DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN MSC PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY
REPORT FOR ACADEMIC YEAR 2012/13 TO THE CHAIR OF THE JOINT FACULTY BOARD OF EXAMINERS
(UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE) IN ARTS AND HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL AND HISTORICAL SCIENCES
Author: Dr. Mathias Disney, Chair Board of Examiners in MSc in: Aquatic Science, Climate Change,
Conservation, Environmental Mapping, Environmental Modelling, Geospatial Analysis, Remote Sensing
Date: 22/10/2012
Note: This report should be submitted to the Departmental Staff-Student Consultative Committee. Where it is necessary for the annual report to discuss matters of a confidential nature these should be included in a separate confidential annexe.
1. Introduction
This section to include dates of Board meetings and number of Board members present at each meeting, including confirmation that the approved Chair or Deputy Chair conducted the meeting, together with mention of any other persons present and their relationship to the Board.
The board meeting was convened on 07/11/2013, with XX members present. The meeting was chaired by the approved chair (myself, Dr. Mat Disney), along with the Faculty observer (XX), the six external examiners (EEs) for the seven different MSc programmes and Linda Fuller, Dept. administrator.
2. Consideration of results
This section to include a brief commentary on the consideration of results and the resolution of any problematic or borderline cases. Please do not identify any candidates by name. You do not need to provide
a full list of results.
Results were considered for all candidates completing in academic year 2012-2013, including students completing modules who had either resat failed modules, or who had intermitted, or were part-time and were completing having registered in previous years.
The majority of discussion surrounded candidates who were on the borderline of consideration for a Merit award. There were a number of candidates whose overall weighted average were in the high 60s but who were ineligible for even a Merit either due to a single condoned mark, or a dissertation slightly below 65.
These cases were all raised by the chair for consideration by the board. Further details on the Merit cases are given below, however the EE comments were that in general this issue was due to the discrepancy between the required dissertation mark of 65 and the weighted average requirement of 60, as well as the issue of condoned marks resulting in students with high weighted averages and dissertations failing to achieve Merits. The EEs reports contain comments on this issue.
Remote Sensing: a candidate with a weighted average of 74.6 but a dissertation mark of 56 was thus awarded a pass, not qualifying for a distinction or even a merit on the basis of this one mark. The EE noted the dissertation mark was fair, and just reflected a weak performance in that one element.
Environmental Mapping:.

Conservation:
Environmental Modelling:
3. Comments on the examination process during the year and critical reflection on administrative matters and procedures
External Examiner: Dr. Alex Comber, EE MSc Geospatial Analysis
We note the EE’s positive comments about this new programme and general enthusiasm for the structure and delivery of the course.
Comment
Response
Comment
Response
External Examiner: Dr. James Williams, EE MSc Conservation
We note the EE’s generally positive comments about the broad nature of the course, the focus of the modules and the quality of teaching. We also thank the EE for his detailed comments on specific pieces of coursework and assessment.
Comment
The quality of assessment is appropriate, but the scheme of awards for Merit and Distinction is, as I said last year, FAR too complex. I understand that this is a College wide issue, but also understand that many people are making this comment. Senior management need to get a grip and sort this out as a matter of urgency. I recommend something much simpler is implemented.
Response
We will raise this issue (again) with the faculty, hopefully providing weight to the argument for some rationalisation of the Merit award process.
Comment
With respect to student poster presentations I recommend that they are undertaken in a much larger room with better sound dynamics. The session this year was very loud and cramped. I preferred the previous year's presentations, as all students were listening and it was easier to hear what the project was about, and for multiple people to ask questions. I recommend that how and when students present their work is given further consideration.
Response
We will look at getting a larger space for next year, and/or splitting the presentations over 2 sessions to reduce the numbers in each. The rationale for moving to posters rather than presentations was that with the increasing numbers of students, this removes the need for students and staff to sit in multiple, long sessions, and also to allow for a lively atmosphere for the students in presenting work to each other. We note that feedback from the students on this approach was generally very positive (acoustics excepted).
Comment

See comments above on award scheme. This is a mess, and I suspect that the issue of condoned passes impacting on the potential for a merit or distinction is not properly understood by students.
Response
We use the standard college-wide award scheme, and we accept that the issue of impact of condoned marks on Merit/Distinction awards needs to be re-iterated to students.
Comment
Some of the comments made by markers of scripts are still hand written - some were illegible - these would be much easier to review if they were type written using electronic forms.
Response
We are moving towards electronic mark sheets with a more flexible system of comments, which will eliminate this problem.
Comment
External Examiner: Dr. Nigel Wilby, EE MSc Aquatic Science
We thank the EE for his comments on the nature of the course: “This is an excellent programme, whose structure is made very clear through its handbook. It is taught by committed individuals who are undoubted
leaders in their field and the course is clearly able to attract some very high calibre students.”
Comment
I am satisfied that students awarded the MSc in Aquatic Sciences are performing at a level equivalent to those in other HE institutions. I have some reservations about the distinction and in particular merit level criteria as the range of caveats provided do not lend themselves to transparency. The 60% cutoff in taught modules versus 65% in the dissertation when considering award of merit is also liable to cause confusion to both staff and students and needs to be standardised or replaced by a GPA.
Response
See response above to comments of previous EE. This issue is noted and will be fed back to the Faculty.
Comment
Would be desirable to have a few days longer to read dissertations
Response
Will ensure this next year.
Comment
I feel it would be beneficial in future to have the opportunity to interview a small number of borderline candidates in order to reach a more informed view of their performance rather than relying solely on scripts/coursework/dissertation.
Response
Will offer this opportunity to all the EEs, and try and ensure we have students available.
Comment

I feel the implications of taking a Condoned Pass (CP) need to be spelt out much more clearly to students as this effectively rules out the chance of a merit or distinction level award. I am not satisfied that students fuly appreciate this. In the autumn semester for students moving from another discipline or for whom
English is not their first language there is an adjustment period. Such students often perform markedly better in spring semester and they are arguably being somewhat penalised by the CP system. It may be fairer if students who fail to achieve 50% are required to resubmit without penalty, their resubmitted work is capped at 50% and if they still fail to meet the minimum required standard they are then eligible for a CP.
Students who resubmit work for one module should still be eligible for a merit award and have the knowledge (and incentive) to perform well enough in later modules to compensate. The early imposition of a CP is otherwise very demotivational.
Response
We note the comment, and will make sure students are fully aware of this. College rules do not permit reassessment of resubmitted work without penalty, but we will pass on the comments to Faculty over this.
Comment
In my view the word limit for dissertations is unduly long at 12k words and should be dropped to 8-10K to encourage students to write more concisely and be more judicious in the material that they sue and to be less descriptive. In professional life few people have time to read documents this long and in their careers students are far more likely to be asked to produce concise pieces of writing.
Response
Again this is a college policy on MSc dissertations. It is of course an upper limit so we will endeavour to impress upon students that brief is good.
Comment
I spoke to two students on the Aquatic Sciences MSc to get their impression of the course. Both were extremely happy with the calibre of the teaching and the attitude and ease of accessibility of staff and their commitment to the programme. They made a number of small observations which I include here for information: the use of CP is too penalising and demotivates students; equitability of assessed coursework between modules needs to be improved; coverage of marine environments could be better addressed given title of course; demonstrator support could be increased in more technically demanding modules to ensure that all students progress evenly and as a cohort; in some cases the entry level skill requirement for a module might be stressed at an early point in the module descriptor. However, these were minor comments and I would emphasise that the students were overwhelmingly positive about the course.
Response
We will examine the issue of equitability of assessed coursework – we have moved to standardise this in terms of length in particular in the last year. We will assess the provision of demonstrator support – this is partly an issue of limitations in having students available to demonstrate, and predicting in advance how much support is required.
External Examiner: Dr. Mark Cutler, EE MSc Remote Sensing, Environmental Mapping
We note the EE’s generally very positive comments about the content of the courses: “In general, the content of the programmes is excellent, with a wide range of choices for students, far more than possible in other institutions offering similarly titled programmes.”
Comment
Response
Comment

Response

Please note that feedback should be provided to the External Examiners. Please confirm that this has been done by completing the proforma attached at appendix A
External Examiner: Dr. Mark Brandon, EE MSc Climate Change
We thank the EE for the very positive comments re this new MSc programme and his view that the teaching and delivery are of high quality.
It is an excellent MSc that is attractive to students.
Feedback on student work I inspected was of high quality.
One examination was lacking a mark scheme but this was not an issue as the comments on the scripts were extensive and very clear. This meant the marking guidelines implemented were clear.
The programme is very good and I have confidence that it will continue to develop and attract high quality students.
Comment
It was a very smooth and clear process from my perspective. I felt that the department took my comments and suggestions seriously - and they made the process very straightforward. The course has clearly been successful in attracting quality students, and I hope that the student numbers increase to match the quality of their offering.
Response
We again thank the EE for the positive comments. Regarding numbers, these have increased and are now in the 15-20 range, which is a very positive sign. There is also encouraging cross-fertilistation occurring between students on this course and staff and students on other Geog MSc programmes, as was hoped during the setting up of the various new MScs.
External Examiner: Dr. Tristan Quaife, EE MSc Environmental Modelling

We thank the EE for his positive and constructive comments, in the first year of the running of this MSc. We note his comment: “The MSc in Environmental Modelling is a timely and relevant programme and I feel it has the potential to be a strong degree for the UCL Geography Department.”
Comment
One quirk in the marking criteria is the requirement for a Merit award to have a dissertation mark of 65% or greater. I have no problem with setting a minimum requirement for the dissertation mark, but it would seem to make sense to have this at 60% (which is typical of MSc programmes at other Universities). As it stands a "Merit" level dissertation is only in a very narrow range of marks (65%-69%).
Response
As above, we note the comment and will pass it on to faculty, given our inability to do anything about it at the board level. We agree that it can results in some rather low mark profiles resulting in a Merit, while others much higher do not, either because of the requirement for a 65% dissertation mark, or due to condoned marks.
Comment
The programme of modules is thematically quite diverse and reflects the research interests of the department. What is not always clear from the module outlines is that the MSc provides a well-rounded training in different modelling techniques (as opposed to applications). I have no doubt that the MSc does in fact deliver this, but it would be good to see it reflected in the course handbook. By way of example, the core module GeogG121 (Analytical and Numerical Methods), introduces an impressive range of techniques
(ODEs, MCMC, MH, linear algebra and so on) but it would be nice to see how this feeds into other modules and how these skills are built upon elsewhere in the course.
Response
We would note that the module mentioned (GEOGG121) is intended to address the issue of potential disparity in technical and quantitative skills that students may have on entering the course. This issue was raised by the EE for EMapping/Remote Sensing as a potential problem, and this module is intended in part to make sure the students have the necessary mathematical skills to undertake other core and options modules. The ODE and linear algebra for example are used in several other modules, particularly in term 2
(eg the modules on terrestrial carbon and hydrological processes). We will consider how best to integrate these things further however. This is part of the ongoing development of these courses in their early stages
4. Comments and any critical reflection on administrative matters and procedures
In general, the EE comments were extremely positive about administration and procedure. We acknowledge the issue of perhaps providing diversity of material to EEs on their visits and we will do this in future. There were no substantive comments about procedure, other than the point made by 4 of the EEs over the regulations for award of a Merit. We note that discussion over this is ongoing within College and we will feed back our experience of this to Faculty.
5. Examination irregularities and plagiarism (if any)

Please comment on any cases of examination irregularities arising in the department and the outcome, whether dealt with by a Departmental Panel or reported to the Academic Registrar.
N/A

Please send your completed report to Christina Edwards in the Faculty Office by 30 September 2013 (Undergraduate boards) or 17
January 2014 (Masters’ boards)
If you have not already done so, please also supply a summary of decisions of your extenuating circumstances panel (as a separate document, not appended to this report).
If this is your last year as Chair, please ensure that the procedures for notifying Registry of a change of Chair are carried out. See http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ras/examiners for details
APPENDIX A
MONITORING OF EXTERNAL EXAMINERS
1.
Has a response been sent to the external examiners on issues raised on the Report Forms?
YES (but see below)
2.
Have external examiners been provided with the Chair’s Report?
YES (but see below)
Due to late change of exam chair, due to extreme circumstances surrounding original chair (and covering of additional work), the chair’s report was not completed at the time. It has been supplied with the current agenda and minutes of the last meeting (7/11/2013).
3.
Have the minutes of the last Board meeting been sent to the external examiners?
YES
4.
Have any Report Forms not yet been received?
NO
5.
Have any comments made by the Faculty in the previous session been conveyed back to the relevant external examiners?
No comments to relay
6.
Have any comments made by the UCL Board of Examiners in the previous session been conveyed back to the relevant external examiners?
No comments to relay