Programme Delivery, Monitoring and Reporting

Delivery and monitoring (Guiding principles 3, 5, 6)

External examiners

A degree-awarding body is responsible for the standards of its qualifications. The engagement of an external examiner with the relevant professional expertise and experience in higher education will provide assurance to the provider and other stakeholders that the academic standards and quality achieved are in accordance with national qualification frameworks and other requirements such as Characteristics Statements and Subject Benchmark Statements. An external examiner can also provide impartial and independent confirmation that the processes of the provider have been followed and that the assessment and classification processes are fair, reliable and transparent.

(See also Guiding principle 2.)

Engagement

The selection and engagement of an external examiner is explicitly the responsibility of the degree-awarding body, irrespective of whether all or part of the course is delivered by a partner, delivery organisation or support provider. Where a course is delivered in a number of different locations or modes of delivery (for example, full-time, part-time, block or off-site), the external examiners can be asked to comment on the consistency of quality, standards and achievements across the different cohorts. Policies managing the engagement of external examiners ensure that a degree-awarding body can demonstrate that their external examiners:

Have a high degree of competence and experience in the fields covered by the course of study, or parts thereof, and have a good understanding of the UK higher education sector.
Are appropriately experienced in course design and student assessment at the level of the award.
Have the necessary academic experience and subject knowledge to assess standards in an effective manner, identify good practice and recommend enhancements to enable informed course development.
Are experienced in acting as an external examiner or are supported by the provider in undertaking their duties, for example, through training and mentoring.
Are impartial in judgement and wholly independent of the provider and its staff (including the governing body), and any relevant partners.
Do not personally benefit from any student outcomes, nor have any connection to any student being assessed.
Have had sufficient experience in quality assurance to enable them to discharge their role effectively.
Are drawn from a relevant variety of institutional or professional contexts and traditions in order that the course benefits from wide-ranging external scrutiny.
Comply with all relevant employment legislation, including safeguarding, as appropriate.
Normally hold a limited number of concurrent external examining engagements (for example either one or two).

Degree-awarding bodies have clear procedures for the early termination of external examiner contracts, on either side.

Degree-awarding bodies have a systematic approach to managing external examining data records, including information about the provider’s staff acting as external examiners elsewhere. This will assist in assuring the independence and impartiality of the external examiner and the avoidance of conflicts of interest or reciprocal arrangements.

At engagement, degree-awarding bodies make clear the process for external examiners to raise serious concerns about academic standards directly with the head of the degree-awarding body. The degree-awarding body also ensures that all external examiners are aware that, as a last resort and where the concern is systemic and not a one-off case of ineffective practice, the external examiner can raise the matter externally with the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA).

Guidance on when and how to raise such a concern can be found on these organisations’ websites.

Role

External examiners are an important element in the ongoing monitoring of programmes. A key aspect of their role is the assurance of standards and processes. The role also includes analysis of data and reporting. Degree-awarding bodies also need to consider the feedback provided by external examiners and report on it. Providers and degree-awarding bodies should respond to this peer feedback, as well as identify and action any areas for enhancement. The information below provides more detail about the role and responsibilities of both the external examiner and the degree-awarding body.

A provider should develop policies and processes to enable external examiners to review and comment on:

The degree-awarding body’s standards and student performance in relation to those standards.
The consistent and fair application of policies and procedures ensuring the integrity and rigour of academic practices.
Good practice and possible enhancements.

External examiners are full members of examination boards. External examiners submit a report at least annually to the degree-awarding body which provides clear and informative feedback to the provider on those areas defined for the role. In addition, their reports:

Confirm that sufficient evidence was received to enable the role to be fulfilled (where evidence was insufficient, they give details).
State whether issues raised in previous reports have been, or are being, addressed to their satisfaction.
Address any issues as specifically required by any relevant professional body.
Give an overview of their term of office (when concluded).

The degree-awarding body ensures that external examiner reports are made available to students in full.

External examiners receive formal responses from the degree-awarding body to their reports.

Providers demonstrate that feedback from external examiners has been considered and acted upon.

At a senior committee level, it is established practice for degree-awarding bodies to consider a summary of external examiners’ responses annually, and this is reported to the appropriate academic authority. This enables them to draw out any themes or recurring recommendations and ensure that these are fully addressed. Providers consider external examiner reports at an appropriately senior level.

Where relevant, action plans may be written in response to the advice and contain a timeframe for their implementation.

External examiners for research degrees (Guiding principles 3, 4, 5, 6)

External examiners for research degrees are an essential part of the assessment of the award. They are engaged for their specialist knowledge, and research degree-awarding bodies may have additional engagement criteria to ensure that the external examiners have relevant qualifications and experience. Where the student is also a member of staff, additional external examiners may be engaged; the degree-awarding body should include requirements in their processes and guidelines.

Research degree-awarding bodies give the following careful consideration and provide clear guidance on the following areas for staff, students and research degree external examiners:

The criteria to be used in engaging external examiners.
The criteria to be used for selecting external examiners when they have had previous affiliations with the research degree-aw arding body or the provider.
The format and submission of the external examiner report, whether there is a joint report from all the examiners and if this is made available to the student.

Guest speakers and visiting academics (Guiding principles 1, 4, 5, 6)

Guest speakers and visiting academics may be used by providers to deliver course content and may stem from a range of backgrounds. They may be involved in aspects of assessment processes where appropriate. Providers should ensure that their roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and agreed upon engagement/invitation. Relevant support and induction should be provided.

Employers and other external stakeholders (Guiding principles 1, 3, 4, 5, 6)

Employers and other external stakeholders might be invited to be guest speakers and workplace mentors or otherwise contribute to specific aspects of a course. Whatever their involvement, the degree-awarding body should ensure that respective roles and responsibilities are clear and that they provide adequate training and/or supervision.

Employers and other external stakeholders are a valuable source for feedback and critical commentary; opportunities should be made available to seek and act on this data and show how it has been implemented, where relevant, in course design and delivery.

Professional, statutory, and regulatory bodies (PSRBs) (Guiding principles 1, 3, 4, 5, 6)

PSRBs have a varied and wide-reaching involvement in the delivery and monitoring of provision. They may be involved with the delivery as guest speakers and review assessment and threshold standards regularly and via different mechanisms in line with the PSRB’s specific processes and requirements. PSRBs may also analyse data and report evidence. Degree-awarding bodies/providers should give a response to this peer feedback, as well as report on the evidence submitted and identify areas for enhancement.

Providers should demonstrate that results have been considered and acted upon as part of a strategic approach to the enhancement of student learning opportunities and academic standards. Providers maintain records of courses with PSRB status, including a likely schedule of accreditation events. Providers ensure students are aware of the accreditation status and any conditions related to the attainment of professional recognitions.

Periodic/partner review (Guiding principles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)

Degree-awarding bodies undertake substantive reviews of their provision on a periodic basis.

Where degree-awarding bodies work with another provider, the periodic review may be combined with a review of the partnership as a whole. Degree-awarding bodies may also combine their periodic review of provision with the review of a professional body, if appropriate.

Degree-awarding bodies engage one or more experts who are external to the provider to provide impartial and independent advice for the periodic review of all provision that leads to the award of credit or a qualification of the degree-awarding body.

Examples include:

Academic staff with expertise in appropriate subjects.
Experts from relevant sector networks, such as those concerned with developments in pedagogy, quality assurance or technology-enhanced learning.
Representatives of PSRBs.

Periodic review will also benefit from the input of experts who are external to the course development team, but who may be internal or have close ties to the provider. The aim is to involve all relevant stakeholders who can inform the provision and its development and contribute to enhancement by providing additional perspectives.

Examples include:

Staff from the provider who are external to the course/subject to be reviewed.
Employers, for example, through employer advisory groups or organisations in the communities with which the provider works.
Developers, library and learning resources staff, learning technologists, disability practitioners, and equality and diversity practitioners.
Former students, students studying in similar areas, or students’ union officers.

Policies and procedures relating to periodic review are clear on when external expertise is required, the nature of external expertise required, and how it is used. Providers apply policies consistently, explain how the provider engages with external expertise and how the engagement leads to:

(a) Confidence in the maintenance of academic standards.

(b) The enhancement of student learning opportunities.

Providers and degree-awarding bodies have processes for the engagement of external experts that are clear, robust and support providers to demonstrate that where appropriate:

External experts are sufficiently impartial and independent and have the necessary professional experience and knowledge to effectively contribute to the periodic review of courses, including identifying good practice and recommending enhancements within their area of expertise.
External experts understand the context of UK higher education.
An appropriate range of external experts are involved in quality assurance processes, including expertise in working with partners for those involved in partner review.
External experts comply with all relevant employment legislation, including safeguarding as appropriate.

Providers develop role descriptors for external experts engaged for periodic and partner review processes. Appropriate training and guidance provided through, for example, workshops, guidance notes and briefings, will assist them in understanding and performing their role.

Periodic reviews include consideration of sufficient evidence to allow the objectives of the review to be met. The evidence required will vary depending on the provision being reviewed but may include:

Course and curriculum documentation.
Statistics demonstrating student progression and achievement data since the last review.
External examiner reports.
Student handbooks.
Access to virtual learning environment or other digital platforms.
Meetings with a range of students and staff.
Academic regulations.
Student feedback and student survey outcomes.
Assessment criteria.
Monitoring reports.

Reporting mechanisms, to the appropriate academic authority, demonstrate that the relevant external expertise has been considered and acted upon in periodic/partner review.

Providers encourage and support their own staff to act as external experts for other providers.

Monitoring and evaluation

In addition to the comments noted within the individual sections, providers should also see the Monitoring and Evaluation Theme.

Key considerations for this Theme include:

Systematic use of feedback from a range of external experts, including external examiners, PSRBs, employers and other sector groups to drive enhancement.
External examiner verification that awards are sound and the process safe.
Robust policies and procedures governing the engagement and contribution to quality assurance of external experts.
Clear information accessible to all stakeholders.