PROFESSOR SIR STEVE SMITH AcSS
Northcote House
The Queen’s Drive
Exeter
UK EX4 4QJ
Telephone+44 (0)1392 263000
Fax+44 (0)1392 263008
Web
SS/RB
4 July 2011
Dear Andrew
Professor Armit’sExternal Examiner’s Report 2010-2011
College of Humanities: Archaeology
UG Archaeology
The External Examiner notes the following areas of good practice:
One area of particular quality and distinctiveness is the range of practically based modules, such as those dealing with animal, human and plant remains. I particularly like some of the assessments in these modules which enable students to produce what are effectively specialist reports on specific groups of material analogous to those produced by professionals in these areas.
The External Examiner makes the following recommendations:
Essential
Ensure that double blind marking of Final Year Dissertations is rigorously implemented, with discussion between 1st and 2nd markers confined to the reconciliation process which determines the final mark awarded. It is not a problem if the initial marks are divergent as long as the reconciliation process is transparently documented. Review the proportions of 1st class and 2:1 marks (particularly in relation to the Dissertation, but also across module coursework), and identify any areas where these appear unrealistically high in relation to other institutions. Finally, and probably for the attention of the University rather than the Department or College (so repeated on the next page), it is important to enable external examiners to advise on, discuss and (where necessary) amend Dissertation marks as is the case in all comparable institutions that I am aware of. The external examiners are the only markers involved in the process who see a broad range of marks across the cohort and their input is essential to ensure consistency both internally and with other institutions. This will involve the discussion and potential amendment of individual marks (not, for example, scaling of marks across the whole cohort which would be inappropriate in this context).
And:
There is an issue in relation to those modules delivered to 2nd and 3rd years where the essay and exam questions for the 2 cohorts can be extremely similar. It might be that for 3rd years the exam element (which has more emphasis on factual recall) could be replaced by additional coursework to provide scope for greater reflection on module content, but other strategies may also be appropriate.
Advisable
Ensure that students include an explicit statement of aims and objectives in Final Year Dissertations. Ensure the implementation of presentational norms in Final Year Dissertations, e.g. to expunge ugly fonts, single-spacing, multi-coloured references and captions, and other irritants. Reduce the number of assessments on 15 credit modules to a maximum of 2. Avoid 'factual' quizzes, class tests, etc where students score disproportionately highly (these are valuable as formative assessments but can otherwise skew the marks for the overall module quite significantly).
Desirable
Review the distinctions in assessment between cohorts for those modules delivered at levels 2 and 3. Clearly identify marker's names on the Dissertation mark sheet.
I should be grateful if the College would respond to me as required under the procedures contained in the TQA Manual. These look to a response normally within eight weeks after appropriate internal discussion within the College including an opportunity for input from the staff meeting and the College’s Teaching Committee.
Please note that the University’s statement of procedures also requires that the College’s next annual main meeting of the Boards of Examiners for the programmes in question, at which an External Examiner is present, should include early in its agenda a copy of the External Examiner’s report and of the College’s response.
Yours sincerely
Professor Sir Steve Smith
Vice-Chancellor
ccJill Collins