Viva Management Workflow

Timing: Immediately following dissertation submission (Supervision Phase Week 12)

Supervisor Independent Marking

• Mark using the rubric - Apply the marking scheme consistently
• No consultation with IE - Complete your marking independently before meeting
• Consider all evidence - Dissertation quality, supervision meetings, progress demonstrated
• Document rationale - Prepare notes justifying your mark for the joint meeting

IE Independent Marking

• Mark using the rubric - Apply the same marking scheme as the supervisor
• No consultation with Supervisor - Complete your marking independently
• Fresh perspective - You haven't been involved in day-to-day supervision; bring objectivity
• Prepare justification - Document your reasoning for the joint meeting

Supervisor + IE Joint Meeting

After independent marking, the Supervisor and IE meet to agree a mark:

Discuss Marks

• Share independent marks - Reveal your marks and initial reasoning
• Discuss discrepancies - If marks differ significantly, explore why
• Consider different perspectives - Supervisor has process view; IE has outcome view
• Review evidence - Refer back to the dissertation and marking criteria

Reach Agreement

• Find consensus - Agree on a mark that reflects both perspectives
• Compromise if needed - If views differ, negotiate based on evidence
• Escalate if necessary - If you cannot agree, involve the Module Leader

Produce Joint Marker Recommendation

• Document agreed mark - Record the provisional mark you're recommending
• Provide supporting rationale - Explain why this mark is appropriate
• Note any concerns - Highlight anything the viva panel should explore
• Include evidence summary - Reference supervision notes, flags raised, traffic light status

Submit to Panel

The Joint Marker Recommendation goes to the viva panel, who will use it to inform their authentication assessment.

Module Leader Evidence Review and Tier Allocation

The Module Leader assigns each student to a tier based on the evidence trail:

Review Evidence Trails

Examine all available evidence for each student:

• Meeting notes - Supervision meeting records and student sign-offs
• Flags raised - Any yellow, red, or critical flags from supervisor/IE
• Traffic light status - Mid-point assessment (green/amber/red)
• Escalation history - Any interventions or concerns raised during supervision
• Joint Marker Recommendation - Notes from supervisor/IE about concerns

Assign Tier Levels

Based on the evidence, assign students to one of three tiers:

Form Viva Panels

Allocate two independent examiners to each student's viva panel:

• Two independent examiners - Neither the Supervisor nor the IE for that student
• Appropriate expertise - Panel members should have relevant subject knowledge
• No conflicts of interest - Panel members should not be closely involved with the student
• Balance workload - Distribute panel duties equitably across staff

Provide Evidence Summaries

Compile relevant information for each panel:

• Student's tier assignment and rationale
• Summary of flags raised (if any)
• Traffic light status and reasoning
• Key points from supervision notes
• Joint Marker Recommendation

Panel Panel Member Preparation

Before the viva, panel members should:

Review the Joint Marker Recommendation

• Understand the agreed provisional mark and rationale
• Note any specific concerns raised by supervisor/IE
• Consider whether the mark seems appropriate based on the dissertation

Review Evidence Summaries

• Read supervision meeting notes (look for consistency and progress)
• Check traffic light status (green/amber/red and why)
• Examine any flags raised (what concerns were noted?)
• Understand the student's journey through supervision

Understand the Tier Assignment

• Tier 1 - Standard questioning; verify basic understanding
• Tier 2 - Enhanced scrutiny; probe areas of concern more deeply
• Tier 3 - Intensive authentication; rigorous technical examination

Prepare Authentication Questions

Focus questions on verifying the student's understanding of their own work:

• Technical decisions and why they were made
• Challenges encountered and how they were overcome
• Understanding of code, methodology, or analysis
• Awareness of limitations and potential improvements
• Specific areas flagged in evidence summaries

Coordinate Questioning Approach

Meet with your fellow panel member to:

• Agree which areas each examiner will cover
• Identify key authentication points to probe
• Plan how to use the 15-minute question time effectively
• Discuss what would constitute successful authentication

Panel 28-Minute Viva Structure

The viva follows a strict 28-minute format:

Authentication Focus

The viva is primarily about verifying that the student genuinely produced and understands the submitted work. Questions should probe:

• Technical decisions - "Why did you choose X over Y?"
• Problem-solving - "How did you overcome this challenge?"
• Code/methodology understanding - "Can you explain how this section works?"
• Results interpretation - "What do these results tell us?"
• Limitations awareness - "What are the weaknesses of your approach?"
• Future improvements - "If you had more time, what would you change?"

Three-Tier Questioning Approach

• Tier 1 - Standard authentication; verify general understanding and decision-making
• Tier 2 - Enhanced scrutiny; probe specific areas flagged during supervision
• Tier 3 - Intensive authentication; rigorous technical examination, line-by-line code review if needed

Panel Decision Making

During the 5-minute deliberation, the panel must reach two decisions:

1. Authentication Determination

2. Mark Adjustment (if Authenticated)

Strong viva performance may result in an uplift to the Joint Marker Recommendation:

Disagreement Protocol

If panel members cannot agree on authentication or mark adjustment:

• Attempt to reach consensus through discussion
• If consensus is impossible, escalate to Module Leader
• A second viva with a different panel may be convened
• Module Leader makes final decision if deadlock persists

Panel Confirm Final Mark

The panel confirms the final mark by:

• Starting with the Joint Marker Recommendation mark
• Applying any mark adjustment from the viva
• Recording the authentication decision
• Documenting the rationale for any uplift

Module Leader Borderline Review

For marks near grade boundaries, the Module Leader may:

• Review evidence to ensure consistency
• Check whether mark is appropriate given performance
• Confirm final mark or request additional scrutiny

Supervisor / IE Provide Evidence if Requested

If the panel or Module Leader requires additional information:

• Provide additional context from supervision meetings
• Clarify any concerns raised during supervision
• Supply meeting notes or other documentation
• Respond to specific queries about student progress

Misconduct Referral Process (if Not Authenticated)

If the panel determines the work is not authenticated:

• Mark withheld - No grade assigned pending investigation
• Formal misconduct process - University procedures initiated
• Student right to respond - Student can present evidence and explanation
• Investigation outcome - Determines final mark (may be zero if misconduct confirmed)