File
K. Mostert1, A. Titus2, S. Manie3, V. Chetty4, M. Tshabalala5, C. Joseph2, H. van Wyk6, M.V. Ntsiea7
1University of Pretoria, Physiotherapy, Pretoria, South Africa, 2Stellenbosch University, Physiotherapy, Cape Town, South Africa, 3University of Cape Town, Physiotherapy, Cape Town, South Africa, 4University of Kwazulu Natal, Physiotherapy, Durban, South Africa, 5Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University, Physiotherapy, Ga-Rankuwa, South Africa, 6University of Free State, Physiotherapy, Bloemfontein, South Africa, 7University of the Witwatersrand, Physiotherapy, Johannesburg, South Africa
Background: Differences between countries and universities in the external examination process in physiotherapy education exist, which may pose challenges to the underlying validity of the process. It is thus necessary to explore the external examiners’ understanding of the moderation process and their use of academic standards.
Purpose: To describe the examination procedures in physiotherapy programmes at the South African universities and how those who have served as external examiners perceive the examination standards and process.
Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional survey using a self-administered questionnaire.
Results: The following were considered indicators of good student performance: Evidence based practice (21, 88%), Students’ performance in relation to the departmental learning outcomes (17, 71%), When students' performance satisfies the external examiners' beliefs about assessment and treatment approaches (12, 50%), When external examiner gives the same or more marks than internal examiner (6, 25%), Students doing better than external examiner's university students (3, 13%), If the students’ knowledge or clinical skills are similar to that of the external examiner (2, 8%) and If the students do what the internal examiner says they were taught irrespective of external examiners' ‘assessment philosophy' (1,4%).
The procedures followed by the departments are as follows: Invite the same external examiner for a period of maximum two years (n=4), use the same external examiners for re-assessment and repeating students (n = 3), use the same external examiner available for all modules regardless of the examiners’ area of teaching or research expertise (n=2), have specific clinical block allocations (n = 5), Students work in all the blocks (n = 4), all 3rd and 4th years are externally examined (n = 5), have orientation of external examiners in respect of the procedures through written guidelines before the assessment opportunity (5), external examiners provide feedback after the examination opportunity orally during examiners meetings (n= 5), the written external examiner report is provided using the university format (n = 3).
A difference of 10% between markers is considered acceptable (2), others do not specify; Both internal and external examiner marks carry the same weight; Two of the five universities applied sub minima: effectiveness, safety (patient and therapist); Sampled answer sheets for moderation from three categories:high, moderate and low marks (4) and contingency plans in place for all (venues, alternative dates and possible internal moderation)
The procedures followed by the departments are as follows: Invite the same external examiner for a period of maximum two years (n=4), use the same external examiners for re-assessment and repeating students (n = 3), use the same external examiner available for all modules regardless of the examiners’ area of teaching or research expertise (n=2), have specific clinical block allocations (n = 5), Students work in all the blocks (n = 4), all 3rd and 4th years are externally examined (n = 5), have orientation of external examiners in respect of the procedures through written guidelines before the assessment opportunity (5), external examiners provide feedback after the examination opportunity orally during examiners meetings (n= 5), the written external examiner report is provided using the university format (n = 3).
A difference of 10% between markers is considered acceptable (2), others do not specify; Both internal and external examiner marks carry the same weight; Two of the five universities applied sub minima: effectiveness, safety (patient and therapist); Sampled answer sheets for moderation from three categories:high, moderate and low marks (4) and contingency plans in place for all (venues, alternative dates and possible internal moderation)
Conclusions: Firstly, a need exists to clarify the role of external examiners in the examination process in the absence of declarative frameworks from governing bodies at institutional and professional level.
Implications: The findings of the study may be used as a guide to ensure consistency in expected standard of competencies of graduates across the country. In addition, the Health professions council may use the findings as a guide when evaluating training institutions.
Funding acknowledgements: No funding
Keywords:
External Examination
University Examination
Physiotherapy education
External Examination
University Examination
Physiotherapy education
Topics:
Education: methods of teaching & learning
Education
Education: methods of teaching & learning
Education
Did this work require ethics approval? Yes
Institution: University of the Witwatersrand
Committee: Human Research and Ethics Committee
Ethics number: M180287
All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
