External Examiner Report for Taught Programmes

External Examiner Report for Taught Programmes

Thank you for acting as an external examiner for the University. Your report will provide a formal record of the assessment process and academic standards for the programme(s)/unit(s) covered. It forms a significant component of the University’s Quality Framework.

Please complete and return this report in Microsoft Word format to the Academic Quality and Partnership Office at at the earliest opportunity.

It is recommended that this is within four weeks of the final meeting of the Board of Examiners, and it must be sentby themaximum deadlines set out in Section 5.12 of the External Examiner Policy (

Payment of your external examiner fee will be processed upon receipt of a satisfactorily completed report. All queries with regards to fees and/or expenses should be addressed to the school.

Report Dissemination

The University values the feedback provided in external examiner reports, which are considered by the relevant academic school, the Academic Quality and Partnerships Office, various faculty and University committees, and by any appropriate professional, statutory or regulatory bodies.

The relevant academic school will provide a formal response to your report and a Response Form will be sent to you at the earliest opportunity.

Please note that this report cannot be considered confidential as it will be shared with students and their representatives, and may also be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act. Submission of the report will count as consent for such disclosures as the University considers appropriate.
Please ensure that your report does not name or otherwise identify any student or member of staff.
You may make a confidential report directly to the Vice-Chancellor on any matter of serious concern or sensitivity. Please see Sections 3.24 - 3.26 of the Policy for External Examining of Taught Programmes (
Students who access this report are reminded that it is inappropriate for them to make direct contact with external examiners. If contact is made, the external examiner should refer the matter to the Academic Quality and Partnerships Office.

Page 1 of 8

1. External Examiner Details

Name of External Examiner: / Dr Sarah E. Johns
External Examiner's home institution
(or other affiliation): / School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent
Programme/s examined: / BA in Archaeology and Anthropology, BA Anthropology
Units within above programme/s examined: (if applicable) / Contemporary Theory in Social Anthropology; Anthropology of Islam; Advanced Issues in Archaeology and Anthropology; Current Debates in Biological Anthropology; Anthropology of Childhood and Youth; Dissertation; Human Behavioural Ecology; The Primatological Context to Biological Anthropology; Anthropological Methods; Anthropology and Conservation; Gender, Sexuality and the Body; Material Culture; Anthropological Archaeology of the 1st and 2nd World Wars; Africa
UoB School or Department: / Archaeology and Anthropology, School of Arts
Period of Report: e.g. 2016/17 / 2015/16
Level: (delete or tick as appropriate) / Undergraduate
Year of tenure: (delete or tick as appropriate) / 3rd
Date of report submission: / 16/6/2016

* If this is your final year of office, please ensure that you complete Section 6of this report.

You are invited to comment as extensively as you wish on all aspects of your role. The boxes in the report template will expand as you type and so please do not feel constrained by their initial size.

2. Overview Summary

2.1 / Exemplary practice in any aspects of the student experience including any examples of research-informed learning and teaching, and notable student achievement.
There is an excellent range of interesting assessments across all units. Often the subjects of essays or projects are chosen by the students, are therefore quite personal, and often have a vocational or “local“ edge. Feedback is always excellent, and the exam feedback sheets were very useful and a mark of good practise.
The use of Blackboard has become much more consistent and students are given constructive information, and the communication from staff about the modules (through Blackboard) is excellent.
The exam feedback form is well designed and helped me greatly as the external. I’m pleased to hear that students will receive this from to help them understand and contextualise their exam marks. Excellent practise.
2.2 / Commendations on any key characteristics that you consider significant, and identify any notable strengths and distinctive or innovative practice/elements.
The students really seem to be trying to meet the high expectations set by the school. Even when work isn't great (content wise), effort has still been made in terms of referencing and formatting. The students understand that the standard is high and are striving to achieve.
The mix and range of assessments gives the student many important, transferrable skills. I like the use of wikis, presentations and reviews of published papers. The programmes go beyond the essay/exam format in many cases.
2.3 / Recommendations on any

• areas that should be strengthened
• risks which should be addressed in order to maintain confidence in standards
• opportunities to enhance the quality of the learning opportunities provided to students

Additional recommendations are mentioned across the report, but here I am including specific recommendations and comments for units:
Advanced Issues in Archaeology and Anthropology ARCH 35013
Loved the requirement for examples and evidence from the sub disciplines for this essay. Good feedback. No inconsistent marking in sample I was sent. However, it maybe better to have a team of 1stmarkers and moderators for this module, with work randomly allocated across the team, to make sure of consistency due to the multidisciplinary nature of the module. Very, very interdisciplinary unit, and well organised. I also liked the use of formative presentations.
Anthropology of Childhood and Youth ARCH 30025
Students used lots of generalisations, and imprecise language in the wiki assessment. Is this down to the nature of Wikis? In some cases the comments quite critical for the marks received. Interesting presentation titles and clear marking.
Africa ARCH 20051
Feedback should be typed if possible. Handwriting is hard to read. Was overlap between the essay topics checked?The 2nd, in general, seemed more on material culture. Maybe make that the pattern.No lectures were available on blackboard.
Anthropological Methods ARCH20048
Fair marking with good feedback. Presentation feedback was especially detailed.
Is there a requirement for statistical analysis, as some do it, while others do not? Could make this consistent? Local interests are strong. This is good, but you could encourage them to be a bit riskier in their choice of topics. Should make ethics section a requirement (they lose x % of the mark if not completed).
The Primatological Context to Biological Anthropology ARCH 20019
High achievement in this unit. Good that they have to retain facts for the unit test, and the mix of short answers and multiple choice is good practise. A few things to think about: How can/ do you avoid overlap between presentation and report? Is group work fair? And how do you assess the potential issue of free riders? Not problematic, but could be worth considering.
The Anthropology of Islam ARCH 20041
The essays were of high standard. The unit convenor was very responsive to my suggested exam question edits. Exam performance was ok. Fairly marked and good use of using thirds for poor / short essays.
Current Debates in Biological Anthropology ARCH 30016
The topics are very demographic or health related and still do not reflectthe title of the module. Pleased the title is changing for next year!Many factoids in essay -there needed to be more theoretical synthesis - and the marks reflected this. The course test was excellent. Creative and it tested a range of knowledge. Exam very good, with high student achievement. Good module, but the name is wrong!
Human Behavioural Ecology ARCH 20018
In the exam some firsts were given to essays, that although are well written, did not cite any sources, mention names etc. Just something to watch. Performance in this module was not as strong as last year, with more low marks for misunderstandings etc. The essay marking was excellent with good use of the full range of marks.
Dissertations
Excellent feedback and a wide range of topics.
In a few dissertations the hypothesis or the aims to of the research weren't clearly expressed, and some students did not make much effort made with data collection. Used a convenienceor small sample– some read more like an extended essay. Pleased to see primate topics included in my sample. There was a huge variation in analysis methods used. The best were very strong, and exceptionally well written. Asking for a 3,000 word draft in October is good practise. Guidance is good, but not prescriptive and there are no specific learning outcomes listed. What skills are they getting? As I mentioned last year the following might be useful to consider - ould there be two pathways outlined for students: 1 qualitative analysis/ethnography, 2. Quantitative analysis and methods - so transferrable skills are clear and the chosen methodological approach can be carried out at a more advanced level. Overall, however, the standard is good, but I would like to see more advanced quantitative analysis (not just descriptive stats) where possible. Disagreements between the markers were resolved clearly, however a “two pathways” approach might reduce this all together as it would be clear to markers precisely which direction the project was heading (and whether it was discipline appropriate).
Early Human OriginsARCH 20005
Exam: the marks were fair. In total agreement with thirds been given giving to very brief work that was barely long enough to answer the question. There was a longer tail here than in other modules with some of the worst exam answers I've seen as a Bristol examiner. Very bad fails. I’m not sure why, but worth exploring the poorer performance.The top end work, however, is excellent. Essays were very good. All fair and well-marked with comments where improvements can be made.
Contemporary Theory in Social AnthropologyARCH 20001
The exam was very fairly and consistently marked. Good use of the range of marks. Good guidance for essay writing and interesting assessment.
Gender, Sexuality and the Body ARCH 20053
The working paper portfolio was a nice mix of summarise and formative assessment. Very creative. The list of “trouble words” given to students is potentially problematic. I understand why these were given, but does this stop students from making their own mistakes or thinking critically. Could be viewed as rather prescriptive and may turn some students of the module. Better to have a seminar discussion or assessment on trouble words rather than simply telling the students what is and isn’t acceptable.
Anthropological Archaeology of the 1st and 2nd World Wars ARCH 30027
There was consistency between the essay marks but not much improvement between essays. A very interesting and unique unit.
Anthropology and Conservation ARCH 35005
Class test marks were very high and out of step with the essay. The marks on this component were extremely high and were not particularly variable. I think the test could have been made slightly more challenging to bring achievement on this component in line with other assessments.
Material Culture ARCH 30042
Marks sheet for presentations differs from other units. Very creative essay choice and students did consistently well. No mark below 58. Comparedtootherunits the essay is a bit short (2500 words) for 75% of the unit mark. Increasethis to make a more substantive piece of work?
2.4 / Previous recommendations if appropriate, please comment on the extent to which the School has addressed any recommendations that may have arisen from the previous years’ external examiners’ report.
All previous recommendations raised in this section that you consider to be unresolved will receive a detailed response in Section B of the Response Form.
There are still some issues with how the dissertation unit is organised. This should be reviewed for subsequent years as detailed above.
The arrival of coursework, access to Blackboard, viewing assessments from both blocks, and communication with the admin team was much improved. I knew exactly what was required of me and by when. This was a huge improvement on the past two years and I hope it continues. I felt my suggestions about his had really been taken into account.
However, I still did not receive any official response to my report (that’s two years where no response has been sent to me), so I have no way of knowing what other changes were considered or enacted as suggested in my previous report. The school was surprised by this at the meeting, as apparently responses had been composed.
2.5 / Overall satisfaction with your level of involvement as external examiner in the University’s processes for determining the award of its degrees.
Very satisfied. But I would like to see the official response from the school.

3. Academic Standards

3.1 / Awards - Are the standards set appropriate for the awards, or award elements? (With reference to published QAA national subject benchmark statements, the national framework for HE qualifications and institutional programme specification/s) / Yes
3.2 / Student achievement - Are the standards of student performance in programmes or parts of programmes examined comparable with the standards of similar programmes or parts of programmes in other UK higher education institutions with which you are familiar? / Yes
3.3 / Intended Learning Outcomes - From your knowledge of the unit/s, programme/s and their assessment/s, was there evidence of student attainment of the intended learning outcomes? / Yes
The academic standard of the units I assessed is excellent. Overall, feedback is very good and the expectations of the staff are very high.

4. Curriculum Design and Delivery

4.1 / Please comment on curriculum design in terms of:

• suitability of programme and unit aims and learning outcomes and the extent to which

these were achieved

• coherence and currency of programme structure and programme and unit content
• the extent to which there is appropriate progression within the programme from entry to graduation
• any proposed changes to the programme during the year and your opinion on any consultation

I have no concerns. A few suggestions have been made above regarding specific units, but overall the degrees and units I examine are challenging and well designed. There is appropriate progression through the programmes and the range of units, (and the assessments) are varied, often novel, and provide students with a range of skills and experiences.
I was not required to comment on any in year changes.
4.2 / Please comment on curriculum deliveryin terms of:

• the curriculum, teaching or resourcing of the programme as indicated by the performance of the students in the assessment

• the range and suitability of teaching and learning methods experienced by students

• staff expertise

Students are exposed to a good range and type of assessment and marking is generally very consistent.
A high level of staff expertise is clear. Obvious care and attention is demonstrated by staff from assessment design to the excellent feedback that students receive.Less experienced staff did require more advice on formatting their exam questions. Mostly this was due to presenting two questions as one question which can be confusing for students.
4.3 / Professional, statutory and regulatory body (PSRB) requirements – where applicable, please comment on the extent to which the design, aims, currency and content of the curriculum reflects any PSRB requirements.
N/A

5. Assessment

5.1 / Please comment on assessment processes in terms of:

• whether the University’s processes for assessment and the determination of awards were sound and fairly conducted in line with the University’s policies and regulations

• whether the assessment processesmeasure student achievement rigorously against intended learning outcomes
• your overall impressions of the assessment process

The processes of assessment and determining awards are sound and in line with the University regulations. The moderation sheets are always filled out with care and attention and it helps in my understanding of the process. The standard is rigorous and students are tested across a range of learning outcomes. Feedback is, as always, excellent and constructive. The exam feedback sheets were helpful and will enhance student experience.
5.2 / Please comment on marking criteriain terms of:

• whether the marking scheme/grading criteria has been properly and consistently applied to ensure that the internal marking is fair and of an appropriate standard

• whether the marking criteria are effective in discriminating between levels of attainment in relation to the classification of the award

In some cases there seems to be some reluctance to use the higher 2:2 band marks. A lot of work is given borderline 2:1 marks when the associated comments are more critical. I would also like to see more specific details (references, dates, key names etc.) in first class exam essays. However, marking is fair and usually in line with other institutions where I have examined work.
5.3 / Please comment on thescope of assessmentin terms of:

• the range, depth and appropriateness of the assessment methods used, including practical work
• assessment across units of the same level and the overall loading of assessment in relation to the number of credits awarded

The range of assessments is excellent. There are some very creative and innovative practises, some of which I’ve detailed in my module specific comments. The mix of practical elements with more traditional essays, as well as more novel assessments such as wikis, presentations etc. is innovative and provides student with a good range of transferrable skills.
Assessment load is comparable between units and except for my observation about the essay in Material Culture and the in unit test in Anthropology and Conservation there are no issues with some modules being over or under assessed.

6. Final Exit Report