 |
 |
And that depends on whether your institutional academic regulations allow for compensation within a module... Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Jameson, Stephanie<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Sent: ý21/ý12/ý2016 14:27 To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Christmas Cracker This is correct. Learning outcomes are at the ‘threshold level’ and if a student does not achieve all of them in a module they should not pass the module. Stephanie Jameson Principal Lecturer Learning and Teaching • [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | • +44(0)113 812 3436 | • www.leedsbeckett.ac.uk<http://www.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/> • School of Events, Tourism and Hospitality, Room G12, Macaulay Hall, Headingley Campus, Leeds, LS6 3QN From: External examiners discussion forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Marcus Wood Sent: 21 December 2016 11:58 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Christmas Cracker I’m not sure I like the reference here to ‘learning outcomes’. My understanding was that module and programme learning outcomes should generally be set at the ‘threshold level’ and represent the minimum level of achievement required for that particular assessment / module / course. Thus, if a student has just barely met the learning outcomes they should get the base pass mark of 40% (or equivalent for your HEIs regulations). Conversely, if they have not met the learning outcomes they should receive a fail grade. Grading criteria should then be measuring the level of overachievement of those learning outcomes. The same is true of Subject Benchmark Statements where they refer to the ‘Threshold standard’ and the ‘Typical standard of achievement’. To quote the Business and Management Statement (2015): “Two categories which differentiate graduate achievement have been identified, namely threshold and typical. These are based upon the perceived national norms, operating across the business and management area. 'Threshold' describes the minimum to be achieved by all honours graduates. 'Typical' is set at the standard which is currently achieved by the majority of graduates.” Marcus Dr Marcus Wood Senior Registrar: Governance Academic Quality Directorate Buckinghamshire New University High Wycombe Campus Queen Alexandra Road High Wycombe Buckinghamshire HP11 2JZ Telephone: 01494 605066 For all formal regulatory documents please go to http://bucks.ac.uk/about_us/how_we_are_structured/Governance/public_information/formal_documents/ and use the search field. For inquiries related to our External Examiner process please email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> and a member of the team will get back to you. From: Linda.Robson [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 21 December 2016 11:42 To: Marcus Wood <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>; [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: RE: Christmas Cracker It doesn’t matter what grading system you use; GPA, 0-100% or the bizarre 13 point system I have used in the past, the point is whether or not the markers use the whole scale and what the top of the scale is considered to be. Is the top of the scale where the student has achieved all the learning outcomes? Or is it production of a piece of work that has no faults and could not be improved upon? Linda Linda Robson SFHEA SFSEDA FRSA Staff Tutor and Senior Lecturer Direct Dial: +44 (0)20 7556 6131 | Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> School of Engineering and Innovation Science, Technlogy, Engineering and Maths Faculty The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA www.open.ac.uk<http://www.open.ac.uk/> From: External examiners discussion forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Marcus Wood Sent: 21 December 2016 11:20 To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Christmas Cracker Just responding to the bit about GPAs, the point about using the whole percentage marking range does indeed become moot when you use a GPA system, since the highest you can then get is 4.0 or 4.5 (depending on the precise system being used – which can and do vary). These marks will be used and will be used in a final calculation so the full ‘GPA marking range’ is now being used and is contributing to the overall result and a student can attain the highest GPA grade for their final degree classification in practice as well as in theory – as opposed to the current degree classification systems where in practice a student doesn’t get an overall percentage grade of 100%. Best wishes, Dr Marcus Wood Senior Registrar: Governance Academic Quality Directorate Buckinghamshire New University High Wycombe Campus Queen Alexandra Road High Wycombe Buckinghamshire HP11 2JZ Telephone: 01494 605066 For all formal regulatory documents please go to http://bucks.ac.uk/about_us/how_we_are_structured/Governance/public_information/formal_documents/ and use the search field. For inquiries related to our External Examiner process please email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> and a member of the team will get back to you. From: nwellman [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 21 December 2016 10:53 To: Marcus Wood <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>; [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re[2]: Christmas Cracker Hi all, I'm sure we've all grappled with this one over the years. Picking up Marcus' point, as an EE I am often more concerned when 'marking across the range' results in grade inflation with 2nd class work gaining 1st class marks. I suspect this is partly psychological in that once markers get into the mindset of awarding 80/90s it shifts the goalposts away from 70%=excellence/1st and it can seem miserly to award marks in the 60s. I've also noted that breaking down assessments into overly small elements can also distort the final mark, especially if half (or 0.25) marks aren't allowed). Thus, 5/8 for an element can seem mean so there's a tendency to award 6/8 which raises a 62% 2nd to a 75% 1st. Having five or so such elements each of which is upgraded in this way can easily cumulatively result in over marking (see below for how I personally resolved this). As things stand I think that we are mostly (?) work to a system, reflected by Mark's point, whereby we 'know' what a F/3/2.2/2.2/1 looks like and that 40% is the pass/fail threshold with 70% a 1st and anything over c85% outstanding (measured holistically via consideration of the ILOs and the QAA/graduate skill benchmarks). So as long as we have degree classifications anything above this is largely immaterial (unless mark means inform marginal grading decisions). Like others, I have rarely awarded over 85%, but for truly exceptional work have awarded in the 90s, and, yes, 100% (I found USA MBA students found this difficult and felt they'd failed if the got 'only' 75%, until it was explained that this was still a distinction). Again speaking as an EE (for business/mgt/mktg), I have also found that assessments can be simplistic/process driven, testing recall of the taught syllabus or mechanistic application of models rather than the ILOs and academic rigour (yes, we do have this in bus/mgt !). Re GPAs: the HEA did a pilot in 2013/14: its report is here: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/resources/GPA-report-2013-14.pdf Their recommended metric is shown below. Note that this still leaves wide excellence/fail bands of 75-100% and 0-30%, so Marcus's point about encouraging marking across the range is perhaps moot. I checked, eg Oxford Brookes, who similarly has wide extremes (see: https://www.brookes.ac.uk/regulations/current/core/a3/a3-14/ and the student guide here: https://www.brookes.ac.uk/students/your-studies/grade-point-average/) The HEA recommendation is: [cid:image001.png@01D25B94.CA8B9B40] And Oxford Brookes': [cid:image002.png@01D25B94.CA8B9B40] Note that HEA offers GPs for fails over 30% whilst OB doesn't and that OB has a maximum of GP 4.5, so the two aren't compatible and would still need 'translation'. I didn't much on other UK HEIs GPAs so am unsure how standardised they are, but it seems they are different from the USAs, so still aren't universal. There's an interesting paper on all of this from Doug Hunt from Imperial here: https://www.imperialcollegeunion.org/your-union/how-were-run/committees/12-13/Union_Council/file/2016 For what it's worth, my system was to award marks out of ten (to x.5/10) for each element, then use the element weightings to calculate a mean score. This was then holistically reviewed by asking the question "is this really an XYZ class piece of work?" , with the answer usually (but not always) being 'yes'. In some instances a capping element was in place (eg no/poor refs) which could limit an otherwise good piece of work to a pass at best (tough love?). This method also formed the basis for giving very specific feedback to students regarding what they did well and less well (or 'badly'). Neil Wellman (retired but still EEing) ------ Original Message ------ From: "Marcus Wood" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Sent: 21/12/2016 09:17:48 Subject: Re: Christmas Cracker It’s also quite common to have external examiners talk about the need for markers to use the full range of marks, i.e. 0-100, since this rarely happens in practice. The issue is the huge banding for a First-class mark from 70-100, where other bandings, e.g. 2.1, are only 10%. This is one of the reasons why people are increasingly tending to favour Grade Point Averages (GPAs) over percentage marks for modules. Still some way to go re moving to GPA as a sector. Actually to specify, though, that a percentage mark over 80% cannot be awarded (which was the original query) has to be wrong, surely? It must be possible for a student to achieve a mark of 80+ even if it is very difficult. To this extent I disagree with Mark’s point below. Dr Marcus Wood Senior Registrar: Governance Academic Quality Directorate Buckinghamshire New University High Wycombe Campus Queen Alexandra Road High Wycombe Buckinghamshire HP11 2JZ Telephone: 01494 605066 For all formal regulatory documents please go to http://bucks.ac.uk/about_us/how_we_are_structured/Governance/public_information/formal_documents/ and use the search field. For inquiries related to our External Examiner process please email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> and a member of the team will get back to you. From: External examiners discussion forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Mark Taylor-Batty Sent: 20 December 2016 14:31 To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Christmas Cracker Merry Christmas James It’s quite common to have a top mark within a system that is based on 0-100, even if the full 100 range is not applied. One could argue over whether this means percentages are being applied or not (they are, but certain percentages are being disallowed; they are not but applying a scale from say 30 to 80). The important things are the grade qualifiers and the criteria to guide one within the grades. The number applied in a sense are arbitrary, but a system needs to have a coherent logic. 30 to 80 scales do have a logic, even as topped and tailed percentages. On 20 Dec 2016, at 14:13, DEROUNIAN, James <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: Christmas Cracker [as seen on a card from a colleague, but worthy of a cracker joke = “What do you get if you cross a bell…..with a skunk?” Answer: ‘Jingle Smells’] And a brain teaser: A colleague recently announced that – although a module guide clearly states award of percentage marks for student assignments - they marked out of 80; that is 0-80 (top mark). Why? How can this be justified? Isn’t it just plain wrong? Happy Christmas :) James James Derounian BSc (Hons) MPhil MRTPI FHEA FILCM Principal Lecturer in Community Engagement and Local Governance, Course Leader Applied Social Sciences, National Teaching Fellow, University of Gloucestershire, Cheltenham GL50 4AZ Tel. 01242-714562 [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Visiting Fellow Edge Hill University Institute for Public Policy and Professional Practice Honorary Fellow Birmingham University (Third Sector Research Centre) ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the EXTERNAL-EXAMINERS list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EXTERNAL-EXAMINERS&A=1 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the EXTERNAL-EXAMINERS list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EXTERNAL-EXAMINERS&A=1 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the EXTERNAL-EXAMINERS list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EXTERNAL-EXAMINERS&A=1 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the EXTERNAL-EXAMINERS list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EXTERNAL-EXAMINERS&A=1 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the EXTERNAL-EXAMINERS list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EXTERNAL-EXAMINERS&A=1 To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to:- http://disclaimer.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/disclaimer/disclaimer.html ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the EXTERNAL-EXAMINERS list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EXTERNAL-EXAMINERS&A=1 This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the addressee only and may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise the sender as soon as practicable and delete the e-mail from the system. The University of Chichester is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales. Registration number 4740553. The registered office is College Lane, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 6PE. ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the EXTERNAL-EXAMINERS list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EXTERNAL-EXAMINERS&A=1