close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

код для вставкиСкачать
LEEDS BECKETT UNIVERSITY
QUALITY ASSURANCE SERVICES
Continuous Audit 2014/15: Boards of Examiners, Examination Committee or Joint BOE/EC
Faculty
Name of Faculty
Auditor and Role
Courses
Courses being considered
Type of Meeting
Chair
Enter name
Secretary
Enter name and role plus Faculty or
Service
Board of Examiners/Examination
Committee/Joint Board and Committee
[delete as applicable]
Enter name
Audit Form with Notes
Date
Enter date
Start Time
Enter time
Finish time
Enter time
Please note that the guidance in italics should be removed before the report is submitted to QAS – please use sentences in the comments box instead of ‘yes/no’ responses.
ACTIVITY
Nature of the meeting
Attendance
REQUIREMENTS
- Board of Examiners also acting as an
Examiners Committee
- If yes to the above, is the
Examination Committee business
clearly separated on the agenda
- pre-board
- attendance list circulated
- key staff present
- staff leaving/arriving
Updated by QAS January 2015

COMMENTS
Confirm if this meeting is a joint Board of Examiners/Examination Committee meeting.
If joint, the Examination Committee decisions should be separate from the BOE decisions and this
should be reflected on the agenda and commented on during the meeting.
Did the Chair and relevant colleagues hold a pre-board? If this not mentioned explicitly ask the
Secretary to confirm after the meeting if one did take place and who attended. If one did not take
place ask for a rationale as to why.
Was it circulated and signed by all attendees?
Confirm if the following were present:
Chair
Course Leaders
Module Leaders
External Examiner(s)
Secretary (in attendance)
At least one external examiner is expected to attend a Board. Confirm which external examiner(s)
were present (name). Note if any sent apologies and any details shared with the Board about this.
Did anyone leave or arrive during proceedings? If yes, confirm with the Secretary how this will be
recorded.
ACTIVITY
Agenda
REQUIREMENTS
- standard/appropriate content
- adhered to during the meeting
Previous minutes
Invigilators’ reports
University regulations
Specific course
regulations
Examination Committee
Mitigation
Plagiarism, selfplagiarism, collusion and
other forms of unfair
practice
- prizes
- appropriate format
- confirmed/received
- provided/mentioned
- format and completeness
- any further clarification required
- available
- adhered to
- reference made to them
- applicable?
- adhered to
- reference made to them
- any further clarification required
- evidence of Committee process
- what decisions were reached?
- Chair in possession of a report from
the Faculty Mitigation Panel
- appropriate outcomes
- cohort marks adjusted
- Chair in possession of a report from
the Unfair Practice Board (UPB)
- marks presented include the UPB
penalty
- penalty from UPB applied correctly?
- any further discussion/amendment of
UP cases/outcomes?

COMMENTS
Did the agenda conform to the agenda template? Was the revised template (available from
2013/14) used? Submit a copy of the agenda with this report.
Confirm if the agenda was followed. If not, describe what was not covered. Note here additional
items that you consider to be good practice.
Did the agenda include the topic of prizes to high achieving students?
Yes/No
Minutes should have been confirmed shortly after the last Board/Committee and confirmed minutes
should be received for reference.
This is only applicable if there were examinations on the course.
As above.
As above.
Were the regulations available to attendees and if so in what format (e.g. hard copy or electronic).
Was reference made to the implementation of the updated progression, award and classification
regulations from August 2012? Did the Chair confirm/identify if there were any students still eligible
using the former progression eligibility requirements? There may be a small number of students in
this situation.
During the meeting was reference made to the regulations or clarification sought.
Some courses have exemptions from the Academic Regulations & Principles, normally due to
Professional Body requirements. Note here if this applies to any of the courses being considered and
if the exemptions were clearly explained to the Board.
Enter n/a if there were no course specific regulations.
Enter n/a if there were no course specific regulations.
Enter n/a if there were no course specific regulations.
Enter n/a in these boxes if the meeting was a Board of Examiners only.
Was there clear evidence of the Committee process, either through the use of a separate (earlier)
Committee or a joint agenda?
E.g. confirmation of marks for modules.
All Boards should receive a summary report from the Faculty Mitigation Panels.
Were appropriate outcomes reached for those students where mitigation was granted by a Faculty
Mitigation Panel?
Were any cohort marks adjusted? If so, what rationale was presented.
All Boards should receive a summary report with the recent Unfair Practice Board decisions.
Yes/No? Components which have been affected should have a PLA next to the grade.
2
ACTIVITY
Marks sheets
External examiner(s)
Progression/award
REQUIREMENTS
- method presented
- all complete
- legible/easy to follow?
- comments on the marks overall
- contribution to proceedings
- appropriate decisions
- level of discussion/debate relating to
student outcomes
- contained awards
- form/timing of reassessments
Classification
Level 6 mixed economy
students
Collaborative students
Post-BOE arrangements
Chairing
- appropriate decisions
- level of discussion/debate relating to
classification outcomes
- ‘Best 100’ method
- mixed economy profiles
- how were the mixed profile students
considered?
- level of discussion/debate relating to
student outcomes
- were students from collaborative
courses considered?
- level of discussion/debate relating to
student outcomes
- consistency
- date of publication of results
- Chair’s Action directives
- date of next meeting
- any other arrangements
- clear and efficient
- knowledgeable

COMMENTS
How were the marks presented, e.g. hard copy or electronically.
Were there any missing marks?
Did they comment on the marks overall?
How did they contribute?
Was reference made to the implementation of the updated progression and award regulations from
August 2012? Did the Chair confirm/identify which groups of students were to be considered under
former or current regulations? Any students who started their level of study prior to August 2012
would still be eligible for the former progression requirements.
Was eligibility for contained awards confirmed?
Were any REPEAT FULL/REPEAT PART decisions made and if so were the regulations adhered to.
What are the arrangements for reassessment (if discussed).
Was reference made to the implementation of the updated progression and award regulations from
August 2012? Did the Chair confirm/identify which groups of students were to be considered under
the best of three classification outcomes or just best 100? Any students who commenced their
course prior to August 2012 would still be eligible for all three classification methods.
Was this method explained to the Board or was an assumption of knowledge of the method made?
Mixed economy refers to students who have a mixture of 15 and 20 credit point modules across one
or more levels. Please ask the Chair/Secretary before the meeting to confirm if any such students
are being considered so you can note the discussions around their profiles.
What methods of classification were used?
Was it noted that these students had mixed profiles? What level of discussion was there around
these students?
Provide details of the courses and if the students were being considered for progression/award
and/or classification.
What level of discussion was there around these students?
Was there consistency with the decisions of these students? Was there consistency compared to the
onsite students?
Explain how Chair’s Actions, if there were any, would be addressed.
Did the Chair explain the decisions available? Were they knowledgeable of the process and
3
ACTIVITY
Course Leader
REQUIREMENTS
- well prepared
- confidentiality emphasised
- report on Chair’s Actions
- results lists
- recommendations
- well prepared

COMMENTS
regulations?
Did the Chair update the Board/Committee on the Chair’s Actions from the previous meeting.
Chairs should sign a results list to confirm the outcomes of the Board/Committee.
Did they make any recommendations?
Please add any other general observations below:
Activity
Any comments about the secretarial/administrative support?
Comments
Add/delete rows as applicable
All reports must be submitted to [email protected] no later than ten working days after the event.
4
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа