Summary
A description of the recruitment, appointment and working conditions of a examination chamber.

Fontys ICT has a examination board which consists of one central policy chamber and several examination chambers. Each examination chamber is staffed at least by the secretary and the chairman. This chamber mainly performs operational tasks such as determining the results, handling of objections and taking decisions on individual applications such as, for example, the application for exemption from a part of the study.

They are supported by an administrative staff member per chamber. The division of roles within the examination chambers and the administration is as follows:

The administrative employee does the executing work. In practice, this amounts to:

• Producing documents such as certificates, diploma supplements and assessment forms.
• Make sure everything is ready in time for the awards.

A detailed description of the administrative tasks related to the examination chamber can be found in the internal rules. This also includes the various deadlines and meeting times.

• Responsible for everything the administrative employee does.
• Managing the administrative employee.
• Check what the administrative employee makes.
• Solving problems and unforeseen situations.
• Signing of certificates after everything has been checked and found to be in order.
• Handling standard requests and objections.

• Responsible for the functioning of the secretary.
• Sounding board for the secretary in solving problems and unforeseen situations.
• Responsible for the procedure.
• Signing certificates and diploma supplements, expressing confidence in the secretary.
• Represents the examination chamber in the policy chamber.

Each examination chamber can be accessed via the examination board page which can be found via the student square on the Fontys ICT Portal. Here you will find the link to the Examination Board Portal where requests can be submitted, information about the Fontys ICT TERs and an information video about the Examination Board.

Each examination chamber has an expertise so that cases submitted on those expertises automatically and always end up in the same examination chamber. All other topics are distributed at random to the chambers with the least workload.

• Chamber A - Fraud cases; accelerated intake Education for Professionals (OvP);
• Chamber B - Switching from Associate degree to Bachelor Full-time; transfer from Bachelor Full-time to Associate degree;
• Chamber C - Exemptions;
• Chamber D - Dual Degree; Exchange and Minor Abroad; External Minor;
• Chamber E - Changing profile; Changing teaching methods;
• Chamber F - Accelerated Intake OvP;
• Chamber G - Admission to Delta programme; switching from Full-time to OvP; switching from OvP to Full-time.

Often lecturers are unfamiliar with the work of examination chambers and the procedures surrounding them. The help of lecturers is often sought to gain clarity in the review processes. To make procedures around student review requests and appeals transparent, the frequently asked questions (FAQs) and corresponding answers below are intended as a guide to familiarize yourself with such situations or questions.

A: Your job as assessor is to give the student feedback on the learning outcomes. This is because these form the basis of the summative final assessment. When a student disagrees with that final assessment, two things can happen. Of course, it may be that the student genuinely does not understand why he has received the assessment that has been recorded. In that case, it is primarily up to you as assessor to take the student back through the feedback given and how you arrived at the final assessment. However, the student may still disagree with the feedback given or the final assessment resulting from it.

If you are convinced that you have acted correctly as assessor, there is actually quite little a student can do. It might be a good idea to have the student talk to another lecturer from the semester, or send him to the PLOU. In case there are doubts about the assessment process in yourself as assessor, for whatever reason, you can of course always refer the student to the examination chamber with his case. This can be done via the designated portal. Referring to the examination chamber is only done if you have doubts about the assessment process. Do not send the student to the examination chamber if the assessment is not properly explained or if the student is not open to the explanation.

A: The examination chamber receives many questions and messages from students. The questions vary widely, but most are about their semester's assessment. These are also usually the more complex cases. In fact, each case is unique because it concerns a specific student, in a specific semester, with different assessors. That is why we almost always invite the student for an interview, but also the assessors. Indeed, we like to hear both sides of the story, in a separate meeting, to get a clear picture of the situation.

To be slightly more precise, the student does not submit an objection to his assessment, but to the way in which it came about; the assessment process. At Fontys ICT, each student is holistically assessed in each semester with a portfolio assessment. To arrive at that properly assessable portfolio, the student is guided and also longitudinally formative assessed. That process needs to be recorded. Think of feedback in Portflow, completed Feedpulse checkpoints with smiley, the Canvas speedgrader, and formative moments when the portfolio is handed in.

It is the examination chamber's job to examine this process properly, but we desperately need your help to do so. We don't know all semesters equally well, and every situation is different. Hence, we have probably scheduled a meeting date.

A: No, probably not. The examination chamber probably already has access to the Canvas environment and the student's portfolio, including all feedback. Based on that, a picture emerges. The interview is meant to fill in the last holes of the picture, or validate certain things. We can only see what is fixed, so sometimes we have to make some enquiries with the lecturers of the semester.

A: The examination chamber has studied all the documents of the case, spoken to the student, spoken to assessors, and has come to the conclusion that something in the assessment process did not go completely ‘by the book’. It can happen. You get sick, a colleague says something, you forget something, it doesn't matter. We are all just human too, and in student-centred education, things can sometimes be overlooked.

It does mean that, according to the examination chamber, the student was right to make a point of his assessment. This usually says nothing about you as lecturers or assessors, but does say something about how the assessment was arrived at. The chamber also makes a statement about how the student is going to be helped. We cannot adjust assessments, ever, but we can force a reassessment by the same, or rather different assessors. It may also be that a repair order is more appropriate as a solution to the specific case. The examination chamber will communicate this to the student, the PLOU of the semester, but also to you as assessor. The result, but also how the case will be handled further.

We add that it usually says nothing about you as assessor, and it does. It is about the assessment process. So it helps enormously if you as assessor record the assessment properly. You have a few responsibilities in that:

• Make sure oral feedback on learning outcomes is recorded in Feedpulse, with a smiley face. If the student forgets to fill it in, ask again, or fill it in yourself. If he is often not there, record that in Feedpulse too, as that is feedback on his professional development. See FeedPulse
• Make sure there is formative indication in Canvas on the portfolio at least 3 times per semester. You do this by providing oral and written feedback by learning outcomes and assessing using the developmental scale. See Policy Wiki: Assessment policy
• When a student requests feedback on their work, you put it in writing. The best place is as close to the product as possible, e.g. in a Canvas assignment where he has handed it in, or in Portflow with the evidence.
• At the assessor meeting, for every student who deviates from the standard assessment rule, you record a clear explanation of why the student did or did not pass the semester. The only assessment rule at Fontys ICT is: ‘If a student has at least “Proficient” for all learning outcomes, the assessment is a “Satisfactory” or better. All other cases are at the discretion of the assessor meeting.’ See Policy Wiki: Assessment policy

A: Briefly, yes. We are obliged to investigate a student's case thoroughly. This sometimes requires us to inspect certain documents that may not have been shared before. Sometimes we come to the conclusion that a portfolio should be reassessed. You may be asked to review and assess the portfolio according to the learning outcomes. This is often requested through that semester's PLOU, but commissioned by the examination chamber. The last resort is to have a repair assignment prepared. You may then be asked to supervise and assess this, again probably through the semester's PLOU.

This kind of ‘extra work’ is annoying because it comes on top of your other work. We know and understand that. Sometimes there are allocation hours in return, but usually not. Such actions are only requested when points in the assessment process have been identified where the student has rightly made a point of the assessment. Therefore, we are forced to help the student in this. Now that takes work, and someone has to do it. Sometimes that's you, and sometimes a colleague. Together, we will work it out and make sure the student still gets a fair and correct assessment.

A: None. The examination chamber has the final say. If a student ‘simply disagrees’ with their final assessment, but the process has been neatly followed and recorded, they have no case. If there are points of concern, the student is usually vindicated. It is up to the chamber to sort this out properly and weigh it up. The examination chamber is impartial and objective. Hence, a ruling is binding.

Of course, you can discuss this with your colleagues from the chamber that made the ruling. This will not affect the verdict, but can help you understand why the choices were made. Sometimes it can even be enlightening for the chamber how the assessors see it or what it does to them. By staying in conversation with each other, respectfully, we can handle future cases better.

A: Students have a number of ways to get their right. Officially, every case first goes through the Examination Appeals Board (shortened to ‘Cobex’), but usually the student first goes directly to Fontys ICT's examination chamber. If they reject the student's case, they can appeal to the Board of Appeal. This no longer has any impact at all on your work or functioning as assessor. Indeed, the purpose of the appeal board is to find out whether the examination chamber has done its job correctly. Was the student heard, the assessors heard, was the process thoroughly investigated, were all circumstances correctly considered in the decision, and more such questions.

It may well be interesting to know what happens next, or maybe you are just curious about the outcome of the appeal. You can always check this with the examination chamber colleagues you have been in contact with about the case. All rulings of the Fontys Appeals Board can be read in anonymous form at this page.

Should the Board of Appeal not side with the student and rule in favour of the study programme, the student can appeal that too. However, that happens very rarely, but in that case it goes to the Administrative Justice Department of the Council of State in Utrecht.

A: In most cases, the Board of Appeal will ask the examination chamber to re-engage with the student to reach an amicable settlement. In many cases, this will have no different outcome. However, the student can and may come up with new information until the hearing. So there may be a new view on the case that makes the examination chamber decide to come to a compromise after all. This then happens after the examination chamber rejects the student's case and the student goes to the Board of Appeal with his case.

Settlement may also be reached for some other reason. Not every case is the same, and the reason can therefore vary a lot. Sometimes it is very difficult to make a good objective judgment on a case. Sometimes we rule in favour of the student, but sometimes not. This is not to say that there was nothing wrong anywhere in the assessment process. In the event that the case is reassessed by the Appeals Board, it may sometimes be worth settling anyway. For example, the student can be reassessed, thereby avoiding a lot of time and money that would otherwise have gone into the appeal.

We understand that it feels double, settling. The examination chamber initially seemed to side with the assessors, and in the end they do compromise with the student. That can feel like the chamber is still vindicating the student, still not trusting the assessors on their judgement, or perhaps even opting for ‘the easy way out’. It really depends on a case-by-case basis. So the advice is, consult with each other on the decision. It is never that black and white and simple. We have to properly consider the interest of the student, while also doing justice to the assessment process.

A: You can always contact the examination chamber colleagues involved in the case. They are well informed about the specific situation and can explain the choices made and their justification. You can also consult the PLOU of the semester. The examination chamber is there to provide transparency and is open to questions and feedback, as long as this is done in a constructive and respectful dialogue. This helps us all improve the quality of education and assessment.

A: The examination chamber focuses primarily on the quality and legality of the assessment process. We are not often approached by lecturers, but mainly by students who have a formal complaint about the assessment process. In such a case, we provide an objective and careful investigation, obviously including your side of the story. An exception to this is if fraud is suspected. In that case, you are obliged to discuss this with the student and report the incident to the examination chamber. See: Fraud policy.