Colleagues,
In July 2000, I submitted a number of questions to the mail base and asked
colleagues in other institutions to respond. I provide below a summary of
the outcomes of that survey, with apologies for the fairly sizeable delay.
I found the survey responses useful from the perspective of reviewing how
we deal with issues at UWCN and making comparison with other institutions
and I hope that some of the list members will also find the summary useful.
I received responses from eleven institutions in total (receiving seven
responses to the first issue of the questions and a further four responses
upon re-issue). Of the eleven institutions, eight were chartered and three
new universities (or university colleges).
1. Ten institutions indicated that their examination timetables were
prepared centrally and only one institution seemed to entrust this
task to the academic departments.
2. Four institutions indicated they provided students with coursework
submission dates at the beginning of term (quite often through student
handbooks). Similarly institutions notified students at the beginning
of the session of the examination season but detailed examination
timetables were not generally notified to students much more than
three weeks in advance. One institution indicated that the
examinations timetable was provided eight weeks in advance of the
commencement of examinations and the other institutions reported a
variety of time scales but at least five from the eleven indicated
that examinations timetables were provided between two and four weeks
in advance.
3. I was happy to note the hollow laughter from one respondent in respect
of the question about the time scales for academics to submit
examination question papers. One institution indicated that the
examination question papers were received two days in advance of the
examination but that the requisite number of copies were submitted at
that time. The remaining institutions all required the question
papers to be received further in advance and appeared to undertake the
copying of papers themselves. Here again it seemed that the time
scale for submission of examination question papers was two to three
weeks before the examination period, although one institution set a
deadline of 1 March in respect of June examinations (a practice we
aspire to at UWCN).
4. There was a variety of practice with reference to the archiving of
scripts. At least one institution indicated that it was reviewing its
policy on archiving and another indicated that it had already taken
account of the QAA requirements in its policy. As a general theme, it
seems that institutions were keeping all scripts relating to students
until at least a year after they had graduated but two institutions
were maintaining samples for three years to meet the QAA requirements,
with one of those two institutions indicating that the sample was used
to support comparison of standards over those years and also to
facilitate staff development on assessment.
5. In asking whether students have access to their examination scripts on
request it was noted that only one institution made such arrangements.
Other institutions indicated rather emphatically that students did not
have such entitlement, although one institution did indicate that it
was reviewing its policy.
6. Four institutions indicated that they made no provision for the
training or induction of external examiners and one indicated that
such induction would be undertaken at departmental level. One
institution indicated that it held an annual event for external
examiners before they took up their duties and also provided them with
an external examiners handbook. Another respondent indicated that
schools undertook the induction but that policy was now subject to
review arising from the QAA guidance. At UWCN, we are hoping to
undertake our first corporate level induction for external examiners
later this month.
7. Two institutions indicated that they did not currently feed back to
external examiners on their reports. Practice varied otherwise as to
the way in which feed-back was given to external examiners. One
institution provided an overview report on external examiners' reports
which was presented to a corporate committee and the overview report
was subsequently circulated to all external examiners. In another
institution the head of department responded to the external
examiners' comments. In three institutions it appeared that an
individual report on the external examiner report was sent to a
central or faculty committee and was then copied to the external
examiner concerned. One institution indicated the time scale for
feed-back which was undertaken in November of the session subsequent
to that on which the report was based.
8. Seven institutions indicated that examination results were processed
by academic departments although in one instance the mark matrix was
defined by central administration albeit that it was completed by
staff in departments. In two instances the marks were input by the
department but were then amended as necessary by central registry
staff following examination boards. In one instance the registry
input all results but was now moving towards direct entry to the
database by academic staff. At UWCN, this work is undertaken by the
central administration (our management information office and registry
combine forces).
9. There was significant variation in the way in which results were
issued to students. Semester one results might well be disseminated
by tutors or by letter. Semester two results tended to be notified by
transcript. In most instances it appeared that the results related to
one grade per module although in three instances it appeared that the
student received grades for the individual components of assessment
within a module. Three respondents made reference to time scales; one
indicated that results were sent the day after the examination board
and two indicated that they were sent within ten working days. A
further respondent indicated that the institution was moving towards
web-based access by students to results. It appears that eight of the
institutions required their registry to undertake the mailing of
transcripts. Only in two institutions was this task undertaken by
departments.
10. In terms of who set the dates for examination boards, it was noted
that central registries tended to supply departments with the dates of
the examination board period but that the departments then had freedom
to establish their own schedule of examination boards within that
period. Notification of examination board dates was largely
undertaken by academic departments at fairly short notice. Only one
institution indicated that this task was to be undertaken by January
and another indicated that it took place one session in advance. At
UWCN, we are trying to move to this latter position so that
examination board dates get into examiners' diaries at a point when
there are few diary clashes.
11. Heads of school or deans undertook the Chairing of examination boards
and the servicing of examination boards seemed to fall evenly in terms
that half of the respondents indicated that registries did this and
the other half indicated that departmental administrators did this.
(At UWCN, the registry services all boards.) Each respondent indicated
that the administration of extenuating circumstances and the
co-ordination of the consideration of these by examination boards was
undertaken by departmental administration. In one instance the
institution held a central mitigating circumstances board (a model
which UWCN is seeking to adopt in the current session, with mixed
feelings but accepting the logic around parity of treatment being
centrally managed).
12. With reference to students in debt, it was noted that one institution
prevented debtors from taking examinations and that another withheld
results for forty days before releasing them. Two others released the
results immediately but on blank paper. In all instances certificates
were withheld and progression was prohibited.
13. Only one institution indicated that chairs were not able to undertake
action under powers delegated by an examination board. The types of
instance in which that action was taken related to the treatment of
extenuating circumstances, (particularly where they had been withheld
from the board), the confirmation of late results, the confirmation of
deferred results and the rectification of any errors made at the
board. One institution indicated that chair's action was only able to
be undertaken in liaison with the external examiner.
14. In ten instances the awards ceremony was co-ordinated by the registry
and in the other instance the external relations department undertook
this role. Noting that the examination section dealt with
certificates, respondents considered that the examination section was
not in a position to run the awards ceremony as it was generally
embroiled in the arrangements for re-sit examinations.
15. Finally, with reference to the involvement of examination sections
with franchise centres, it was noted that the examinations section
liaised on matters such as the receipt of results and pass lists and
the issuing of certificates. More generally it appears that
departments lisiased with franchise centres rather than the central
registry and it appeared that in no instance did the registry have a
role in the servicing of examination boards at franchise centres (UWCN
sends a servicing officer to the majority of its collaborative partner
institutions, including those overseas). However, one respondent did
indicate that franchise students were required to attend examinations
at the institution rather than on the site of the franchise partner.
Thanks to those colleagues who responded. Your input is much
appreciated and I hope you have found the summary useful, indeed,
reassuring in considering how your practices compare.
Paul
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
