EXTERNAL EXAMINER’S REPORT
Middlesex University
NAME OF EXTERNAL EXAMINER: A N Other
SUBJECT AND/OR PROGRAMME TO WHICH ATTACHED:
PSYCHOTHERAPY
ACADEMIC YEAR 2012-2013
Name
A N Other
Programme
MA Psychotherapy
Modules moderated
MA Dissertation
Overseas campuses
Are these modules taught at an overseas campus?
Yes
No
If Yes, please specify which locations:
Collaborative Partners
Is this programme (or any modules) delivered at a collaborative
partner?
Yes
No
If Yes, please specify the name of the partner institution:
The Institute
Date (s) of assessment
Board (s)
June 28 2013
Please complete the following by ticking the appropriate box:
OVERALL STANDARDS
1. In your view, are the standards set for the award(s) appropriate for
the qualification(s)?
2. In your view, are the standards of student performance equivalent
to other UK institutions with which you are familiar?
Yes
No
If ‘no’ to either of the above questions please provide further information in the box
below.
To be completed by all external examiners
Yes
No
I confirm that the assessment process was conducted effectively:





The School and Programme Team communicated effectively
with me throughout the year
I was sent all draft examination papers, (where appropriate),
with assessment criteria for approval
I was given sufficient time to approve draft examination
papers (where appropriate), with assessment criteria for
approval
I was given the opportunity to see samples of marked work
(including written assignments and examination scripts)
covering the full range of marks
I saw evidence of internal moderation in the assessment
process and confirm it was used effectively and consistently
If ‘no’ to any of the above questions please provide further information in the box
below.
To be completed by external examiners in their 2nd and
Yes
subsequent years of appointment
Did you receive formal written feedback on your report for the
previous academic year?
Were you satisfied with the response to the issues raised in your
report for the previous academic year?
If ‘no’ to any of the above questions please provide further information in the box
below.
No
Programme/Subject design, content and standards:
The overall high standard of the The Institute programme, as required for an
MA programme, has been maintained as evidenced by the dissertations and
the selection of essays I read. I generally agreed with the range of evaluations
given to essays and always agreed with whether they had been marked as
pass or fail; and I was usually in fairly close agreement with markers’ overall
comments on dissertations. The work submitted shows a good balance
between psychotherapeutic theory, clinical practice, and Psychotherapy
psychology. It was heartening to see some specific improvements that had
been recommended in previous years, particularly in regard to students’
understanding of Psychotherapy ideas and a wider range of reading in the
psychotherapy field.
Student performance:
The dissertations were, as in previous years, wide-ranging in scope and in
quality, reflecting the range of students’ backgrounds. The general standard
was high, with some very well written and thoughtful explorations of
interesting and relevant topics. This included some that had failed on first
submission and been re-written; I did not see most of the failed versions but
the students had clearly taken on board the markers’ comments and the
revised works were usually more than satisfactory. A few students made
reference to their personal meditation practice and its relevance to their work,
suggesting they had taken on board my previous comments about the relative
lack of this.
A small number of students, however, had clearly struggled to complete a
passable dissertation even on resubmission. These few showed less in-depth
inquiry into the topic, consultation of fewer sources, and less clarity about the
specific relevance to Core Process Psychotherapy (CPP) of the topic under
discussion. These took more time to evaluate; however my conclusion was
that they were adequate to meet the 40% pass mark.
Assessments: structure, design and marking:
In general the markers offer detailed and thoughtful feedback, and make
considerable attempts to offer specific advice and to frame constructive
criticism within more positive appraisal. Occasionally I felt they had missed
specific points (e.g. not noticing some inaccuracies in understanding of
Psychotherapy psychology) but only where this was clearly not their main
area of expertise. I also felt they could have been more critical about
academic form – for example they rarely pointed out errors in citation of
references.
Assessment Board:
This took place on June 28 and we had some fruitful discussion about how to
continue to improve standards and how best to support students, and their
external tutors, during the writing of their dissertations. Two specific points
arising from this for next year were:
 The specific criteria required for the PQMA dissertation will be revised
to reflect the fact that these students have less clinical experience
specifically of CPP when they are writing it.
 As External Examiner I need to see most or all (depending on the
number) of the dissertations that fail at first submission, in order to
moderate the standards being applied by the markers in these cases
and to ensure that the rewriting is necessary in each case.
Role of the External Examiner:
I met the Clinical and MA Support Tutor a few times over the year and she
kept me well-informed by email. As last year, the earlier deadline for
submission of dissertations made it possible for most of the dissertations and
marks to reach me in plenty of time, though in the case of a few of the
resubmissions the timing was rather tight.
Collaborative Programmes:
I am not aware of any problems in the collaboration between The Institute and
the University. I have received relevant communication from the University,
especially with regard to changes in regulations and in the structure required
for this report.
Recommendations or actions:
Last year we discussed ways to offer more guidance to students in the
planning stages of the dissertation (e.g. by requiring a more detailed proposal)
to try to pre-empt potential difficulties, and I would recommend that this should
continue, with the aim of reducing the number of dissertations that require
resubmission. The quality of the re-submitted dissertations generally indicated
that the students were very capable and it is possible that some of them might
have avoided the extra work and stress of re-writing had they been given
clearer guidance earlier on.
Of course it is ultimately the student who decides what to submit and there will
always be a limit to how much they can be guided in producing what has to be
an original piece of work. However the Information I have from The Institute is
that not all students avail themselves of the support that is offered, and I
wonder if the importance of doing so might be stressed even more than it
already is, to try to reduce some of the difficulties that occurred, particularly in
the borderline case mentioned above.
The following specific points were noted in some dissertations, suggesting
that students may need more guidance in these areas:
 Sometimes technical terms (from CPP or Psychotherapy) were not
defined the first time they were used.
 A few dissertations were marred by unnecessary typos and spelling
mistakes (especially, but not only, of Pali or Sanskrit terms)
 The section marked ‘Conclusion’ did not always offer a summary of
points made; they were often either too brief or introduced new
material.
 Occasionally opinions were given without much to back them up; this is
especially important if the writer is offering criticism of other theories or
therapeutic approaches.
 The few dissertations that were more borderline passes tended to be
less clear about how the specific theory and practice of CPP related to
the topic under discussion. Although there are clearly other ways that
students’ understanding of CPP is assessed during the course, they
need to be clearly advised about the extent to which they need to
demonstrate this in their dissertation.
Good practice:
The following were particularly strong points noted in several dissertations:





Continuing (albeit variable) improvement in understanding of the
Psychotherapy ideas underlying CPP, and in some cases very clear
understanding of how the way terms are used in CPP has been
adapted from more traditional usage. Students were generally much
better than in previous years at distinguishing different views and
traditions of Psychotherapy.
Also several students offered some critical reflection and appraisal of
the theory and practice of CPP in a way that demonstrated that they
had really digested and understood the core ideas behind this
approach.
Case examples (and personal experience of therapy and/or meditation)
were generally woven into the text to illustrate points made, rather than
being presented in isolation.
Most dissertations had a clear introduction, laying out the ground to be
covered, and used headings to ‘signpost’ the argument to the reader.
The best dissertations showed a real depth of understanding of the
sources cited, not just quoting them but using them to really support the
points being made.