Blog

Appointment of examiners for the research component of a master’s degree

The executive dean concerned must appoint, with the approval of the faculty higher degrees committee concerned and in accordance with the applicable faculty rules, at least two examiners, of which at least one must be an external examiner, for the examination of the research product of every master’s degree study.

The name of an examiner appointed in accordance with rule 4.11.1.1 is not made known to the candidate before or during the examination, and after the examination only with the permission of the examiner concerned.

A person who was involved in any manner in the supervision of a master’s degree student may not be appointed as an examiner.

4.11.2 Examination and moderation

The examination of a coursework module of a master’s degree is moderated externally unless the module is examined externally.

Every coursework module is moderated externally at least every two years by a person with the required qualifications, which should be at least at NQF level 9 (e.g. a Master’s degree), provided that such a person may not be a staff member or otherwise connected to the university by way of an extraordinary appointment.

Faculty rules must specify for every master’s degree programme whether only the examination materials or additional summative assessment components must be submitted for external moderation.

This HTML is created from PDF at https://www.pdfonline.com/convert-pdf-to-html/

External moderators for the coursework modules of a master’s degree are appointed by the academic director concerned, subject to approval by the faculty board.

An external moderator is required to mark at least ten per cent of the examination scripts for each paper written and to do random checks of at least twenty per cent of examination scripts for each paper.

Where less than fifty students submitted examination scripts, at least ten scripts must be marked by the external moderator, and, in cases where fewer than ten students submitted examination scripts, all the examination scripts must be marked by the external moderator.

An external moderator is required to comment on the validity of the assessment instruments, the quality of student performance and the standard of student attainment, the reliability of the marking process, and any concerns or irregularities with respect to the observation of institutional and, where applicable, professional regulations.

The examiners of a research product of a master’s degree study are required to provide an assessment of the question of whether the research product contains proof of the candidate’s ability to conduct independent research in the field of study concerned and to report such research results satisfactorily.

Every examiner submits a separate written report on the research product to the appropriate administrative component of the faculty concerned, to be forwarded for processing and finalisation by the faculty committee concerned.

A supervisor or co-supervisor of a master’s degree student does not communicate or negotiate with an examiner on any issue relating to the examination of the student’s research product.

The faculty higher degrees committee or other faculty structure responsible for the approval of the research component of master’s degrees considers all examination reports relating to the research product of a master’s degree study for recommendation to, and the final approval by the faculty board concerned, of the assessment outcome.

Subject to the provisions of rule 4.11.8.3, the unanimous finding of the examiners that a master’s degree student passes an examination is final.

4.11.3Second examination opportunity in coursework modules

Subject to the applicable faculty rules, the executive dean concerned may, after consultation with the academic director concerned, grant a student who failed an examination in a coursework module of a master’s degree programme a second examination or assessment opportunity.

4.11.4Requirements for passing a coursework module

Notwithstanding the provisions of rule 1.13.3.2, faculty rules may require a final module mark higher than 50% to pass a coursework module in a master’s degree programme.

Notwithstanding the provisions of rule 1.13.3.1, where an examination mark forms part of the final module mark, a subminimum of 50% must be obtained in the examination, and faculty rules may provide that a subminimum of more than 50% is required.

4.11.5Recommendations relating to the examination of the research product in a master’s degree programme

An examiner may recommend that a research product –

4.11.5.1.1be accepted unconditionally;

4.11.5.1.2be accepted on condition that specified revisions be made to the satisfaction of the supervisor;

4.11.5.1.3be accepted on condition that specified revisions of a substantive nature be made to the satisfaction of the examiners or the academic director concerned;

4.11.5.1.4not be accepted in its current format, in which case it is referred back to the candidate for revision, elaboration or amendment and resubmission for re- examination, or

4.11.5.1.5not be accepted at all, in which case the candidate fails.

All comments received from the university community as contemplated in rule 4.10.10 must be submitted to the executive dean concerned before expiry of the period for which a research product is made available for inspection, who must forward such comments to the

This HTML is created from PDF at https://www.pdfonline.com/convert-pdf-to-html/

faculty higher degrees committee or other faculty structure concerned for evaluation together with the examiners’ reports.

4.11.6Passing the research component of a master’s degree with distinction

A dissertation, mini-dissertation, research report or other research product is passed with distinction if the examiners award an average mark of at least 75%.

If the examiners refer a research product back as contemplated in rule 4.11.5.1.4, the final mark allocated may not exceed 70%.

4.11.7Revisions to and re-examination of the research product of a master’s degree

The supervisor of a research product must, within 14 calendar days after receipt of all the examiners’ reports and in consultation with the academic director concerned, provide the candidate with a memorandum setting out the nature and extent of the revision or elaboration required as contemplated in rules 4.11.5.1.2, 4.11.5.1.3 and 4.11.5.1.4.

In order to be recorded as a graduate in the academic year during which the research product was submitted for examination, a revised, amended or elaborated research product must be submitted before or on the submission date determined for that purpose in the annual university calendar of the year concerned.

Where a candidate is required to revise or elabortate a research product, the revised product must be submitted within one year after receipt by the candidate of the result as contemplated in rule 4.11.7.1, but, if the candidate provides valid grounds in an application, the executive dean concerned may grant an extension .

A research product may only be referred back to a candidate once and, after revision, be submitted once for re-examination.

The examiners who were appointed for the original examination are deemed also to have been appointed for the re-examination, but if considered necessary or expedient, other or additional examiners may be appointed.

4.11.8 Vagueness or differences regarding examination results

Where, in the case of a coursework module, the examiners or moderators are not unanimous about whether a student should pass a module, or pass a module with distinction, or where, in the case of a research product, the comments received by members of the university community in accordance with rule 4.10.10 differ materially from the recommendations of the examiners, the executive dean concerned must follow the procedures provided for in rule.4 before taking the final decision regarding the outcome.

A material difference regarding the examination of a research product is deemed to exist if

4.11.8.2.1the reports of the examiners differ on the question whether the research product may be accepted, with or without revisions, should be referred back for revision, or should be rejected;

4.11.8.2.2the marks awarded by the examiners differ by more than 15%, or

4.11.8.2.3comments that arise from the release of the research product for inspection by the university community in accordance with rule 4.10.10 differ materially from the recommendations of the examiners.

The executive dean may, in consultation with the academic director concerned, seek clarification from the examiners or members of the university community who have submitted comments on the research product regarding anything that is not clear in their reports or comments relating to a coursework module or research product.

The executive dean concerned must take steps to resolve the outcome of an examination where a material difference arises as contemplated in rule 4.11.8.2, which may include –

4.11.8.4.1invitating a knowledgeable external expert to participate in the deliberations of the faculty higher degrees committee or similar structure;

4.11.8.4.2the appointment of an additional external examiner to assess the research product, and to make a recommendation on the assessment result, and

4.11.8.4.3the appointment of an independent arbitrator to consider the various examiner’s reports to make a recommendation regarding the assessment result

This HTML is created from PDF at https://www.pdfonline.com/convert-pdf-to-html/

The faculty board concerned approves the final outcome of an examination after consideration of the recommendation of the faculty higher degrees committee or similar structure on the assessment result based on the outcome of the steps taken by the executive dean in accordance with rule 4.11.8.4, and, if the faculty board is unable to resolve the matter, the executive dean must take a final decision.

4.11.9 Dispute resolution

A master’s degree student who raises a substantive objection to the manner in which the examination of a research product was conducted, may declare, by means of a written notice lodged with the registrar within 14 days after communication to the student of the final decision regarding the assessment outcome, a dispute with the university.

Within ten days of receiving the declaration of a dispute as contemplated in rule 4.11.9.1, the registrar must obtain clarification from the executive dean concerned whether the ojection raised by the student is justified or not, cause remedial steps to be taken if necessary, and respond to the complainant accordingly.

If the complainant is not satisfied with the response of the registrar contemplated in rule 4.11.9.2, the registrar must convene a panel consisting of at least two executive deans not previously involved in the matter to adjudicate the dispute within fourteen working days.

The findings of the panel established in accordance with rule 4.11.9.3 may be that –

4.11.9.4.1the correct procedures were followed and that the dispute has no merit;

4.11.9.4.2the matter is referred back to the executive dean concerned to ensure that procedural shortcomings or errors that were found are corrected;

4.11.9.4.3the matter should be referred to an alternative dispute resolution process, or

4.11.9.4.4the matter be referred for arbitration.

If the complainant is not satisfied with the outcome contemplated in rules 4.11.9.4.1 or 4.11.9.4.2, or the panel finds that the matter should be dealt with by means of an alternative dispute resolution process in accordance with rule 4.11.9.4.3 and the complainant agrees, the registrar must cause a panel of at least three persons expert in the field concerned or with wide experience in postgraduate examination to be appointed with the consent of the complainant to investigate the complaint and make recommendations for its resolution.

If the panel refers the matter for arbitration in accordance with rule 4.11.9.4.4, the executive dean concerned and the complainant must each, within three weeks, submit to the registrar the names and details of no more than three persons to be appointed as arbitrator or arbitration panel, all arbitrators being expert in the field concerned or with wide experience in postgraduate examination, and the complainant must agree in writing to bear or share the costs of the arbitration if such is the outcome as contemplated in rule 4.11.9.8.

An arbitrator appointed in accordance with rule 4.11.9.6 must be informed, or be prepared to become informed about the arbitration procedures contained in the latest edition of the Rules for the Conduct of Arbitrations of the Association of Arbitrators (Southern Africa) and to apply these rules for the purposes of settling the dispute.

The outcome of an arbitration process may include an award for specific performance, an interdict, damages, a fine, a cost order, including costs regarding legal representation on an attorney-client scale or any other order the arbiter or arbitration panel considers to be appropriate in the circumstances.