In the UK’s quality assurance system, there’s one feature – the external examining system – which is assumed to be an immutable object.
But does assuming that ‘well, we’ve always done it, so it must be right’ blind us to other options? Rather than tweak the system, as has regularly been proposed over the years, we ought to be more radical. Do we need an external examining system at all?
First, a little history…
The external examining system was set up in the 1830s to enable Durham to assure potential students (and others) that their degrees were comparable to those of Oxford or Cambridge. By the 1950s, the system was adopted by the National Council for Technological Awards (NCTA) and then from the 1960s onwards, by the Council for National Academic Awards (CNAA). Today, the Quality Assurance Agency still expects, through the Quality Code, that external examiners will provide informative comment on whether academic standards are comparable with those in other UK degree-awarding bodies of which the examiners have experience.
Twenty years ago, Ronald Barnett noted that “… we have to doubt that the external examining system ever fulfilled the responsibilities placed on it. It appears likely that the idea was always a fiction; we just did not recognise it as such.” Barnett’s perspective was based on a system inadequate for supporting the demands of a mass higher education system. He noted at the time that there were around 100 universities and around one million students. Two decades on, the sector has around 1.8 million undergraduate students studying at over 500 institutions.
Stop Me If You Think You’ve Heard This One Before
Barnett was not alone in doubting that the system was able to assure the comparability of standards of student achievement. The 1985 Lindop Report noted that there was confusion around the role of the external examiner. In 1989, the Council for National Academic Awards (CNAA) hoped that training would address such confusion. In 1994, the Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC) joined the debate, suggesting that comprehensive training was all that was required. A year later, HEQC commissioned a report called The External Examiner System: Possible Futures. Proposals included a national register and a national policy for training.
Clearly, the difficulties had not been resolved by 1997, when Dearing entered the fray with recommendations for a register of external examiners, managed by QAA. In 2009 the Commons Select Committee for Higher Education got involved, also recommending the creation of a register of external examiners along with new training for examiners.
Most recently, the Higher Education Academy (2015) also questioned whether the external examining system was effective in safeguarding standards. The report also noted that examiners may lack experience of different providers across the sector. With around 150 higher education institutions, 270 colleges of further education offering higher education, and an increasing number of ‘alternative’ providers, it’s easy to see that this is probably the case. The report concludes with recommendations designed to strengthen a system aimed at assuring comparability of standards at discipline level. It did not propose a more comprehensive review and a potential re-casting of purpose of the system.
The repetitive nature of these reports and reviews begs the question: why does the sector insist on tinkering with the system rather than going for first principles?
What Difference Does It Make?
Might there be reasons for retaining the external examining system? If the system does not offer maintenance and comparability of standards, then what does it offer? Its value is in its ability to identify matters for improvement and best practice that might improve the quality of the student learning experience. However, given the extraordinary cost of the system to the sector, it is questionable whether there is enough value in return for the extortionate amount of time and effort external examining can take.
There are three fundamental flaws with the current system. First, the size and diversity of the sector is such that we are not able to even consider assuring comparability of standards of student achievement. Second, were this even possible, examiners are not in a position to assure comparability of the academic regulations used to measure student achievement, such as how algorithms for degree classification might work. Third, examiners do not have guidance in the form of nationally-agreed descriptors for a First, a 2:1 etc. in order to establish whether standards are in any way comparable across the sector.
The UK is nearly unique (Malta, Denmark and Norway preventing it from being completely so) in having a system of external examining at undergraduate level. We could focus on second and/or double marking and internal moderation to assure standards within institutions. Universities and colleges have systems for the management of quality and the assurance of standards. To claim that external examiners add materially to these processes is a fiction. Let’s use them for what they’re good for – enhancing the student experience – but let’s not kid ourselves, or our students, that they’re doing more than that.
Not so unique – Ireland’s external examining system can be added to the list above.
Thank you, Grace – I’m mortified, I have no excuse as I used to be a reviewer for HETAC!
I would advise care, Katie. Take away external examining, with all its flaws, and the case for statutory regulation of academic standards will come to the fore (again).
Hello David – thank you for reading and commenting. I think your observation on the potential for statutory regulation of standards is (partly) what worries me – first, we have HEFCE and its proposals on training examiners, on calibration activities and on developing ‘sensible algorithms’ for degree classification; then, second, we have a White Paper proposing that standards will be the remit of OfStud. With the first, it feels that the system is being regulated for us and there seems to be a danger of losing any value; with the second, where does that leave the system, if we are no longer responsible for standards? So, is it time to review/revise rather than fortify/fix? All good wishes, Katie
I’m sorry, Katie, but I would want to question a number of your assertions, and caution against any premature dismissal of the external examining system. First, even if external examiners are ‘good for enhancing the student experience’ (an assertion that is itself contestable), that is not their primary responsibility and some would argue that they do not usually have access to the evidence that would enable them to perform that role. Second, the system may perform its primary function imperfectly – the assurance of standards – but it’s certainly better than nothing (or, as David Cairns suggests, some government imposed standards framework). And, thirdly, I wonder whether you are overstating the costs of the system: these are not, in my experience, ‘extraordinary’ (how does it compare with the salary costs of universities’ senior executives!?) and, in the order of things, the ‘time and effort’ required to perform the role is not ‘extortionate’.
Thanks, Colin – I’m not sure I am dismissing the system; but, rather suggesting that as it’s not too good at the comparability of standards thing that we look to make a different/better use of it? I guess what I am railing against is the set of proposals on training, calibration activities and ‘sensible algorithms’ for award classification – if we need all this stuff to make the system work, shouldn’t we just stop and re-think it?
I think it could be improved, but I fear that without something like it we’d get US style grade inflation:
http://www.gradeinflation.com
Hi Katie, I agree that the external examining system has flaws. However, your post seem to completely miss the exchange of ideas that this system provides an excellent platform for, and which I value highly. As External Examiner I see different approaches e.g. to examining topics I teach, which allows me also to evaluate, and, if appropriate, change my own approach and feed these ideas back to my subject group. This stems not only from the institutions I am EE for, but from my conversations with other EEs who are visiting at the same time. Conversely, as lecturer / senior lecturer, engaging with our external examiners also provides said forum and brings in fresh ideas. Plus changing external every few years contributes to avoiding things becoming stale – it is far too easy for internal moderation to become a perfunctory signature on a form, with no real scrutiny.
The only other context in which academics in the same subject from different institutions may meet is research conferences, where the focus is not on teaching.
Thank you, Petra – I agree, and it’d be great to develop that facet of the system, particularly in light of HEFCE’s implementation of its revised approach for quality assessment, where we’re losing an element of peer review.
The Higher Education Academy has been awarded the contract by HEFCE (on behalf of the devolved administrations) to lead a project on degree standards, running from 2016 to 2021. It has begun work on this.
Your commentary suggests that the project is about regulating standards; in fact it is about developing external examiners’ scholarship and skills regarding assessment and the calibration of their academic standards within their subject communities. It aims to consider further strengthening the external examining system in a way that recognises the autonomy of higher education providers and to develop a sector-owned process of external examining. The project has two linked parts:
• working with a range of higher education providers to design and pilot generic professional development for external examiners
• exploring different forms of calibration exercises with subject associations and Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs).
Geoff Stoakes
The Higher Education Academy’
In at least one Australian university (Griffith) quality of assessment was assured via the introduction of systematic and enterprise-wide consensus-based approach to assessment moderation. This process of establishing consensus at a discipline level might then be utilised across institutions at a national level.
to dismiss the external examining system is to dismiss the carefully selected community of critical friends that have evolved over many years. If an external examiner lacks experience, that is more the fault of the HEI when selecting candidates.
Having been an external for multiple HEI’s and HEI/FE partnerships over the years. There have been occasions where I have had to intervene to help the teaching team overcome issues that have resulted from corporate decision making (or more often indecision).
An external with the chutzpah to stand their ground is an asset. Equally, having been on the ‘positive’ receiving end of a few, when used wisely they have helped our teaching team improve their own work.
Maybe the system is in need of review – more to find the trusted sensible souls and encourage them to help raise standards and be rewarded for their efforts.
I think it’s a useful system but as external examiners we could do with far more communication and discussion on what we do and how. Otherwise it can become an individual activity merely helping programmes tick their boxes rather than a developmental activity provided by a critical friend.
There is also a role for EE’s in developing and validating progression courses
I believe it is a good practice to have external examiner system in place. It roles and responsibilities needs to be refined. Agree to have a programme to develop external examiners’ scholarship and skills to meet the ever changing HE system.
The external examiner system has been in existence for many years in the UK and adds value to the degree classification system as an independent process for monitoring academic standards. Much has happened in Higher Education over the last decade that has impacted on the role of the external examiner; a proliferation of programmes across the sector (greater work load); the NSS (greater scrutiny of assessment processes) and TEF (greater scrutiny of the quality of teaching and learning) to name but a few. Although recognised as a system across the sector in practice the external examiner system is operationalised at institutional level (informed by discipline specific tacit knowledge/benchmarks) and as such has struggled to deliver a national voice on academic standards. How the external examiner system could or should be utlised nationally to confirm academic standards would be a useful debate
I agree
Not sure
The external examining system can certainly be improved.
Without external examining board , qualifications will become a shamble
Thank Katie, I agree with Collins comment, I wouldn’t want to dismiss the external examining system. It can be improved on.
Nothing stop them from being part of the UK body
I agree there are flaws and further reflection and discussion around these amongst the EE community can help ameliorate these limitations
We also need to understand the impact of technology on external examiners. Like many professions, automation is replacing humans. Turnitin, uses algorithms to produce similarity reports. Training technology to be objective rather than subjective may solve some of the fairness issues. Although having said that, may not work with all subjects in academic assessments. There are more questions raised than answers or solutions provided in this article. However, we do need to address and embrace the impact of technology on HE and in particular, the impact of technology on external examiners.
So long as Universities award their own degrees then comparability of standards cannot be overemphasized. Academic Programme achievement is about learning outcomes and student learning experience. These must be comparable to ensure that qualifications and classifications are on equal footing to be meaningful. This is can be assured through external examining: comparability has a significant externality.
I would argue that the UK’s external examining system is still very valid. I believe the objectives are real and laudable in achieving academic quality and standardisation. If managed consistently across all institutions; faculties and forms of assessments it is excellent – but this is where the biggest challenge lies as the people who act as these examiners have their personal academic judgement which cannot be factored into the system.
All comments make for an interesting read. I am not External Examiner trained at this stage so I am interested to view this again, once the training has been completed. I do consider an authority, who may have an overview of all institutions, for calibration purposes, would be an added asset to the process.
I think there is room for improvement in the system, but believe that there should be development programmes for external examiners’ which enables them to further enhance their knowledge and skills about the ever changing HE system.
Interesting reading. I am not External Examiner trained at this stage so I am interested to view this again, once the training has been completed.
I think we cannot discount the value of the external examining practice because of the changing of the environment. As the number of students and institutions are increasing, the external examining practice needs updating accordingly to maintain its value.
Dear Katie, there is no such thing as nearly unique. This is the same principle as virginity, sterility or pregnancy, there is no nearly or slightly, it either is or it is not,.
My own school has 65 different external examiners. I think that requires more strategic thinking.
– Perhaps a senior EE acting at departmental level and fewer less experienced EEs.
Perhaps the EE duties can be more targetted and streamlined that way.
It will be nice to ‘close the loop’ and find a way for students to influence the EE appointment criteria also.
The article is an interesting reading. I am not External Examiner trained at this stage. I am interested to view this again, once the training has been completed.
This is an insightful critique of the External Examining System. Nonetheless, in my view, the external examiners still may have both systemic and symbolic roles to play in HE. They can continue to give a sense of assurance in the evaluation and the quality of grading by reinforcing the inter verification process in the HE. Also, the mere participation of External Examiners in the regulatory process of grading gives both emotional and symbolic satisfaction to HE institutions that they being fair and doing something right.
Interesting reading on the external examining system. Academic Programme achievement is about learning outcomes and student learning experience. For me, I believe there are more questions raised than answers or solutions provided in this article. I am interested to view this again, once the training has been completed.
This is an insightful discussion of the External Examiner role and system. I will review these discussions and views once the training has been completed.