Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

2016 Version

Report Form for Module & Award External Examiners


PART ONE (A): to be completed by the Schools/Validated Partners (if relevant) before despatch
to the External Examiner
School:
Collaborative Institution(s): (if applicable)
It is essential that Schools complete this section

Academic Year:
Subject Area(s):
Date(s) of Assessment/Re-Sit Board(s):
Name of External Examiner:

Computing
Hong Kong Institute of Technology
Londontec, Colombo, Sri Lanka
Botho University, Botswana
Prague College

2015/16
21 June 2016
Mr Michael Troughton

Please indicate the External Examiners role(s) by including an X in the appropriate box below:

Module Examiner

Module & Award


Examiner

Award Examiner

Edexcel Examiner

Title of Award(s) Examined (if appropriate):

Modules Examined (if appropriate):


3D Graphics Programming
Games Engine Construction
Game Jam
Physics Simulation
Real Time Graphics
Computing Project

PART ONE (B) : to be completed by External Examiner:


Please delete the YES or NO, as appropriate, in each section
I confirm that the above details are correct:
Yes
Have you been appointed in the last year to a role which would
create a conflict of interest with your appointment as External
No
Examiner at Teesside University:
Date:
21/06/2016
If your details are incorrect or a conflict of interest has arisen, please provide details below:

PART TWO: to be completed by ALL External Examiners, both Module & Award.
This Section of the Report is intended to help the University/Validated Partner College monitor
overall standards and assessment processes.
Please delete the Yes or No as appropriate in each Section.
Please use Box 6 to provide us with recommendations for enhancement, and Box 10 where you
have significant concerns about the academic provision which you feel must be addressed to
maintain and enhance quality and standards. You will receive responses to any concerns
mentioned in this Report.
IMPORTANT NOTE: If your Report concerns multi-site collaborative provision arrangements, or
where there are mixed modes of delivery (for example where some of the provision is delivered
through flexible learning, distance learning, e-learning, or work-based mode), please be specific
about the element(s) of provision or particular Partners to which each comment in your Report
refers.
1

Positive Features:
3D Graphics Programming
Marking criteria and ICA specifications were very clear and comprehensive. As always Tyrone provided
very specific, and constructive feedback.
Games Jam
The feedback was good, and constructive. I'm keen to see how this module will evolve as I believe it's an
important introduction for the students into the realities of working as part of a team - more interaction with
other disciplines, and some members taking on specific production roles should be encouraged.
Games Engine Construction
Although focussing on 2D, key components of engine development such as software architecture, AI
concepts and re-use of standard APIS and SDKs are covered, which give a good grounding in the core
principles of engine programming.
Marking criteria and milestones were clear and very comprehensive.
Feedback on the ICA was also good, and constructive and marking seemed fair.
Physics Simulation
Feedback was good, and I liked the idea of the literature review to create a physics based article.
Real-time graphics
Good introduction to a very broad subject, covering most aspects you would expect in a course on real-time
rendering.
Constructive feedback, and the marking criteria were clear although not as comprehensive as the 3D
graphics module.

2
a)

b)
c)

Academic Standards:
Are the threshold academic standards set for the award(s) being
maintained in accordance with the Framework for HE
Qualifications, and applicable subject benchmarks?
Where relevant, does the programme reflect any additional PSRB
requirements?
Is student performance comparable with similar programmes or
subjects in other UK institutions which you are familiar with?

N/A
to my role

N/A
Yes

d)

If provision is delivered to more than one cohort or at more than


N/A
to my role
one site, is there appropriate comparability of standards?
If you answered No to any of these questions, please provide details in Box 6 or Box 10.

3
a)

Assessment Process:
Are the assessments appropriate for the subject, the students, the
Yes
respective level of study and the stated learning outcomes?
b) Did you receive an Assessment Report form detailing the internal
N/A
to my role
moderation processes?
c) Were you provided with the opportunity to comment on
N/A
to my role
assessment proposals prior to them being issued?
d) Were the marking criteria properly and consistently applied and is
Yes
the marking of an appropriate standard, fair and reliable?
If you answered No to any of these questions, please provide details in Box 6 or Box 10.
4
a)

Student Learning and Attainment:


Do you agree that pass rates were comparable with other modules
Yes
you have examined?
Yes
b) Is the curriculum current?
If you answered No to any of these questions, please provide details in Box 6 or Box 10.
5
a)
b)
c)

Practice/Work-Based and Work-Related Learning (if applicable):


Were practice/work-based/work-related learning assessment
N/A
to my role
documents made available to you?
Was the attainment of students in practice comparable to similar
N/A
to my role
programmes you have examined?
Did you have the opportunity to visit practice areas to meet with
N/A
practice mentors/educators/students?
Please note that External Examiners will not normally meet with students unless
required by the Professional, Statutory & Regulatory Body]

to my role

If Yes, please provide a short commentary below on the meeting(s)

If you answered No to 5a) or 5b), please provide details in Box 6 or Box 10.
6

Recommendations for Enhancement:


Games Jam
Keith mentioned there would be changes to the course next year, to a more studio based approach, which
should help alleviate some of my comments on this module.
There seemed to be a high number of withdrawals from the module, in one case leaving one of the teams
with only 2 members which is a slight cause for concern.
Minor not on the feedback, the team feedback was just 1 big paragraph, making it hard to read. It was
already logically broken up into weeks so with a little formatting would have been easier to read.
I'm keen to see how this module will evolve as I believe it's an important introduction for the students into
the realities of working as part of a team - more interaction with other disciplines, and some members taking
on specific production roles should be encouraged.
Games Engine Construction
My only comment would be for an engine construction module I wouldn't be as concerned about
commenting on the quality of the gameplay produced providing it's sufficient to demonstrate the engine
features developed.
Physics Simulation
Although marking seemed fair - the marking criteria were a little less clear than some of the other modules,
giving 4 grades A-D for different aspects - are these all equally weighted? How do they combine together to
produce a final score/grade. I would prefer to see a traditional points scoring method personally.
Real-time graphics

To keep the content current I would like to see some coverage of physically based rendering, as most
renderers games or otherwise now use some form of PBR.
Marking criteria werent quite as comprehensive as the 3D graphics module.
Notably most of the work samples I checked were marked down on the profiling analysis and write-up,
although the course does seem to cover this in adequate detail. Could just be a result of this being a difficult
area to master in a short time-frame.

7
a)
b)
c)

Conduct of the Assessment Board:


Did you attend the first sit Module Assessment Board?
Did you attend the resit Module Assessment Board?
Are you satisfied with the conduct of the Module Assessment
N/A
to my role
Board(s) and associated processes?
d) Did you attend the first sit Progression & Award Board?
e) Did you attend the resit Progression & Award Board?
f)
Are you satisfied with the conduct of the Progression & Award
N/A
to my role
Board(s) and associated processes?
g) Were all students considered fairly in accordance with the
N/A
to my role
Regulations?
If you answered No to 7c), 7f) or 7g), please provide details in Box 6 or Box 10.
8

a)
b)

No
No

No
No

Administrative Processes:
Did you receive the following documentation in a timely manner to allow you to carry out
your duties and responsibilities as an External Examiner?
Sufficient information on the form and content of the assessment
Yes
and the criteria used?
Did you receive samples of student work in accordance with the
Yes
Regulations?
Due to the nature of some of the modules I was assessing, requiring large amounts of data
to be copied onto the workstation from disc usually, this proved to be a bottleneck and
reduced my effectiveness to assess the students work and therefore marking fairness. This
was a particular problem with the computing project and game jam modules.
Id suggest either pre-copying the materials onto the workstation before the assessment
visit, or providing the materials on a faster access device, such as a memory stick.
Also a large number of samples of the students work wouldnt compile due to missing
projects it would have helped to have a short list which have been verified beforehand to
be complete to check. Reading the assessments there werent any problems with compiling
the projects, so I believe this was a problem with not copying all the required materials onto
the disc, or maybe a mismatch in the development environment.

Professional, Statutory & Regulatory Body Requirements:


Please comment on any issues with reference to PSRBs

10 Matters of Significant Concern impacting on Academic Standards:


Do you have any concerns about the academic provision which you feel must be
No
addressed to maintain and enhance quality and standards?
If Yes, please provide details here, indicating to which modules/awards your concerns relate,
in order to ensure appropriate action. If your concerns relate to multi-site collaborative
provision arrangements, or where there are mixed modes of delivery (for example, where
some of the provision is delivered through flexible learning, distance learning, e-learning, or
work-based mode), please be specific about the element(s) of provision or particular
Partners to which each concern in this Box 10 refers.

You will be provided with a formal response to all concerns mentioned in this Report.
11 Unsatisfactory Responses to Previous Significant Concerns:
Are you satisfied that any issues or significant concerns raised in your previous
Yes
reports have been appropriately addressed or are in the process of being
resolved?
If No, please provide details here indicating the nature of the concern and when it was
raised.

12

External Examiners for Whom this is their LAST Annual Report:


As this is my last year of tenure, I'd like to say it's been a great pleasure to be involved in this for the last 5
years and I've been very impressed with the level of teaching, and the attention to detail and care shown
by the tutors. I've spoken with a lot of Teeside graduates over the years and employed quite a number, and
I have to say some of the best programmers I've had the pleasure to work with studied at Teeside.

13 External Examiners for whom this is their FIRST Annual Report


Yes
Were you invited to an Induction Event?
Yes
Were you provided with appropriate induction materials?
We welcome below any suggestions on how we might improve the induction process:

14 External Examiner Mentoring


a) If you were new to examining when appointed by TU, were you allocated another
External Examiner as a mentor?
Yes
b) Were you satisfied with the level of support provided by your mentor?
Please feel free to provide any additional comment on our mentoring arrangements.

No
No

No
No

When I was first appointed 5 years ago I wasnt given a mentor and did feel a little out of me
depth, I hope this is something that has been addressed now.

15

Additional Comments:
We welcome any additional comments you may wish to make, which have not already been
covered in this report.