EXTERNAL EXAMINER HANDBOOK
General Guidance for External Examiners
1.
Boards of Examiners Meetings
a)
Schedule
A schedule of Board of Examiners meetings will be circulated to all the School’s External
Examiners annually. In addition, an invitation with specific timings of the Boards will be
sent to External Examiners four weeks in advance of a forthcoming Board of Examiner
meeting.
b) Attendance
It is a University regulation that no University degree shall be awarded without the
participation of at least one External Examiner in the examining process. In addition, it is
the University’s expectation that all External Examiners should be present at each meeting
of a final-year Board of Examiners meeting.
c)
Consideration of Mitigating Circumstances (Undergraduate Programme)
Students are clearly advised that any extenuating circumstances (medical or compassionate)
must be brought to the attention of their personal tutor before the examination board meets
in June. In addition to the information in the Student Handbook, several reminder messages
are posted on my.wbs throughout the year. Finally, students are again reminded in May/June
that it is their responsibility to ensure that documentary evidence is available to support any
claims to extenuating circumstances, including difficulties encountered during the
examination period.
The School currently operates an extremely thorough process of pre-meetings and pre-boards
in advance of the final Exam Board. Prior to the first pre-board, a pre-meeting is held which is
attended by the Exam Board Secretary, WBS Senior Tutor, Undergraduate Programme
Manager and Undergraduate Administrative Director. The objectives of the pre-meeting are:
(a) To review the marks and ensure that none are missing or incomplete.
(b) To identify all ‘borderline’ candidates and establish whether or not there are any
extenuating circumstances which need to be taken into consideration.
(c) To identify any further cases which, whilst not borderline, might necessitate special
treatment by the examination board.
(d) To agree which cases for special treatment of extenuating circumstances should be
made by the Senior Tutor to the examination board.
In addition, further to the above, the School has held discussions with the University’s Mental
Health Co-ordinators regarding the treatment of those students with mental health conditions
1
and, if deemed appropriate, one of the Mental Health Co-ordinators will attend the premeeting to offer the School additional guidance on complex cases.
The School then holds two pre-board meetings at which the cases of those students, deemed
to have mitigating circumstances that may require consideration by the final Exam Board, are
further discussed. At the pre-boards additional evidence and late marks relating to the
student’s case may also come to light and this information is taken into account before a final
decision is taken as to whether the case should be presented by the Senior Tutor at the final
Exam Board. This process means that by the time the final Exam Board takes place, the School
is able to make a clear recommendation to the final Board as to which students have
mitigating circumstances necessitating special treatment.
It is School practice to only consider students for special treatment by the Board who have
been discussed at the pre-meeting and pre-boards and where written documentation is
available.
In accordance with the University’s proposed guidelines, External Examiners will be notified of
the date of the pre-meeting held to discuss mitigating circumstances and an invitation offered
to External Examiners to attend the pre-meeting should they wish to do so.
d) Consideration of Mitigating Circumstances (Postgraduate)
Programme teams should inform students of the need to submit mitigating evidence in
writing (with professional or other suitable documentary corroboration as appropriate) at
the earliest possible stage and by such a date as may be required for consideration at a
forthcoming Board of Examiners meeting. In cases where students have been prevented,
for medical reasons, from attending an examination or any part of an examination, the
student should submit a medical certificate showing his/her inability to complete the
examination at the prescribed time. If at all possible this should be no later than three days
following the last day of his/her examinations.
The School will advise students, when requesting medical evidence to support their
application for mitigation, to advise their doctor that the information will be shared with a
number of people and to discuss with their doctor the most appropriate wording of the
medical evidence.
All mitigating evidence (either from a student or personal tutor) should be communicated
in writing to both the Secretary of the Board of Examiners and the Programmes Quality
Officer in advance of the Board meeting to ensure clarity of information and that a proper
record exists and is subsequently kept. New verbal and anecdotal information about
candidates should not be introduced in the course of a Board meeting unless
circumstances make this genuinely unavoidable.
Discussion of mitigating circumstances will take place at the meeting of the Pre-Board,
which external examiners may attend if they wish but are not required to do so. A written
record of decisions relating to discussion of the mitigating evidence at the Pre-Board
should be kept along with a brief indication of the reasoning behind the decisions. External
Examiners should be consulted about the recommendations to be made to the Board of
Examiners prior to the meeting of the Full Board.
2
The Full Board will normally accept the recommendation of pre-Board meeting without the
need for further discussion of the personal or medical circumstances affecting students’
performance. Only in very exceptional circumstances should the Full Board request to see
the evidence presented to the pre-Board. Where a request from a member of the Board is
made for disclosure of such evidence, the Chair shall determine whether the circumstances
of the case are so exceptional as to require disclosure, having particular regard to the
sensitivity of the information to the student and to any other persons whose identity might
be disclosed. Evidence should only be disclosed on the express authority of the Chair of the
Board and on the strict understanding that all members of the Board are bound by a strict
requirement of confidentiality and non-disclosure of evidence.
e)
Award of Degree with Merit and Distinction
It is open to the Board to recommend the award of the degree with merit or the award of
the degree with distinction as recognition of a consistent standard of high performance in
both the taught element and the dissertation. Please refer to specific exam conventions for
these options. Scripts will be sent at borderlines for both Merit and Distinction awards (i.e.
64 – 66 for the award of merit and 69-71 for the award of distinction).
f)
Confirmation of Results
At the end of each Board of Examiner meeting the External Examiners present will be
asked to confirm by signature, along with the Exam Board Chair and Secretary, their assent
to the final classification of candidates.
In the event of a disagreement over the final classification of a particular candidate, it is
the policy of the School that the Exam Board Chair should take very careful account of the
views of the External Examiners present before a final decision is reached.
External Examiners have the right to withhold their signature if the decision of the Board is
against their strong recommendation. In the event of this occurring, the Chair of the Exam
Board would make a full report to the University’s Senate.
2.
Assessment Processes
a)
Schedule for external moderation
External Examiners for the School’s MBA and Undergraduate programmes will be provided
with a schedule on an annual basis that provides information on the dates that scripts can
be expected along with the date of return.
External Examiners for the Specialist Masters programmes will receive guidance from the
Programme Manager on the schedule for moderating scripts. Further information on the
School’s guidelines for sample sizes and information to accompany the scripts for
moderation can be found in the Liaison with External Examiner Handbook (Sections 2, 3
and 4).
b) Approval of Examination Papers
It is a University requirement that all examination papers (including resit papers) are sent
to the relevant External Examiner for approval.
3
c)
Approval of Coursework
It is a School requirement that all coursework with a percentage weighting of 30% or more
is sent to the External Examiner for prior approval. We would be grateful if our External
Examiners could pay particular attention to whether the assessment has been designed to
reduce the likelihood of plagiarism and that any concerns the External Examiner may have
in this respect are drawn to the attention of the NIE concerned.
3.
External Examiner Reports
a)
Date for submission
The University requests that all External Examiners for Undergraduate programmes submit
their annual report within one month of the summer Board of Examiner meeting. For
Postgraduate programmes, the University requests that all External Examiners should
submit their annual reports within one month of the November exam board (with the
exception of the MPA programme where reports should be submitted within one month of
the March exam board).
b) Format
The External Examiner report form seeks explicit responses to the topics listed below,
derived from the QAA Code of Practice on External Examining:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
vi)
vii)
viii)
ix)
x)
xi)
xii)
xiii)
c)
The standards demonstrated by the students;
The extent to which standards are appropriate for the award or award element
under consideration;
The design, structure and marking of assessments;
The procedures for assessments and examinations;
Whether or not External Examiners have had sufficient access to, and the power to
call upon, any material needed to make the required judgements;
Where possible, students’ performance in relation to their peers on comparable
courses;
The coherence of the policies and procedures relating to External Examiners and
their with the explicit roles required of them;
The curriculum, its aims, content and development;
Resources as they impact upon student performance in assessments;
The basis and rational for any comparisons of standards made;
The strengths and weaknesses of the students as a cohort;
The quality of teaching and learning methods which may be indicated by student
performance;
Any recommendations that the External Examiner may have.
Completed Report Forms
Completed External Examiner reports should be submitted electronically as Microsoft
Word files within one month of the final Examination Board. Please submit external
examiner reports to Mrs. Jo Latimer, Examinations Section, University of Warwick, e-mail
J.Latimer@warwick.ac.uk. The reports will then be submitted to the Vice-Chancellor’s
Office.
4
d) Consideration of Reports
All External Examiner reports are read and annotated by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor before
being sent to the School. The School then circulates the report to relevant Academic
Directors, Heads of Group, Named Internal Examiners and Programme Teams, along with a
request that any comments on issues raised in the report should be submitted to the
School’s Programme Quality Committee. The comments received, along the report itself,
are then discussed at the Committee and any necessary action arising from the report
agreed.
The Associate Dean (Programme Quality) then completes the University pro-forma noting
any action that has been taken in response to recommendations in the report. It is
University policy that this response is then forwarded to the relevant External Examiner. In
addition, it is the policy of the School to write to the External Examiner separately thanking
them for their report and responding to issues raised in the report.
4.
Fees and Expenses
External Examiner fees are paid annually by the University following receipt of the External
Examiner report (see section 2 for the relevant date for submission of the report).
Expenses arising from attendance at Board of Examiner meetings may be submitted to the
University following each Board (Mrs. Jo Latimer, Examinations Section, University House,
University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 8UW). It is not necessary to wait until the submission of
the annual report. Expense forms are obtainable from the School upon request.
5
School Procedures for Liaison with External Examiners
1. Communication with External Examiners
The Head of Group (or his/her representative) is required to:
(i)
Take responsibility for ensuring that liaison with the External Examiner is well coordinated by the group as a whole and is supported by the group office.
(ii)
Monitor adherence of the group to the pre-set deadlines with assistance from the group
office.
Named Internal Examiners are required to:
(i)
Take responsibility for liaison with External Examiners over academic matters (see
paragraph 11 for programmes where this is not the case).
(ii)
Record communication with the External Examiner and make this information available
for submission to the relevant programme.
2. Briefing of External Examiner
NIEs are required to provide the following information to External Examiners:
(i)
Module outlines for background information and comment;
(ii)
Information on the assessment method for the course and the rationale for the
assessment method;
(iii)
Outline of any coursework requirements plus model answer/marking scheme;
(iv)
Exam questions accompanied by model answers (as appropriate).
(v)
Criteria for selecting the size and composition of the sample;
(vi)
Action that the External is expected to take when moderating scripts.
3. Moderation of Marks by External Examiners and Size and Nature of Samples
Samples should be divided into the following categories for inspection:
(i)
Validation that internal marking is of an appropriate standard, with recommendation, if
necessary, that the marks of a whole cohort or sub-group be raised or lowered en bloc.
(ii)
Arbitration in cases of genuine internal uncertainty or disagreement where internal
examiners have been unable to reach agreement in spite of their best efforts.
The samples should be accompanied by clear instructions as to the nature of the sample and
expected action from the External Examiner.
Validation Sample
It is recommended that the validation sample should be selected using the following guidelines:
30 scripts
and below
31 to 50
8 scripts
8
scripts
10
51 to 75
76 to 150
9 - 12 scripts
10 scripts
6
150 to 200
14
13
scripts
200 plus
17
15 scripts
20
The Named Internal Examiner is required to ensure that:

The sample of scripts is accompanied by a copy of the exam paper in question, if possible
with outline solutions/mark scheme;

A copy of the complete marksheet (with assessment grades, if relevant) is included;

The mean and standard deviation of the range of marks are provided;

Information is provided to External Examiners on the double marking that has taken place.
In addition, the following guidelines are recommended:

The sampling of scripts within each category should be random, ensuring an even spread
across classifications. Fails are to be treated in the same way as other categories i.e. a sample
in pack A and genuine borderline cases in pack B;

The size of the sample of assessed work to be reviewed by the External Examiner(s) should
always be confirmed with them at the start of the module, but should always be large enough
for the External Examiner to be able to form a judgement as to the appropriateness of the
marking;

The NIE should ensure that the dispatch of the samples to the External Examiner is
accompanied by a telephone call or fax to the External Examiner. The External Examiner
would then be in position to inform the School of any subsequent loss or delay to the
material.
Arbitration Sample
NIEs are required to make every effort to agree marks internally before sending borderline marks
to External Examiners for adjudication. When sending this second pack of scripts to the External
Examiner the NIE should provide clear instructions to the effect that the External Examiner is
being asked to adjudicate between marks.
Recommended guidelines:
In cases of uncertainty or disagreement over borderline marks, NIEs should make every effort to
ensure that it is the COMBINED mark for the module, not individual components of assessment,
which is considered. Once every effort has been made internally to confirm that the mark is
borderline, NIEs should send all items of assessment for that module (examined and assessed) for
moderation by the External Examiner.
Dispatch of Sample
NIEs are required to send a letter detailing the contents of the sample being sent and clarifying
the expected actions of the External Examiner i.e. validation or arbitration when dispatching the
samples. This letter is a standard letter with gaps to be completed by the NIE (see appendix 1).
4. Assessed Coursework
It is a requirement that all coursework of a percentage weighting of 30% and above is sent by
NIEs to External Examiners for initial approval and the coursework assessments should then be
included in samples sent to External Examiners for moderation. In the case of a module that is
7
wholly assessed by a number of small items of coursework, the NIE should use his/her judgement
to ensure that the External Examiner receives a representative sample.
5. Meeting Deadlines for Marking
NIEs are required to ensure that internal marking has been carried out by the agreed internal
deadline. This is to ensure that there is sufficient time for samples of work to be delivered to the
External Examiner for external moderation and for the External’s comments to be received in
advance of the first meeting of the Examination Board.
6. Approval of Examination Papers
It is a requirement that NIEs seek the approval of examination papers by External Examiners in
time for the paper to be delivered to Academic Services by the pre-set deadline. NIEs should note
that it is also a requirement of the School to ask External Examiners for approval of resit
examination papers.
7. Change of Format to Examination Paper
NIEs are required to seek approval from the External Examiner for any changes in format made to
examination papers. In addition, all students should be notified in writing, well in advance of the
examination, of the nature of any planned change.
8. External Examiners’ Annual Reports
NIEs are required to give comments on External Examiner reports and comment on any action
that has been taken in response to the report, or is planned.
All comments received are considered by the Programme Quality Committee, who will respond
formally to both the External Examiner and to the University.
9. Training Sessions for Named Internal Examiners
Newly appointed NIEs are required to attend compulsory training sessions. The sessions will
cover an overview of procedures relating to examination, assessment and communication with
External Examiners along with consideration of good practice. Attendance at the training sessions
is strongly recommended for existing NIEs.
10. Additional Information About The Examining Process
Detailed schedules will be provided to External Examiners annually by Academic Services
providing information on the following:




Dates of Boards of Examiners
Dates for receiving exam papers for approval and deadline for return.
Expected dates for receiving scripts and deadline for return
Dates for receiving and returning dissertations
In order to make communication more consistent and transparent, a further letter will be sent to
Undergraduate External Examiners in advance of the summer examination period to provide them
with the following information:
8




The dates of the examinations for the modules for which they are responsible
The number of students sitting the examination
The anticipated size of the sample
Advance warning of the expected date for dispatch of the scripts and the deadline for
return.
11. Local Arrangements for External Examiners
Some Programmes, such as the Specialist Masters, MPA and Postgraduate Diplomas have local
arrangements for the liaison with the External Examiners, and the Course Director, or a
representative from the Programme Team, co-ordinate communication with External Examiners
on behalf of the Named Internal Examiners.
9
Dear External Examiner
Please find enclosed two packs of scripts relating to the module listed below that are being sent to
you for external moderation:
Module Title and Code: ________________________________________________
Pack one contains ______ scripts for the validation of internal marking. These scripts have been
selected randomly whilst ensuring that there is an even spread across all classifications. I would be
grateful if you could confirm that the internal marking is appropriate, or, if necessary, provide a
recommendation on whether the marks of the whole cohort or sub-group should be raised or
lowered en bloc.
Pack two contains _____ scripts requiring arbitration i.e. there is genuine internal uncertainty or
disagreement. In these cases, I would be grateful if you could confirm what you consider to be an
appropriate mark.
I would be grateful if you could return the scripts and your comments to me by _________________.
May I take this opportunity to thank you for your assistance.
Best Wishes
10
NIE HANDBOOK (excerpt for External Examiners)
The following extract from the Business School’s NIE Handbook offers information on the School’s
assessment and examination processes which our External Examiners may find helpful. The full NIE
Handbook is available on request, if required.
1)
Assessments & Marking
a)
Late Submission of Assessed Work
Undergraduate students receive a penalty of 5 marks (taking the overall mark for that item
of assessment out of 100) for each working day that the work is late.
Postgraduate students (Taught and Research) receive a penalty of 3 marks (taking the
overall mark for that item of assessment out of 100) for each working day that the work is
late.
NIEs are not involved in applying the penalties, these are applied automatically. However,
NIEs should ensure that Fridays are not used as submission deadlines for assignments due
to the fact that only working days are taken into consideration.
b)
Marking and Return of Assessed Work
Responsibility for the marking and return of assessed work lies with the NIE supported by
the second marker, External Examiner and the Programme Office.
(i)
General Marking Criteria
Charts, showing the agreed marking criteria for both postgraduate and
undergraduate marking criteria, are attached as Appendix 1.
Please note that, in line with recommendations of External Examiners, the School
wishes to emphasize the importance of using the full range of marks, i.e. 0 – 100%.
(ii)
Marking Process
The marking process has been defined as follows:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Students submit assignments electronically on my.wbs (with completed
cover sheet to include word count, question numbers answered, CATS
points applicable).
An email is then sent from the Programme Office to the NIE to inform them
that the assignments have been submitted and to check a) whether paper
copies are required and b) whether the scripts should be sorted by question
number (if applicable).
Programme Office download scripts from my.wbs and, if applicable, sort
papers electronically by question number before forwarding to academics.
11
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
(xi)
(xii)
(xiii)
Assignments run through Turnitin (source-matching software that helps
detect plagiarism)
Delivery note downloaded and attached to assignment pack (delivery note
includes module title, marker, agreed second marker, date scripts passed to
marker, no of scripts, no. of scripts outstanding and return date).
Academics notified that scripts are ready for collection.
Scripts first marked. Once marked, if the NIE suspects plagiarism, the
Plagiarism process should be followed (see section e) below).
Comments recorded along with the mark on either on the electronic
feedback form or on the bar-coded feedback form for those wishing to
handwrite their comments.
Scripts moderated (second marked) and final marks agreed by first and
second markers.
Borderline cases checked (following electronic aggregation of marks) with
the final mark being adjusted in line with programme practice (e.g. no
composite marks ending in a ‘9’ on the MBA and many Specialist Masters
programmes).
Marksheet validated for inaccuracy and inconsistency
Bar-coded handwritten feedback forms scanned by the Programme Office.
Marks and feedback released electronically to students with an automatic
email informing students that the marks and feedback are available.
NIE's and markers identifying illegible scripts should follow the procedure at:
www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wbs/central/academic-services/examinations
(iii)
Quality of Feedback
NIEs should note that comments should be sufficiently detailed to be of assistance to
the student in improving his/her performance. Please bear in mind that students will
take the quality of the markers’ feedback as an important signal of the credibility of
the marking process. Ensuring that helpful feedback is provided by all markers on the
module is an important responsibility of the NIE.
(iv)
Second Marking
The School’s policy on second marking is as follows:



All projects (UG and PG) must be ‘blind’ second-marked i.e. the second marker
must not have access to the first marker’s mark or comments.
No examinations or pieces of assessed work should be ‘blind’ second-marked.
ALL marked examinations and assessments should be subject to a process of
moderation by a second person, as follows:
a)
At least 10 scripts, or 10% of the total, whichever is greater, shall be
moderated to include: All failing scripts, all first-class/distinction marks (if
any), plus a sample from across the full range of marks.
b)
The second marker should check:
 that the marks allocated by the first marker are reasonable;
12



c)
(v)
any scripts that appear to be out-of-line with the overall pattern of
marks;
that the transcription of marks on the front of the script is accurate;
and,
that all work submitted has been marked.
In the event of a substantial disagreement between the first marker and
second marker, the matter should be referred to the External Examiner for
arbitration.
Word Limits
When setting an assessment, NIEs should ensure that any penalties for exceeding the
word-limit are made clear to students and the External Examiner (e.g. a deduction of
5% for an additional X words). The word limit should exclude references.
(vi)
Arrangements for Marking
NIEs, in conjunction with the Head of Group, will need to consider what
arrangements need to be made for the marking of examination scripts and
assignments. Teaching hours are credited on a proportional basis on the School’s TAP
system for all academic staff assigned marking duties on a module that is ‘on-matrix’.
TAP hours are allocated as follows:
Undergraduate Courses
Full weight module (24/30 CATS) - 3.2 hours per student
Half weight module (12/15 CATS) - 1.6 hours per student
Postgraduate Courses
Module ≤15 CATS 1.6 hours per student
Module >15 and ≤ 24 CATS 2 hours per student
Module > 24 CATS 2.4 hours per student
NIEs should note that the marking of scripts may not be out-sourced to academics
that have no contractual arrangement with Warwick Business School.
(vii)
Turn-around Time
NIEs must ensure that the first and second marking of their module is completed
within TWENTY UNIVERSITY WORKING DAYS of the submission deadline of the work,
as a maximum.
(viii) Inputting of Marks onto MIS (UG modules only)
When entering marks onto the MIS NIEs should ensure that WBS marking and
moderation guidelines are followed and, if a composite mark ends in -9, a decision
should be made about whether the overall performance is worthy of the class above or
the class below.
If the module is 100% assessed by course work, the NIE will still need to sign off the
marks as being an accurate record. Marks should be checked carefully before they are
signed off. This is easiest to do with another member of staff.
13
For further guidance on the inputting of marks onto the MIS please refer to Appendix
Two.
(ix)
Disclosure of Marks
The University permits the disclosure of actual percentage marks for ‘separately
examined module components or elements of coursework’. However, in the event of
an NIE disclosing marks to students in advance of approval by External Examiners
and/or the final examination board, they must be accompanied by a clear indication
that they are to be regarded as provisional. A qualifying statement should also be
provided to students reminding them that their degree classification is related not
only to individual marks, but also to the profile of the whole examination/assessment
performance and that the examination board, in arriving at its academic judgment,
also takes in to account other relevant factors (e.g. health). On some WBS
programmes, marks are disclosed via my.wbs with this caveat.
(x)
Provision for Dealing with Student Academic Complaints
General Guidance
1) Any complaint should be acknowledged at the earliest opportunity by return of
email or letter.
2) An explanation of the process to be followed should be included at the outset
along with confirmation of the person who will investigate the complaint.
3) If it is not clear, it may be helpful to invite the complainant to state the nature of
the outcome they are seeking.
Informal Complaint
1) Where an informal complaint has been raised directly with the NIE, the NIE
should investigate and respond in consultation with their line manager.
2) The NIE should discuss the outcome of their investigation with their line manager
prior to confirming the outcome in writing to the complainant.
Formal Complaint
1) Formal complaints should be referred to the Dean for investigation by them or a
nominated colleague.
2) Information should be gathered from departmental files by staff member
investigating but care should be taken with regard to confidentiality.
3) Where students have declared a disability to the institution, it should be ensured
that information is made available at all stages in the appropriate format.
4) A record of the complaint investigation should be kept in a departmental
complaints file. The file should include a log of relevant communication including
emails, notes of meetings and any discussions and their outcomes.
5) Any notes taken whilst investigating the complaint should be factual and accurate
as the student may access any information held about them by making a Subject
Access Request (see the University's Data Protection Policy).
6) The outcome should be communicated to the complainant by the Dean.
14
7) Reference should be made to the second stage of the University's Student
Academic Complaints Procedure in case the student remains dissatisfied by
enclosing a copy of the procedure with the letter. The student should be made
aware that any escalation should be within the deadlines laid out in the
procedure.
In the event of the matter not being resolved at School level the student may submit
a complaint via the University’s Student Academic Complaint Process. It should be
noted, however, that students cannot use the Academic Complaint Process to
challenge the academic judgement of examiners.
The University’s Student Academic Complaint Process is available at the following
link:
www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/aro/academiccomplaints/procedure/
Non-academic complaints are dealt with under the University Complaints and
Feedback Procedure, details of which can be found at
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/gov/complaintsandfeedback.
2)
Examinations
a)
Compilation and approval of the examination paper
NIEs will be reminded by Academic Services of deadlines for submitting examination papers
six, four then two weeks before each deadline, and will be sent the University’s template
for
the
required
layout
of
examination
papers
(available
at
www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wbs/central/academic-services/examinations/ ).
The NIE will be responsible for the writing/compilation of the examination paper. The NIE
should ensure that:
- the paper has been peer-reviewed (possibly in a Group meeting) prior to sending the
examination paper to the External Examiner for approval.1
- the examination paper must be approved by the External Examiner, in time to be
delivered to Academic Services by pre-set deadlines.
- none of the examination questions have been used verbatim in a previous examination
paper, or any other form of assessment.
NIEs should be aware that they may be required to provide an examination paper for re-sit
examination sessions. Academic Services will try to provide NIEs with as much warning as
possible that a re-sit paper is required. However, if a re-sit paper is required for external
students the School may not be provided with much notice. NIEs should note that the
University’s deadline for the submission of re-sit examination papers is usually the middle
of July.
b)
Reading Time/Open Book/Change to Exam Length
Any request by the NIE to remove/add reading time to an examination, change from closed
to open book status or amend the examination length should be discussed with the
relevant course team prior to submission to Programme Quality Committee for approval.
1
External Examiners should approve all examination papers contributing to final degree classifications.
15
(An annual request will be sent to all NIEs in early October requesting that all examination
details are verified and requesting notification of any changes particularly those requiring
University approval). The NIE should ensure that the External Examiner has been consulted
regarding any proposed change to the format of the examination paper. In addition,
students must be informed well in advance of any planned change.
Reading time will only be granted in the case of those examinations where a substantial
time is needed for a student to make a carefully considered choice between questions of a
lengthy and detailed or intricate nature. A standard reading time of fifteen (15) minutes is
permitted. An NIE requesting approval for reading time should send a rationale for the
change to Academic Services along with a specimen paper for consideration by the Board of
Undergraduate Studies (postgraduate requests are considered by the same Board).
All requests to change the examination from closed to open book should also be sent to
Academic Services, along with a rationale and an indication of whether the examination will
be ‘open book unrestricted’ or ‘open book restricted’. In the case of ‘open book restricted’
examinations, a list of text books allowed into the examination room is also required.
Any change to the examination length should also be reported. An increase in the length of
an examination has to be submitted to the relevant Graduate or Undergraduate Studies
Committee as a change to the course regulations. A decrease in the length of the
examination does not require University approval but the University’s Examination Office
has to be informed for timetabling purposes.
c)
Co-ordination of First and Second Marking Procedures
It is the responsibility of the NIE to ensure that the deadlines which have been set for
providing final marks to the Programme Managers (or other appropriate individuals) are
observed. It is also the responsibility of the NIE to ensure that a procedure is in place to
ensure that marks for each examination question are added correctly on the scripts and
that they are then subsequently input into the MIS carefully. It is recommended that the
NIE and second marker enter the marks together, if at all possible.
d)
Liaison with the External Examiner
This involves examination paper approval (see above), and co-ordination of first and second
marking internally. The NIE is also responsible for ensuring that samples of work for
external examination are delivered to the External Examiner well in advance of the first
meeting of the Examination Board. The criteria on which the sample is based should also be
agreed, in advance, with the External Examiner. (Please refer to Appendix Three: Procedures
for Named Internal Examiners on Liaison with External Examiners)
16
Appendix One
Undergraduate Marking Criteria for the Faculty of Social Studies
Class
Scale
Points on
17 Point
Scale
Range
on
100% scale
(after
rounding)
Excellent
96
90-100
Analysis
Presents a highly-developed and mature
answer with full, accurate and original
development of concepts and theories
Critique
Understands and evaluates relevant
arguments, debates and/or interpretations
in a manner that demonstrates a highly
developed capacity for originality and
independent thought.
Presentation
Provides a fluent and wellstructured deployment of
techniques of academic
writing
70-89
Comprehension
Demonstrates
comprehensive
knowledge
and
thoroughly
assimilated understanding of the
subject matter including, where
appropriate,
methodological,
technical and scholarship skills
Demonstrates command of the
subject matter including, where
appropriate,
methodological,
technical and scholarship skills
Presents a tightly-focused, relevant and
well-structured answer with full and
accurate
development
of
concepts/theories, and excellent use of
evidence
60-69
Demonstrates good appreciation of
the subject matter including, where
appropriate,
methodological,
technical and scholarship skills
Presents a coherent and closely-argued
answer with good structure, accurate use
of concepts/theories, and good use of
evidence
Understands and evaluates relevant
arguments, debates and/or interpretations
in a manner that demonstrates a
developed capacity for independent
thought. This may amount to an extension
of existing arguments, debates and /or
interpretations
Understands and evaluates relevant
arguments, debates and/or interpretations
in a manner that demonstrates some
capacity for independent thought.
Demonstrates an understanding of
core aspects of the subject matter
including,
where
appropriate,
methodological,
technical
and
scholarship skills
Presents an answer to the question taking
into account appropriate structure,
development of concepts/theories and
reasonable use of evidence
Understands and reproduces relevant
arguments, debates and/or interpretations
Demonstrates some familiarity with
the subject matter including, where
appropriate,
methodological,
technical and scholarship issues
Shows an understanding of the question
with some structure, knowledge of
concepts/theories and use of evidence
Demonstrates some awareness of relevant
arguments, debates, and/or interpretations
Demonstrates little evidence of
familiarity with the subject matter
including,
where
appropriate,
methodological,
technical
and
scholarship skills
Demonstrates a poor grasp of the question
with loose structure, little knowledge of
concepts/theories and inadequate use of
evidence
Demonstrates little awareness of relevant
arguments, debates, and/or interpretations
Provides a thorough and
consistent deployment of
techniques of academic
writing
with
particular
reference to structure,
referencing/sourcing
and
spelling/grammar
Provides a thorough and
consistent deployment of
techniques of academic
writing
with
particular
reference to structure,
referencing/sourcing
and
spelling/grammar
Acknowledges and employs
techniques of academic
writing
with
particular
reference to structure,
referencing/sourcing
and
spelling/grammar
Shows
awareness
of
techniques of academic
writing
with
particular
reference to structure,
referencing/sourcing
and
spelling/grammar
Provides
a
poor
demonstration
of
techniques of academic
writing
with
particular
reference to structure,
referencing/sourcing
and
spelling/grammar
First
High
Mid
Low
2:1
2:2
Third
High
Mid
Low
High
Mid
Low
High
Mid
Low
89
81
74
68
65
62
58
55
52
48
45
42
50-59
40-49
Fail
High
Mid
Low
38
25
12
>0-39
Zero
Zero
0
0
Work of no merit OR absent, work not submitted, penalty in some misconduct cases
17
Appendix One
GENERAL MARKING CRITERIA FOR POSTGRADUATE ASSESSED WORK AND EXAMINATIONS
80+ An outstanding piece of work, showing total mastery of the subject-matter, with a highly developed
and mature ability to analyse, synthesise and apply knowledge and concepts. All objectives of the set work
are covered, and work is free of errors with a very high level of technical competence. There is evidence of
critical reflection; and the work demonstrates originality of thought, and the ability to tackle questions and
issues not previously encountered. Ideas are expressed with fluency.
(It is necessary to consider this mark range in view of the frequent comments by External Examiners
concerning our unwillingness to award marks above 80).
70-79
An excellent piece of work, showing a high degree of mastery of the subject-matter, with a
well-developed ability to analyse, synthesise and apply knowledge and concepts. All major objectives of the
set work are covered, and work is free of all but very minor errors, with a high level of technical
competence. There is evidence of critical reflection, and of ability to tackle questions and issues not
previously encountered. Ideas are expressed clearly.
60-69
A good piece of work, showing a sound and thorough grasp of the subject-matter, though
possibly lacking in the breadth and depth required for a first-class mark. A good attempt at analysis,
synthesis and application of knowledge concepts, but may be more limited in scope than that required for
a mark of 70+. Most objectives of the work set are covered. Work is generally technically competent, but
there may be a few gaps leading to some errors. Some evidence of critical reflection, and the ability to
make a reasonable attempt at tackling questions and issues not previously encountered. Ideas are
expressed with clarity, with some minor exceptions.
50-59
A fair piece of work, showing grasp of major elements of the subject-matter but possibly with
some gaps or areas of confusion. Only the basic requirements of the work set are covered. The attempt at
analysis, synthesis and application of knowledge and concepts is superficial, with a heavy reliance on
course materials. Work may contain some errors, and technical competence is at a routine level only.
Ability to tackle questions and issues not previously encountered is limited. Little critical reflection. Some
confusion and immaturity in expression of ideas.
40-49
Not of a passable level for a postgraduate programme. A poor piece of work, showing some
familiarity with the subject-matter, but with major gaps and serious misconceptions. Only some of the
basic requirements of the work set are achieved. There is little or no attempt at analysis, synthesis or
application of knowledge, and a low level of technical competence, with many errors. Difficulty in
beginning to address questions and issues not previously encountered. Inability to reflect critically on an
argument or viewpoint. Ideas are poorly expressed and structured.
Below 40 Work not of passable standard, with serious gaps in knowledge of the subject-matter, and
many areas of confusion. Few or none of the basic requirements of the work set are achieved, and there is
an inability to apply knowledge. Technical competence is poor, with many serious errors. The student finds
it impossible to begin to address questions and issues not previously encountered. The level of expression
and structure is very inadequate. The student has failed to engage seriously with any of the subject-matter
involved.
18
Postgraduate Marking Grid
Factual
Knowledge
Conceptual
Understanding
Complete
and
thoroughly
assimilated
Complete
80+
Comprehensive
70-79
Comprehensive
60-69
Minor gaps
Good overall
grasp
50-59
Minor gaps
Fair overall
grasp
40-49
Some
gaps
major Partial grasp
30-39
Many
gaps
major Very
little
grasp,
evidence of
some
confusion
Analytical
Ability
Highly
developed
and mature
Application/
Problem
Solving
Tackles new
applications with
ease
Highly
developed
Tackles
most
new applications
with ease
Well
Makes a good
developed
attempt
at
talking new
applications
Reasonably
Makes
some
developed
attempt to tackle
new
applications
Some
Makes
little
evidence of attempt to tackle
ability
new
applications
Little or no Incapable
of
analytical
tackling
new
ability
applications
19
Technical
Capability
(Where relevant)
Complete
mastery
of all
techniques
High level of
technical
competence
Sound technical
competence
with few gaps
Competent
routine
techniques
Critical
Ability
Expression of Ideas
Originality
Highly
developed
Fluent and
wellstructured
Outstanding
Highly
developed
Clear
and
structured
well- Considerable
Generally
welldeveloped
Clear
and
structured
well- Some
in Superficial
Only
Some lack of clarity None
and immaturity of
expression
Low level of Poorly
technical
developed
competence
numerous errors
Very low level of None
technical
competence
with many major
errors
Poorly
structured None
with some confusion
Very confused and None
lacking in clarity