External Examiner Comments & Course Organiser Responses, 2012/13
Course
Professional & Clinical Skills 1-4 & GEP
AHWFS 1
External Comments
I have no suggestions for change except for the
general evolution of the system. In future years
it is hoped that an electronic method of
assessment will be introduced but currently this
is not feasible. I have been impressed with the
perseverance of the team in implementing the
portfolio system and the students are
performing better due to the raised profile of
the system. I would encourage the faculty to
look at further metrics of professionalism in
order to enhance the overall assessment of this
aspect of competency.
I would like to thank the team for their efforts in
accommodating me over the last few years and I
will miss my annual trip to Edinburgh and our
discussions.
Review of the written papers demonstrated a
generally reasonable level of understanding by
students, although there were some clear gaps
in knowledge for some candidates in certain
parts of the curriculum. My only suggestion for
the AHWFS 1 relates to the written exam and
this is that marking be indicated clearly for all
questions to allow for effective auditing by
external examiners.
Having gained experience as an external
examiner this year I feel I will be better equipped
to critically assess papers before the written
exam in future.
Course Organiser Response
Not yet received.
External examiner comments were over all
favourable.
1
External Examiner Comments & Course Organiser Responses, 2012/13
Animal Body 1
Nigel Goode: Sometimes the first year students
came across as having trouble connecting pieces
of information, and recognising the broader
application of knowledge. Oral examinations.
These were well organised & the format is
perfect for the year 1 vivas.
In response to comments by the external
examiners we have changed the approach to the
anatomy and histology interpretation questions.
In the past they were too similar to the spot
questions. We now set the scene using a clinical
scenario and range across the gross and
histological anatomy. This is a definite
Brian Catchpole: In general, I was satisfied with improvement and will make this section of the
the assessment in terms of its content, examination more challenging for the students.
implementation and outcome. My suggestions
are as follows:
In response to comments by the external
• It would be useful if results of statistical examiners I drew up a list of the Golden Rules of
analysis of the MCQ paper could be provided to drawing diagrams (now high- jacked by the study
the external examiners in advance (day before skills people). We will provide the students with
perhaps?) of the Board of Examiners. It is more opportunity to practice their diagram
important when developing a bank of questions drawing skills.
that this process feeds into the system for
reviewing MCQs for inclusion and that poor
quality questions are either re-written or
excluded.
• Model answers were not always provided
with questions when papers were sent to
externals for evaluation prior to the written
examinations. This makes it difficult to provide
constructive comments on the strengths /
weaknesses of the question.
• The model answers provided for the Short
Answer Paper were rather inconsistent in
nature, with some being very detailed, whereas
others were somewhat vague. It was not clear
how marks were allocated in some cases. Where
a diagram was required, a diagram should be
provided within the model answer.
2
External Examiner Comments & Course Organiser Responses, 2012/13
• Some of the questions on the Interpretation
Paper were not particularly problem-solving and
were more “identification” rather than
“interpretation”. Where a SPOT exam is included
in this diet of exams, this is rather repetitious. If
this modality is meant to assess a student’s
problem-solving ability, questions should be
designed to achieve this goal. Using clinical
scenarios as a means of assessing a student’s
ability to demonstrate their knowledge of
normal by providing them with an example of
abnormal, is a format that we have used
successfully at our institution.
• Annotation on scripts. I would like to
encourage internal examiners to write
constructive comments on scripts as this helps
external examiners to appreciate how that
individual has arrived at their mark and also
serves as formative feedback to students who
choose to review their scripts / performance in
the examination (particularly those failing
students).
• Second / sample marking. Although second
marking is probably not necessary and a
logistical problem with increasing student
numbers and the timescale between sitting the
exam and the Board, a lack of validation of
marks for individual questions is a concern. It is
true that the final mark is composed of a
relatively large number of “individual
observations” and as such variability of marking
from question to question is negated (provided
the same person marks all the scripts for a
3
External Examiner Comments & Course Organiser Responses, 2012/13
specific question). However, it is worth
considering “sample marking” (e.g. 10%) of
scripts for the Short Answer Paper.
• It was noted that all but one student in the
“pass” band 50-55% had failed the examination,
but their mark had increased above the
threshold by virtue of their in-course
assessment. While this is not a criticism, and in
fact I approve wholeheartedly of summative incourse assessment, it might be worthwhile in
having a constructive dialogue with those
students, particularly at this stage of their
studies, to highlight that they will perhaps need
to work harder for future examinations.
• The external examiners all agreed that the
viva voce element of the examination was very
useful and we encourage their continued use. In
particular, this format allowed assessment of
communication skills, which is very important for
this particular course. The performance of some
of the students was exemplary, considering the
stage of the course.
Kieron Salmon: On the whole I was extremely
impressed by the whole AB1 experience, and in
particular would like to commend the supportive
nature of staff, and the excellent conduct /
organisation of the oral examination.
I would make the following recommendations:
• All model answers are provided during initial
external review of the exam scripts.
• The practical reports could perhaps be better
assessed by an alternative method.
4
External Examiner Comments & Course Organiser Responses, 2012/13
• The oral examination should contribute a
greater weighting to the final mark.
Tim Skerry: I felt that is several cases across the
exams and the grade boundaries, there was a
little too much generosity in marking.
It was a small concern that one student failed
the oral exam badly (1.5/5) yet passed overall. I
recognise that passing the oral is not a
requirement for passing overall, but a mark of
that level points to serious gaps in knowledge
and thought could be given to reducing the
ability of coursework to compensate for poor
exam
performance
or
increasing
the
contribution of the oral mark to the final total.
I would favour a greater contribution of the
marks to be taken from the oral, or perhaps that
some of the current in course written
assessments could be replaced by some sort of
live anatomy assessment.
Thought should be given to a “technique
refresher” before the exams, emphasising the
importance of attempting all questions, and for
nearly all questions, drawing a diagram unless
that is specifically not allowed.
Phillip Duffus: Last year I commented on the
ongoing dependence on essay-type answers,
either in the short answer papers or the longer
more reflective essay answers, which I thought
were a problem for two reasons. Firstly, as there
is almost always a single marker, it introduces a
level of subjectivity; secondly, it will increasingly
5
External Examiner Comments & Course Organiser Responses, 2012/13
Animal Body 2
put a lot of time pressure on individual members
of staff.
I was pleased to note the introduction of double
marking for this year for some of the course
work, but such an assessment still puts a lot of
pressure on staff. For these reasons, I would
urge the various exam boards to take advantage
of the new developments in computer based
assessments.
One final point concerns the balance between
course work and the unseen exams themselves.
The external examiners commented that a
number of students had failed the unseen
exams, often demonstrating a worrying lack of
knowledge, but managed to pass due to high
marks in the course work. It is important that
the exam boards revisit the distribution of marks
for the different assessments. As I have
mentioned above, the Interpretation papers
were excellent and are amongst those I would
like to see an increase in the % of marks
awarded.
•
There was adequate time to review the
papers prior to the written examination.
However, model answers were not always
provided, which makes it difficult to provide
constructive comments on the strengths /
weaknesses of the question. Where comments /
adjustments had been made, these were
implemented in the final version.
•
Proof reading of final version of papers.
It came to light that an older version of the
SPOTs paper had been uploaded for the
The external examiner made useful suggestions
regarding marking of the in-course assessment
which are being addressed as stated in the
previous section.
In addition, it was agreed at the exam board
meeting that students who passed through
compensation from in-course assessment should
receive feedback from their tutor to highlight
this fact and to suggest that a further
improvement would be required in performance
in subsequent years.
6
External Examiner Comments & Course Organiser Responses, 2012/13
examination, rather than the latest version,
which included some changes. I would
recommend that the electronic version is
checked by a member of staff prior to the
examination.
•
Annotation on scripts. I would like to
encourage internal examiners to write
constructive comments on scripts as this helps
external examiners to appreciate how that
individual has arrived at their mark and also
serves as formative feedback to students who
choose to review their scripts / performance in
the examination (particularly those failing
students).
•
It was noted that many students in the
“pass” band 50-55% had failed the examination
but their mark had increased above the
threshold by virtue of their in-course
assessment. One student scored 40% in the
examination, but still managed to reach a pass
mark (although this was subsequently
moderated). While this is not a criticism, and in
fact I approve of summative in-course
assessment, it might be worthwhile in having a
constructive dialogue with those students who
have passed but failed the written examination,
to highlight the fact that they will perhaps need
to work harder in the future.
•
The in-course Essay made a major
contribution to the overall mark (12%). There
are some issues, in terms of validity of marking,
although double/team marking was undertaken
to minimise this. One concern that I feel is likely
Other comments are gratefully appreciated and
will be considered for future course
modification.
7
External Examiner Comments & Course Organiser Responses, 2012/13
to become more of an issue in the future, is
validation that the essay is the student’s own
work. Use of Turnitin has, to some extent,
helped to deal with the issue of plagiarism.
However, there are now a number of internet
“companies” who offer their services for essay
writing (type in “write my essay” into Google !),
often with a fee structure relating to the
standard (and likely grade) of the end product.
This type of cheating is much harder to detect
and my suggestion would be to have this
relatively high stakes assessment as an “open
book” examination instead.
•
The questions in the Interpretation
Paper were of varying sizes and mark allocations
(out of a total of 42), which led to a degree of
confusion. I appreciate that this strategy allows
flexibility in terms of populating the paper with
varied content and that this is a relatively new
format for AB2 examinations. My suggestion, in
moving forward, would be to attempt to
construct problem-solving questions that are
more consistent in style and marked out of 10.
8
External Examiner Comments & Course Organiser Responses, 2012/13
Animal Body 3
Kieron Salmon: At the exam board I attended,
and I understand at a previous exam board,
there was quite a lot of discussion regarding the
broadness of the titles of the essay components.
This made it quite difficult to validate the
assessment and marking criteria, however I do
understand what the examiners are trying to
achieve. I understand that during marking
feedback comments were made for all scripts,
and our having access to these would greatly
ease the validation of this part of the
assessment.
External examiners agreed on the apparent over
assessment of AB3 and asked whether so many
examining modalities were needed. This will be
discussed by AB3 teaching staff in future course
review meetings.
Many other comments/suggestions were made
by Brian Catchpole;
-The AB3 teaching team needs to ensure that
external examiners get model answers for all
questions well ahead of time next year.
-Statistical analyses will likely be used from now
on to select MCQs
Brian Catchpole:
•
There was adequate time to review the
papers prior to the written examination in
March. However, model answers were not
always provided, which made it difficult to
provide constructive comments on the strengths
/ weaknesses of some questions. Where
comments / suggested changes had been made
by externals, these were implemented in the
final version.
•
Results of the statistical analysis for the
MCQ paper were requested and provided to the
external examiners in advance of the Board of
Examiners. I would recommend this is done
routinely. It is important when developing a
bank of questions that this process feeds into
the system for reviewing MCQs for inclusion and
that poor quality questions are either re-written
or excluded.
•
Internal examiners should be
9
External Examiner Comments & Course Organiser Responses, 2012/13
encouraged to write constructive comments on
scripts as this helps external examiners to
appreciate how that individual has arrived at
their mark and also serves as formative feedback
to students who choose to review their scripts /
performance in the examination (particularly
those failing students).
•
The amount of time students spend in
assessment (and internal examiners spend
marking) seems disproportionately high for this
module with two relatively large diets of
assessment in December and March, as well as a
significant contribution from in-course
assessment. Presumably the module has a credit
rating and assessment should align with that, to
ensure consistency between AB modules. Some
thought should perhaps go into streamlining the
process. Do you need all of these assessment
modalities ?
•
The external examiners noted the
relatively high proportion of Credits and
Distinctions made, but retrospective data were
provided that demonstrated a trend for the
proportions in each band (Pass / Credit /
Distinction) to be moving towards a more
balanced profile.
10
External Examiner Comments & Course Organiser Responses, 2012/13
Animal Body 4
Nigel Goode: the restrictions imposed by the
structure of the AB4 orals does not allow for a
full assessment of the students ability to
integrate their knowledge. This would be
improved by allowing the examiners to range
over a wider subject base, rather than base their
questioning on the specifics of the problem sets.
This restriction could undermine the breadth of
learning and assessment that is the (admirable)
aim of the AB4 unit.
Brian Catchpole:
•
The external examiners all agreed that
the viva voce element of the examination was
very relevant to this module. In particular, this
allowed assessment of students’ ability to
integrate different concepts and principles both
from an anatomical and physiological
perspective, as well as evaluating
communication skills. The performance of some
of the candidates, particularly in terms of their
clinical knowledge was outstanding considering
the stage of the course.
•
There was a suggestion from faculty that
the viva voce examination be extended from 15
to 20 minutes. I would be happy with this
change and it should be possible to include an
additional pair of examiners in the room to
mitigate against the increased time per student.
The external examiners were not always used
fully during the two days.
•
Notwithstanding issues of second (blind)
marking, I would like to encourage internal
External examiners’ meetings and reports: very
constructive and generally positive. Specific
points included:
Model answers: not provided in advance for
some questions - this will be rectified in future.
Overexamination: I am bound to agree that
students undergo a lot of assessment for what is
a short course – exams extend over 1 week and
the course over 4. I feel that their concerns
about exams detract significantly from their
learning experience (and in some ways risks
actually discouraging the kind of independent /
rounded thinking that we are trying to foster).
Oral: Internal and external board members felt
that 20 minute slots may be preferable to 15 and
this is likely to be actioned for next year.
Essay questions: concern about their openended nature, the prospect of very different
answers from different students and the
associated difficulty in assessing these. Mixed
views amongst both internal and external
examiners as to whether they should be kept. I
personally would be keen to keep the essay
component of the exam; notably, the essays are
set within the context of the Animal Body
course, and on the whole the students took
remarkably similar approaches to them.
However, it is true that with such large classes it
can be difficult for individual markers to
maintain consistency and we should consider
anything that may help with this – for example,
more descriptive criteria for marking as
suggested by Dr. Catchpole, and continuing to
11
External Examiner Comments & Course Organiser Responses, 2012/13
examiners to write constructive comments on
scripts as this helps external examiners to
appreciate how that individual has arrived at
their mark and also serves as formative feedback
to students who choose to review their scripts /
performance in the examination (particularly
those failing students). This is particularly
pertinent for the essay paper, where a grade on
the front of the sheet without any justification is
difficult for external examiners to validate. It
came to light at the Exam Board that there were
Internal Examiner Comment Sheets for each
essay and these should be provided to external
examiners for scrutiny.
•
I would recommend that the marking
scheme for the essays be reviewed. I
wholeheartedly support the use of more open /
philosophical questions as essay titles as this is in
keeping with the nature of this module.
However, this does lead to great deal of
variability in the responses, depending on how
each student interprets the question and
chooses to develop their essay. This is
problematic for both internal and external
examiners. The marking scheme needs to reflect
this type of essay in terms of style, structure,
understanding and ability to construct a rational,
critical and evidence-based argument.
•
The external examiners noted a
disproportionate number of students gaining
Distinction and Credit. Although it is appropriate
to reward students whose performance deserves
recognition, there is a risk of “devaluing” the
double mark a selection of essays to ensure
consistency within and between markers.
Unfortunately the internal / double marked
essay comments (not written on scripts) were
not made available to external examiners and
this will be rectified next year.
The high proportion of distinctions amongst 5year programme students was noted by the
external examiners although this was more of an
issue for AB3 than for AB4. In AB4, for both 2y
and GEP groups the modal results bracket was
60-70%. 11% of GEP candidates failed the AB4
module.
12
External Examiner Comments & Course Organiser Responses, 2012/13
higher levels, if most of the class are considered
“above average”. I do not think the solution is to
go down the A* route, with an additional level
above Distinction for those students who are
truly exceptional. There are also issues with
moving the boundaries (to 75% for example for
Distinction). This issue probably needs some
further discussion internally.
Animal Body GEP
Paul Loughna: Most of the assessments were
appropriate for the course and the
interpretation questions were particularly
effective. However some of the long essay
questions were very open ended making
defining marking criteria not only difficult to
establish but also difficult to defend
academically.
The examination process is very thorough and if
anything the students are over-assessed. As
stated above and discussed in the Exam Board
some of the essay question formats should be
reviewed.
The AB4 exam was changed in line with the
externals comments.
Stuart Carter: As in previous years, I believe the
course is over-examined.
13
External Examiner Comments & Course Organiser Responses, 2012/13
AHWFS 2
Elizabeth Mullineaux: The written questions
need to be very carefully considered to remove
any ambiguity. Marking schemes should be
carefully constructed so that it is clear where
marks are allocated and subsequently achieved,
and so that marking is consistent.
External examiners reports were generally
favourable. There were comments regarding the
variability in student’s abilities during the
practical examination; but with the differences
in back ground experience this is to be expected.
There seems to be an endless history in the
school of epidemiology and statistics lectures
being poorly attended and questions related to
those subjects being poorly answered or not
answered at all.
Graham Baird: My general comments are that
the practical exam was very well organised and
fair. Review of the written papers demonstrated
a generally good level of understanding by
students, but some gaps in knowledge for some
candidates in certain parts of the curriculum.
My only suggestion relates to the written exam
and this is that marking be indicated clearly for
all questions to allow for effective auditing by
external examiners.
14
External Examiner Comments & Course Organiser Responses, 2012/13
AHWFS GEP
The GEP course does seem to have more
students of a lower standard than the more
conventional entry to second year. The school
needs to address how to ensure that standards
are maintained throughout the course as a
whole when dealing with these poorer students.
Some concern was expressed as to the standard
of the GEP students for the course.
This may be a reflection of the fact that GEP
students have not completed their EMS prior to
sitting the exam, which may disadvantage them
in terms of exam performance, but
unfortunately is unavoidable.
SSC1
The marks awarded were consistently high, and
this was an accurate reflection of the quality of
the work examined. The peer marking scheme is
useful, however there are some concerns
regarding the potential lack of transparency of
this scheme. Consideration is being given as to
how the peer marking scheme may be made
more objective and transparent, perhaps by
inclusion of a directed reflective summary to be
submitted by each student, or a written
summary of each individual’s contribution to the
group project.
The external examiner commented favourably
on the use of Prezi as a presentation tool and
the quality of the student presentations. He
liked the used of YouTube videos although he
expressed some concern about public access to
these. We will ensure in future that students are
warned of the perils of YouTube and that
presentations are converted to private access.
The external examiner considered that the
marking was an accurate reflection of quality
and that the peer marking was useful. However,
he recommended that we should require
students to justify their peer marks by providing
explanation. We plan to do this.
Consideration is also being given, on an ongoing
basis, as to how to arrange a remedial
assessment exercise for any one student whose
contribution to the group exercise was deemed
insufficient to allow them to pass.
The external examiner recommended that
provision for a failing student should include a
form of remedial assessment. We have not had a
failing student and there is provision for a 1000
word essay for such an eventuality. We accept
however, that this may not satisfy the remedial
aspect and we will consider other options.
15
External Examiner Comments & Course Organiser Responses, 2012/13
Vet Path
Clinical Foundation Course
AHWFS 3
My experience is of thorough and fair
examinations based on a well organised and
taught course. In the examinations, perhaps
consideration could be given to increasing the
proportion of questions relating to surgical
pathology / descriptions as discussed at the last
Board of Examiners meeting. It would be useful
to have some form of standard setting for the
pass mark although it is recognised that this may
be problematic for the small numbers of
candidates in the resits.
This is an extremely well-run course, which is a
credit to the Course Leader. In addition, given
the volume of material presented to the
students, the staff teaching on the course should
also be commended.
There are no particular changes that I would
recommend regarding this course.
Standard setting introduced.
•
I suggest that some more testing MCQs
are created and that the MCQs are graded into
categories of difficulty.
•
The inclusion of some recognisably
difficult MCQs in the examination will help to
avoid any suggestion of ‘dumbing-down’ of the
examination process.
I would like to thank Sam for his hard work in a
very tight time frame. I agree with the external
that we need to develop more testing MCQs as
we move into the new course structure to avoid
dumbing down. The large class sizes make more
challenging methods of assessment such as
projects and essays impossible. There are no
further comments as this course will no longer
exist as a separate course next year.
We thank the external examiner for his very
positive comments
16
External Examiner Comments & Course Organiser Responses, 2012/13
Dog & Cat
Last year all questions in the short answer
section were made compulsory. This was to
ensure students could no longer avoid large
areas of the syllabus. This was carried through to
this year’s examination.
It was suggested that the short answer section
should provide some case-based scenarios or
problem-solving questions. This was achieved
with most questions demanding interpretation
of information, rather than just factual recall.
Many students failed to achieve a pass because
they lacked sufficient knowledge, did not answer
the question that was posed or missed the point
of the question.
Based on verbal comments at time of exam
board – written report not yet received. The
external examiner had reviewed borderline
papers and felt the marking to be fair. The
external examiner felt that one or two questions
that were poorly answered may be considered
unfair if no-one had been able to get full marks.
However, these questions were based on taught
material and were therefore considered valid.
However, better marks might have been
obtained if some of the questions were
structured so that students received a little
prompting to organise their answers. For
example, question 5 asked for the correct
interpretation of an FeLV/FIV SNAP test and the
advice to be given to the owner subsequently.
The question was reasonable and presented a
clinical scenario. However, students often did
not appreciate the difference between a positive
test result and the actual/eventual viral status of
the kitten. This may have been due to lack of
knowledge but by missing this point, many failed
to provide relevant answers. Re-phrasing the
second part of the question (advice to the
owner) might have improved the response.
17
External Examiner Comments & Course Organiser Responses, 2012/13
The required answer for question 4 (surgery)
expected a fairly complex written description of
surgical anatomy. The use of diagrams would
have been preferable.
Suggestions for change:
All questions in the short answer section should
remain compulsory (i.e. no change!).
Farm Animal
Prior to taking the examination, students should
be advised of the nature the two sections:
•
The MCQ section will mostly test factual
recall.
•
The short answer section will require
interpretation of information and a greater
depth of knowledge.
I have concerns about the difference in level of
performance between the MCQs and essays but
have discussed this at exam board meetings
Both External Examiners reports very
complimentary about course, and no comments
to respond to.
18
External Examiner Comments & Course Organiser Responses, 2012/13
Equine
My sole and minor concern related to the
phrasing and structure of some questions
appearing in the essay paper. There was no
ambiguity or absence of clarity in these
questions, and I stress that no candidate failed
the examination as a consequence of this alone,
and, having moderated the question paper, I
accept due responsibility for this. However, with
the hindsight of seeing the how these questions
were answered by a minority of candidates, I
feel question structuring could be simplified in
future.
The external examiners comments were very
positive. His only concern was the use of English
words that some of the North American students
did not appear to understand including “salient”.
He noted that we should take special care with
question wording in future examinations in view
of the different backgrounds of some of our
students.
Exotics
None.
No concerns raised by external examiner.
19
External Examiner Comments & Course Organiser Responses, 2012/13
AHWFS 4
I made one suggestion during the Exam Board
meeting: that consideration be given to setting a
minimum required mark in each of the practical
and written components of this exam, such that
students cannot progress to pass if they achieve
less than this mark in one or the other of these
elements (for example, students must achieve a
minimum of 45% in each element, with an over
all combined mark of 50% in order to pass).
On further consideration I recommend that
consideration be given to collation of marks by
question in order to identify mean marks
achieved across the class for each question. This
would help to identify questions that, on
restrospective review, are most effective in
discriminating between students based on level
of knowledge.
CLIC
No major changes to the examination are
suggested as overall the quality and standard of
the assessment has been very good. The
following minor comments are put forward for
consideration by the course team:
1.
The information to candidates provided
in the course information book would benefit
from a minor clarification relating to the exact
requirements for the peerwise activity.
The evaluation from the external examiner is
very positive on the overall course. The main
comment from the external examiner was to set
a minimum required mark in each of the
practical and written components of this exam,
such that students cannot progress to pass if
they achieve less than this mark in one or the
other of these elements (for example, students
must achieve a minimum of 45% in each
element, with an overall combined mark of 50%
in order to pass). This has been already
addressed by the course organiser and changes
to the exam marking criteria approved by the
teaching and learning committee of the school.
New External examiner for 2012/13 course.
Positive comments.
CLIC course ceasing this year – becoming part of
Professional and Clinical Skills 4 (P&CS 4) for
2013/14. However – will ensure comments
about clarifying certain instructions are carried
over to the P&CS 4 course if these elements
remain. (PeerWise). Also suggestion about a
more detailed holistic assessment of portfolio.
2.
The emphasis on peer assessment
activities is a particular strength of this course
and this component of the Portfolio was
20
External Examiner Comments & Course Organiser Responses, 2012/13
generally done well
3.
Inclusion of a course learning outcome
relating to professional behaviour could
strengthen the case for requiring high levels of
compliance with course deadlines and portfolio
format issues
Final Year Rotations
4.
As the portfolio continues to develop in
the context of curriculum changes, it may be
appropriate to consider whether a more detailed
holistic assessment of portfolio content or would
provide an opportunity to differentiate student
performance and provide more specific feedback
on skills development
In the interests of improving the service that is
Not yet received.
provided by the external examiners I would like
to suggest that the following documents relating
to the practical exams should be sent to the
external examiners in advance of the exams.
•
Scripts for all stations. Any comments
could be fed back if required.
•
A full timetable of stations, examiners
and scenarios planned
•
Student exam timetable
•
A list of students that merit closer
observation (i.e. re-sit students)
This will allow external examiners time to study
these documents and plan which stations to
observe and when. Trying to absorb these
details while exams are going on is
unsatisfactory. On arrival external examiners can
be given a pack with any updates, maps of
21
External Examiner Comments & Course Organiser Responses, 2012/13
stations and a full photo sheet of the students
being examined.
It would also be useful to receive written
feedback on external examiner comments
relating to the Multiple Choice paper and final
reports, noting what action is to be taken and
why. This would assist with understanding and
future performance.
Timetabling of different departments led to
discussions of their different approaches and it
would be wise to revisit these to examine if
improvements can be made, such as through the
use of rolling examiners to avoid fatigue and
settling on a standard number of sessions before
a break.
Some of the locations used for the stations were
of poor quality with excess noise, poor
ventilation and poor layout for observation. I
would advise care should be taken when
choosing future locations and that seating is
arranged so that external examiners are not
sitting behind the candidate (they often speak
quietly and cannot be heard clearly from
behind). Although I would suggest it would be
wise to choose seating locations carefully, so as
not to intimidate the candidates.
Some stations appeared to cause much greater
apprehension amongst the students which may
have led to poorer performance, although on
observation these stations were delivered calmly
and adhered to the script set down. Would it be
possible to investigate this, maybe through
feedback from the students to gain an
22
External Examiner Comments & Course Organiser Responses, 2012/13
understanding of why?
This is the first year that general practitioners
have been used to examine the students and I
wholeheartedly back this approach. However I
am concerned about the level of support and
training given prior to the exams, scenarios
seemed to be evolving as the exams progressed.
I would suggest more experienced colleagues be
utilised to comment on the scripts prior to their
use and that as we learn from this process a
body of knowledge and scripts are built up to
support this endeavour. I would also suggest
that where possible general practitioners are
appointed for a number of years so that their
level of experience in examining and best
practice can be increased and passed on. A
meeting of the GP’s involved to get their
feedback on the experience and comments on
improvements would be a good idea.
I would like to suggest that a library of scripts
that have proved to be successful be retained for
future training of all new internal and GP
examiners. Video recordings of best practice
would also be useful for future reference.
Variability between examiners continues to be a
concern, as this can affect the exam and student
experience. The majority of examiners perform
well and are providing quality assessments, but
discussions about a student’s personal life and
future are inappropriate in an exam setting as is
teaching and answering questions for the
candidates within the exam.
Care should be taken to make the scenarios
23
External Examiner Comments & Course Organiser Responses, 2012/13
relevant and when using ‘real life’ examples give
typical information the clinician would be
presented with by a client. I feel it would be
useful to include some cost benefit analysis in
the production animal scenarios. It was good to
see that cost was used in some of the scripts and
also how it is possible to achieve a suitable
outcome using simple equipment rather than
resorting to the latest ‘toys’.
The students presented this year appeared to
have better observational skills and practicality,
although they continue to have problems with
everyday veterinary equipment e.g. calving
machines. It was observed that some small
demonstrations were available in the Study
Landscape on the first floor of the main building.
I would suggest that these should be expanded
and if space is not available rotated as a
resource for the students to become more
familiar with equipment.
It was noted that there appears to be a general
lack of knowledge relating to practical
parasitology e.g. unable to identify mange mites
in the dog. This is a cause for concern and should
be investigated.
It was noted that there was a basic lack of
mental arithmetic skills with an over reliance on
calculators (even for division by 10), while some
students will have disabilities that make
numbers difficult they deserve help to develop
coping strategies. Other students should be
encouraged to practice and acquire greater skills
relating to basic dosage calculations so that
24
External Examiner Comments & Course Organiser Responses, 2012/13
errors are minimised.
There was a noticeable increase in the number
of students who answered that they ‘would look
it up’ to questions asked, while this
demonstrates admirable common sense it also
demonstrates a lack of appropriate knowledge.
How is this considered in the marking scheme?
The very nature of this position is that external
examiners are present to question, this makes it
appear that sometimes people are not
appreciated for the massive amount of work
that they put into the exams. This is far from the
truth and I would like to commend everybody
involved for their efforts especially those who
assisted me this year as I continue to find my
feet as an external examiner.
SSC2
First external examiner now appointed for 13/14.
25