External Examining in English

ww

w.e

nglis

h.lts

n.ac

.uk

External Examining in EnglishPhilip Martin

Report Series

Number 7April 2003

EnglishSubject Centre

A Report to the Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN) English Subject Centre

External Examining in English

Professor Philip MartinEnglish Subject Centre, Royal Holloway, University of London

ISBN 0 902 19493 3

Copyright Statement

a) The author of the report and appendices isProfessor Philip Martin, who should be referenced inany citations of the report and acknowledged in anyquotations from it.

b) Copyright in the report resides with the publisher,the LTSN English Subject Centre, from whompermission to reproduce all or part of the reportshould be obtained.

c) If any additional use is made of secondary data thesource must be acknowledged.

Foreword 1

1. Introduction and Background 2

2. The Nature of Assessment in English 3

3. Marking, Grading and Classification 4

4. English and the Institutional Context 6

5. External Examining and Professionalisation 8

6. Feedback, Reporting, and Public Information 9

7. Variations in Current Practice 11

8. Summary and Recommendations 12

Appendix A: Participants in the Consultation 14

Appendix B: Briefing Documents 15

B1: External Examining Futures in English: an introduction from the English Subject Centre 15

B2: External Examining: recent developments 16

Contents

External Examining in English 1

ForewordThe English Subject Centre Report Series aims toprovide contextual information about the condition ofthe subject, its relation to national HE policies, and thepractical and academic concerns shared by EnglishDepartments at the present time. Thereby, the seriesintends to assist departments in their planning, and intheir understanding of their own positions.

This seventh report in the series is on the subject ofExternal Examining in English, and is, in part, aresponse to the current discussions and initiatives thatare circulating nationally. The new audit system, andthe concerns about the publication of information onquality and standards led to the Higher EducationFunding Council for England’s report of March 2002,Information on Quality and Standards in Higher Education,which has many implications for the future role of theExternal Examiner.1 Those implications now seem tobe hardening in the recent government White Paper,The Future of Higher Education (January 2003, Cm 5735).The English Subject Centre Report, while continuouslymindful of these initiatives, attempts to address thewider and continuing issues attached to ExternalExamining, and also takes the opportunity to indicatehow the subject may be best served in the future. Theauthor of the report is the Subject Centre Director, andits content derives from an intensive day-longconsultation with a group of External Examiners inEnglish.

It is, of course, questionable how far the range ofissues encountered here are subject-specific, and it maywell be the case that substantial parts of this reporthave a wider relevance, at least across some of the Artsand Humanities disciplines. Yet we began this workfrom a strong sense of the validity of regarding theexamining of English as a highly specific task, partlybecause of the large amounts of student writing

involved, but also because of the nature of that writing,and the need to understand its assessment within thecontext of disciplinary procedure. Audit systems, bothinternal and external, have yet to demonstrate asystemic flexibility that is fully accommodating ofdisciplinary difference; indeed, it might be argued thatit is not the purpose of such generic procedures tomake this accommodation, and the corollary of suchan argument is to give that responsibility to thesubjects themselves. This report may be the start ofsuch a process.

One of the recommendations in this report is for avoluntary annual forum for External Examiners inEnglish. The recommendation is made tentatively, withthe awareness that the forum would need to be wellattended to be of significance, and would need toseparate itself from any notion of a formal college ofexaminers. Nevertheless, the idea received some strongsupport at the consultation held by the Subject Centre,and the consultation itself offered a clear indication ofjust how rich in ideas such a gathering could be. TheSubject Centre will consult further, and would like tohear from English Departments about this and theother recommendations contained here.

I am most grateful to those colleagues who attendedthe consultation, and provided feedback on the draftversion of this report (see Appendix A).

Copies of the report will be distributed toDepartments, and an electronic version can bedownloaded from the English Subject Centre websiteat www.english.ltsn.ac.uk

Professor Philip MartinDirector, English Subject CentreRoyal Holloway, University of LondonJanuary 2003

1 For a summary of these developments, see Appendix B2

External Examining in English2

This document is produced for the following purposes:

• It responds to the current national reviewing ofthe role of the External Examiner from adiscipline-specific viewpoint.2 The discussionsinforming this document were conducted, inpart, to discover the extent to which discipline-specific interests are recognised in the process ofExternal Examining

• It provides a summary of current concerns sharedby External Examiners in English in their recentand continuing work, and in anticipation ofchanges mooted in the current review andbeyond

• It provides, therefore, a discussion document,with recommendations, that EnglishDepartments and others might choose to draw onin Departmental, Faculty and Institutionalreviews of the External Examiner’s role

The report is a summary of a day’s intensive discussionheld with a group of English colleagues (see AppendixA) with extensive experience in External Examining,and a continuing interest in the process. The group hadcollectively held numerous External Examining rolesin a wide spectrum of Higher Education institutions,and across the full range of awards. The English SubjectCentre advertised this consultation as an open session,and also made invitations. The group was suppliedwith background documentation (see Appendix B) andrecords of the discussions were made, from which theauthor has compiled this report. As with any summaryof open discussion, not all participants will be in full orequal agreement with the commentary andrecommendations here. The group was therefore askedto approve the report as a broad and representativesummary of the discussion and recommendations, andhas done so.

1. Introduction and background

2 The current national review of the role of the External Examiner has been set in play by the new audit arrangements. See Information on Quality and Standardsin Higher Education, HEFCE 02/15. This report is in part a response to the HEFCE report, but also has a wider application in the context of the continuingdiscussions, both institutional and national, about the role of the External Examiner.


The nature of the range of tasks required of an ExternalExaminer is primarily determined by the nature of theassessments produced by the students. In order toplace the report on a foundation of practice therefore,it begins with a concise description of Englishassessment (including Literature, Language andCreative Writing).3 The following elements areconsidered to be specific, although not unique, toEnglish.

2.1 Volume of assessment

English is a subject with high numbers of studentsproducing a large amount of written work for thepurposes of assessment. Much of this written work isproduced in the form of essays (although otherdiversified forms of assessment are also used) and acommon assessment criterion, essential to the subject,is the standard of the writing produced. Student worktherefore requires intensive and careful scrutiny byinternals and externals alike, since the grading of thiswork depends upon judgements of writing quality(including accuracy of expression, literacy, persuasivearguments, use of texts and references, and contentdependent on the quality of the student’s reading).Students taking the whole of their programme inEnglish commonly produce between 30,000–50,000words each per annum to be assessed,4 and it is thismass of material, allied to an understanding of theprocesses of its internal marking, that needs to beacknowledged in external examining, which, in turn,has to be highly attuned to the scale of such demandsif it is to be effective.

2.2 Diversity of assessment

The diversity of English programmes and theirassessment is also an essential quality to beacknowledged here. The most widely used and trustedof assessment devices in Literature programmes is thediscursive essay (in coursework assignments and inexaminations) although in recent years there has beenconsiderable diversification alongside thispredominant form of assessment. It is also the case thatthose students studying (for example) Anglo-Saxon orMiddle English may be required to undertaketranslations and develop very specific kinds of

2. The nature of assessment in Englishlinguistic expertise. In Language programmes, theknowledge base of the student may be very rigorouslydefined and assessed in a variety of ways; equally, it isnot unusual for there to be a requirement for projectwork of a social science kind, in which interviews orother forms of data-gathering inform a summaryreport. In Creative Writing students may be required tosubmit extensive portfolios of work including pieces oforiginal writing such as poems, autobiographicalwritings, scripts, or sections of novels. It is not thepurpose of this document to list comprehensively thekinds of knowledge and scholarship assessed in English,but to acknowledge the range and diversity ofassessments, which, in the main, are not brief, norcommonly in the mode of tests, nor readily amenableto easily measurable outcomes.

2.3 Range of examining expertise

The wide range of English programmes thereforeproduces a diverse diet of assessment requiring a closeacquaintance with specific sets of criteria. A primeexample here is the spread of Creative Writing as aprogramme in its own right, as one supplementary toEnglish, and also as a form of pedagogic practice withinEnglish; in all instances the criteria governing theassessments are likely to be distinct from those morecommonly used in Language or Literatureprogrammes. Some English Departments withinnovatory assessment practices use peer and groupassessments, oral assessments, and reading logs. In eachand every case these assessment modes are tightlyintegrated with the disciplinary requirements, and withthe specific kinds of subject knowledge being assessed.It is not sufficient, therefore, to regard a familiarity withdifferent assessment modes in isolation, or at a genericlevel, as sufficient qualification or ‘training’ for anExternal Examiner: she or he needs to be preciselyattuned to the specific needs of the component partswhich make up the discipline as a whole. The currentsystem of External Examining, wherein Departmentsmake approaches to Examiners who meet theinstitutional threshold requirement, is predicated onDepartments being trusted to find examiners with theright kinds of expertise to adjudge their work, a tuningof a kind that needs to be preserved.

3 The presence of Creative Writing within and alongside work in English is acknowledged rather than developed her, since the nature of assessment in CreativeWriting is of sufficient magnitude and complexity to require a separate discussion and report.

4 Calculated as an average of eight modules per year, each producing 5,000 words. It might be deduced from this that English tutors mark around one millionwords of undergraduate work every year (assuming a student-staff ratio of 25:1). To put this in perspective, The Great Gatsby is around 60,000 words.Calculating the time spent on internal marking is difficult. It might be reasonable to assume around 30 minutes per piece of work or examination script,yielding 200 hours of marking per annum, to which needs to be added administrative processing and of course, the external examination procedure.


3.1 Systems

Over the last two decades most institutions, andEnglish Departments with them, have moved from aliteral grading system to a numerical one. Theseconventions are now entrenched, and almost allDepartments work with the same categories of bandingwhich translate numerical marks into degreeclassifications, although there are some variations at thepass and third class level, where Departments differ intheir interpretation of marks in the 35-45% range.Modular systems, with their accompanying conventionof credit accumulation, have also steadily eroded thenotion of the degree classification as a holisticevaluation in which strengths and weaknesses are put inthe balance. Credit accumulation systems work largely(but not exclusively) towards a grade point average asthe key criterion, and the ‘accumulation’ of the degreeis primarily mathematical, and therefore, morepredictable. The arguments about the relative merits ofthese systems often revolve around the case to be madefor and against clearer assessment criteria, and theaccusation or denial of a past practice defined byimpressionistic marking. There is no need to repeatthese arguments here, as they are well-known andlargely historic. The consequence of this shift however,and the further changes it has engendered, haveimplications for the assessment and examinationprocess; there is a sense in which the transformations inthe system have not been accompanied by a clear andarticulated rationale for the changing role of theExternal Examiner. Such changes, by and large, havebeen of an ad hoc nature.

3.2 Profiling

Since credit accumulation operates through asystematic division of assessments into equal, orconsistently weighted, elements, there is a subsequentreduction in the profiling of students’ work. Indeed, inmany institutions, profiling does not operate at all, andthe total assessment of the student achievement may bewitnessed only by the system itself, and not by anyindividual, since complete runs of assessments arenever read (by internals or externals) and classificationprocesses are automated or nearly so. In such cases, theprimary role of the External Examiner – to ensure thatthe standards achieved by the students are equivalent tothose achieved elsewhere – can only therefore beaccomplished at the level of the module, and in

consequence, is subject to the variation of modulerequirements (learning outcomes, specific criteria, etc.).This atomisation means that the External’s guarantee ofequivalence in standards is somewhat perilously poisedin some cases, and it can restrict the role to theratification of standards within highly localised norms.However, it is important to note that such atomisationis not an inevitable consequence of credit accumulationor a move away from profiling. There are other ways inwhich the summative experience of the students can bereviewed by internals and externals alike, and manyinstitutions have seen fit to address this.

3.3 Range of marks and banding

External Examiners in English also testify to a recentand increasing trend coming from institutions eager touse the whole range of marks (0-100%), and this is acontroversial issue. The gravitation towards the meanthat is a feature of mathematical systems places anincreased stress on discovering ways of moving studentsbeyond the borderlines, and hence this liberality hassome attractions. Conversely, using the whole range ofmarks exposes the burden of bogus precision innumerical systems (what is the difference between 94%and 95%, or 11% and 12%?), and also induces inflatedpenalties or rewards for students in the first class orfailure category which extend to three or fourfold thecapacity of the other classifications. In English, thedisconcerting effects are amplified because of thenature of the assessed work itself, which beingdiscursive in nature, offers students many ways ofexcelling, or indeed, of failing.

As a subject, English is more amenable to bandingthan grading, and those universities implementinggrading policies which permit only a limited number ofnumerical scores to be used (e.g. 52%, 56%, 58% in the2.2 category) might seem to point the way forward.However, this matter is compounded by the perceivedstress now being placed on the 2.1 category. Institutionsrecruiting selectively are finding that the 2.1 category isincreasingly accommodating the majority of theirgraduating students, and some colleagues are reportinga need to produce finer discriminations within thiscategory, particularly where 2.1 students haveambitions to go on to further study.5 The move towardsgrade point average results accompanied by fulltranscripts of results may indeed be one means of

3. Marking, grading and classification

5 See Martin Coyle, ‘Using the full range’ in English Subject Centre Newsletter, 4 (September, 2002), pp.11-12.


addressing the compression within the 2.1 categoryreported by some English Departments, and such arecord has the potential to represent more fully therange of accomplishments, strengths and weaknesses, ofa given candidate. The transcript and grade pointaverage (GPA) does not, however, have the capacity tomake a fully summative statement about student abilityin the way that classification does: it can only denotethe sum of parts, and, as noted above, those parts arefrequently locally determined by way of moduledescriptors, or more generally, through level descriptorsor broad programme specifications. Classificationsystems also commonly incorporate weightings foundedon an educational principle of rewarding progression,and this may be more difficult to sustain in averagesbased on transcripts.

3.4 Ratification and changing of marks

Moving to the Transcript/GPA system entirely willmake more evident the changes that have, in effect,already taken place in the External Examiner’s role,raising questions about the authority of the ExternalExaminer, her or his license to change marks, and theextent to which the External’s role in ratifying standardsis relative or otherwise. External Examiners in Englishreport a trend against the changing of marks, on thegrounds that changing marks via sampling may rewardor penalise unfairly those candidates in the sample.Clearly such practice is not defensible, and while thelogic of this reform is fully recognised, its effects areproblematic. Externals can only report over-rewardingor undue harshness with a view to securing subsequentchanges of a post hoc nature; alternatively they mayinsist that the whole cohort of marks are shifted up ordown against the pressure of tight time-scales and theconsiderable momentum of computer systemsgenerating classifications. The weight of this deterrencemay be such as to diminish the External’s role in theimportant task of verifying standards and comparability.Although some Externals report a diminishingrequirement for them to resolve disputed internal marksor borderline cases, this function can still be animportant part of the External’s duties, and a means bywhich standards and comparability are maintained.

Marking, grading and classification

External Examining in English

4. English and the institutional context

6

Within English there is a continuous and developingdebate about appropriate modes of assessment, and thisdebate is now commonly compounded by thediscussions inaugurated at institutional level in thedevelopment of Teaching, Learning and AssessmentStrategies. In some instances, these discussions areresolved by the production of strategies and policieswith harmonious relations at institutional, faculty anddepartment levels. In others, it may prove difficult toharmonise the educational and academic needs of thestudents with the regulatory concerns of the institution.Other institutional policies, regulations and schedulesare affecting the examining of English programmes inspecific ways. These are itemised under sub-headingsbelow.

4.1 Assessment regulations, standard loadings andplagiarism

Some institutions are now requiring that a certainproportion of assessment should be undertaken inexamination conditions or their equivalent, in order tofacilitate an even standard in the student experience,and to provide a threshold guarantee that the work is thestudent’s own. This may militate against the productionof coursework, seen as valuable by many Departments,particularly those with high numbers of maturecandidates, who, it is reported, achieve less highly inexaminations. Others are making recommendations tolimit the total assessment loading, and while this may bewelcomed in the appropriate context, it is resisted inothers where the judgement prevails that students needmore, not less, writing practice to refine their skills.These needs vary of course, and the wide range ofstudent abilities found in English cannot be simplysummarised in a ‘standard’ package.

The common assessment rubric requiring studentsnot to repeat material — generally approved by manyEnglish Departments — can sometimes find itselfoperating awkwardly in the context of the subject,wherein synoptic thinking and synthesis are oftenrecognised as strengths. The ability to draw on a range

of reading experience for different purposes may not beencouraged by such a rubric. On the other hand, it isalso the case that common marking procedures inDepartments often mean that the External is the firstperson to sample work horizontally across the studentprofile; thus the External is frequently the only realguardian against unmitigated repetitions, and eventhen, only on the basis of seeing samples.

English is a subject producing a mass of critical andsecondary sources world-wide, and the readyavailability of such sources (in hard and virtual formats)makes vigilance for plagiarism essential. However, it isimportant to recognise that while plagiarism from theinternet has a new currency in Higher Education (HE),such plagiarism is relatively easy to detect, while sourcesfor other forms of plagiarism are more elusive.6 There isconsiderable variation of practice on the penaltiesapplied for plagiarism.

4.2 Teaching, Learning and Assessment Strategies

English may also find itself inhibited by thesystemisation of assessment in some Teaching, Learningand Assessment strategies operating at faculty orinstitutional levels. At their worst, such strategies mayencourage a broad brush approach that can constrainstudent learning, particularly in schemes where theassessment of all submitted work is required, andformative work and experimentation are therebydiscouraged. Such requirements as anonymous markingmay directly militate against tutorial work designed tobe sensitive to continuous, formative needs; oralassessments may also be discouraged in such systems.While it is important not to exaggerate the extent ofpotential conflict between the educational aims ofacademic programmes and the institutional aims forensuring consistency and quality (in many instancesthey are not at variance), there is a clear need to ensurethat some reasonable balance and accommodation ismade between the two.

6 See http://www.english.ltsn.ac.uk/resources/topic/plagiarism/index.htm


4.3 Schedules

Some colleagues report increasing compression of thetime to review work. While External Examining hasalways been subject to such pressures, they have beenincreased through semesterisation, and conceivably, bythe additional time required to load and run largecentralised computer systems. Alongside this, and as aconsequence of the modular schemes that now prevail,work at the Examination Board is in some instancesrestricted by process to approval of marks, leaving lesstime for discussion of academic qualities. If this formalprocedure is to prevail, then it is important that somefurther thought is given to formalised methods for theviews and recommendations of External Examiners tobe considered within the examining process.

4.4 Learning outcomes

In a subject like English, where outcomes cannot bedefined in the vocabulary appropriate to accumulativeknowledge, the stated outcomes can be unwittinglyinflated, or alternatively, somewhat bland. Externalscan therefore find themselves being asked to vouch forover-ambitious outcomes, whose purpose might bebetter rendered as general aims. In addition to this, theformal documentation of programmes frequentlyrequires that all nominated outcomes be assessed.

This is a fundamental difficulty for English, where theeducational aims are often broader and moreaccommodating of individual response than such anexacting and standardising approach allows. While thedisciplinary framework requires students to work withproper regard for methodological awareness, and theestablished bodies of knowledge, the responses andideas themselves may rightly be less specific or outsideof the stated paradigms. Like many other disciplines,and possibly more so, English is concerned with thenurturing of original thinking, intellectualproblematising, and the acknowledgement of a wholerange of differences: it is therefore legitimatelyunresponsive to systems of accountability which areaggressively summative, or reductive, or governed bynotions of standardisation. On two counts therefore, itis often difficult for Externals to underwrite orguarantee learning outcomes and related specifications.First, they may be over ambitious; second, they maynot be capable of embracing the various educationalbenefits and developments that a good education inEnglish will provide. While it is inconvenient for thepurposes of documentation and monitoring, theEnglish student may frequently discover educationallybeneficial ways of dealing with primary materials(usually texts) that have not been predicted.

English and the institutional context


The current system of External Examining is under reviewpartly because of the multiple changes in HigherEducation in recent years, which have placed the systemunder some strain. These include the greatly increasednumbers of students, the increased regulation andstandardisation of programme documentation withwhich Externals may be directly or indirectly involved,and the move towards fully computerised systems for therecording of marks and calculation of classifications. Theincreasing student numbers not only enlarge the volumeof the task, but in many cases also place further pressureon the External Examiner: some departments cope withlarger numbers by abandoning universal double-markingin favour of sampling, and thus Externals can findthemselves effectively acting as second markers. Givensuch factors as these, there is a need for a review that takesinto account the demands on Externals, the needs ofinstitutions, and the entitlements of students. In thecontext of the increased legislation governing access anddisability, and the likely requirement that the reports ofExternal Examiners, or some part thereof, will bepublished, there is also a need for External Examiners tobe better supported by processes of induction, training,and the provision of information. There are a number ofconcerns, however, about the nature of this training, andthe need to conserve the academic qualities of theExternal Examiner within it.

5.1 Academic qualities

An enhancement of the External Examiner’s role willinevitably have resource implications. Time to train oraccredit External Examiners is likely to be taken from therange of other academic duties, and there may be aliability that the rounded academic would be replaced bythe quality specialist. English as a subject area has a long-standing and generally well-regarded tradition ofappointing Examiners recognised as fully roundedacademics with an established profile in most aspects ofacademic life. This means, necessarily, that they allocatetheir time across the range of teaching, research, andadministrative duties, and they are able to bring thebenefit of this broad experience to the task. The‘professionalisation’ of the role might put such broadexperience at risk, or alternatively, deny its relevance infavour of more specialised training. External examining isnot merely a matter of monitoring: it requires intellectualjudgement, a broad understanding of, coupled with a

specialism in, particular curriculum areas, experience oforganisational and administrative matters, anunderstanding of student support systems, curriculumdesign and structure, wide experience of assessments andassessment design, a sensitivity to institutional and facultycontexts, and so on. Such an understanding cannot bereplaced by a training programme, and it is importantthat the subject expertise underwriting the externalexamining process is not diminished, or supplanted bybureaucratic regulation. There is suspicion that theinstitution of more training days, and inductionprocedures will present a gloss of increased expertise, butin fact, may produce only a superficial list of‘competences’, and will also be an expensive andcounterproductive use of time.

5.2 External examining and audit

Similarly, the mooted changes suggest that the work ofExternals is going to be articulated with the audit system,a connection that will need to be carefully controlled toprevent the External’s role from transforming into that ofquality checker.7 Indeed, current guidelines are notspecific on the inter-relations between ExternalExamining and Academic Audit, and this is an area thatwill need to be carefully addressed. An enhancementmodel, in which an External would be expected to workin a collaborative way with colleagues on such issues asassessment changes and curriculum design is preferable.Such a model would also diminish the tendency incurrent plans to render the External an ‘expert’, a differentanimal whose familiarity with a rule-book might de-professionalise internal colleagues in some way (many ofwhom may well be Externals themselves), and thistendency needs to be countered by other measures orprocedures.

5.3 Induction and training

At the same time, there are a number of factors affectingthe role of the External Examiner that require externals tobe well-informed and up to date, including, for example,regulations, legislation on disability and related matters,QAA guidelines, and the benchmarking statements,developments in validation and review processes, UK andEuropean credit transfer systems, etc. These factors willrequire Externals to be well-informed, and suchinformation should be provided via a training, orinduction, function of some kind.

5. External examining and professionalisation

7 The QAA guide on external examining (Code of Practice, Section 4, January 2000) is at pains to point out the disaggregation of the two functions, andincludes an Appendix (3, p.19) to mark out the differences. However, the Code notes that academic reviewers will see samples of student work, and are alsoconcerned with ‘the match between the intended learning outcomes and the actual achievement of students’ (p.19). In Appendix 1 (summarising the preceptsfor External Examiners) the Code notes that ‘institutions should require external examiners to endorse the outcomes of the assessment(s) they have beenappointed to scrutinise’ (p.15), and indeed, pro formae issued to External Examiners commonly ask them to ratify whether the assessments are appropriatefor the stated learning outcomes.


There are two main aspects to the reporting on assessedwork: indirect feedback to the students through theDepartment or its equivalent, and feedback to theinstitution. The recommendation that ExternalExaminers’ reports should be published will, to someextent, break down this divide.

6.1 Feedback to students

Conventionally, the internal assessment of student workin English has been accompanied by feedback to thestudent that can take many forms. Indeed, mostacademics in English would argue that this is essential tothe subject: English is concerned with the continuousrevision of fields of knowledge, and dialogue is thereforefundamental to its practice. Feedback may take the formof essay tutorials (in which the dialogue is oral) and/orwritten commentary on the work itself (marginal andsummary), thus reinforcing the sense that the student’snavigation through the degree programme is guided byformative stages marked out by assessments, in adevelopmental way. Summative assessments (forexample, examinations and dissertations) have nottraditionally been accompanied by feedback, althoughrecently, this practice has changed in a number ofinstitutions, and colleagues in English report, overall, anincrease in the amount of feedback being supplied tostudents. Some Departments, for example, use a proforma as a means of providing feedback information forstudents on their examination performance, and someDepartments now also provide feedback information onfinal year dissertation performance, whereas previously,this may have been regarded as an examination elementfor which feedback was not provided. Practice on this hasvaried.

Data Protection legislation gives an entitlement for allstudents to review commentary recorded on their scripts,and therefore, the nature of the communications betweenexaminers will also change. In a sense, all commentarywill be feedback of a kind, and will need to be constructedtherefore, in a way that allows it to be directly relayed tothe student.

External Examiners in English are not usuallyemployed as first markers (although some Mastersprogrammes use Externals in this way) and are thereforenot normally involved in the tutor-student dialogue thatfeedback supports. They are, however, commonly asked

to comment on the evidence of the quality of feedbacksupplied to students, and this practice is part of thechanging role of External Examiners, and their increasedinvolvement in the quality of the student experience.

6.2 Feedback to the institution: the publication ofExternal Examiners’ Reports

The revised system proposed for External Examiners willinvolve them in a new kind of feedback: whereaspreviously their reports have been used solely as means ofinternal quality ratification and improvement, thepublication of such reports, in whole or in part, meansthat Externals will be producing a discourse partaking inthe broad arena of student feedback. Continuing orprospective students will have access to these reports, andmay consult them for a range of purposes.

It is clear that the assessment of students, and thechanges to the different but connected forms of feedbackthat accompany this assessment (feedback from tutors tostudents, from Externals to tutors and Departments, fromExternals to students in the newly-proposed publishedreports) are all largely impelled by the proper principles ofaccountability, fairness and open information, rather thanany particular educational principle. The effects of thepublication of Externals’ reports however, will becomplex and difficult to manage, since institutions will beconcerned to protect their reputations by governing thekinds of commentary produced in published reports, andExternal Examiners, working in the grim shadow of theculture of litigation, will be concerned to protectthemselves. Given these limitations, there are questionsto be asked therefore, about just how useful this newly-proposed system will be, and there are dangers too, in thepossible constraints that will be placed on the dialoguebetween External Examiners, Department tutors, andstudents.

The publication of information about degree courses isclearly a desirable objective, in so far as it providesstudents with a fuller context in which to make theirchoice. The publication of External Examiners’ reports, orversions thereof, will nevertheless split the role and thefunction, causing External Examiners to address differentaudiences in their different reporting modes. Thepossibility that institutions will use External Examiners’reports as a marketing ploy, overtly, or by more subtlemeans, will need to be guarded against, since the

6. Feedback, reporting and public information


External’s role will be deeply compromised by suchpractice. If Externals are to play a role in qualityenhancement, they need to be able to speak freely toDepartments, and to produce their reports in the spirit ofa critical friend. Further complications attend the processof publication where departments have more than oneExternal Examiner, and this is commonly the case inEnglish Departments.

For the most part, these concerns are not specific toEnglish. They may have resounding impact in the subjecthowever because of the status of dialogue itself withinthe English degree, and within the scholarly culturewhich sustains it. If it no longer becomes possible, oreasy, for an External to question the inclinations of thework towards a particular school of thought or range oftexts, and — indeed — receive a perfectly legitimate reply,then the subject will be the poorer for it. The issue is this:English has always been a subject which has questionedits own practice, and vigorously pursued such debates. ItsExternal Examining should not be constrained in amanner detrimental to such discussion; there is a need toresist a possible reduction to procedural, rather thanacademic, monitoring.

Feedback, reporting and public information


There is undoubtedly a range of quite differentassessment practices embedded in Universityregulations that produce large variations in the task ofthe External Examiner. To some, it is questionablewhether this variety is a good thing; to others, itdenotes a perfectly acceptable range of practice that isanother feature of diverse programmes andheterogeneous student bodies.

7.1 Firsts and fails

In some institutions External Examiners are required tosee all first class and failing papers, the latter categoryalmost certainly as a consequence of the growingculture of appeal.8 This practice is approved as a meansof providing increased guardianship of the boundaries,but it also, arguably, militates against (or in someinstances favours) students working at other levels,whose work does not receive such intensity of scrutiny.In some institutions viva voce examinations are used asa verification of the first class category; in others thispractice is eschewed on the grounds that it mightintroduce, at a belated stage, an assessment mode inwhich students have had little practice, or one which isnot attuned to the outcomes of any particular moduleor programme. Again the practice might be regarded asprivileging a particular group to the detriment ofothers, although in its defence, the viva for the awardof a first class honours degree might be said to performan important role in maintaining standards, ensuringthat first class students exhibit the excellence describedso fully in the grade or classification descriptors.Overall however, there is a general strength of feelingthat vivas as such are undesirable, for the reasons statedabove, which may be further compounded by thedifficulties of vivas for students on joint awards.

7.2 Compensation, condonement and failure

There are large variations of practice on compensation,condonement, and failure. In some degree courses, aninflexible interpretation of credit accumulationprevails, demanding passes in all modules; in others,

compensation and/or condonement are allowed,although these are sometimes coupled with the ratherclumsy device of moving the failure mark to a pass(without reassessment) to comply with computersystems, appease literal-minded administrators, orsimply protect students whose transcripts mightotherwise appear anomalous. Similarly there are largevariations on re-sits and resubmissions, and indeed, onthe numbers of re-assessments allowed, both withinmodules, and within awards. Currently, practice onthese matters is being pressurised by institutions’anxiety about the collection of fees on the one hand,and retention statistics on the other.

7.3 Reporting on teaching and learning

External Examiners are frequently required to givetestimony to the quality of teaching and learningenjoyed by the students, on the evidence of seeing theassessed work. While it may be possible to offer sometentative commentary on this, most examiners findthat this is a difficult, if not an unreasonable,requirement to make of them, given the relativelynarrow compass of evidence available in the writtenwork.

7.4 Extent of duties

There are also considerable variations in the amountsof work Externals are asked to do, and in theremuneration paid. Some Externals are required towork extensively on monitoring at two points in theacademic year; others only at the year end. Theamount of written work reviewed by ExternalExaminers varies considerably. This variety of practice,of course, is not a subject-specific matter, but spreadsacross all disciplines, or at least, those not regulated byProfessional Accreditation requirements.

7. Variations in current practice

8 In some cases, this referring of all fails and firsts to the External Examiner may not include coursework grades, an inconsistency that is symptomatic perhapsof an anachronistic exaggerated regard for the status of the examination.


While the current system of External Examiningincorporates a number of strengths, the evolvingnature of the role, its relation to changing systems ofclassification, grading and credit accumulation, and theincreased demands likely to be placed upon ExternalExaminers in the future, make a review of the systemtimely. It is important that this review, and theimplementation of the changes proposed, takesrealistic stock of the nature of the work to be done, andthe value, and the costs, to be attributed to the ExternalExamining process. Indeed, the potential difficulty ofthe new duties of the External Examiner, added to thethreat of the diminution of the role of critical friend,may render the task less interesting, less rewarding, andtherefore unattractive. It might therefore be difficult torecruit experienced academics to the task, particularlyin the current research-intensive context, in whichthere are no real career incentives in using time thatmight otherwise be spent on research on activities suchas this. An additional strength of the current system —the benefit of experience that Externals bring back totheir home institutions — should also be recognisedand its value preserved. This requires that they beinvolved at the level of academic practice, not merelyat the level of process.

There is considerable concern that whatever trainingprovision is made for External Examiners should notdiminish the academic qualifications required for therole. The relative values, and worth, of academiccredibility on the one hand, and understanding ofprocess on the other, should not be confused; neithershould they be weighed within the same currency. Atthe same time, it is recognised fully that ExternalExaminers need to be aware of the context of theirwork provided by institutional and nationalregulations, and legal requirements. This is animportant area in which some provision needs to bemade.

The discipline of English would be well-served by anExternal Examiner system which permits:

8.1 Diversity

A recognition of the diversity of academic programmesand the different kinds of scholarly expertise requiredfor their examination.

8.2 Dialogue

The sharing and discussion of different assessmentexperience, systems and modes, in which the benefitsof dialogue and interchange remained paramount.

8.3 Adequate time

Adequate time to be spent reviewing the work. Thisreport opened with a reminder that English is specific,but not unique in the Humanities, in requiring copiousamounts of writing for assessment purposes. Time toreview the work thoroughly is therefore essential.

8.4 Examiners’ Forum

The setting up of an informal and voluntary AnnualForum for English External Examiners in whichmatters pertaining to practice, standards and qualitycould be properly discussed without breaching theconfidences established between institutions andexaminers. Such a forum would promote interchange,prevent parochialism and idiosyncrasies, and presentan arena for the discussion of good practice, whileguarding against the standardisation of knowledgeitself. It might also be a place at which some importantnational level discussions could be inaugurated, onsuch matters, for example, as student literacy,assessment diversification, grade inflation/deflation,the treatment of special cases, and so on. Further, aforum of this kind could also be a valuable source ofknowledge about current practice, as well as anopportunity to meet policy-makers in quality andstandards (from Funding Councils, the QAA, and soon). Since most departments have colleagues workingas Externals in other institutions, this forum would bebroadly representative.

8. Summary, recommendations and future practice


8.5 Informal interchange

The opportunity to spend more time with the hostDepartment, discussing teaching, learning andassessment practices in more detail and with more frankexchange than the current formalisation of meetingscurrently allows. Externals should be a source ofencouragement and advice, and not simply instrumentsof policing. Currently the opportunity for this kind ofexchange varies widely across institutions.

8.6 Summative readings

The opportunity to read horizontal runs of work that arerepresentative of the summary benefits of the wholedegree course, or that part of it dedicated to English.Externals who do not have this opportunity may not beable to develop a real grasp of what the degree adds up tobeyond the formal pronouncements of validationdocuments and programme specifications. If they are toperform a role within the new structures of programmespecifications, benchmarking, and the nationalqualifications framework, then they should be given thisopportunity, and not simply for the purpose ofmonitoring, but also to give academic context to thejudgements concurrently made about individual pieces ofwork. However, it is important to stress that the purposeof such horizontal readings is to establish a summativesense of the degree programme as a whole, and not toencourage regression to the former (patently unfair andinconsistent) practice of discretely changing marks.

8.7 New blood

A more established means by which ‘new blood’ can bebrought into the system and good practice shared.

Summary, recommendations and future practice

14 External Examining in English

Professor Linda Anderson University of Newcastle upon Tyne

Professor Kelvin Everest University of Liverpool

Dr Kate Fullbrook University of the West of England

Jane Gawthrope Manager, English Subject Centre

Dr Elspeth Graham Liverpool John Moores University

Dr Vivien Jones University of Leeds

Daniel Lamont University of Central Lancashire

Professor Philip Martin Director, English Subject Centre

Professor Ann Thompson King's College London

Professor Katie Wales University of Leeds

Dr John Whale University of Leeds

Appendix A:Participants in the English Subject Centre Consultation on External Examining, July 2002

15External Examining in English

The current system of external examining in Universities,which has a very long pedigree, has been pressurised by arange of factors over the last ten years or so. From theSilver Report of the mid–nineties, through the variousways in which modularisation has wrought significantchanges in the assessment and examination system, to therecent calls for strengthened external verificationprocedures in the wake of the collapse of the QAA’ssubject review scheme, a consistent questioning of thesystem’s capacity and effectiveness has been in play.

A decade ago, the External Examiner’s role was largelytaken up with the verification of grading and marks, andwith the classification of individual student resultsthrough profiling. In recent years, those elements ofscrutiny have been displaced by moderation of scripts(sometimes, indeed often, under the instruction thatmarks cannot be changed), the checking of formalprocedures, and advice on how to avoid appeals or dealwith problem students. Some Examiners have felt thattheir roles have been reduced — in a system where thecomputer averaging of marks prevails — to rubber-stamping. Ironically, this has taken place at a time whenthere have been calls for an emphatic strengthening of theExternal Examiner function, and greaterprofessionalisation, from the suggestion that allExaminers should be accredited through training, to theidea of a national ‘college’ of External Examiners. Whilethese initiatives have, for the most part been confined torealms of speculation, it is clear that policy will change,and that the demands placed on External Examiners arelikely to increase.

This consultation will seek to establish how theEnglish subject community would like to see therequirements of its discipline adequately provided forin the future. It will canvas existing External Examinersin English to elicit information about how they seetheir current roles, and whether or not they feel they arebeing used to the best effects. It will ask a sample ofdepartments to outline models for the best use ofExternal Examiners in the future, and it will seek toestablish how the diversification of assessment modeswill construct a wider brief for External Examiners. Theoutcome will be a report: a document recommendingmodels of good practice that are sensitive to the needsof the discipline.

While it is indubitably the case that the features ofEnglish examining are not exclusive to the subject, astudy founded in the discipline is essential in the firstinstance, since both the range of assessment kinds, therapid change within the discipline, and the precedencetherein of a very particular kind of discursive activity,mark out a distinctive arena of practice for English. Thisconsultation is an opportunity for the subjectcommunity to state its concerns and needs, and theEnglish Subject Centre is therefore keen to receive agood, representative response. If you would like to beinvolved in this consultation, please contact CarolEckersley, the Administrator, at: [email protected] 01784-443221.

The participants in the English Subject Centre Consultation held in July 2002 were referred to the followingdocuments. The first and second are reproduced in this report as Appendix B1 and Appendix B2.

• English Subject Centre Introduction

• External Examining: Recent Developments

• Briefing Paper 2: HEFCE 02/15, Information on Quality and Standards in Higher Education (not included),available at: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2002

• 'QAA Code of Practice, Section 4: External Examining', (not included) available at:http://www.qaa.ac.uk/public/COP/codesofpractice.htm

Appendix B:Briefing documents

Appendix B1

External Examining Futures in English: An Introduction from the English Subject Centre


1. Context

The external examining system is a distinctive andmuch valued feature of UK HE. Numerousconsultations, reviews and research studies conductedover two decades have highlighted the importanceplaced on external examining by subject communitiesand HE institutions. A major but little celebratedachievement is the fact that external examining, whichwas invented for a small, autonomous, lowparticipation HE system, has changed and adapted tothe very different needs and expectations of a diverse,flexible and publicly accountable mass system.

We have a ‘system’ of external examining in so far asit is universally accepted as an important element ofinstitutional QA and it is underpinned by Guidelinesand most recently a Code of Practice. While thesedocuments codify expectations, practice is notsystematised. Furthermore, external examiners are notseen as a networked and supported Community ofPractitioners engaged in sharing and developing theirown practice and contributing to pedagogic debates intheir disciplines. There is also considerable diversity inthe extent to which external examiners are prepared fortheir important role.

In 1997 the National Committee of Inquiry inHigher Education (Dearing Review) recommended thatexternal examining become a formal part of the UK’sQA processes (see NCIHE 1997 at Annex 4). Themodel proposed was, however, unworkable anduniversally rejected.

Following the Dearing recommendations acomprehensive set of codes and policies have beendeveloped by QAA in collaboration with HEcommunities (Annex 1). These codify QA practice forassuring academic standards. This policy frameworkenables HE to move towards a model of institutionalself-regulation enacted within an explicit set ofexpectations and requirements. External examiners arekey participants in the new model of institutional self-regulation.

HEIs are required to adopt the QAA policyframework for assuring academic standards. Many HEIshave already referenced their awards to theQualifications Framework and are introducingprogramme specifications. Many are now requiringcourse teams to produce programme specifications andreference programme learning outcomes to subjectbenchmark statements.

Underpinning the UK’s approach to assuringstandards in a diverse mass system is the belief that it isneither desirable nor possible to achieve uniformstandards across the whole HE system. Instead, theonus is placed on those responsible for creatingstandards to be more explicit about the nature of thelearning and attainment embedded in the standards.

Underlying this approach are two simple ideas(Annex 3). The first is that in order to develop a betterunderstanding of what underlies academic standards,those designing programmes and creating standardsneed to be more explicit about what it is that studentsare expected to learn. The policies of programmespecification and subject benchmarking are intended toencourage teaching teams and subject communities toset out what they believe are the key educational andlearning outcomes from HE programmes.

The second idea is that institutions should relatewhat they are doing to appropriate institutional andexternal reference points so as to demonstrate that thebasis for academic standards has validity beyond anindividual teaching team. A range of internal andexternal reference points are suggested in Annex 2.Programme specifications are intended to make explicitthe institution’s learning intentions and to relate theseto the national qualifications frameworks and to otherreference points including, where appropriate, subjectbenchmark information.

Appendix B2

External examining: recent developments

(Note: This paper summarises current practice and recent developments in External Examining in the context of HE policy. Its author is Norman Jackson and it has been edited by Philip Martin. A full version may be obtained by contacting the GenericCentre at LTSN Generic Centre, Innovation Close, York Science Park, Heslington, York YO10 5ZF.)


2. The current model of learning: ‘outcomes’

Academic standards are complex mixtures ofknowledge, understanding, skills and capability appliedin particular subject and programme contexts. Theymay also embody values, attitudes and behaviours thatare difficult to assess directly but which are integral to astudent’s academic performance.

The QAA policies of programme specification andsubject benchmarking are promoting the system-wideadoption of an outcomes approach in which the resultsof learning are expressed in a form that permits theirachievement to be demonstrated and measured.

• An outcome is simply a result or consequence ofan action or process.

• The outcome from a learning process is a learningoutcome.

• Learning outcomes are statements that predictwhat learners will have gained as a result oflearning.

Reduced to its simplest form an outcomes approach tolearning has three components:

• an explicit statement of learning intent expressedas outcomes which reflect educational aims,purposes and values;

• the process to enable the outcomes to be achievedand demonstrated (curriculum, teaching, learning,assessment process and methods and support andguidance methods);

• the criteria for assessing whether the intendedoutcomes have been achieved and evaluating thelevel of attainment.

3. Information on quality and standards in HE

In order to move to a model of institutional self-regulation HEIs have agreed to provide moreinformation about the quality of the learning in theirprogrammes and their academic standards. A TaskGroup chaired by Sir Ron Cooke produced aconsultation paper in November 2001 on the nature ofthis information. The Final Report of the Task Group(HEFCE 02/15 March 2002) advocates a formal rolefor external examiners in providing public informationon an institution’s outcome standards and theoperation of its assessment process. This would be inthe form of a summary report, the recommendedstructure of which is given in Annex 3.

Publication of a summary report will raise the issueof whether external examiners will feel compromised intheir ability to provide institutions with a criticalcommentary. If this were to happen it would weakenrather than strengthen external examining. The idea ofresearching the impact of the proposed change in acontrolled experiment is currently on the table.

4. Implications for external examining

Section 4 of the Code of Practice for Academic Qualityand Standards in HE deals with External Examining. It explains that the main purposes of externalexamining are:

• to verify that standards are appropriate for theaward or award elements

• to assist institutions in the comparison ofacademic standards across HE awards and awardelements

• to ensure that assessment processes are fair andare fairly operated and in line with theinstitution’s regulations.

The Cooke Report (HEFCE 02/15) and UniversitiesUK papers (102/46a and b) recommend and imply thatExternal Examiners will play a more overt role innational quality assurance. Para 66 of the Cooke Reportargues that because of this new role in providing publicinformation the external examiner system should bestrengthened:

Induction training given to external examiners, the contentand nature of the reports they are asked to provide, and theform of follow-up by the HEI all vary between HEIs. Practicealso varies in respect of the appointment of external examiners.Given the new demands being placed on the externalexamining system in providing public information, and thecentral importance of the system in safeguarding standards,greater consistency is needed. Work is now in hand byUniversities UK, SCOP and QAA to pursue these issues.

The ways in which the external examining system isto be strengthened is currently under review in themeetings now being facilitated by QAA forUUK/SCOP and the Funding Council. Possible waysin which external examining might be strengthenedinclude:

• consistent forms of preparation and inductionwithin institutions

• consistency in the type of information that isprovided to external examiners

Appendix B2


• voluntary registration of existing externalexaminers and people wishing to become anexternal examiner

• some form of accreditation

• an expanded pool of people who might be willingto participate in external examining and otherforms of peer review

• the recognition that external examiners representa significant Community of Practice whichshould be supported as a network

• the provision of subject-based opportunities forprofessional development of external examiningskills

• the possibility of shadowing and mentoringschemes for people wishing to become externalexaminers

• the provision of subject based information aboutassessment practice

• opportunities for external examiners to meet todiscuss topics of interest and to share theirperceptions and practice

• the provision of customised information on howto engage with the QAA policy framework

• the facilitation of on-line discussion fora forsharing issues and problems

These ideas have to be seen in the context of a broaderissue, namely, how the knowledge and skills ofacademic staff are to be developed for the complexprocess of assessing student learning.

All these things require UK HE to recognise andvalue the contribution made by external examiners tomaintaining quality and standards and developingassessment through a reward system that acknowledgesthis contribution. There is a general issue about howexternal examining is located within the career andwork profile of busy academics.

5. The QAA Policy Framework and the Cooke Report

HEIs are being required to work within the Code ofPractice for assuring academic quality and standardsand the policy framework which seeks to makestandards explicit and provide reference points againstwhich the basis for standards can be compared andjudged. External examining will be conducted withinthis framework.

The Code of Practice has as its first precept thatExternal examiners should report on: whether thestandards set are appropriate for the award(s) byreference to published national subject benchmarks, thenational qualification frameworks, institutionalprogramme specifications and other relevantinformation;

This intention is reinforced by the new QAAHandbook for Institutional Audit (QAA 2002b) andthe Cooke Report (HEFCE 02/15 and Universities UK1/02/46b) through the recommendation thatinstitutions should publish summaries of externalexaminer reports which include a statement on theextent to which the standards set are appropriate for theawards, or awards elements, by reference to publishednational subject benchmarks, the nationalqualifications framework and institutional programmespecifications (Appendix 3).

The implications for external examining are:

• external examiners will need to be familiar withthe way the policy framework works and how itinfluences the design of programmes andmodules

• external examiners will need to be familiar withtheir subject benchmark statements and how theymight be interpreted and used in differentprogramme contexts (programme design andassessment).

• institutions will need to provide externalexaminers with information that will help themunderstand how benchmark statements and thenational qualification framework have been used.They will also need to provide information tohelp External Examiners understand how theintended programme learning outcomes aredemonstrated and evaluated through theassessment process.

• external examiners might be expected to discusswith teaching teams the thinking and curriculumdesign that underpins the programmespecification.

All these developments suggest that external examinerswill need to be more involved with the educationaldesign features of programmes. There subjectknowledge and expertise will need to be complementedby knowledge of educational design.

Appendix B2


The QAA Policy and Code

The QAA Policy framework contains:

• qualification frameworks (for Scotland and therest of the UK) on which institutional awards,credit for achievement and programmes/modulescan be positioned: this framework will beunderpinned by qualification and level descriptors

• programme specifications that will enable HEIsto describe the main learning outcomes for aprogramme and the means by which these areachieved and demonstrated: the Programmespecifications will also show how programmes,modules and awards are positioned on thenational qualifications framework

• progress file (transcript) that will enableinstitutions to present the results of learning in amore consistent format and a process (personaldevelopment planning) to help studentsunderstand better what and how they are learningand to plan for their academic, personal andcareer development

• subject benchmark information produced by 42subject benchmarking groups: this information isintended to provide reference points forcurriculum design and assessment in the subject

The QAA Code of Practice for the Assurance of Quality andStandards comprises a series of booklets under thefollowing titles:

• Postgraduate Research Programmes

• Collaborative provision

• Students with disabilities

• External Examining

• Academic appeals and student complaints onacademic matters

• Assessment of students

• Programme approval, monitoring and review

• Career education, information and guidance

• Careers advice and guidance

• Placement learning

• Recruitment and admissions

• Guidelines for Distance Learning

They are available at:

www.qaa.ac.uk/public/COP/codesofpractice.htm

Annex 1 to Appendix B2


The two ideas that underpin the new QA framework: explicit learning outcomes and referencing againstappropriate reference points.


Institutional

may include:

• Level Descriptors

• Key skills policies

• Staff Research

External reference points

may include:

• National key skill standards

• Occupational standards

• Credit Consortia Level Descriptors

Institutions Subjects HE system

Expl

icit

outc

omes

Progress File Programme Specification

SubjectBenchmarks

NationalQualificationsFrameworksCodes of PracticeRequirements of

Professional/Statutory Bodies

Institutional and external points of reference for learning outcomes and standards:



Proposed template for published summaries of external examiners’ reports

(HEFCE 02/15 and Universities UK 1/02/46a)

1. Name of university/college

2. Award/award elements examined and UCASreference

3. Name of external examiner

4. External examiner’s home university/college orother professional/institutional affiliation

5. Year in which the external examiner was appointed

6. Extent to which the institution’s processes forassessment, examination and the determinationof awards are sound and fairly conducted. (This would be a confirmatory statement, or if not, astatement of the ways they fall short.)

7. Extent to which the standards set are appropriatefor the awards, or awards elements, by reference topublished national subject benchmarks, thenational qualifications framework and institutionalprogramme specifications. (This would be aconfirmatory statement that, from the evidence availableto the examiner, the standards set are appropriate, or ifnot, a statement of the ways they fall short.)

8. Extent to which the standards of studentperformance in programmes or parts ofprogrammes examined are comparable with thestandards of similar programmes or parts ofprogrammes in other UK HEIs with which theexaminer is familiar. (This would be a confirmatorystatement that, from the evidence available to theexaminer, the standards set are comparable with thoseapplying at other HEIs with which he or she is familiar,or if not, a statement of the ways they fall short.)

9. Overview and comments/recommendations

(Paragraph of 200-300 words giving the examiner’s viewof key characteristics of the programme which he/sheconsiders sufficiently significant in relation to present orfuture standards to be worth drawing to the attention ofexternal audiences. The examiner would identifydistinctive or innovative programme elements andnotable strengths, and aspects which should bestrengthened or risks which should be addressed in order tomaintain confidence in standards on that programme.)

Emergent idea

At the first QAA Discussion Group meeting it wassuggested that published (on-line) programmespecifications provided a useful context for the publicinformation recommended by the Cooke Report. Thiswould include external examiner reports, present andpast student feedback, and perhaps information on howthe teaching team was planning to develop theprogramme in response to such feedback.



Sources of information

HEQC (1996) Higher Education Quality Council Strengthening external examining

HEQC (1996) Higher Education Quality Council, Guidelines for quality assurance, Section 8 External Examiners

HEFCE (2001) Higher Education Funding Council England, Quality assurance in higher education, Consultationpaper HEFCE 01/45, July 2001

HEFCE (2001) Higher Education Funding Council England, Information on Quality and Standards in Teaching andLearning, Consultation Paper, HEFCE 01/66, November 2001

HEFCE (2002) Higher Education Funding Council England, Information on quality and standards in higher education,HEFCE 02/15, March 2002

NCIHE (1997) Higher Education in the Learning Society. Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into HigherEducation (also known as the Dearing Report), HMSO, 1997

QAA (2000) Quality Assurance Agency, Code of Practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in highereducation, Section 4: external examining, January 2000

QAA (2002a) Quality Assurance Agency, External review process for higher education in England: Operational description,QAA 019 03/02, March 2002. http://www.qaa.ac.uk/crntwork/newmethod/fod.htm

QAA (2002b) Quality Assurance Agency, Handbook for Institutional Audit: England, QAA 020 5/2002.http://www.qaa.ac.uk/public/inst_audit_hbook/handbook_textonly.htm#top

QSC (1995) Quality Support Centre, The external examiner system: possible futures. Report of the project commissioned bythe Higher Education Quality Council by Harold Silver, Anne Stennett and Ruth Williams

HESDA (1993) John Partington et al. TLTP Project Alter: A Handbook for external examiners in higher education,Higher Education Staff Development Agency, 1993

Universities UK (2002a) Information for members. Supporting External Examining: Round Table Events May-July 2002,1/02/46 April 2002

Universities UK (2002b) External Examining 1/02/4

The English Subject Centre report seriesElectronic copies are available on the English Subject Centre website: www.english.ltsn.ac.uk

Report no. 1 Admission Trends in Undergraduate English: statistics and attitudes, Sadie Williams, April 2002, ISBN 0902194437

Report no. 2 The English Degree and Graduate Careers, John Brennan and Ruth Williams, January 2003, ISBN 0902194631

Report no. 3 Postgraduate Training in Research Methods: Current Practice and Future Needs in English, Sadie Williams, February 2003, ISBN 0902194682

Report no. 4 Access and Widening Participation: A Good Practice Guide, Siobhán Holland, February 2003, ISBN 0902194739

Report no. 5 English and IT, Michael Hanrahan, December 2002

Report no. 6 Creative Writing: A Good Practice Guide, Siobhán Holland, February 2003, ISBN 090219478X

Report no. 7 External Examining in English, Philip Martin, April 2003, ISBN 0902194933

The English Subject Centre supports all aspects of the

teaching and learning of English in higher education

in the United Kingdom. It is part of the Learning and

Teaching Support Network (LTSN) www.ltsn.ac.uk.

As one of its activities, the Centre gathers and

disseminates information to the subject community.

This report series publishes the outcomes of

substantial projects undertaken or commissioned

by the Subject Centre.

ISBN 0 902 19493 3

Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham TW20 0EX T• 01784 443221 F• 01784 470684 [email protected]

www.english.ltsn.ac.uk

University of LondonRoyal Holloway

CCUE

Council for

College and University English

External Examining in English

Documents

Transcript of External Examining in English