For completion by External Examiner: Dr Petr Jehlička The Open University

Transcription

1 EXTERNAL EXAMINER ANNUAL REPORT FORM The completion of this Report is supported by Annual Report Form Guidance to External Examiners. The Guidance and this Form are available at: Fee information and claim forms are available at: Name of External Examiner: Home Institution / Employer of External Examiner: Programme and / or Subjects Covered by this Report: Academic ear / Period Covered by this Report: For completion by External Examiner: Dr Petr Jehlička The Open University MSc European Spatial Planning and Environmental Policy (Planet Europe) Date of Report: 5 July 2014 For completion by External Examiner in the spaces provided. Please extend spaces where necessary. Please note this Form will be published online. 1. Programme Structure This report covers the first year of Cohort 2 and the second year of Cohort 1 of the two-year joint Masters Programme of Radboud University Nijmegen and Cardiff University ( Nijmegen-Cardiff track ). The autumn semester of ear One consists of five compulsory taught modules presented in two blocks in Nijmegen. The spring semester of ear One consists of two compulsory and one optional taught module (selected out of three options) in Cardiff. In the autumn semester of ear Two students take Professional Development Module (aimed at enabling students to gain professional work experience and to reflect on the theory-practice interface) and Intensive Seminar. The spring semester of ear Two is dedicated to a research project in the form of a Master thesis. This is an ambitious and well-designed Programme at the forefront of social science analyses of European spatial planning and sustainable development. This was the first year I was able to view student work (of Cohort 1) completed in ear Two and to reflect on the Programme as a whole in relation to its overall structure, stated aims and learning outcomes. I am confident that despite its diversity, the Programme has achieved internal coherence and complementarity between the primarily theoretically oriented ear One curriculum and ear Two curriculum combining professional experience with reflections on theory. There is a clear progression between the two semesters in ear One in which the autumn Nijmegen-based modules on planning and societal change provide basis for an in-depth exploration of a range of 1

2 sustainability related topics including environmental management, food and consumption. Having been able to view student work produced in Semester 3 including a reflective journal (Assignment 1) in Professional Development Module which students were required to keep during the period of their work placement, I am confident that the Programme as a whole is achieving its learning objectives and outcomes. Reflective journals I examined and the other two assignments produced in this module demonstrate that students were able to critically and creatively apply knowledge and skills acquired during their academic planning education (ear One) to planning practice (ear Two). A similar degree of application of theoretical insights and critical thinking to real life problems was in evidence in reflective journals produced already in Semester 2 as part of the module Environmental Behaviours: Citizens, Consumer and Communities taught in Cardiff. Having viewed an extensive range of course materials and students coursework there seems to be a tension between the strongly west (European) centred nature of the Programme on the one hand a and recent geopolitical shifts on the global, and European level, and the global composition of the Programme s cohorts on the other hand. I would recommend that the Programme Team consider a limited degree of western decentring (giving slightly more weight to case study and conceptual material originating outside western Europe) while maintaining its focus on European planning and policies as a way of enhancing the Programme s currency and international standing. This suggestion is only meant as a matter for consideration by the Programme Team. 2. Academic Standards The standards set in the MSc European Spatial Planning and Environmental Policy meet the descriptors for Masters level outlined in the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. They are also at a comparable level to Open University MSc programmes in a similar field with which I am familiar. It is clear that the Cohort 2 s results in ear One courses are in line with the previous cohort and that candidates were of broadly similar overall very high - intellectual quality as in The standards of student performance and achievement and the grades they received are above those I have observed at my university. In general, the quality of outstanding coursework and of work of poorer quality were both of higher quality than such work at my university. It is clear that the Programme continues to attract high-calibre students. The first cohort of students continued to perform very well in meeting the requirements of Semester 3 curriculum (ear Two of their study) which I had an opportunity to view for the first time this year. 3. The Assessment Process I was able to view an extensive range of assessed materials both from Nijmegen and Cardiff and was impressed by the care taken by Programme Team members to mark course work and examinable components and by the bespoke nature of the feedback provided. I am content that assessment processes at both institutions are sound and appropriate. I am confident that students achievements were measured against the Programme s learning outcomes with rigour and fairness. The hallmark 2

3 of the Programme s assessment is a good balance between developing and testing theoretical understandings, research methodology and more practically oriented transferrable and employment skills (team work, leadership, report and speech writing). While cautious not to advocate homogenisation of assessment approaches across the two institutions (diversity of assessment is an important element of students experience of studying towards an international degree) I recommend an element of assessment progression and greater variety, similar to the one used in Nijmegen, be introduced to Cardiff ear One modules. While students in Cardiff clearly benefit from formative assessment, summative assessment currently seems to be focused on the end of module presentations. In Nijmegen assignments are more spread out and diverse which, as an assessment strategy, seems to be more in tune with the diverse backgrounds and educational experiences of the Programme s international cohorts. 4. ear-on-ear Comments I would like to highlight the Nijmegen Team s positive response to my observations and concerns raised in my last year s report. In ear One autumn modules Cohort 2 students clearly benefited from an extensive, detailed and bespoke written feedback on all Nijmegen modules. This might be one of the factors behind the observed better performance of Cohort 2 student on these modules compared to Cohort 1. A minor suggestion: I would recommend a greater adherence to stated marking criteria in written feedback on some modules. This year I was able to access Cardiff marked coursework earlier than in the previous year and the organisation of the morning session before the afternoon Examination Board meeting was more effective and smoother giving me enough time to consider the most recent coursework. Navigating the Cardiff University online system also seemed to be easier this year although the problem of coursework and assessment being separated into different folders on some modules persists. While students satisfaction with Nijmegen modules dominated students evaluations, some students raised the issue of heavy workload. This might be partly related to reading speed assumed on these modules. While the usual assumed reading speed seems to be six pages per hour, at least on one module the speed was nine pages per hour which appears excessive. Students evaluations, routinely used in Nijmegen, provided me with an additional source of information on student perception of the module structure, quality of teaching and teaching materials. Unfortunately I did not have the same level of insight into students perception of modules taught in Cardiff. I strongly recommend that student evaluations of Planet Europe modules taught in Cardiff be also made available to external examiner. Finally, I recommend that in future the Examination Board use the afternoon meeting as an opportunity for the discussion of ways of enhancing the provision of Masters Programmes in the School (see item 8.19 in the Annual Report Checklist below). 3

4 5. Preparation / Induction Activity (for new External Examiners only) 6. Noteworthy Practice and Enhancement I have found my second year as external examiner for this Programme a very rewarding experience and can confirm that the Programme is an excellent example of Master-level teaching and assessing in the field of planning and environment/sustainable development. The diversity of assessment approaches embedded in the two national styles of post-graduate education, the combination of individual and team work and the mix of conceptual and amore practically oriented assessments are one the Programme s main assets. They equip students with transferable skills necessary for employment such as dealing with complex issues and problem solving. The procedures applied are rigorous and the openness and transparency of the Programme Directors in Nijmegen ad Cardiff and other Programme Team members in communicating with me in my capacity of external examiner were exemplary. Both prior to and during the Examination Board in Cardiff the Programme Director and the School s administrative staff were extremely helpful in responding to my queries and requests. I was impressed with the care and attention paid to the process of administering the meeting. I would also like to highlight the timely and easy-to-use manner with which Programme Team members at Nijmegen made their assessment materials available online well in advance of the meeting. I was also impressed with the detailed and comprehensive syllabi, assessment guides and marking criteria, model exam topics and explanations of students workload. Particularly commendable practice are Lecturer Evaluation Forms used in Nijmegen as a quality assurance instrument in which Programme Team members in charge of individual modules outline proposed changes for next presentation in response to students evaluations. It appears that most of the several minor problems experienced during ear One of the first presentation have been addressed and the two institutions have found an effective model of jointly running an attractive and well-designed international Masters Programme. 7. Appointment Overview (for retiring External Examiners only) 4

5 8. Annual Report Checklist Please include appropriate comments within Sections 1-7 above for any answer of No. es () No (N) () Programme/Course Information 8.1 Did you receive sufficient information about the Programme and its contents, learning outcomes and assessments? 8.2 Were you asked to comment on any changes to the assessment of the Programme? N Draft Examination Question Papers 8.3 Were you asked to approve all examination papers contributing to the final award? 8.4 Were the nature, spread and level of the questions appropriate? 8.5 Were suitable arrangements made to consider your comments? Marking Examination Scripts 8.6 Did you receive a sufficient number of scripts to be able to assess whether the internal marking and classifications were appropriate and consistent? 8.7 Was the general standard and consistency of marking appropriate? 8.8 Were the scripts marked in such a way as to enable you to see the reasons for the award of given marks? 8.9 Were you satisfied with the standard and consistency of marking applied by the internal examiners? 8.10 In your judgement, did you have the opportunity to examine a sufficient cross-section of candidates work contributing to the final assessment? Coursework and Practical Assessments 8.11 Was the choice of subjects for coursework and / or practical assessments appropriate? 8.12 Were you afforded access to an appropriate sample of coursework and / or practical assessments? 8.13 Was the method and general standard of assessment appropriate? 8.14 Is sufficient feedback provided to students on their assessed work? Clinical Examinations (if applicable) 8.15 Were satisfactory arrangements made for the conduct of clinical assessments? Sampling of Work 8.16 Were you afforded sufficient time to consider samples of assessed work? Examining Board Meeting 5

6 es () 8.17 Were you able to attend the Examining Board meeting? 8.18 Was the Examining Board conducted properly, in accordance with established procedures and to your satisfaction? 8.19 Cardiff University recognises the productive contribution of External Examiners to the assessment process and, in particular, to the work of the Examining Board. Have you had adequate opportunities to discuss the Programme and any outstanding concerns with the Examining Board or its officers? Joint Examining Board Meeting (if applicable) 8.20 Did you attend a Composite Examining Board, i.e. one convened to consider the award of Joint Honours degrees? 8.21 If so, were you made aware of the procedures and conventions for the award of Joint Honours degrees? 8.22 Was the Composite Examining Board conducted according to its rules? No (N) N () Please return this Report, preferably in a Microsoft Word format, by to: ExternalExaminers@cf.ac.uk our fee and expenses claim form and receipts, should be sent electronically to the above address or in hard copy to: Clive Brown, Registry Officer, Registry & Academic Services, Cardiff University, McKenzie House, Newport Road, Cardiff, CF24 0DE 6