External Moderator Annual Report 2017/18

The purpose of this report is to ensure the quality, comparability and fitness for purpose of Access to HE courses and the consistency and sufficiency of standards of student achievement.

A SEPARATE REPORT IS TO BE COMPLETED FOR EACH DIPLOMA

Provider:
Diploma Title:
Delivery Sites:
Start Dates:
Provider personnel (and roles) in attendance on the day:
External Moderator
(Please Print name)
Date of Visit:
External Moderator to comment on completion of previous Conditions, either from Visit 1 or still outstanding from the last Annual Report:
Condition / Completed or partly / Comment
Developments since last visit, in reference to Recommendations:
1. Administration Systems
Yes N/A / No Partly
1.1 / Was there evidence that all assessors had contributed to and/or checked entries on the RAC?
1.2 / Had all students authorised their final results by signing theirindividual part of the RAC, with these documents available at the Final Moderation?
1.3 / Was there evidence that provider had implemented a robust process to prepare in advance for the Awards Board, e.g. a pre-board activity report, identification of Board attendees, preparation of oral data reports?
1.4 / Is there confidence in the process for assuring accuracy of the RAC?
1.5 / Was the preparation for the Awards Board items on oral reporting of extenuating circumstances, referrals and plagiarism satisfactory?
1.6 / Had the Awards Board minutes been appropriately prepared in advancefor the Board meeting, e.g. pre-populated with student achievements?
If you have answered “no” or “partly” to any of the above questions, please give your reasons/comments below:
Free Comment – delete if not required
2. Assessment
Yes N/A / No Partly
2.1 / Was the overall quality of assignment briefing satisfactory for all curriculum strands, containing all required compliance elements?
2.2. / Was evidence of achievement clearly mapped to the assessment criteria in all units sampled?
2.3 / Were the grading indicators clearly shown for each assignment sampled?
2.4 / Was the process for the final grade awarded clearly shown for all units?
2.5 / Were the methods of assessment used for every unit appropriate for the level required?
2.6 / Was all assessor feedback to the student appropriate, supportive and giving information on improving or maintaining grading outcome? (e.g. feedback against each descriptor used)?
2.7 / Has the provider used any suitable software or mechanisms to check regularly for plagiarism?(If ‘Yes’, please identify in Free Comment)
2.8 / Was navigation through any electronic files simple to use, with basic guidance?(Please state below in Free Comment any electronic platforms used by the provider)
2.9 / Was the evidence for ungraded units satisfactory, indicating the value of the learning and the level?
If you have answered “no” or “partly” to any of the above questions, please give your reasons/comments below, citing the units/curriculum involved.
Free Comment – delete if not required
Please describe the sampling strategy adopted during final moderation.
Names of students whose full portfolio was sampled:
Names of partial achievers whose work was sampled:
Total no. of students on RACs / No. of students claiming Diploma / No. of students whose work was sampled
3. Quality Assurance
Yes N/A / No Partly
3.1 / Was there a clear matrix available showing completed IM sampling activity?
3.2 / Were all the IM sampling reports of appropriate quality?
3.3 / Did the formats for the IM reports contain all QAA and AVA regulatory requirements?
3.4. / Was there evidence that required IM actions found in reports had been completed?
3.5 / Was there evidence of internal standardisation activity? (May have been noted at the first visit)
3.6 / Has there been a noticeable change in the grade profile for this Diploma? (Where the Diploma has been run at the provider before). QAA expect AVAs to make detailed analysis of provider grade profiles and trends. Please give as much information as you can on your findings within the free comment section below to help the AVA with this activity.
If you have answered “no” or “partly” to any of the above questions, please give your reasons/comments below:
Free Comment – delete if not required
4. Resources
Yes N/A / No Partly
4.1 / Was there sufficient evidence that learning for all units had been satisfactorily resourced?
4.2 / Noting responses to 2.1 – 2.6 and 3.2 can there be confirmation that no member of staff involved with this Diploma requires immediate access to relevant CPD?
If you have answered “no” or “partly” to any of the above questions, please give your reasons/comments below:
Free Comment – delete if not required
5. Management
Yes N/A / No Partly
5.1 / Can you confirm there were no concerns that required reporting to a senior manager?
5.2 / If required was a senior manager available to listen/address those concerns?
5.3 / Was senior management properly represented at the Awards Board?
If you have answered “no” or “partly” to any of the above questions, please give your reasons/comments below:
Free Comment – delete if not required
6. Student Support
Yes N/A / No Partly
6.1 / If there was evidence of non-achievement was the feedback supportive, enabling the student to develop practice?
6.2 / Was the submission and preparation of the portfolios for final moderation satisfactory in all aspects?
6.3 / Was there a portfolio front sheet of contents with credits and grades for all relevant units, preferably the individual record from the RAC?
6.4 / Was this front sheet signed by the student and tutor to confirm accuracy of submitted assessment outcomes?
6.5 / Was there evidence of student end-of-course evaluations?
6.6 / Did the evaluations indicate general student satisfaction with the provision here?
If you have answered “no” or “partly” to any of the above questions, please give your reasons/comments below:
Free Comment – delete if not required
7. Example(s) of Good Practice for the AVA to Note
8. Has the course team completed the end of year Course Team Review? The link will have been included in the monthly bulletins. Please ensure the course team is aware of the need to completethis byFriday 27 July at the latest. Failure to complete the Course Team Review will have an impact on the risk rating. If the Course Team Review has not yet been completed, please indicate who will take responsibility for completing this.
9. Further Free Comment – to include overall estimation of the quality of assessment and organisation of this Diploma
10. Recommendations for Next Academic Year
Administration: /
Assessment:
Quality Assurance:
Resources:
Management:
Student Support:
11. Conditions and Quality Improvement Plan for Next Academic Year

Action

/

Person to Audit Completion

/

Deadline

12. Standardisation Samples for 2018/19
Information regarding the provider samples for external standardisation in 2018/19 have been given in the monthly bulletins during 2017/18. It was the responsibility of the course team to have copies available at final moderation and for the External Moderator to deliverthe samples to Certa.
Comments on the availability of samples at the final moderation, giving the codes of both samples.
Code of provider sample, (Distinction) / Code of moderator sample,(ungraded)

If there are any changes to the Approval to Run documentation that was completed when you applied to run this Diploma (including change of personnel or change to marketing titles) an addendum must be completed and forwarded to . The addendum is available to download from the Certa website.

Risk Rating
Green
(Low Risk) / On the basis of the available evidence there is little or no risk to the integrity of the Access to HE Diploma, Centre approval criteria, regulatory conditions and / or the reputation of Certa and Centre performance is good.
Yellow
(Marginal Risk) / On the basis of the available evidence any risk to the integrity of the Access to HE Diploma, Centre approval criteria, regulatory conditions and / or the reputation of Certa is marginal and Centre performance is satisfactory.
Amber
(Moderate Risk) / On the basis of the available evidence there are concerns about a specific risk indicator or indicators and customized or specific action is required to ensure the integrity of the Access to HE Diploma, Centre approval criteria, regulatory conditions and / or the reputation of Certa. Sanctions may be imposed.
Red
(High Risk) / On the basis of the available evidence there are major concerns about one or more risk indicators which threaten the integrity of the Access to HE Diploma, Centre approval criteria, regulatory conditions and / or the reputation of Certa. Urgent action is required. Sanctions may be imposed.

Green and Yellow risk ratings should be used where there are no conditions, or where the conditions are straightforward and will be easily discharged by the Centre. Amber and Red risk ratings should be reserved for where there are significant or multiple issues that must be addressed to safeguard the integrity of the provision.

For each of the Risk Indicators that are relevant, please complete a risk rating based on your assessment of the practice you have seen.

Risk Rating
Risk Indicator / Section of the Report providing evidence
(italicized sections: indirect evidence) / Risk Rating
ie Red, Amber, Yellow or Green
Administration / Section 1
Assessment / Section 2
Quality Assurance / Section 3
Resources / Section 4
Management / Section 5
Student Support / Section 6
Overall Risk Rating / All applicable sections
External Moderator Decision
The Diploma(s) may continue without amendment; no action required
The Diploma(s) may continue; Recommendations implemented as appropriate
The Diploma(s) may continue subject to completion of the Conditions
The Diploma(s) may continue subject to completion of the Conditions. Sanctions applied as listed below.
Sanction(s) applied, with reasons, together with details of the Diploma affected.
Please note that Sanctions above Level 2 must be agreed by Certa.
Sanction Level 3: threat to students, loss of integrity of assessment/Diploma, danger of invalid claims for certification. / Sanction Level 4: irretrievable breakdown in the management and quality assurance of specific Diploma(s). / Sanction Level 5: irretrievable breakdown in the management and quality assurance of all Diplomas.
Declaration
I confirm that, based on the sampled evidence, this is a true and accurate Report.
EM signature:
Date:
Moderators to return this form, with a Claim Form attached, by 28 July 2017.
Email this completed form to:

For Certa Use Only

Process / Date / By Whom:
Report received:
Entered on spreadsheet:
Read by:
Final version sent to Provider:
Final version saved in electronic organisation folder:
Action/Notes:

EM Report (Final Moderation and Awards Board) – Updated March 2018