SUEQ certificates awarding Dec. 2023 and posters of the graduates

In the poster and added document Faizan Ahmed (Faculty EEMCS, programme director Business Information Technology, lecturer) sheds light on the issue of employing teaching assistants as graders without providing adequate training. The problem is analyzed based on literature and specific cases. Current rules and regulations were reviewed. This resulted in suggestions to help the programme management formulate a comprehensive policy or set of best practices. Additionally, advice for examiners was offered on how to effectively utilize teaching assistants in the grading process. A method is introduced to detect potential grading inconsistencies to ensure reiability of the assessment.

To make sure that the use of summative peer assessment won't threat the quality of assessment within a course, measures should be taken. If not, as an Examination Board you will not be able to validate the quality of examination within courses that use this assessment method.
Jeroen Rouwkema, associate professor and member of the Examination Board for Biomedical Engineering, came up with some suggestions to address this issue.
First of all it is important to have a clear overview on the use of summative peer assessment in the programme and to check whether the risk that the use of summative peer assessment negatively influences assessment quality in courses is hypothetical or actually present. Additionally, examiners that do use summative peer assessment should be supplied with an instruction leaflet on the proper use of this assessment method. Combined, this will result in summative peer assessment that is valid and reliable and Examination Board will be able to validate the quality of the examinations using this method.
To learn more about this, have a look at: 
> In-depth study - Background information
> Memorandum (advice for the programme director, from the Examination Board)
> Poster about this topic (presented at the certificate awarding ceremony) 
  

Gül Özerol, as programme director for the MSc Programme in Environmental and Energy Management (MEEM), wrote a recommendation for teachers and programme coordinators about the (implementatiopn of the) assessment policy for MEEM. 
An effective assessment policy has multiple functions. It outlines how assessment is used within the programme for diagnostic, feedback and qualification purposes; identifies the responsibilities of the stakeholders; describes the assessment procedures and guidelines; and gives directions to assure and safeguard the quality of assessment [SUEQ trjactory Canvas site, Mod. 1 Assessment policy]. Currently, MEEM has several components of such a policy. However, they are not communicated clearly and implemented regularly, which causes confusion and ambiguity about the vision, principles, roles and procedures regarding assessment. This advice note offers four recommendations to improve the assessment policy of MEEM: 1) Creating a vision on assessment, 2) Clarifying the responsibilities of stakeholders regarding assessment quality, 3) Diversifying the tools and support for the quality assurance process, and 4) Enhancing the assessment-related communication towards students and teachers. Implementation of these recommendations relies on the ownership and participation of all stakeholders, particularly the teachers and programme coordinators of MEEM. As the programme director, she is committed to facilitate the process towards realising the actions that will improve the assessment policy, and she invites teachers and programme coordinators to participate in this process. 
To lean more, see: 
> In depth study - Background information
> Memorandum - Advice for teachers and programme coordinators
> Poster as presented during the certificate awarding ceremony   

Rachel Scott - educational quality assurance coordinator for BMS - recommends the establishment of a central protocol concerning the rules of order for the right of inspection and discussion of tests (commonly referred to as the examination review) at the University of Twente. The main problem, as she states, is the lack of standardised guidelines across the university or at the faculty level for degree programmes, examiners or students, with the potential to lead to inconsistencies and potential issues during the examination review process. The absence of a clear, central protocol about the purpose and rules of order for the examination review has resulted in examiners interpreting the rules independently; and adopting their own, sometimes differing practices, which has led to confusion and disparity among students, examiners, and degree programmes. This inconsistency affects students' experiences when seeking clarification on their examination results and creates challenges for both programmes and examiners in ensuring a fair and transparent process. A central protocol would address these concerns. Her memorandum details the problem and the proposed solution. The poster shows a summary. Her In-depth approach document explains the path she took to research the problem and the sources she consulted.

Faiza Bukhsh, as chair for the Examination Board for Technical Computer Science (TCS) and Internet Science & Technology (faculty EEMCS) at the UT, examined how the process of safeguarding the quality of assessments in TCS can be effectively operationalized and how existing processes can be improved for effective operationalization. See the poster she presented at the certificate awarding ceremony for a summary and recommendations.