Home — Birkbeck, University of London



Sub-Board of Examiners Report PG programmes – 2019/20The completed sub-board report should be uploaded to SharePoint in both .docx and .pdf format. Please remove all guidance text/prompts from the form before submitting.Any questions about this form should be directed to asq@bbk.ac.uk. Sub-Board: [Insert sub-board name]Date of Meeting: [Insert date] / Chair’s Action decision [delete as appropriate]List of Programmes:The Sub-Board considered results for students registered to the following programmes:[Programme title 1][Programme title 2]Section 1: Module ResultsPlease only record results considered/confirmed at this sub-board meeting.Please use the Tableau report ‘Module Results: Report for Examiners Sub-Boards’ when completing this table. Table 1: Module ResultsModule codeTotal number of students on moduleNumber of students passing moduleNumber of students offered re-assessment Number of students offered retakeNumber of students deferring moduleNumber of students withdrawn from modulePass rate (%)If there are any modules with a pass rate below 60%, please provide a comment on why this might be occurring and highlight any action being taken to improve the pass rate:Table 2: Module Marks Adjusted for NDPModule code% of module weighting completed prior to COVID-19 disruptionCore Learning Objectives met (Y/N)PSRB accreditation permits this action to be taken and this has been confirmed with the relevant PSRB (Y or N/A)Number of students whose mark was better based on assessment prior to 16th MarchNumber of students whose mark improved following completion of any outstanding assessments after 16th MarchTable 3: Modules Not Eligible for Mark Adjustment for NDPModule codeReason module was not eligible:(1) less than 40% of module weighting by 16th March(2) core learning objectives had not been covered in assessment prior to 16th March or (3) PSRB accreditation prevented this course of action.Module Cohort PerformancePlease confirm that module cohort performance was compared with previous year(s) where it was feasible and practical do so YesNoIf no, please confirm why:In cases where module marks have been recalibrated based on the identification of a noticeable difference please provide details of the modules concerned and recalibration applied. Module code% marks recalibrated byReason behind decision External Examiner approval (Y/N)Section 2: Reassessment and ProgressionPlease confirm the sub-board’s method for deciding which students are offered reassessment, and which are advised to retake the module. For example, does your sub-board operate a retake ‘floor’ where all candidates who score below a certain mark (such as 30) are automatically offered a retake; or are all students being offered reassessments?: Section 3: Mitigating CircumstancesPlease provide data for the current and previous academic year. Number of claims should count total number of assessments affected.Academic YearNumber of students on programmesPercentage of students submitting MC claimsPercentage of MC claims that relate to COVID-19Number of MC claims submittedPercentage of claims accepted2019/202018/19Please provide detail on what action was taken after MC claims were accepted (ie. in x number of cases, the student was allowed to resubmit the assessment without a cap; in x number of cases a late submission was accepted without penalty):Please provide detail on reasons for which MC claims were rejected:Please provide detail on number of MC claims that are still awaiting a decision and reasons for this:If there has been a significant increase/decrease in MC claims, or acceptance of claims, please provide a reason for this, if possible: Section 4: Compensated FailsCandidate numberModule(s) in which CF is offeredLevel of module(s) in which CF is offeredTotal number of credits for which CF is offeredSection 5: DiscretionPlease ensure that all students whose weighted average is in the 2.00% borderline are discussed and recorded here, even if their award classification is not raised. In the case of additional COVID-19-related discretion, including awarding a degree with fewer than the typical number of credits, that can be applied to students in cases of serious medical or personal circumstances, these students should be reported below but further discretion should not be applied i.e. the results of COVID-19 mitigations put in place should not allow further discretion to be applied to students in the borderline category. Please also include all students whose average is above the distinction borderline, but whose dissertation mark is within 2 points of the borderline.APL: If candidate has prior credit on their record, please specify total number of APL credits. If no APL please record n/aCredit in higher band: please include number of credits in higher band/total number of credits (i.e. 90/180) in all cases, even if the candidate does not have preponderance.Reason for discretion: where this applies, please record reason for discretion as preponderance or mitigating circumstancesDiscretion Applied: please record ‘Applied’ or ‘Not Applied’Candidate numberWeighted averageDissertation markAPL Number of credits in higher bandReason for discretion (preponderance or Mit Circs)Discretion Applied?Recommended classificationCOVID-19-related discretion Disregarding up to 50% of passed or compensated credits taken during the 2019/20 academic year from the calculation of the final degree classification should only apply where it has been established that there are serious personal or medical circumstances which have clearly impacted on module performance and the marks gained are out of line with previous and/or concurrent performance levels for the candidate.?Disregarding up to 50% of creditsCandidate numberWeighted averageAPLTotal number of credits disregarded (up to 50%) and module code(s)Adjusted weighted average Recommended classificationApproval of Pro-Vice Master Education /Academic Registrar/ Nominee given (Y/N)Section 6: AwardsPlease record these by award title, and group recommended classifications per programme.Please use the Tableau report ‘Awards by programme’ when completing this table.Award titleRecommended classification Candidate numberWeighted AveragePlease highlight averages that are within 2.00% of award classification boundaryPlease record exceptional cases where an award of Master’s degree is recommended based on 150 credits. Such recommendations should only be made in exceptional cases only. Agreement of the External Examiner should also be sought. Award titleNumber of credits award is based onRecommended classification Candidate numberWeighted AveragePlease highlight averages that are within 2.00% of award classification boundaryApproval of Pro-Vice Master Education /Academic Registrar/ Nominee given (Y/N)Section 7: Termination of RegistrationPlease provide detail on the number of students whose registration was terminated, and the reason for this. Please also state if these students are offered an exit award:Candidate numberReason for termination of registrationExit award offered? If yes please specify award nameSection 8: Additional information to the College BoardPlease provide more detail to aid the College Board in understanding aspects of the report if required. If additional awards for finalists are to be recommended this academic year, please provide information on when and how these will be processed (sub-board meeting considering reassessments; approvals by sub-board chair’s action): ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download