staff.brighton.ac.uk€¦ · Web viewPrevious actions. A summary of responses to the previous year’s Academic Health action plan and reflection on the effectiveness of implementation

COURSE ACADEMIC HEALTH REPORT 2018/19

Name of Course(s)/ Programme(s) covered by this action plan/report

Number of students

BSc(Hons) Paramedic PracticeSeptember 2016 46September 2017 48September 2018 50

Qlikview Student Success and Experience Dashboard and User Guides are available HERE

SECTION 1: ACTIONS

Previous actionsA summary of responses to the previous year’s Academic Health action plan and reflection on the effectiveness of implementation.Please attach the previous year’s action plan to show status and progress on action.

A table containing actions from 2017/18 report is located in Appendix 1

To review the course and prepare for periodic review - completedThe review of the course and development of the 2019 BSc Paramedic Science curriculum should have commenced earlier. On appointment the present course leader was advised that the new curriculum had been written. In September 2018 it was identified that only the module descriptors had been written and that these needed to be recovered after deletion from the University system. An earlier review would have enabled greater student, service user and practice involvement in the development of the curriculum.

To improve the quality of non-ambulance placements - completedWhen developing the 2019 curriculum it was identified that a limited number of practice evaluations were completed and submitted by student paramedics. To improve this the course leader completed date release course announcements identifying the need for evaluations and how to complete. There was a significant increase in the number of student evaluations completed. As non-ambulance placement evaluations were completed across the academic year feedback was used to improve student experience. There was a significantly more positive experience on CCU placements this year, compared to verbal reports from the previous cohort.

To improve the monitoring of student attendance, both in theory and practice - completed

1Course_Programme Academic Health Report Template – June 2019

https://staff.brighton.ac.uk/is/adminsupport/Pages/BI/BI-AcademicHealth.aspx

As identified in Course Board/Student staff forum minutes the submission of attendance records and monitoring of attendance in theory and practice has improved significantly. However, there was a very small proportion of students who were able to avoid attending practice education (intentional/sickness) and this was not detected at the earliest opportunity. Further developments would promote this.


Actions arising from this report

A list of actions being taken in response to the issues raised within this year’s Academic Health report should be completed on the action plan template below

Course/Programme BSc Hons Paramedic Science Academic Health Action Plan for 2019-20 delivery

Note: this is an ongoing action plan for 2019/20. Additional actions should be set throughout the year to address new data as it becomes available and the action plan updated to show progress which should be considered at Staff-Student Forums.

No. Objective Action(s) Timescale Responsibility Success Criteria Monitoring Status Update

1To Increase course team contribution to different cohorts/modules within the programme

Development of module teams who will contribute to the module delivery

Development of assessment/marking teams

2019-20 Course leader and team

Course leader and team

Module teaching teams developed.

Evidence of more than one person contributing to first marking of modules

Course module team lists

Module marking teams list

2To continue and improve monitoring of attendance, both in theory and practice

Personal tutors to undertake reviews of students’ attendance records submitted to studentcentral.

Administrative staff to notify course leader where attendance records have not been submitted or are incomplete

2019-20 Personal tutor

Administrative staff

No cases of student absence being unidentified.

Students attending University and practice education as required by the course.

Studentcentral attendance record submissions

Review of PAD attendance records

3 To improve communication identifying how student feedback has been acted on and any course/teaching changes

Formally identify module changes that have occurred through module evaluation and formal/informal feedback

2019-20 Module Leader Module level “you said we did” completed.

Module page content


Formally identify course changes that have occurred through formal/informal feedback e.g. student staff forum, student representatives

Formally identify practice education changes that have occurred following formal/informal feedback e.g. practice evaluations, personal tutor groups

Identify and publish how changes will be communicated to students.

Course leader to be informed of any timetable changes

Course Leader

Course Leader, Module Leader, Personal Tutor

Course Leader

Course team

Course leader announcements to be used identifying how student feedback has informed change.

Positive feedback from students formally and informally regarding course communication

Minimal changes to timetable.

Module leaders communicate changes

MyCourse announcements

NSSStudent and staff forum minutesMyCourse announcements

MyCourse announcements

Information on how change will be communicated

Minimal changes that are recorded by course leader

4To improve student satisfaction with access to assessment criteria for all modules

Assessment criteria to be developed and posted on module page before the start of the module.

Additional information/dialogue providing clarity to students in how the assessment criteria will be used should be

2019-20 Module Leader

Module Leader

All modules have assessment criteria published prior to module commencing.

Studentcentral – module page assessment area populated with necessary information.


available on all module pages before the module starts

5 To improve external quality assurance provided by the external examiner

Engage with EE and provide materials that will enable review/feedback on assessments before modules go live.

Assessment criteria, especially for OSCEs and exams must be reviewed by the EE prior to module go live.

Review assessment process to ensure marking is relevant and assessment at the correct level

Continue to share module reports from EE with module leaders and annual report with course team

Deputy Head of Learning and teaching to meet with module leader of specific module referred to by EE

Provide PAD feedback on an official feedback sheet

2019-20 Module Leader

Module Leader

Module Leader, module team

Course leader

Deputy Head of learning and teaching

Module Leader

Positive feedback from EE about all module leaders engagement

Positive feedback from EE about all module leaders’ provision of assessment criteria.No further comments from EE about possible hyperinflation of grades

Recommendations from EE are implemented

Module is permitted to progress through exam board

Meaningful feedback provided for all PADs

EE module reports

EE module reports and annual report



Practice assessment document feedback sheet.


6 To develop course organisation

Increased team presence/availability at the University

Monthly attendance at ‘Paramedic team meetings’.

Equipment/resources to be requested/booked through proper channels

Shift booking with SECAmb – slow process, not notified of cancellations

Access to Practice Educators – greater number required

2019-20 All team members. Senior management team

All team members. Senior management team.

All team members

Course LeaderLee PriceMaria Birch

Lee Price Maria BirchSECAMBCourse Leader

Team visibility increased

Monthly paramedic team meeting

No reports from simulation technicians that booked equipment has been used/taken away.

Student representatives report at Student/staff forum meetings increased ease in booking shifts

Student representatives report at Student/staff forum meetings increased ease in booking shifts

Minutes from meeting

Availability of booked equipment

Student and staff forum minutes

Practice evaluations

Student and staff forum minutes

Practice evaluations



SECTION 2: SUMMARY and CONTEXT

Overview of course/programmeA brief narrative including:

number of students and recruitment strength context of course/programme within School major changes to structure/curriculum Periodic Review/PSRB reviews (if applicable)

The paramedic programme at the University of Brighton commenced in 2009, to date the course has had ten cohorts. Course leadership changed in 2015 and 2018. The overall goal in terms of course leadership was to have a suitable qualified paramedic in place, which meets the expectations of the Health and Care Professions Council.

Through the academic year there have been changes to the staff breakdown with one team member leaving in September 2018 and being replaced in July 2019. The staff breakdown is as follows:

2017/18 2018/192 x WTE 4 x WTE4 x 0.6WTE 2 x 0.6 WTE

The current course leader will be leaving the University in November 2019, the University has advertised for 1.0FTE and 0.6FTE lecturer/senior lecturer.

At the end of the academic year 2018/19 there were 144 students enrolled on the course, 50 first year, 48 second year and 46 third year. Recruitment to the course is strong, with there being 530 applications and 115 offers being made within the last year. Offers to firm accepts ratio 2018 are 115:45.

In April 2018 the course went through a periodic review at the University. The new curriculum was approved by the University panel and approved by the Health and Care Professions Council. The course was also reviewed by the College of Paramedics over two days and the College of Paramedics provided a further five year endorsement of the course. Students were well represented at the College of Paramedics curriculum event and were able to freely discuss their University and placement experiences with the guests.

The new course sees a change of title from BSc Hons Paramedic Practice to BSc Hons Paramedic Science. The new course is validated for 60 students per cohort, an increase of 10 students. As identified above the staff breakdown has changed shifting to an increase in team size.

The new curriculum has been aligned with the University ‘Curriculum Design Framework (CDF)’ introducing formative assessments for all modules and a variation of assessment within each academic year. Assessment workloads have also been reviewed and reduced to align with the CDF.

The course has clearly identified that within each year of the course students must evidence a minimum of 500 hours practice education and by the end of the course 1500 hours. Furthermore, an updated practice assessment document has been created for each year of the course. A focus group of University course staff, practice educators and students reviewed the proposed practice document.


In January 2019 the course completed the HCPC Annual review (by audit) and was confirmed to be meeting the required standards. The course is expected to complete the HCPC Annual review (by declaration) in January 2020.

The ethnic groups of students attending the course are 98% White (-0.9%), 4.5% BME (+0.4%), 1.9% Not known (+0.5%) and 0.6% refused (-0.1%).

Age on entry has seen marginal increases for groups 18-20, 21-24 and 25-29, however there has been a decrease in 2.5% for >30 years. This is the first year that students have funded fees for the course and may account for this decrease.

The gender of students on the course is female 71.3 % (-1%) and male 28.7% (+1%).

A very positive NSS score was achieved for 2018/19, within an overall satisfaction of 90% a decrease of 7.67% from 2017/18.

Student SuccessA brief narrative including:

commentary on the student success flags identified in the Qlikview SSE dashboard narrative on how actions have been set against these identification/dissemination of good practice where positive flags are identified

**The data that is contained in the below table was showing before the course had it’s progression exam board on 18th September 2019. It is therefore not certain if the results below reflect the full 2018/19 academic year for the course.

Non-continuation 3.4% (5)Where students do not continue with the course they have typically undertaken an intermission due to a range of factors. Although some students do return following an intermission a number of students identify that during their intermission they have recognised that studying/or the course is not what they wish for their future. The course leader/personal tutors had frequent meetings with a number of students who were unsure about continuing with the course/study. This pastoral care, along with the support of SSGT, has likely contributed to our figure.

Progression (summer) 98.6% (138)** This data was showing on the student success dashboard before the courses progression exam board.

The below data has been calculated by the course leader following the progression exam board on 18th September 20192018 cohort – 2/50 students withdrawn at September CEB 1/50 to retake part of course 47/50 progressing2017 cohort – 1/48 students withdrawn at September CEB 47/48 progressing2016 cohort – 1/46 students withdrawn at September CEB 2/46 resits 1/46 return after intermission 42/44 progressing.136/142 (95.7%) students progressing at the September 2019 CEB



** Good degree 2018/19 – The data below has been taken from the September 2019 exam board award reports.

2018/19 Degree classifications and change from 2017/182018/19 results Change from 2017/18

First class honours 18 students 40% + 2%Second class, upper division 12 students 26.7% -11.3%Good degree - First or second class upper division

30 students 66.7%

Second class, lower division 11 students 24.4% +8.4%Third class 0 -4%Withdrawn at CEB 1 student 2%Still to complete following intermission

1 students 2%

Resit 2 students 4.4%

The data in the screenshot above for good degree does not appear to correlate with the information from the September exam board. The number of students achieving a first and upper second class is double the figure identified as a strong negative flag. Using this data the course is 4.6% below the University of Brighton scores.

DLHE PI Pop 97.2 % (35)DLHE Prof/Man pop 97.1% (34)

One student has been nominated for the Joan Humphris Breakthrough Award, a further two students have been nominated for the University Merit Based Scholarship.

Student ExperienceA brief narrative including:

commentary on the student experience flags identified in the Qlikview SSE dashboard narrative on how actions have been set against these identification/dissemination of good practice where positive flags are identified

Overall satisfaction - The NSS overall satisfaction for the course decreased by 7.67% to 90% in this academic year. Although there has been a slight overall reduction this represents a great success for the course team who were a 0.6 WTE down for the majority of the academic year and completing a periodic review.

Student experience continues to be monitored by the course team through personal tutor group meetings, bi-annual student/staff forum meetings, module evaluations and practice placement evaluations.

Student voice – Student voice has been evidenced as something that is welcomed, listened to and acted upon by the course team throughout the academic year. One example being student experience at non-ambulance placements have developed through the academic year in response to student feedback. During the previous academic year approximately 90% of third year students provided negative verbal feedback about their experience, subsequently the placement was reduced from 30 to 16 hours. Over this academic year very positive placement evaluations have been provided for CCU and subsequently the hours for the placement have been returned to 30. Early feedback provided on student evaluations was



used by the PLL team and placement staff to enhance their experience. Students were notified through course leader announcements and Course Board of developments that had occurred in response to student feedback.

Assessment and feedback - Students have identified through the NSS that the criteria used in marking has not always been made clear in advance (63%). Actions have been identified in the above table to not only ensure that written documentation relating to the assessment criteria is provided but that additional information/dialogue is provided to enhance clarity to students in how the assessment criteria will be used. This has been actioned for the start of the new academic year, module leaders have been asked to provide written confirmation to the course leader and Deputy of Learning and Teaching.

Teaching/learning community - Learning strategies, such as the monthly clinical care reviews, have been highly evaluated by students and commendations made from external curriculum independent guests and the College of Paramedics. These have influenced the student experience within the course. These approaches have been shared with the Nursing team and discussions commenced regarding facilitating an inter-professional clinical case review. This approach has also helped to promote a learning community within the course/University.

BSS – There were marginal variations in the BSS scores provided from the 2017 cohort in the second year compared to the scores they had provided in their first year.

Increase DecreaseOrganisation and management (5%) Overall (5%)Teaching (5%) Learning opportunities (5%)

Assessment and feedback (4%)Learning resources (8%)Learning community (7%)Student voice (5%)

Actions have been incorporated in the table above to address some of these areas. Student feedback identified that they valued the course team using a more realistic simulation setting such as Varley, this benefited their learning and buy-in. Students also identified that good pastoral support by the course team has benefited their experience.

SECTION 3: EXTERNALITY

External examiner reports A brief narrative including:

issues raised by the external examiner course report(s) (repository of reports available here) good practice identified

Appendix 2 is a copy of the content sent by email to the external examiner in response to the annual report.Appendix 3 is a full copy of the external examiner’s report for the academic year 2018/19.

Issues identified by external examiner (EE) – please note at the July exam board the EE was made aware of University requirement for level 4 modules to also be reviewed. The below comments apply to level 5 and 6 modules.

In the report the EE identifies he has had limited ability to review and feedback on certain modules in the planning of assessments before they go live. Some module leaders have been less interactive.Action: Module leaders to engage with EE and share essential information regarding the planning and review of assessments. Deputy head of learning and teaching to meet with individual staff.


https://mydepartment.brighton.ac.uk/reg/qs/assess/External%20Examiner%20Reports/Forms/AllItems.aspx

Concerns regarding high grades being awarded within some modules. ‘If all students are in the higher grade areas then either the marking is not relevant, the assessment is not at the correct level or the students are exemplary’. There were some concerns where grades were inflated due to the application of rubrics within practical assessments.Action: Module leader/team to review the assessment process to ensure that marking is relevant and that the assessment is at the correct level. Module leaders will also be required to engage with the EE as per point above.

Feedback provided last year on one module had not been actioned by the module leader. It lead to grade elevation within the module. The assessment criteria (rubric) used requires internal and external scrutiny. If this remains unchanged for a further year this may prevent the progression of the module through the next exam board.Action: Prior to the annual report module leaders received the individual module reports from the external examiner, this should continue to ensure module leaders are receiving feedback. Such reports would have been sent to the previous course leader around this time. Full engagement in the above points. Deputy head of learning and teaching/line manager to meet with specific module leader to discuss.

Level 5 practice assessment documents had a feedback sheet, no feedback sheet was used for level 4 and 6.Action: All PAD feedback to be provided on a specific feedback sheet. PAD for 2020/21 will need modifying to incorporate.

Some courses at the exam board were not fully prepared, discussions should have occurred before the full exam board.Action: changes are being made to course on exam boards.

Good practice identified by the external examiner Clear and positive feedback is provided to students without being too personal or friendly Thorough moderation process Design and implementation of new practice assessment documents for 2019/20 Some module leaders noting feedback from EE/students and adopting new strategies to

reflect this Support from wider healthcare teaching community for dissertations Allowing simulated crew and actor to provide feedback as part of OSCE process Second marking of all level 6 literature reviews to ensure academic rigour and quality The team are providing a programme that reflects current practice and the forward

movement of the profession Practical assessments due process being followed Students are provided with clear guidance in how to successfully complete assessments Following examination of module’s online content resources were generally of a high

standard and provided clear and relevant guidance and sign posting

PSRBs report (if applicable) A brief narrative including:

issues raised by the PSRB report (available via email from [email protected]) good practice identified

The course completed the annual PSRB requirements and a periodic review during this academic year.

HCPC Annual monitoring Audit process January 2019 – The HCPC identified that there is sufficient evidence that the standards continue to be met and recommended that the programme remained approved by the HCPC Education and Training Committee held on 24/04/2019 .

Periodic review undertaken in April 2019 - the HCPC did not attend the event but reviewed


mailto:[email protected]

documentation. The HCPC Education and Training Committee (ETC) agreed there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate the programme continues to meet the relevant standards. This decision was made by the ETC on 22/08/2019

College of Paramedics - attended a two day curriculum event in April 2019 and awarded College of Paramedics Endorsement to the University of Brighton’s BSc (Hons) Paramedic Science programme

Commendations at the curriculum event were made by the College of Paramedics and University panel for working in partnership with SECAmb and the use of clinical case reviews within the course. Additionally, at this event, the course was commended for the development of a course driven by student feedback.

SQSC have reviewed reports submitted to/received from the HCPC. The University of Brighton ‘Report of the Curriculum Design Review and Periodic review’ identified conditions, requirements and recommendations. These have been implemented and completed by the course team.

SECTION 4: AUTHORISATION AND SCRUTINY

PRINCIPAL AUTHORMark Stobbart 07/10/19

COURSE ACTION PLAN AND REPORT SCRUTINY

Place of scrutiny and date


Appendix 1 - Course/Programme BSc (Hons) Paramedic Practice Academic Health Action Plan For 2018-19 Delivery No. Objective Action(s) Timescale Responsibility Success Criteria Monitoring Status Update1 To review the course

and prepare for Periodic Review.

To complete review process in line with UoB requirements. Liaise the HCPC as part of the review processConsult with College of Paramedics in terms of curriculum guidance and to meet standards for endorsement. To discuss increase in marketing with widening participation team.

2018-19 Course leader & team

Successful outcome at review meeting.HCPC approvalCollege of Paramedic endorsement.

HCPC report – Curriculum approved.

College of Paramedics report – a further five year endorsement provided by the College.

Completed

2 To improve the quality of non-ambulance placements.

To review the non-ambulance placement learning outcomes and work more effectively with placement providers to improve the student experience.

2018-19 Course leader & team

Improved feedback from students at July 2019 Course Board.

Student practice placement evaluations – very good number of placement evaluations being completed. Improved feedback. Significantly improved student feedback for CCU placement.

Completed

3 To improve the monitoring of student attendance, both in theory and in

Implementation of new documentation in the PAD to record attendance information

Course leader Improvement in attendance recording by the mid point of the academic year.

PAD attendance record – modifications to PAD record

Completed


practice. PPEds to sign attendance sheets in practice Students won’t have travel claims signed off unless they have submitted attendance records as required via the App.

resulted in quicker reviews of attendance hours.

Studentcentral submissions – monthly submissions of attendance records were significantly improved during this academic year


Appendix 2 – Letter response to external examiner

Mark Stobbart Paramedic Course Lead Westlain House University of Brighton Village Way Falmer BN1 9PH 01273 644041 [email protected]

7th October 2019

Dear Chris, Thank you for providing your annual report for 2018/19. I am pleased to see many positive comments about the quality of the course. I note that there are a number of areas that require development, these will be actioned and implemented within this academic year. Please note that I have shared your annual report with all members of the course team, the academic lead for the course and the deputy head for learning and teaching. I have also shared individual module reports with the relevant module leaders. • Ability to review and feedback on the planning of assessments before modules go live.

I am aware that some module leaders have actively engaged with this request already and will continue to do so. I have requested that where module leaders have not engaged with this that they make contact with yourself as soon as possible to share essential information regarding the planning and review of assessments. The deputy head for learning and teaching has informed me that she will be meeting with module leaders to ensure that this occurs. • Interaction with module leaders

I have reminded module leaders of their need to frequently engage with the external examiner, including the point above, provision of moderation reports and access to scripts. The course currently has adverts for 1.0 FTE and 0.6 FTE lecturer/senior lecturer so there could be some changes with regards to module leader allocations. New staff will be informed of best practice relating to quality assurance and working in partnership with external examiners. • Practice Assessment Documents (PAD) feedback

An official feedback sheet will be completed for all modules moving forward. The 2019/20 PADs have been printed so this will be provided on a specific feedback sheet, the PADs for 2020/21 will be modified to include a feedback sheet within the PAD itself.


• Exam board preparedness

As highlighted within your report, there are plans to change the number of programmes attending an exam board. Moving forward the paramedic programme will continue to ensure that key issues are discussed in advance of the exam board. • High grades

For modules where all students are in the higher-grade areas the module leader/team will review the assessment and process to ensure that marking is relevant and that the assessment is at the correct level. Increased engagement, with yourself, from module leaders along with the review of assessments prior to go live will also help to facilitate this. • Specific module concerns

I am aware that an individual module report and the annual report identify that feedback that was previously provided for a specific module has not been actioned and that should this not be actioned, over this year, that this could prevent the progression of this module at the next exam board. I have provided a copy of the module report and annual report to the module leader and identified the urgency and significance of this matter. As I will be leaving the University in November, I have discussed this with the Deputy Head of Learning and Teaching to ensure that this is monitored and that the specific feedback you have provided is reviewed and actioned.

Kind regards, Mark Stobbart Paramedic Course Leader and Senior Lecturer


Appendix 3 – External examiner report

External Examiner’s Report

Name of external examiner Chris Baker

Course/programme/module(s) examined

BSc Paramedic Practice

Appointed to School September 2017

Partnership provision

Course delivered at a Partner Institution

For consortium-based programmes, please select all that apply

Course delivered at Hastings campus (please check box)

Academic year: 18-19 Year of tenure: 2 Date of main exam board

18/09/18

Undergraduate X Postgraduate Report status

External examiners for all undergraduate and taught postgraduate courses are required to submit an annual report to the University.

Your report should be submitted within one month of the main award conferring examination board.

Your report (and fee claim) should be submitted electronically to [email protected]. Receipt of your report will be acknowledged by Academic Services, via email.



Reports are used as part of the University’s quality assurance processes and serious consideration is given to all issues raised in reports. Please ensure that you complete all sections of the report with a detailed commentary on the University’s provision, expanding sections as required.

Where a course, or element of a course, is taught at a collaborative partner institution, please ensure that your report clearly specifies the location to which your comments refer.

If this is your final report please provide an overview of your term of office.

Please do not name individuals (students and staff) in your report, as reports are made available to students.

You may if required additionally submit a confidential report to the Vice-Chancellor on any matter of serious concern or sensitivity.

Payment of fees is authorised on the submission of the annual report and the receipt of your fee claim form. (See our External Examiners' Webpage for fee claim form).


https://staff.brighton.ac.uk/reg/acs/Pages/External-Examiners.aspx#openinnewwindow

Academic standards and student achievement

1 Please comment on whether the academic standards set by the University are appropriate for the award/module(s) being studied, including whether the course and/or modules continue to be coherent and their learning outcomes remain aligned with the relevant qualification descriptor set out in the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications and national subject benchmarks.

I remain impressed with the standard of assessment and marking that I have reviewed. It is obvious that the team delivering the programme have, in the majority of cases, taken feedback on board, and are keen to develop the programme. I have made some comments concerning the high grades being awarded within some of the modules, although I believe that this is a national issue, as it also occurs within my University. This has repeated this year, and was again fed in to the module team, but I feel that this has now been taken on board by the majority of the module leaders.

Please comment on whether the curriculum remains current.

As with my first year of tenure, I believe that the lecture team are ensuring that the course remains current. The level 6 modules remain particularly impressive, and there has been development in both the first and second year modules. It is obvious that the lecture team are providing a programme that reflects current practice, and the forward movement of the profession.

Please comment on whether assessments in modules of the same level are of a comparable standard.

As a course director from a different University, this is the main comparison that I am able to make. I also attend FHEPS meetings, organised by the College of Paramedics, which allows me to discuss course issues with Course Directors and Leads from across the UK. The assessment processes are similar, and students are, in general, provided with clear guidance on the expectation of the individual module leaders in order to successfully complete the assessment. For practical assessments it was clear that due process was followed, and there were similar processes being undertaken. During my first year I was invited to attend OSPE’s and clinical assessments, although that has not been possible during my second year of tenure. I have also asked to be included in the planning of assessments, and to see any drafts of assessments before they go live, in order to provide feedback. This has been the case with some of the assessments and modules, though not in every instance. There are some module leaders who do all they can to send through exams and scripts, but there are others where the only time I will see the work is when the exam board is approaching. The marking was generally to a very high standard. I have previously commented upon the team needing to mark down from 100%, and am pleased to see that this is now a more robust process within the team. As has previously been mentioned, there are some very high grades seen in some of the modules. This may well be because of excellent preparation and teaching, and extremely capable students. But I do need to comment on these, as I would have


expected to see more of a range of grades in certain modules.

Please comment on whether the course continues to reflect any additional Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body requirements (where applicable).

The course continues to prepare students for registration with the HCPC. It remains clear that the module leaders at level 6 are preparing students for the new demands that will be placed on paramedics, including urgent care and treat and refer.

Any other comments.

I have now settled into the role of External Examiner, and am enjoying the tenure. I find the majority of the programme to be presented at a relevant academic standard at level 4,5 and 6. There is obviously some passion within the team to improve standards, but it is not clear that this is the case with all of the modules, as I have limited interaction with some of the module leaders. In general, I remain impressed with the standard of the programme.

2 Please comment on whether the standards of student performance and achievement are comparable to those of similar courses in other UK higher education institutions of which you have experience.

The standards were generally similar. There were some modules where students achieved higher grades than would be seen at my University, whilst there were others where the spread of marks was over a wider range than would be seen in a similar module at my home institution. However, as stated, the standards were mainly similar in nature.

3 Please comment on students’ performance in relation to:

i. the quality of knowledge and skills demonstrated by the student performance;

I did not manage to attend the University to view any of the clinical assessments during

my second year of tenure. I did review the feedback sheets from the assessments, and also viewed a range of theoretical assighments. The students demonstrated a good level of performance. For those who were unsuccessful (all refers were reviewed) it was clear as to why these did not meet the expectation of the relevant level of academia. I also examined the online content to support both modules and assessments. These resources were generally of a high standard, and provided clear and relevant guidance and signposting. For those students who were in the higher grade brackets, it was apparent that they had made use of these online resources. Feedback remained relevant and appropriate. Students were able to demonstrate the relevant skills and knowledge required of the profession.


ii. the quality of knowledge and skills demonstrated by the student performance in practice (where relevant);

As with my first year of tenure, I did not visit students in the practice setting. However, I did review practice assessment documents. I found these to be clearly laid out and logically structured. The key elements were relevant to practice, and would ensure that students were prepared for practice upon graduation.

iii. the particular strengths and weaknesses of the students as a cohort.

I wrote the following at the end of my first year: This is a difficult area to respond to, as it is easier to comment on students individual performances within modules. Having reviewed the second and third year cohorts, my observation would be that the majority of the students were obviously applying themselves to the programme. As the paramedic role should be more a vocation than a career, it was inspiring to see that the majority of students were working towards grades within the higher marking brackets.

This remains the case, with fewer refers in years two and three. Again, this may well be due to excellent support and students immersing themselves in the educational experience. I would be interested in seeing a curve representing spread of grades, but did not an even spread of overall awards for graduation, so the grades obviously level out between the modules.


The assessment process and methods

4 Please comment on whether the assessment process measures student achievement rigorously and fairly against the intended learning outcomes of the course/module including the design and structure of the assessments and the appropriateness of assessment methods in relation to the learning outcomes, the level of study, and the students.

For this role I have only previously reviewed level 5 and 6 assessment processes and procedures. As an additional part of my tenure this year I was also informed that I needed to look at level 4 work. This could only be undertaken for the refers seen at the resit and progression board in September. I am content that the majority of processes are rigorous and fair. Generally, moderation processes were of a high quality, and it was clear to see where moderation has taken place. My recommendation would be that those modules were there are not a broad range of marks need some internal (and external) scrutiny. If all students are in the higher grade areas then either the marking is not relevant, the assessment is not at the correct level, or the students are exemplary.. Within my first year report I asked about students recieiving excellent feedback, but not being informed as to where they had lost the marks to drop them from 100% to the grade received. I am pleased to see that this matter has been addressed, and marking was a lot clearer. I congratulate the team for this. There were some assignments were the word bubble feedback on Turnitin did not provide anything extra to the student, and either needed a greater explanation, or did not need to be present. This, however, was limited, and both marking and moderation were generally excellent.

Please comment on whether marking/grading criteria or marking schemes are set at the appropriate level of study and have been properly and consistently applied.

As with 2018-19. the marking and grading remianed relevant for level 5 and 6. Although the majority of the critera was consistently applied, there were some concerns raised where grades were inflated due to the application of rubrics within practical assessments. I have mentioned this elsewhere within this report, and in the module reports, and so will not expand upon this here. Moderation remains an important aspect of the marking processes, and it was clear that this had been applied appropriately.

Please comment on the consistency and clarity of the internal marking process and internal moderation process.

The processes were genrally fair and thorough. I did provide specific feedback on one of the modules, and had previously provided the same feedback the previous year, so was surprised to see that this remained unchanged. It lead to grade elevation within the module, in my opinion. I would expect to see that this will have been addressed for my final year of tenure, or this may prevent the progression of the module through the next board. I have been informed that part of my tenure now involves looking at level 4 work, although this was not part of the initial agreement. For the final board of the year this


has meant looking at refers and the first attempt PAD documents. I am pleased to see that the level 5 PAD had an official feedback sheet, but was surprised to see that the level 4 and 6 PADs had feedback annotated on the front page. I have commented on this within the External Examiner report for each of the modules.

Please comment on the quality of feedback given to students on assessed work.

Again, please see original comments above. However, this was generally of a very high standard.

Please comment on the extent to which the assessment processes ensure equity of treatment for students.

This is an area that I would like to explore further with the team. It appeared to be fair and equitable, but I would be interested on meeting with students who present with SOSN’s to see whether they feel supported by the University. This would obviously need to be with permission of the students before being organised, and factor in the new GDPR regulations.

Please comment on whether the assessment processes were carried out in accordance with the University’s regulations and procedures.

The processes continued to follow procedure, and I believe that the module leaders and course directors have undertaken all relevant actions to ensure that the processes followed were fair and transparent.

Any other comments.

I do believe that the team are generally receptive to feedback from myself as an EE, but also from the students. There are some issues that I have raised within this report that will need to be considered before the modules run for the 2019-20 academic year. I do expect to see that these issues have been addressed before submitting my final report in 2020.

5 For a course(s) delivered at multiple locations e.g. in a partner institution as well as at the University of Brighton or at several partner institutions.

Please comment on the comparability of standards, and the effectiveness of assessment arrangements, across the different sites.

I have only visited one site where the course is delivered.



Examination board operation

6 Please comment on the conduct of and procedures adopted by the Examination Board(s), including:

the fairness and equity of the judgements made and the adherence to the University’s examination and assessment regulations including the application of regulations for mitigating circumstances, academic misconduct and borderline performance;

the requirements of any Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body (where applicable).

I have now attended several boards at the University. I have previously commented on the fact that there were some issues at the board with modules not being fully prepared by some of the healthcare programmes. Information continued to be discussed and verified, and this should have taken place before the board. I do recognise that sometimes this cannot be avoided, but this did delay an otherwise smooth and efficient board. However, I am pleased to note that the boards will be smaller, and more focused, moving forward, and I look forward to seeing how this will manigest when attending the next board.

I do believe that decisions taken by the board remain fair, and that process was followed. For my last board with a new chair I was pleased to see that ‘chatter’ was limited, and that the board members were kept focused..

Confirmation was given as to students readiness and suitability for registration.

Enhancement of quality

7 Please identify any examples of good practice and innovation relating to learning, teaching and assessment that you have observed that should be shared.

Module leaders remain able to provide clear and positive feedback to students without being too personal or over friendly.

Moderation processes remain thorough.

Design and implementation of a new PAD.

Some module leaders noting feedback and adopting new strategies to reflect this.

Support from wider healthcare teaching community for research projects.


Allowing ‘simulated’ crew and actor to provide feedback as part of OSCE process.

Second marking for all level 6 literature reviews to ensure academic rigour and quality.

8 Please identify potential areas for development and/or improvement of the learning opportunities provided to students.

. I believe that these have already been fed back within individual module reports, and believe that this feedback has been considered and acting upon by the lecture team.


Role and Responsibilities

9 Please mark the box to confirm that you were provided with, or had sufficient access to, the following evidence and that it was sufficient to enable you to fulfil your role as an external examiner.

Where it was insufficient, please provide details.

i. Course materials, including course/programme handbook, programme specification, module specifications and any course-specific regulations X Sufficient

If insufficient please give further details here:

ii. Information about assessments/assessment briefs and marking criteria/ schemes X Sufficient


iii. Draft examination papers for comment (where applicable)

If insufficient please give further details here or indicate not applicable;

As this was my first year it was more a timing issue than anything else. I am sure that I will have access to such information during my second year of tenure.

iv. Samples of coursework (including dissertations/projects) and examination papers (where applicable) for external moderation and in a timely manner X Sufficient


v. Arrangements to moderate performances, presentations and practical examinations were suitable (where applicable) X


Sufficient

If not please give further details here or indicate not applicable

10 Did you receive a written response to your previous annual report?

Yes

11 Have issues raised in your previous annual report been, or are being, addressed to your satisfaction?

Not fully. The Course Director and some of the module leaders have been attentive. Not the case for all modules. Will expect changes prior to the next progression board.


12 Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body requirements

i. Where specifically required by a Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body, please address any issues not already covered in your report.

Covered within report

ii. Participation in the Assessment of Professional Practice (applies only to Nursing and Midwifery Council accredited programmes involving professional practice elements).

Please comment on the following:

Were you given adequate opportunity to approve the assessment of practice procedures and documentation? Did you have sufficient access to materials required to make judgements? Were you sufficiently involved in the assessment of practice within the practice placement area?

Not applicable

13 If this is your final year as an external examiner, please provide an overview of your term of office.

No

Electronic signature/ typed name of external examiner:

Date 01/10/19


PLEASE ALSO COMPLETE AN EXTERNAL EXAMINER FEE CLAIM FORM AVAILABLE FROM OUR EXTERNAL EXAMINER WEBPAGE

ALL REPORTS AND FEE CLAIMS SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO [email protected]



https://staff.brighton.ac.uk/reg/acs/Pages/External-Examiners.aspx#openinnewwindow
