Hazel, 

I totally agree with your insights regarding the cultural differences in students expectation of marks. Students who have come up through a different educational system where A’s are common, do struggle with what they see as downgraded marks. 

I have worked with TNE partners over a number of years as well as being an external with overseas partners and have experienced this first hand. It s hard to explain that the expectations are different, but that we have to be fair to all students whether overseas or at the home university, there has to be equity if both sets of students are being assessed on the same criteria. 

I see it particularly now as I am working for an oversees partner in the Middle East and I, and my colleagues, do sometimes struggle to explain to students here that heir work just does not meet their anticipated grade.  My only solution when meeting with these students is to sit down with them, explain the marking criteria, and that regardless of how much effort they believe they’ve put into a piece of work, if it does meet the criteria, it doesn’t get the mark. 

Lorna Hunter
Interim Programme Lead
AFG College with the University of Aberdeen. 



On 15 May 2019, at 13:27, Hazel Messenger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

So the last paragraph in Geoffrey's message relates to those of us who work with in TNE with international partners, either as externals or liaison tutors. Marking at a level that is higher (overmarking) than what we might regard as appropriate is common..it is a result of cultural differences in expectations. So, how to support the change in understanding and practice that is needed ...it is a very painful process for students to see their marks downgraded reduced, loss of face, loss of trust in the partner institution and so on

It is something I am deeply involved with, (as an external and liaison tutor) and steadily, changes have happened by good partnership working and supportive externals. Anyone else's experiences in this would be interesting and helpful

best wishes
Hazel 


Dr Hazel Messenger EdD MA(Ed) BSc (Hons) PGCE SFHEA  FCMI
University Teaching Fellow 

MBA Course Leader | Academic Liaison Tutor l Guildhall School of Business and Law 
London Metropolitan University | MT2-02 Tower Chambers | 84 Moorgate | London EC2M 6SQ

T: +44 (0)20 7320 1538 



Office hours: Tuesday 11-1 Moorgate Tower Chambers, 2nd floor (Term time only) 








On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 11:03, Geoffrey Darnton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
THOSE WHO USE THIS DISCUSSION FORUM ONLY FOR EXTERNAL EXAMINER JOB ADVERTS CAN DELETE THIS EMAIL - IF YOU LIKE EE RELEVANT DISCUSSIONS, CONTINUE.

Dear William,

You have opened the potential for a fascinating discussion topic about marking!

I'm not sure I can give a precise definition of "over-marking". When I use the term, I mean that I consider a piece of work to have been "over-marked" if the initial mark awarded is, in terms of my academic judgement, far too high. Generally, my academic judgement in such a case is affected substantially by the relevant level descriptors because they are part of the regulatory regime that applies to degree awarding institutions. 'Over-marking' can have another meaning - marking schemes are structured by the expected contents of the deliverable (assignment, dissertation, etc.) rather than the relevant level descriptors (e.g. 5% for introduction, 20% for literature revies,...)

Awarding marks is a matter of academic discretion, and in law, is generally considered 'non-justiciable' - that's why students can't appeal against academic judgement - and anyone else who interferes with a marker's marks without consultation and agreement is at serious legal risk as upheld in the case of Buckland v Bournemouth University.

At levels 4-7 marks are usually ranked in some way with levels of classification. That does not happen at Level 8 (level 12 in Scotland) when a PhD is either passed or not - no marks or grades. More research is needed on the general acceptability of grades, but I have seen no examples where the results of assessment at levels 4-7 are only pass or fail (some components maybe).

Another research topic is how people decide marks. One American university with an outpost in Geneva had a pass mark of 90%! Therefore a mark of 89% yields crying - but a mark of 89% in the UK normally yields cheering! So markers decide if a piece of work is a pass or not, then how much of a pass and adjust that to the marking scheme in use.

For over-marking let me give you an example. I had a level-5 marketing module to moderate at an overseas partner institution. The assignment was for the students to select a company, then prepare a marketing mix. Most of the marks awarded were 1st (>70%). On inspection all the assignments had web only references with no books or journal papers. Some of the company material and analysis was excellent. I I decided they were over-marked - the absence of books and journal papers brought into question the absence of evidence of subject knowledge and understanding. It also meant there was a complete absence of critical thinking vis-a-vis key writers. The absence of key writers also meant that there was no applicability because there were no theories/ideas/concepts that could be applied. In my academic judgement based on the level descriptors most would fail - there could be some passes (3rds) for those where the discussion revealed sufficient implied subject knowledge and understanding. Many students made the error of trying to do a marketing mix for the company, and didn't select a particular product or service for which to do a marketing mix. Some had used website discussions of concepts but no discussion about the reliability of the sources. Many of the students simply interpreted the term marketing mix as '4Ps'! Therefore in my academic judgement many of the 1sts awarded were "over-marked" and should have been fail/pass.

For your residual questions: the key problem with over-marking is that it results in grade inflation misleading the student and other potential users of the grade information (other HE institutions, employers etc.) about the student's current subject knowledge and understanding.

I'll stop there. Plenty for people to comment on.

best wishes
Geoffrey

On 14/05/2019 13:12, William Keenan wrote:

Dear Geoffrey

I found your comment on 'over-marking' interesting. However, I confess that I don't know precisely what 'over-marking' refers to and why it should be regarded with disapproval.

Perhaps other colleagues, particularly fellow External Examiners, are in the same position. Is 'over-marking', like beauty' in the eye of the beholder? What is the 'over' over exactly?

I wonder if you would kindly take the time to define what 'over-marking' refers to; provide examples of it; and point out its deficiencies and drawbacks as you perceive them to be.

I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on this. Thank you.

With best wishes,

William

On May 14, 2019 12:06 PM, "Geoffrey Darnton" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the EXTERNAL-EXAMINERS list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EXTERNAL-EXAMINERS&A=1

London Metropolitan University is a limited company registered in England and Wales with registered number 974438 and VAT registered number GB 447 2190 51. Our registered office is at 166-220 Holloway Road, London N7 8DB. London Metropolitan University is an exempt charity under the Charities Act 2011. Its registration number with HMRC is X6880.

######################################################################## 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 message and its attachment(s) are intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be read, copied, disclosed, forwarded or relied upon by any person other than the intended addressee(s) without the permission of the sender. If you are not the intended addressee, you must not take any action based on this message and its attachment(s) nor must you copy or show them to anyone. If you have received this email in error, please inform the sender immediately and delete all copies of it.

It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and its attachment(s) are scanned for viruses or other defects. Queen Margaret University does not accept liability for any loss or damage which may result from this message or its attachment(s), or for errors or omissions arising after it was sent. Email is not a secure medium. Email traffic entering Queen Margaret University's system is subject to routine monitoring and filtering by Queen Margaret University.

Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh is a registered charity: Scottish Charity Number SC002750.

######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the EXTERNAL-EXAMINERS list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EXTERNAL-EXAMINERS&A=1