UNIVERSITY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE

Academic Registry (Quality & Standards)

Report of External Examiner

To be used for validated awards delivered by University Collaborative Partners

Full title of course(s) (award and course title(s)): FdSc ICT

Names of collaborative partners Hereford College of Technology

External Examiner: Stella Mills

Date Report Received: 23 July 2012

Date Report Circulated: 18 October 2012

The attached report has been received by the University from the above external examiner and copied to the following:

Dean of Quality and Standards: Neil Casey

Faculty Dean: Ben Calvert

Director of Collaborative Partnerships: TBC

Partnership Coordinator: Kevin Walter

Collaborative Partner Bob Higgie

Academic Link Tutor(s) N/A

Head of School: N/A

Faculty Head of Quality & Standards: Sheila Ollin

Faculty Administrative Manager: Gary Dickens

Associate Dean of Quality Standards: Malcolm MacLean/ Amanda Pill

This report has been read by the Dean of Quality and Standards. A signature confirms that he/she is content for the report to now be addressed at course level. However, any additional comments should be addressed by the named staff by the given date. The Dean of Quality and Standards will sign off any final responses.

A positive report which notes that the partnership is operating effectively. It would be helpful for the Partnership Co-ordinator to explain the External’s comments in 7.1 regarding partner students being ‘akin to external students’.

A response to these comments to be coordinated by: Partnership Co-ordinator

And submitted to Academic Registry (Quality) by: 22nd Oct 2012

Subject Group Leaders, Course Leaders and collaborative partners are reminded that all issues raised by this report should be considered by the Board of Studies and appropriate responses made. A record of the report and any such responses must form part of the Annual Monitoring Report.


UNIVERSITY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE

EXTERNAL EXAMINER'S REPORT

Academic Year: 2011/12

(Form is available electronically on http://resources.glos.ac.uk/quality/handbook07/section-i.cfm

Name of Award (BA, MSc, etc) and Course: Foundation Degree in ICT

Collaborative partner (where relevant): Hereford College of Technology

Name of Examiner: Professor Stella Mills

Home institution/professional affiliation: Staffordshire University

Date of Attendance and Visit(s): 22nd March 2012 and 11th July 2012

Date of report: 18th July 2011

External examiners are invited to comment on the following aspects of the course, as appropriate. These aspects are informed by the guidance in the QAA Code of Practice, Section 4 (August 2004). Please note that comments which refer to individually named students and/or members of staff should not be included.

1. Academic standards

Please comment on:

1.1 The standards of academic achievement demonstrated by the students

The standards of academic achievement are good but some marking seemed a little harsh. However, this has been revised and no student has been disadvantaged. Relevant staff have been informally briefed both by University of Gloucestershire staff and myself.

1.2 The appropriateness of these standards to the level of the award

These standards are appropriate for the level of the awards and are maintained across the subject area.

1.3 The extent to which these standards are comparable with those with which you are familiar for comparable awards in other institutions

The academic standards achieved by the students are equivalent to those achieved elsewhere in my experience.

1.4 The extent to which these standards are consistent with the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications and (where relevant) with the QAA Foundation Degree Benchmark or Masters Degree Benchmark

These standards are consistent with QAA benchmarking for foundation degrees.

2. The student cohort

Please comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the student cohort as evidenced by the material you have seen.

From the evidence of the material seen, which includes work from all modules, the students are working to a high standard and achieving well. The tutors know the students personally as the cohort is relatively small and this helps to bond the cohort.

3. Assessment and examinations

Please comment on:

3.1 The design and structure of assessments

Assessments are generally well designed and appropriate to the level of each module. Assessment points seem rather numerous in most modules but this is to encourage continued engagement with the course. However, it may be prudent to consider where assessment points may be combined, thus reducing the number of assessments for each module. This should also help to smooth the transition to the top-up degree.

3.2 The marking of assessments

All marking seemed fair and consistent across the modules and awards. However, some modules had a low mean and the examination board was pleased to raise some marks across modules to allow borderline students to pass.

3.3 The appropriateness and soundness of the procedures for assessment and examinations

The procedures for assessment were appropriate and sound and deadlines were enforced across the course. These seemed to be in keeping with the University procedures on assessment and examinations.

3.4 The administration of the assessment and examination processes, including the conduct of examination boards

The examination board on 11th July 2012 was conducted within the University regulations, as I understand them, and was chaired by Dr Kevin Hapeshi with Kevin Walter attending as Link Tutor. The Deputy Principal of Hereford College, Fazal Dad, also attended as did module staff.

4. Teaching and learning

Please comment on the quality of the student learning experience (including availability of appropriate learning resources) insofar as you are able to form a judgement on this.

The student experience is generally excellent since students are known to each tutor personally and are able to contact them at any reasonable time. On my visit on 22nd March 2012, I was able to meet the cohort’s representatives and they had nothing but praise for the College’s staff. Some problems with the collaborative arrangements seem to have already been solved within the limitations of the agreement.

5. Curriculum

Please comment on the design, aims, currency and content of the curriculum, including its consistency with QAA Subject Benchmark Statements and (where appropriate) its relevance to requirements of professional, statutory and regulatory bodies.

The curriculum is current and feeds adequately into the University of Gloucestershire’s top-up provision.

6. The external examining process

6.1 Did you have access to all the information which you required in order to fulfil your role as external examiner?

All information needed to fulfil my role as external examiner was provided and I was given access to anything I required.

6.2 If you are an existing external examiner, have the comments made in your previous report(s) been considered and, where appropriate, acted upon?

N/A for Hereford College.

6.3 If you are a new University external examiner, did you receive a copy of the previous year’s report?

No – I do not think so.

6.4 Were the administrative aspects of your relationship with the University conducted effectively?

The administration was good and well prepared by the staff at Hereford College. The hospitality was also excellent.

6.5 Do you have any additional comments on the external examining process?

It is always good to see staff who know the students and are keen for them to succeed. The morale and dedication of the staff is very pleasing.

7. Collaborative activity (for collaborative partnership programmes only)

7.1 Is the provision a validation of a partner’s course(s) or the franchise of a University course(s)?

The status of the agreement seems more akin to Hereford College’s students being external student of the University of Gloucestershire.

7.2 If the provision is franchised from the University please comment on comparability between standards and students’ learning opportunities at the partner institution and those at the University.

The standards were equivalent and it seems adequate for Hereford College’s students to enter the top-up course at the University of Gloucestershire without too many problems.

7.3 Does the partnership between the partner organisation and the University appear to be operating effectively?

Following my visit in March to Hereford College, the points I raised seem to have been addressed and the partnership seems now to be working well for both staff and students.

8. Further comments

Please make any further comments and/or recommendations for consideration by the course team and/or the University. (External examiners for Foundation Degrees are requested to comment on the defining characteristics of the programme and in particular the role of work-based/workplace learning.)

The course is progressing well and is a credit to both institutions. In particular, the work-based learning provision is pleasing with a module in the first year in which students work in groups with a real project internally to the College. In the second year, students work individually on a project with an external client. These modules are the defining feature of the course.

9. Recommendations for improvement

Please summarise your recommendations to the course team, identifying by an asterisk those points to which you wish to receive an explicit response.

1 I would suggest that the course team revisits the assessment points for each module with a view to reducing these where applicable. It is important that all the learning outcomes of the modules are assessed and the overall balance of the assignments across the course does not disadvantage the students.

10  Good practice

Are there any instances of significant good practice of which you would like the University to take special note?

The University should note:

The excellent way in which staff at both institutions have co-operated to make the agreement work well for students and staff. In addition, the dedication and hard work of the staff is highly commendable.

Please send your completed report either:

electronically to:

or, if you are only able to provide a paper copy please send to:

Stephanie Wyatt

Academic Registry

Dunholme

The Park

Cheltenham

Glos GL50 2RH

2