly the duties and responsibilities of an
external;
 Failure to produce an adequate report;
 Conduct contrary to that required and expected of an external of
the University.
46.
The EEAP will consider the recommendation and the evidence provided by
the School against these grounds. Termination of the tenure will not be
considered where the recommendation is based on a difference of opinion
about how the course should be run; on any perception that an external
21 of 36/September 2012
examiner is unreasonable in his or her professional opinions; or where the
examiner has been thought to be overly critical of the course or the course
team.
47.
Where the EEAP approves the recommendation, the external examiner will
be provided with an opportunity to address the School’s concerns within 10
working days. The EEAP will consider the external’s response, but if this response
fails to satisfy the panel, it will recommend to ASQC that the examiners tenure be
terminated.
L: Key issues in implementation







External examiner nominations should be sought in good time, and
presented to the External Examiner Appointments Panel at least six
months before the commencement of their appointment.
Course teams should ensure that their nominee has the appropriate
qualifications, standing, expertise and experience to fulfil their
duties.
Course teams should make themselves aware of the restrictions on
the appointment of external examiners.
Newly appointed externals should be properly briefed and inducted
into their role, responsibilities and powers and about the course
specification.
Externals should report annually using the University's online report
form.
Course teams must provide an appropriate response to external
examiners on their reports within a reasonable timescale.
From 2010-11 it is the University’s policy that the review of
samples of assessed work undertaken by external examiners should
normally take place on site. This applies to all external examiner
appointments made after September 2010. Transition
arrangements for existing external examiner appointments can be
negotiated and agreed at course level.
22 of 36/September 2012
IMPORTANT NOTE:
The nature of the Validation Service Agreement allows Validated Centres to
develop and implement their own assessment principles and policies, in which
case the Centres’ assessment policy would have been approved by the
University at the validation event.
The Centres’ approved assessment policy will be included in the definitive set of
course documents and should be your first point of reference. These definitive
documents will be provided to you by the Centre.
Some Validated Centres however choose to adopt the University’s Assessment
principles and policies which is why this section is included here.
This is the Validated Centre’s choice so please check with the Centre.
In 2012-13 the University moved to grade based assessment. Validated Centres
do not have to follow these regulations. If centres are following NTU’s
Common Assessment Regulations the version on the website they should refer
to are dated 2011-2012 (Undergraduate and Foundation).
Nottingham Trent University
Academic Standards and Quality Handbook
SECTION 15: ASSESSMENT PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES
CONTENTS
Sections
A. Introduction
B. Purposes of assessment
C. Principles of assessment
D. Boards of Examiners
E. A note on plagiarism
F. A note on assessment in languages other than English
G. A note on the assessment of students with disabilities
H. University policy on feedback to students on assessments
I.
University policy on moderation of assessments
J. University policy on anonymous marking
K. A note on the retention of student work
L. Implementation of policy
23 of 36/September 2012
A. Introduction
This section of the ASQ Handbook is concerned with (a) the principles that underpin
assessment practices at NTU (including collaborative provision), (b) the policies to
ensure that these principles are translated into practice, and the section leads into
important information in Section 16 on assessment regulations for undergraduate and
postgraduate provision.
The context within which we plan, design, carry out and evaluate assessment practices
has developed significantly. Assessment is a core element in the processes by which we
and other external bodies, such as QAA reviewers and PSRB assessors/accreditors,
evaluate standards. One important way of determining whether our Courses are
successful in their intentions is through measuring the extent to which students achieve
the intended learning and development. It is crucial that the processes of measurement
we design are fit for their purposes.
The following sections incorporate ideas and precepts contained in external guidance
documents, for example the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ), the
QAA Code of Practice section on Assessment of Students, and material in the subject
benchmark statements.
In June 2008, the University formulated new guidance on the development of eAssessment. These notes have been formulated on the clear understanding that the
purposes and principles of assessment set out in this Section of the ASQH equally apply
to e-Assessment. However the guidance note is designed to raise a range of specific
issues that should be considered when designing and introducing e-Assessment to a
module or Courses. The full guidance note is set out in Appendix 15.1; it will be reviewed
on a regular basis.
In support of the new policies relating to assessment, the University will provide staff
development to ensure that staff are competent to implement these changes and
successfully undertake their roles in assessment.
B. Purposes of assessment
Assessment is a generic term for the processes that measure the outcomes of students'
learning, in respect of knowledge acquired, understanding developed, and cognitive,
subject-specific and transferable skills gained. At NTU, assessment:

provides the means by which our students are graded, passed or failed (this
process is referred to as 'summative');

provides the basis for decisions on whether a student is ready to proceed, to
qualify for an award or to demonstrate competence to practice (a 'summative'
process);

enables staff to identify whether students have acquired a particular area of
knowledge, understood a concept or developed a skill (this is referred to as
'diagnostic' assessment);

enables students to obtain feedback on their learning and development and helps
them improve (this process is referred to as 'formative'); and

enables staff to evaluate the effectiveness of their teaching.
C. Principles of assessment
The principles underlying assessment policies, practices and regulations are:
1. appropriateness to learning and to level,
24 of 36/September 2012
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
reliability,
validity,
openness,
fairness, and
maintenance of standards.
1. Appropriateness to learning and level is achieved through the careful and coordinated planning and design of assessments. The development and publication
of an explicit assessment strategy for each Courses of study ensures that:

assessment is an integral part of Courses planning and design;

assessment tasks are explicitly related to intended learning outcomes;

all learning outcomes intended through delivery of the various modules
are assessed;

there is appropriate variety in assessments to reflect the range of learning
outcomes relating to knowledge, understanding and skills development;

assessment methods are selected that are the most effective in enabling
students to demonstrate specific outcomes and to enhance learning;

duplication of methods or over-emphasis on one particular form of
assessment is avoided;

staff and students are informed of the assessment methods and their
operation, and consistency in approach is achieved.

examinations on undergraduate degrees should be confined to the final 4
weeks of the third term – and spread throughout this period – to minimise
the disruption to learning at other times in the year.

viva voce examinations should not normally form part of the assessment
at undergraduate level as it can lead to problems of transparency.
Policy: Each Courses of study delivered within every school must have an
assessment strategy available for staff and students. Courses
specifications should contain clear assessment information.
2. Reliability of assessments and their outcomes is assured through thorough
planning and careful design of assessment tasks and through clarity and
explicitness of criteria for assessments and marking schemes and arrangements.
Feedback to students on courseswork has been identified by the National Student
Survey and NTU’s own satisfaction survey as an area for further development
across the University. Staff are therefore required to adhere to the University’s
policy set out in part H of this section, and to produce and monitor Assessment
and Feedback Plans.
Policy: Courses and module staff are required to publish and disseminate
clear briefings and assessment criteria for all assignments. Where used,
mark schemes should be accessible to students to inform their
preparations for assessments. Students must receive effective feedback
on their assessments.
3. Validity of assessments (Do the tasks assess what they are meant to? At the
right level?) is ensured through initial moderation processes when assessments
are being planned.
Policy: Courses and module teams should ensure that - at the planning
stage of assessment tasks - appropriate peers (other module tutors
and/or in external examiners at levels that contribute to the final award)
are consulted to check the validity of the tasks being prepared.
4. Openness with students about the processes and outcomes of assessments is
crucial to their learning formation. The procedures above related to clear briefings
and criteria are relevant here. Additionally, it is critically important that students
receive open, constructive formative feedback on their assessments at all stages
25 of 36/September 2012
of their development.
The University's policy on feedback to students on their assessments
follows in part H of this Section of the Handbook.
5. Fairness means having procedures in operation to ensure that students receive
consistent treatment in assessment processes, practices and judgements.
The University's policies on assessment moderation and anonymous
marking relate to fairness and are included later in this section.
6. Standards in assessment relate to ensuring that the assessments set and the
judgements reached are appropriate to the level and comparable with similar
provision across the sector. Boards of Examiners are critical to the process of
assuring and maintaining standards in assessments and judgements, and
information about their operation follows below.
The University's regulations for assessment (see Section 16 of this
Handbook) and undergraduate and postgraduate frameworks (see
Section 12 and Section 13) are key to assuring standards.
D. Boards of Examiners
Purposes
Each award-bearing Courses should have a Board of Examiners to:
a.
b.
c.
d.
ensure there are consistent and fair arrangements for assessment;
make academic judgements on the progress of students;
make academic judgements on the conferment of awards;
consider any case of student performance that is giving cause for concern.
Context
a. A Board should operate with due regard to:

the Courses specification;

any Academic Board agreements with other validating, accrediting or
professional bodies (or a collaborating centre) as appropriate;

principles and policies on assessment as set out in this Handbook.
b. A Board may appoint a Subsidiary Examination Board if this is necessary,
normally in the context of collaborative arrangements.
c. A Board may be responsible for more than one Courses provided this is approved
at validation.
d. A Board may operate a two-tier, Award Board/Subject Board, structure.
Membership
a. The membership of a Board of Examiners should comprise:

a Chair (normally a senior academic member of the School, for example
an Academic Team Leader),

a Secretary,

the Courses leader (Courses co-ordinator from a collaborative centre),

academic staff who teach on the Courses,

the external examiner(s),

the University Verifier for Courses operating under a Validation Service
agreement.
b. A Progression Board may be chaired by a member of academic staff below ATL
level with appropriate experience, expertise and independence, and appointed by
the Dean. An external examiner is not required to attend.
26 of 36/September 2012
c. An external examiner who is unable to be present at a Board meeting should
subsequently indicate by written notification, via the Courses leader, their
involvement in the assessment process and their agreement to the decisions
made at the Board. An external examiner need not attend Progression Boards
and Referral Boards. (In the latter case they should be involved in the process.)
d. Module leaders (or their nominees) should attend meetings unless prior
arrangements have been made with the Chair, to ensure that the business of the
meeting can still be conducted properly and thoroughly. Other members of
teaching staff should do their utmost to attend.
e. All members must uphold the confidentiality of all meetings of the Board of
Examiners.
f.
A member of the Board is required to declare any personal interest, involvement
or relationship with a student being assessed.
g. A student cannot be a member of a Board of Examiners or attend a meeting other
than as a candidate for assessment (i.e. where a viva voce is held).
Terms of reference
a. The Board should meet:

at the key stages in order to determine student progress or awards;

to consider referrals;

to consider - as required - any case of student progress that is giving
cause for concern and is likely to lead to the termination of a student's
study on the Courses (In these circumstances it will be the responsibility
of the Courses leader, or equivalent person, to notify the Registrar or his
nominee of the need to convene such a meeting);

when required by Academic Board to reconsider any recommendation
regarding student assessment.
b. The business of the Board is to:

confirm that the student assessments have been conducted in accordance
with the appropriate Common Assessment Regulations (and any special
validated dispensations);

ensure that appropriate moderation arrangements are in place and have
been used in the setting and marking of assessment tasks;

receive and consider agreed marks and all other information pertinent to
student assessment and to make decisions on the progress of or the
conferment of the award on each student accordingly;

exercise academic judgement upon individual matters concerning student
assessment arising;

act on special situations and/or academic misconduct, and - in exceptional
circumstances - academic appeals;

confirm the procedures to be followed in notifying students of its
decisions;

consider any special issues concerning student assessment brought to its
attention by an external examiner or member of the Board;

consider any matter referred to it by the Academic Board.
Duties of key members of the Board
a. Chair
It is the duty of the Chair to ensure that:
27 of 36/September 2012

attendance at the meeting enables the Board to fulfil its terms of reference
(where this is not the case it is the Chair's responsibility to determine a
courses of action);

Board members have all the information necessary for them to exercise a
judgement, including student results and the outcome of the consideration
of special situations and/or academic misconduct;

assessments have been conducted in accordance with the appropriate
Common Assessment Regulations (and any special validated
dispensations);

the Board takes into account all information pertinent to student
assessment and that the Board's decisions in respect of progression and
the conferment of the award result from informed and impartial academic
judgement;

proper procedures are in place to notify all students of the Board's
decisions and that - in cases of student referral or failure - immediate and
appropriate actions are taken to notify students of the decisions;

together with the external examiner, sign the conferment statement or
annotated results sheet;

marks and award recommendations as confirmed by the board are
prepared and checked in close collaboration with the minute-secretary;

following the board that the minutes are checked and approved as a true
record of the proceedings;

feedback is provided to School Executive in accordance with School
procedures on any issues arising from the Board to inform the monitoring
and enhancement of practices and processes associated with the work of
Boards of Examiners.
New chairs are required to undertake the training provided for this role and
existing chairs are expected to attend refresher training events.
b. Courses leader
The Courses leader is responsible for ensuring that:

assessment activities are planned, including the dates of Board meetings
and the moderation procedures, and this is agreed with the external
examiner;

the membership of the Board is agreed annually with the Chair, and that
the membership list is accurately maintained for the Courses and that the
external examiner appointment(s) is valid to cover the appropriate
assessments;

the business of the Board is well defined and appropriate agendas are
prepared (in conjunction with the Chair and Secretary);

all information necessary for the Board to fulfil its duties has been
collated, scrutinised and agreed before the meeting and that copies of this
information are available to all members;

the final decisions are accurately recorded and the Board's decisions are
carried out efficiently and effectively.
c. Secretary
The Secretary will be expected to:

make all the administrative arrangements for the effective operation of the
Board, e.g. the notification of dates and times, room booking, the
circulation of papers;

record all decisions accurately;

ensure all the necessary administrative actions are carried out following
the meeting.
28 of 36/September 2012
E. A note on plagiarism
The University takes very seriously the issues of plagiarism in its various forms, which it
defines as follows (the University's policy/guidance on academic misconduct is
accessible on the CADQ WebPages):
'The incorporation of material derived from the work (published or unpublished) of
another by unacknowledged quotation, paraphrase, imitation or other device in any work
submitted for progression towards or for completion of an award in a way which
suggests that it is the student's original work.'
Additionally staff take preventative measures to minimize the likelihood of plagiarism
through the following strategies:

Providing clear guidance to students (a) on the nature of plagiarism, (b) on ways
of checking that material has not been plagiarised inadvertently, (c) on the
University's processes for investigating suspected plagiarism and (d) on the range
of possible penalties;

Using a variety of forms of assessment including those in which the student's
involvement is evident and difficult to disguise, e.g. projects, portfolios, logs,
presentation/performance, unseen examinations;

Avoiding setting the same assignment for different cohorts.
Academic Misconduct Groups (AMG) have operated in all Schools since 2008/09. AMGs
operate to:

make fair and consistent recommendations for penalties or actions in all
confirmed cases of major misconduct;

provide a retrospective review of minor cases, so that the School may be
confident in the efficacy of its follow-up procedures;

act as an advisory group to the School on academic misconduct.
For more details, see Section 17 of the ASQ Handbook.
F. A note on assessment in languages other than English
The language of assessment and teaching will normally be English. If, for valid reason
this is not the case, the Courses team should ensure that standards are not at risk. The
Courses team will be expected to demonstrate at validation:

how individuals with the necessary expertise in the appropriate language(s),
subject knowledge and assessment methods will be identified and employed;

how suitable external examiners fluent in the relevant language(s) will be
identified; appointed and involved with the assessment process;

If translation is used, how the reliability and validity of the assessment
judgements arising from the marking of translated assessments will be assured.
The moderation procedures for the Courses should reflect the approved arrangements.
G. A note on the assessment of students with disabilities
Under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, the University has a duty to ensure that
disabled students are not placed at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with their
29 of 36/September 2012
non-disabled peers. This duty applies to modes of teaching and learning and to
assessment methods. If a student is unable, through disability, to be assessed by the
normal methods set out in the Courses specification, the Board of Examiners may make
reasonable adjustments to ensure that such students are not substantially
disadvantaged, provided that such adjustments enable academic or other prescribed
standards to be maintained.
It is the responsibility of the Courses leader in consultation with module leaders and
referring to Student Support Services and Academic Office for guidance as necessary, to:

implement modes of teaching and learning which provide the student with an
equal opportunity to acquire the stated learning outcomes;

agree new or modified methods of assessment which will enable the student to
demonstrate that they have acquired the stated learning outcomes.
The Courses leader should ensure that any adjustments to the assessment methods are
notified to the Board of Examiners, with due regard to requests for confidentiality from
students in relation to communication about the specific nature of the disability.
H. University policy on feedback to students on assessments
1. Introduction
Constructive feedback is a core part of the learning process and has a variety of
purposes. The key purposes are to support students in reflecting on their progress, to
help them to enhance their future work and to help them become increasingly
independent in their learning. Underpinning these purposes is the belief that assessment
itself functions not only to evaluate learning, but also to develop learning. In all of this,
the shared responsibility of student and tutor must be recognised.
The intended beneficiary of feedback is, of courses, the student; however, feedback may
also be used by:
 module leaders in reflecting on the assessment strategy;

personal tutors in advising their personal tutees;

external examiners as part of their monitoring of standards and quality.
Feedback arrangements may be considered by external and internal reviewers in Periodic
School Review or Collaborative Review.
It is expected that feedback will be offered for all assessments (inclusive of examinations
and placement assignments). However, it is anticipated that the type of feedback may
vary considerably. For example, while individual feedback might be appropriate in some
circumstances, group or cohort feedback may be more fitting in others.
2. Purposes of this policy
This policy is designed to ensure that:





all students at NTU receive feedback for their assessments, as appropriate to
context, within in a framework of other learning activities;
students are informed of feedback timings, types and formats and of their role in
engaging with feedback to develop their work;
the feedback offered to students is related to learning outcomes and assessment
criteria, and is consistent with the mark/grade awarded;
the feedback received informs students on their progress and helps them to
improve their future performance;
students are enabled, by participating in feedback activities, to participate in the
process of evaluating their learning and development; and
30 of 36/September 2012

feedback to students for their assessed work is seen as an integral part of the
assessment process.
Courses should have in place mechanisms for reviewing and monitoring the nature and
timeliness of feedback for all forms of assessment.
3. Terms
The following designations are used in this document, in referring to feedback:
Type
the nature of feedback offered, for example, group, individual, tutor,
peer, pre-task, post-task, on work-in-progress
Format
the medium in which feedback is conveyed, for example, written, verbal,
audio
Method
type plus format
Content
that which is expressed in feedback
4. Feedback characteristics
Given the principle that assessment and feedback are integral to learning and teaching
activities, then feedback methods may vary considerably, as appropriate to context.
However, in all instances, there should be clarity about the date by which feedback will
be provided and published feedback dates should be honoured. In addition, all feedback
offered should have the following characteristics:
a. Feedback should be appropriate to the assessment task and level of study.
b. Feedback should relate clearly to the learning outcomes and the assessment
criteria.
c. Feedback should be developmental, as well as offering an overview of
performance.
d. Feedback should be timely enough to feed into the next piece of work, as
appropriate to context.
e. In all instances, there should be clarity about the date by which feedback will be
provided and published feedback dates should be honoured.
f.
Tutors should ensure that students have opportunities to reflect on their
performance and development, while recognising that it is each student’s
responsibility to take up these opportunities.
g. In communicating feedback, or facilitating peer feedback, tutors should
be mindful of the diversity of students on the Courses.
h. There should be equity in the provision of feedback to students.
5. Planning for feedback and assessment
The Courses Leader, with the support of the Courses team, should engage in annual
assessment planning and create an Assessment and Feedback Plan. (Guidance note: this
is an extension of and additional to the Assessment Schedule required for Courses
approvals.) This will include:
i.
Assessment types
ii.
Assessment dates
iii. Feedback schedule and rationale, including:
o
Feedback types and formats
o
Feedback points and/or periods across the year
o
Where there will be opportunities for students to reflect on
feedback with their tutor
31 of 36/September 2012
iv. Return dates for student work and feedback
b.
Thereafter, there should be ongoing reflection on this Assessment and Feedback
Plan at key points of the year. It will be useful to regard the setting of and
reflection on the Plan in the context of ongoing Courses monitoring and annual
reporting.
c.
The Assessment and Feedback Plan should be communicated to students in the
Courses handbook, or equivalent in NOW, and in module information.
d.
The module handbook, or equivalent in NOW, should articulate further guidance
on assessment tasks, including:

the learning outcomes to be assessed;

the assessment criteria and how they relate to the intended learning
outcomes;

guidance on the task;

submission deadlines;

any additional information on the arrangements for communicating
feedback and for the return of work.
Notes
a. Courses teams should consider which feedback types and formats, or
combination thereof, are fit for context and should articulate the pedagogic
rationale for their decisions in the Assessment and Feedback Plan
b. The feedback schedule in the Plan should refer to all feedback that will be
offered. This would include, for example, general cohort feedback, feedback
offered in preparation for an assessment, on work-in-progress, or after an
assessment task.
c. The feedback schedule should balance the ethos of timeliness (Feedback
characteristic 4d above), with recognition of constraints in undertaking
marking and moderation.
d. Where feedback is offered to students on drafts or other work-in-progress,
then it is advisable to specify clearly the extent of this and the means by
which it be done.
e. It is advisable to emphasise that it is each student’s responsibility to take up
feedback opportunities and to engage with the feedback offered.
6. Monitoring, evaluation and support
a. Courses leaders/ATLs should put in place a regular review of the feedback
provided across a Courses/subject (and the mechanisms for offering such
feedback).
b. Staff should be in a position to outline their approach to strengthening the
effective use of feedback.
c. Courses teams should comment in Courses Standards and Quality Reports
(PSQRs) on the significant outcomes (including enhancements) of their approach
to provision of feedback (if appropriate in any given year).
d. SASQCs should keep under review procedures for feedback to students on
assessments and identify any salient points in the School annual report (SSQR),
so that processes across the institution can be monitored and enhanced. Such
salient points should be taken forward through the School’s ILTES Action Plan.
The Validation Service Sub-Committee(VSSC) will undertake such activities in
respect of Validated Centres.
32 of 36/September 2012
e. In the five-yearly Periodic School Review, or in Collaborative Review, reviewers
consider the methods and quality of the feedback provided to students within the
School.
f.
CADQ will advise and support staff by providing information and guidance on
feedback to students for assessments.
I. University policy on moderation of assessments
1. Context
The University is committed to sustaining high standards of student achievement,
consistency in the standards of its awards and both rigour and fairness in the
assessment of students against those standards. In order to ensure that standards
remain appropriate and are met through the set assessments, systems for the
continuing monitoring and moderation of assessment processes and outcomes are
crucial.
2. Rationale
It is necessary to have a clearly articulated and consistently applied policy for
assessment moderation, in order that:

assessments are related to the aims and aligned with the learning outcomes of
Courses and modules;

assessed student work is marked consistently across Courses and modules;

the outcomes of assessments are clear, reliable and valid; and

fairness is achieved for students in all their assessment elements.
3. Assessment moderation policy
a. Moderation of assessment starts at the initial stage of planning of assessment
and extends through to the determination of marks and results. This policy
contains 4 sub-sections relating to the stages of the moderation process, and
requires the following responsibilities and activities to be undertaken.
Moderating assessment planning and coherence
b. Working within the overall School (or Collaborative Partner) assessment strategy,
the Courses leader has the lead responsibility for ensuring overall assessment
coherence within the different levels of the Courses and across the Courses as a
whole. Coherence should be checked before students receive the assessment
details.
c. The Courses committee/team should review overall assessment coherence as part
of the normal Courses monitoring process and report on any action points within
the PSQR. This report enables the School to consider standards and assessment
procedures and processes across all Courses within its SSQR.
d. In line with the terms of reference for Boards of Examiners, an opportunity should
be provided at their meetings to discuss aspects of assessment design, tasks and
coherence and provide advice to Courses leaders, committees and teams on
assessment issues that have arisen through the marking and moderation
processes. The consideration of this item and the advice offered should be
recorded in the minutes of the Board.
Moderation of assessment design, tasks and methods
e. All assessment tasks and supporting material should be checked by an academic
peer, who might be the Courses leader, the curriculum manager, a team leader, a
mentor or another member of the module team. Where the assessment
contributes to the classification of the final award, the external examiner might
33 of 36/September 2012
also be included as one of the academic peers. Courses committees/teams must
specify and record who is responsible for undertaking this checking procedure.
This peer moderation process should involve checking:
f.

the alignment of assessment with the relevant learning outcomes;

the clarity of the task description;

the clarity of any additional rubric or guidance notes accompanying the
tasks;

the criteria by which it is intended to mark the assessment;

the available guidance for markers, e.g. model answers;

the academic challenge of the tasks in relationship to the level;

the workload/time requirements of the assessment tasks.
The agreed assessment information should then be systematically communicated
by staff to students at the appropriate time to support their learning and
achievement.
Moderation of assessment marking and results
g. The main effort in moderation of marking and results should be targeted at
assessments which contribute to the final award.
h. Courses committees/teams are responsible for planning appropriate moderation
and for ensuring clarity and explicitness of:

the marking arrangements;

the forms of moderation to be employed;

the sample to be reviewed (size, range and threshold cases); and

the nature of the sample to be referred to the external examiner(s).
i.
Moderation of marking is generally undertaken by reviewing a sample of students'
marked work. This involves the moderator in reviewing (rather than marking in
the full sense) an agreed sample of work to establish whether the marking is at
the appropriate standard, consistent and in line with the explicit assessment
criteria.
j.
This sampling process should concentrate at the boundaries of classifications and
should normally involve between 10% and 25% of assessed student work,
depending on the numbers of students within the cohort. For example, where
there are more than 50 students, a 10% sample is appropriate and for cohorts
under 50 the percentage sample should increase up to 25% according to the
precise numbers. Where there are very large cohorts of students (100-200 and
more) then the 10% sample guideline can be reduced, but the sample selected
needs to be carefully constructed to ensure adequately robust moderation. Where
a small cohort of students is involved, the proportion of the sample should
increase appropriately.
k. Moderation can also be completed in specific instances through double or team
marking. In this case student work is independently marked by more than one
marker. Double or team marking can be undertaken as blind marking, where
each marker is unaware of the marks allocated by the other(s), or as second
marking, where all markers are aware of the marks they have assigned.
l.
Double or team marking should be used as the moderation process for
dissertations and major projects/studio work at final award level.
m. At levels that contribute to the final award, the external examiner should monitor
the moderation process at appropriate stages. The Courses committee/team
should indicate in their moderation planning precisely how the external examiner
will be involved. Where a level contributes only a percentage to the final award,
the involvement of the external examiner may include reviewing a sample of
moderated student work, but may be limited to receiving for comment the
34 of 36/September 2012
assessment tasks and checking the final results spreadsheets. The nature of the
external examiner involvement in such cases is a matter for negotiation between
the Courses leader and the external (also see para. q.iii) - the review of samples
of assessed work undertaken by external examiners should normally take place
on site.
n. Statistical analyses (means, standard deviations) should be undertaken as part of
the moderation process to identify anomalies and trends, which can then be
addressed by one or more of the preceding moderation techniques. Such
statistical analyses can be effectively used to inform decisions of Boards of
Examiners and the further development of the Course's assessment strategy.
o. Where assessments do NOT contribute to final award classifications, moderation
should be focused at the pass/fail threshold, which is the crucial determinant for
progression to the next stage of the Courses. In cases where there are no
students at that threshold, then the assessed work of the 5 nearest students
should be moderated. Courses committees/teams may wish to extend the range
of moderation in these non-qualifying assessments in relationship to particular
issues of interest or concern.
Outcomes of moderation processes
p. Schools need to ensure that mechanisms are in place to ensure the validity of
assessments and the resolution of differences in cases where the moderation
procedures outlined in points 1 - 7 of this policy demonstrate unacceptable
variation in assessment approaches and outcomes.
q. In cases where differences remain unresolved in the moderation of marking (for
example, those occasions where the moderator's mark or review may indicate a
significantly different outcome, rank order or distribution of assessments at the
classification borderlines), the following procedure is recommended.
i.
The marker and moderator should review the assessment criteria and their
interpretation of them. If a divergence of understanding or interpretation
is identified and resolved, re-marking and further moderation should be
undertaken as appropriate.
ii.
If no divergence in interpretation of assessment criteria is identified but a
difference in marking remains or if an identified divergence remains
unresolved or if re-marking and further moderation still identify
inconsistency between marker and moderator, the matter should be
referred to the Courses leader, who should investigate the case and
determine a courses of action. This might include:
iii.
r.

arranging for a second moderator to sample the student work;

arranging for a second marker to mark all the students' work;

marking the assignment(s) her/himself and recommending these
marks to the Board of Examiners.
The external examiner should NOT be used to reconcile differences
between internal assessors, but might be called upon to advise internal
markers on their resolution of differences. The external examiner's role is
to monitor the standards achieved by students on the Courses and the
consistency and effectiveness of the assessment processes. (see Section 7
of this Handbook on External Examining.)
In implementing this policy staff should ensure that documentary evidence
is always kept to enable demonstration of the moderation processes that
have been used.
J. University policy on anonymous marking
1. Introduction
35 of 36/September 2012
The following statement gives detail of the University's policy on anonymous marking,
the underpinning rationale, and the way in which it will be carried out.
2. Rationale
The assessment of a student's work without knowledge of the student's identity
(anonymous marking) is used to limit the possibility of grades or marks being
inadvertently influenced by factors other than the qualities of the work under
consideration. The University's adoption of anonymous marking in specified
circumstances is, therefore, intended to secure increased fairness for students and
enhanced reliability of marking.
For complete anonymity, a marker should not know the identity of a student until after
the grades for work assessed have been formally recorded.
While anonymous marking is relatively straightforward to undertake in relation to formal
written examinations and in some forms of coursework, there are other assessed tasks
for which the identity of each student is inevitably and unavoidably available to the
marker: examples include those requiring direct observation of student performance and
those tasks that are unique to each student.
3. University policy
It is University policy that anonymous marking should be used wherever possible and
appropriate – Validated Centres may implement anonymous marking.
This policy is implemented in the following ways.
a. Anonymous marking is used for ALL timed written examinations, for which
papers will be identified only by student numbers.
b. It is the responsibility of each Courses committee/team/subject area annually to
identify and agree which of the remaining assessed tasks will or will not be
marked anonymously and to have a clear rationale for the decision in each case.
c. SASQCs have responsibility for ensuring that (a) Courses
committees/teams/subject areas are operating this policy and (b) systems are in
place within the school to support anonymous marking and that staff receive clear
guidance on the operation of those systems.
This policy will have to be sensitive to the needs of students with disabilities.
K. A note on the retention of student work
The University’s Document Retention Schedule (available on the e-Central webpages)
sets out the policy on retaining student work.
L. Implementation of the policy
a. SASQCs have oversight of the assessment strategy across all Courses and should
ensure that there is a clear rationale for the application of not using anonymous
marking in assessments other then by examination.
b. ASQC will review its assessment principles and policies from time to time to
ensure they meet best practice across the sector.
36 of 36/September 2012