The role of discretion at examination boards for modular degree programmes
| Published date | 01 September 1997 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09684889710174477 |
| Date | 01 September 1997 |
| Pages | 142-149 |
| Author | Gerry Hayden,David Caine |
| Subject Matter | Education |
Introduction
During the last few years, higher education
has experienced continuing structural and
philosophical change. The abolition of the
binary divide and the ever changing face of
quality assessment has greatly impacted on
the new expanded university sector as a
whole. The continuing blurring of the distinc-
tion between full-time and part-time students
and the increased mobility available to stu-
dents further compounds the need for such
change. Additionally, changes in funding
regulations and suggestions made in the
Flower’s Report (1993) may result in a deliv-
ery pattern substantially different from that
currently experienced.
As part of this change process, many insti-
tutions have either modularized their provi-
sion or are in the process of doing so (HEQC
1996a, 1996b). Modularization is perceived
as a tool which should provide some of the
structural flexibility needed to address the
current and possible forthcoming changes.
Modularization has also enabled module costs
to be reduced while at the same time increas-
ing competitiveness by enhancing student
choice.
The process of modularization is not with-
out problems. Cultural differences between
different departments and faculties have
previously resulted in differing expectations,
delivery patterns and assessment methodolo-
gies. During the modularization process, the
university attempts to harmonize practices
across all faculties by standardizing to the best
or most appropriate of the existing practices.
The result is a process which should be trans-
parent, fair and consistent to all.
Modularization in itself is a controversial
issue (Pollard, 1993). There are arguments
for and against modularization and these have
often centred on the general debate of educa-
tional aims. Such debate normally focuses on
the processes used to educate undergraduates
and whether these processes actually produce
graduates with the necessary attributes
(HEQC, 1996c). Within the modularization
debate lies perhaps the most controversial of
all issues, i.e. the extent to which discretion is
exercised by examination boards. This article
considers the role of discretion in a number of
situations and offers arguments for and
against its use. The role and position of exter-
nal examiners in regard to the application of
discretion is also discussed. The authors
142
The role of discretion at
examination boards for
modular degree
programmes
Gerry Hayden and
David Caine
The authors
Gerry Hayden is Head of Mathematics Subject Division in
the Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University
of Northumbria at Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
David Caine is Principal Lecturer at the Newcastle
Business School, University of Northumbria at Newcastle,
Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Abstract
Examines the changing trends in higher education and the
current movement in the UK towards a modular degree
provision. Outlines how this move towards modularization
often results in changes in the way undergraduate exami-
nation boards operate, universities often having to replace
a series of small single degree examination boards by
much larger committees operating under a two-tiered
system. Examines the changing requirements of the newer
two-tiered system with specific reference to where and
how academic discretion can be applied. Concludes that
discretion can rarely be supported on academic grounds
within a modular degree system and that its previous use,
in many cases, were symptomatic of some of the failures in
the UK honours degree system.
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 5 · Number 3 · 1997 · pp. 142–149
© MCB University Press · ISSN 0968-4883
To continue reading
Request your trial