Office for Quality Assurance and Validation. Running Effective Boards of Examiners 2012/13. Today’s Session Will Cover. Roles : External Examiner Chair / Deputy Chair (Partners) Secretary Structure / Conduct of Meetings Conventions for the Award and Classification of Qualifications
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Office for Quality Assurance and Validation
Running Effective Boards of Examiners2012/13
The arrangements for
To be piloted in 2012/13 by
SSPSSR, Sports Sci, History & Architecture ONLY
The Board of Examiners is responsible for:
(i)those of other institutions; and
(ii) are appropriate for qualifications at that level and in that subject
Note: External Examiners are required to submit their annual report using the online External Examiners Report Submission System (EERSS). This can be accessed on the University website via the following link:
Before each meeting of a Board of Examiners, and separate to the Concessionary Committee meeting, the Chair may convene a pre-meeting to consider other matters as it deems appropriate. e.g.
A candidate will be placed in an Honours class based on the average mark, with modules weighted as agreed by the Faculty Board and calculated to one decimal place, over all modules in stages 2, 3 and, where relevant, 4 of the programme of study according to the following table:
Students who registered in 2011/12 or thereafter on a programme leading to the award of a UG certificate, UG diploma or Foundation Degree should NOT be considered for the raising to a higher classification band under the ‘two more marks’ rule.
“The Working Group proposes a number of changes to marking practices and the operation of Boards of Examiners, which are intended to improve consistency and transparency in classification of awards. The Working Group seeks in particular to avoid marks appearing on borderlines where possible and to introduce mechanisms that resolve borderline marks consistently.”
i.e.assessment that requires a qualitative judgement by the marker against criterion referenced standards.
[a] where the aggregated overall mark awarded for the module falls within one mark of the boundary for a higher class band (i.e. an overall module mark of 39, 49, 59 or 69), it should not be rounded to the nearest integer but should be rounded up to the nearest integer; and
b] where the final weighted average mark for classification is within 0.5 percentage points of a higher classification boundary, it should be rounded up for classification purposes (e.g. a mark of 59.5% would be rounded up to 60%).