1 / 8

Update on the Review of External Examining

Update on the Review of External Examining. Greg Wade, Policy Adviser, UniversitiesUK. The Review of External Examining. National Consultation – responses analysed (61% response rate) Final meeting of the Expert and Review Groups held Drafting final report

manasa
Download Presentation

Update on the Review of External Examining

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Update on the Review of External Examining Greg Wade, Policy Adviser, UniversitiesUK

  2. The Review of External Examining • National Consultation – responses analysed (61% response rate) • Final meeting of the Expert and Review Groups held • Drafting final report • Fully endorsed by the GuildHE Executive and UniversitiesUK UK Board • Dissemination to the sector • Wider circulation • Integration into development of the Academic Infrastructure

  3. Principles/Question 1Question 2 – Minimum Expectations • Yes but bureaucracy/institutional autonomy • Principle 3 – how, to whom, consistency = effectiveness ? • The most recommended additions - links to AI, external examiners responsible to the institution that appoints them, need to avoid increasing costs. • Strong support for the approach and the need for a single reference point • Support for a more explicit statement of what is mandatory/optional • A need to be explicit about application to externals drawn from industry and the professions • Support for distinction between judgement and advice (not all liked the terms) relating judgement to standards and advice to QE

  4. Question 3 – Selection ProcessesQuestion 4 - Selection Criteria • Very strong support for both propositions • Reservations - extent to which this was a significant change – and additional burden – compared with existing practice • Concerns about whether individual details would be disclosed • Strong but qualified support • Concerns – flexibility, burden, impact on recruitment • Not supported - too generic, should be left to individual institutions, Section 4 sufficient.

  5. Question 5 - Induction/Common TemplateQuestion 6 - Recognition • Reflects current institutional practice; and value of training/development • Controlled by the institution • Desirability, or the value of, some form of mentoring arrangement (for first time externals) • Role for home institution • Some already do this/natural expectation • Including in appraisal and performance processes • Support qualified - decision was up to the institution, one factor amongst many and senior positions = promotion limited • Uncertain or disagreed - an institutional decision with some strongly opposing any national comment or guidance

  6. Question 7 – National Report TemplateQuestion 8 – Student Section • Agreement heavily qualified and mainly “ in principle”. • Two-thirds - a minimum “core” • Linked to the minimum expectations • Uncertain or opposed, over half were willing to consider a minimum set of questions or broad guidelines • Concerns - reinvention of failed TQI website, adds to workload to no good effect, as many institutions already shared the whole report not needed • Whole report would need to be made available under FOI • More important alternative section confidential comments

  7. Question 9 - Share with Student Reps Question 10 – Publishing Names • Already did this as a matter of good practice • Confidential information should be removed • Some commented - available to all students on the relevant programme, within context • No objections in principle but data protection/privacy • Direct approaches from students • Details were already available to students • Could demonstrate the range of institutions in other ways

  8. Question 11 - Internal ProceduresQuestion 12 – Indep Mechanism CfC • A given • Some interest in a mediation process • Most thought CfC would serve the purpose • Differentiation between matters of process and matters of academic judgement

More Related