EXTERNAL EXAMINER INDUCTION 2019 MR IAIN ROWAN ACADEMIC

EXTERNAL EXAMINER INDUCTION 2019 • MR IAIN ROWAN, ACADEMIC REGISTRAR • MS JESSICA DODD, QUALITY SUPPORT MANAGER • MR PETER KAY, HEAD OF SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES 1

EXTERNAL EXAMINER INDUCTION • ABOUT THE UNIVERSITY • ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES • REPORTING • ACADEMIC REGULATIONS • COLLABORATIVE PROVISION 2

ABOUT THE UNIVERSITY “ONE OF A NEW GENERATION OF GREAT CIVIC UNIVERSITIES – INNOVATIVE, ACCESSIBLE, INSPIRATIONAL AND OUTWARD LOOKING; WITH INTERNATIONAL REACH AND REMARKABLE LOCAL IMPACT. ” 19, 090 STUDENTS ENROLLED. 3

UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC STRUCTURE FACULTY OF ARTS AND CREATIVE INDUSTRIES FACULTY OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND WELLBEING • SCHOOL OF ART AND DESIGN • • SCHOOL OF MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS SCHOOL OF NURSING AND HEALTH SCIENCES • SCHOOL OF PHARMACY AND PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCE • SCHOOL OF PSYCHOLOGY • SCHOOL OF MEDICINE FACULTY OF BUSINESS, LAW AND TOURISM • SUNDERLAND BUSINESS SCHOOL • SUNDERLAND LAW SCHOOL FACULTY OF EDUCATION AND SOCIETY • SCHOOL OF CULTURE • SCHOOL OF EDUCATION • SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE FACULTY OF TECHNOLOGY • SCHOOL OF COMPUTER SCIENCE • SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING 4

19, 090 students (Headcount) 5, 76% 4, 19%3, 28% 9, 51% [VALUE] 24, 32% On Campus - 10108 Transnational Partners- 4642 London Campus - 1816 Independent Learner - 1099 FE College Partners - 799 On-campus Hong Kong - 626

Level of Study 1, 60% 19, 20% 79, 20% Undergraduate Postgraduate Taught Postgraduate Research

Fee Status 5, 26% 37, 42% 57, 32% Home Students International Students EU Students

Fee Status - On Campus Only 8, 68% 12, 72% 78, 60% Home Students International Students EU Students

Mode of Attendance 20, 90% 79, 10% Full Time Part Time 9

UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC STRATEGY • ENHANCING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE • FOCUS ON STUDENT • STRATEGIC AIMS THAT CHARACTERISE THE STUDENT JOURNEY • QUALITY MANAGEMENT – ASSURANCE & ENHANCEMENT • STUDENT SUCCESS STRATEGY 10

ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES • CONFIRMATION OF STANDARDS BY: • SCRUTINISING PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS • SAMPLING COMPLETED WORK • ENSURING FAIRNESS, COMPLIANCE WITH UNIVERSITY REGULATIONS • ADVISING ON PROPOSED CHANGES • LIAISON WITH OTHER EXAMINERS 11

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES • COMPARING WITH BENCHMARK STATEMENTS AND FRAMEWORK FOR HIGHER EDUCATION QUALIFICATIONS • QUALITY CODE ON EXTERNAL EXPERTISE • NATIONAL CREDIT FRAMEWORK • MEETING STUDENTS NOT A REQUIREMENT UNLESS SPECIFIED AS PART OF PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT 12

MODERATION • GOVERNED BY THE MARKING POLICY • INTERNAL 10% ACROSS ALL MARK BOUNDARIES • SIMILAR SAMPLE AGREED WITH EXTERNALS FOR MODERATION • MINIMUM • PROJECTS, DISSERTATIONS USUALLY DOUBLE MARKED 13

ADJUSTMENTS TO MARKS • FOR WHOLE COHORT ONLY • MAY AGREE SCALING AT PROGRAMME BOARD • ADVISE PRIOR TO BOARD AS MODERATION • BOARD IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ACTUAL MARKS 14

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA • THE UNIVERSITY HAS A SET OFGENERIC ASSESSMENT CRITERIA • SUBJECT SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT CRITERIA CAN BE APPROVED AT UNIVERSITY LEVEL (QUALITY MANAGEMENT SUB-COMMITTEE) 15

EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES • EXTENSION OF 72 HOURS CAN BE AUTHORISED BY MODULE LEADER • STUDENT’S RESPONSIBILITY TO PRESENT WITH APPROPRIATE EVIDENCE • MUST BE SUBMITTED BEFORE BOARD • EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES PANEL USED • GENERALLY DEFERRED ATTEMPT GIVEN • FIT-TO-SIT 16

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY AND ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT • COVERS • PLAGIARISM • COLLUSION • SUBMITTING OTHERS WORK • CHEATING • RAISING AWARENESS • PENALTIES • TURNITIN 17

ANONYMOUS MARKING • IMPLEMENTED FOR ALL EXAMINATIONS ONLY • CHECKING PROCEDURE IN PLACE 18

APL • EXTERNAL EXAMINER MODERATES A SAMPLE OF APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED FOR DIRECT ENTRY WITH ADVANCED STANDING BY CERTIFICATED LEARNING. OUTCOMES REPORTED TO PAB • EXTERNAL EXAMINER WILL BE CONSULTED IFAPL (NOT CERTIFICATED LEARNING) IS TO BE GIVEN FOR A STAGE OR MODULE WHICH THE EX EX WOULD NORMALLY OVERSEE. • IF FURTHER EVIDENCE OR TEST REQUIRED FORAPL THEN EXTERNAL EXAMINER MAY BE CONSULTED. • APL OUTCOMES SHOULD BE REPORTED PAB TO S 19

PROGRAMME DOCUMENTATION • PROGRAMME HANDBOOKS • PROGRAMME SPECIFICATIONS • MODULE GUIDES • MODULE DESCRIPTORS • ADAPTED FOR OFF-CAMPUS PROVISION 20

ASSESSMENT BOARDS • MODULE BOARDS (MAB) CONSIDER MODULE MARKS AND DECISIONS • PROGRAMME BOARDS (PAB) DETERMINE PROGRESSION AND AWARD • MAY BE COMBINED • GENERALLY ARE FOR MASTERS • INCREASINGLY COMBINED AT UNDERGRADUATE LEVEL 21

MAB DECISIONS • PASS/FAIL/REFER/DEFER DECISIONS • MARKING IN % • REFERRED IN ELEMENTS • OTHER MARKS STAND, REFER CAPPED AT 40% • FULL SECOND ATTEMPT ALLOWED WITH ATTENDANCE • MODULE MARK CAPPED AT 40% • COMPENSATION WITHIN MODULES PROVIDED PASS AT 40% ACHIEVED OVERALLNB ( PROGRAMME SPECIFIC REGULATIONS MAY APPLY) • TOTAL OF FOUR ATTEMPTS 22

PROGRAMME PROGRESSION • UNDERGRADUATE DEGREES • ONLY 20 FAILED CREDITS MAY BE TRAILED INTO STAGE 2, STAGE 3 • BOARDS CAN WITHDRAW STUDENTS DUE TO ACADEMIC FAILURE. SOME DECISIONS WHICH WOULD ALLOW STUDENTS TO PROGRESS ARE BY DISCRETION ONLY. 23

PROGRAMME • COMPENSATIONPROGRESSION AT PROGRAMME LEVEL FOR UG OF ONE MODULE (20 CREDITS) PER STAGE BY RIGHT AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY; UP TO FURTHER 20 CREDITS AT DISCRETION OF BOARD, PROVIDED THAT: • 45% AVERAGE IN OTHER MODULES • ALL ASSESSMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE MODULE • NO PROGRAMME SPECIFIC REGULATIONS PREVENTING • NO COMPENSATION AT MASTERS 24

THE AWARDS PROCESS • MARKS FOR THE BEST 100 CREDITS OBTAINED AT STAGE 2 ARE AVERAGED (WEIGHTED BY MODULE SIZE – E. G. 20 CREDITS GET TWICE THE WEIGHT OF 10), AND THE SAME IS DONE FOR THE BEST 100 CREDITS OBTAINED AT STAGE 3. • THESE ARE COMBINED SO THAT THESTAGE 3 AVERAGE CARRIES MORE WEIGHT THAN THE STAGE 2 AVERAGE (IT COUNTS FOUR TIMES MORE: 80% OF THE CLASSIFICATIONS ; TAGE 2 IS 20%). THIS FINAL FIGURE DETERMINES THE DEGREE CLASSIFICATION. 25

STAGE 2 BEST 100 CREDITS DEG 203 (20 credits) MODULE DEG 202 (20 credits) DEG 206 (20 credits) DEG 204 (20 credits) DEG 201 (20 credits) DEG 205 (20 credits) 68% 65% 63% 59% 52% 48% 20 credits 40 credits 60 credits 80 credits 100 credits NOT USED DEG 205 IS TAKEN OUT OF THE CALCULATION. CUMULATIVE CREDITS 26

STAGE 3 BEST 100 CREDITS MODULE DEG 303 DEG 302 (20 credits) DEG 305 (20 credits) DEG 309 (10 credits) DEG 301 (10 credits) DEG 304 (40 credits) DEG 303 (20 credits) 65% 63% 63% 54% 51% 20 credits 40 credits 50 credits 60 credits 100 credits NOT USED IS TAKEN OUT OF THE CALCULATION. CUMULATIVE CREDITS 27

A WORKED EXAMPLE WORKING OUT THE STAGE 2 CREDIT-WEIGHTED AVERAGE (20 X 68)+(20 X 65)+(20 X 63)+(20 X 59)+(20 X 52) = 6140/100 = 61. 4 CREDIT-WEIGHTED STAGE AVERAGE WORKING OUT THE STAGE 3 CREDIT-WEIGHTED AVERAGE (20 X 65)+(20 X 63)+(10 X 63)+(40 X 54) = 5980/100 = 59. 8 CREDIT-WEIGHTED STAGE AVERAGE WEIGHTING THE STAGES 61. 4 X 20% = 12. 28 59. 8 X 80% = 47. 84 ADDING THE STAGES TO GIVE THE FINAL RESULT 12. 28 + 47. 84 = 60. 12% = 2: 1 28

NOTES ON THE PROCESS • MODULES WITHOUT MARKS (E. G. PASS/FAIL, APL) ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE CALCULATION • MODULES WHICH SPAN THE 100 CREDIT BOUNDARY – THE ELIGIBLE CREDITS ARE USED • 2% BORDERLINE REGULATION 29

FOUNDATION DEGREES WITH MERIT AND DISTINCTION • AVERAGE OF BEST 100 CREDITS ATSTAGE 2 - 70%+ DISTINCTION - 60%+ MERIT • 2% BORDERLINE REGULATION 30

MASTERS WITH DISTINCTION AND MERIT • AVERAGE OF ALL 180 CREDITS ATLEVEL 7 - 70%+ DISTINCTION - 60%+ MERIT • 2% BORDERLINE REGULATION 31

POSTGRADUATE DIPLOMAS • WHERE A PROGRAMME IS APPROVED AS APOSTGRADUATE DIPLOMA ONLY (I. E. IS THE INTENDED AWARD) THE AWARD WILL BE CLASSIFIED IN THE SAME WAY AS FOR A MASTER’S: • AVERAGE OF ALL 120 CREDITS • 70%+ DISTINCTION - 60%+ MERIT • 2% BORDERLINE REGULATION 32

REPORTING • STANDARDS, LEVEL OF CHALLENGE • FREE TEXT UNDER HEADINGS • GOOD PRACTICE AND AREAS FOR ENHANCEMENT • SPECIFIC INFORMATION ON DELIVERY AT EACH COLLABORATIVE PARTNER AS APPROPRIATE • WITHIN SIX WEEKS OF FINAL BOARD • TO CHAIR OF ACADEMIC BOARD VIA ACADEMIC REGISTRY • DIRECTLY TO DVC (ACADEMIC) IF SERIOUSLY CONCERNED • QAA CAUSE FOR CONCERN • BOARDS MUST RESPOND FORMALLY E TO XTERNAL EXAMINER • ANNUAL OVERVIEW REPORTS FOR UG AND PGT PROVISION 33

ACCESS TO REPORTS • PUBLISHED ON INTRANET • STAFF AND STUDENTS • REPORT AND RESPONSE • REDACTED PERSONAL INFORMATION • PASSWORD PROTECTED • STUDENTS TOLD NOT TO CONTACT EXTERNAL EXAMINERS DIRECT 34

COLLABORATIVE PROVISION • PARTNERS IN THE REGION, UK AND OVERSEAS • DIFFERENT MODELS OF COLLABORATION - PRE/POST PARTNER REVIEW TERMINOLOGY • ACADEMIC QUALITY AND STANDARDS THE SAME AS OR EQUIVALENT TO ON-CAMPUS • STUDENT EXPERIENCE THE SAME AS OR EQUIVALENT TO ON-CAMPUS 35

COLLABORATIVE PROVISION CONT’D MONITORED BY LINK PERSON • • CENTRE LEADER ROLE • FOR INTERNATIONAL, PRIVATE UK AND FECS OUTSIDE THE REGION • • USUALLY ONE PER PARTNER PER FACULTY • AT LEAST MAIN COMMUNICATION PATHWAY BETWEEN PARTNER AND FACULTY 1 VISITS/YEAR FACULTY LIAISON WITH FE COLLEGES • VIA PROGRAMME LEADER OR NOMINEE 36

COLLABORATIVE PROVISION CONT’D ALSO MONITORED THROUGH • ANNUAL MONITORING • BY THE PARTNER BY SUBJECT AREA/PROGRAMME • BY THE CENTRE LEADER / FACULTY PARTNERSHIP LEADER • WHICH FEED INTO THE MAIN PROGRAMME ANNUAL REVIEW. 37

COLLABORATIVE PROVISION CONT’D AN EXTERNAL EXAMINER • • IS ASSOCIATED WITH A PROGRAMME • • WILL SAMPLE ASSESSMENT FROM ALL COHORTS ON AND OFF-CAMPUS • WILL COVER ALL SITES WHERE THIS PROGRAMME IS DELIVERED IN HIS/HER REPORT MAKING SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO GOOD PRACTICE OR ISSUES AT A PARTICULAR PARTNER. A SEPARATE SHEET WITHIN THE REPORT MUST BE COMPLETED FOR EACH PARTNER DELIVERING THE PROGRAMME / MODULE OF STUDY COVERS ALL COHORTS FROM BOTH ON AND OFF-CAMPUS* COULD BE INVOLVED WITH ASSESSMENT BOARDS THAT COVER ON AND OFFCAMPUS • *FBLT ARRANGEMENTS ARE DIFFERENT • DUAL AWARDS NOTE: EES ARE NOT REQUIRED TO VISIT PARTNERS UNLESS THERE IS A NEED TO MODERATE WORK, ASSESS PRACTICAL SESSIONS, PERFORMANCES, EXHIBITIONS, ETC OR HOLD VIVAS. 38