REPORT FROM EXECUTIVE BOARD TO COUNCIL

9 DECEMBER 2013

Trends and Concerns Relating to the HonoursDegree Classification System

Background

Concerns about the accurate recording of student achievement can be dated to the mid-1990s, when HESA first began to collect data on degree classifications, and when it was first noted that the percentage of first and 2:1 degrees had begun to rise across the HEI sector (Yorke, 2009). Formed in 1994, the Student Assessment and Classification Working Group first proposed an investigation into the integrity of honours degree classifications; three years later, the Dearing Report heightened HEI awareness of the accurate recording of student achievement (Yorke et al, 2008). The 2003 White Paper and 2004 and 2007 Burgess Reports further noted the rise in grade inflation and raised concerns about the undue emphasis placed on first and 2:1 degrees by students, universities and employers in an increasingly competitive workplace.

ULTSEC routinely considers the Degree Classifications Report produced annually by the Planning Office to consider trends within the sector and comparisons of our degree classifications at institutional and subject level. Several HEI League Tables and the KIS/Unistats use the % of firsts and 2:1s as a metric. Similarly the % of firsts and 2:1s is one of the KPIs approved by Council to assess the objective ‘to facilitate and support student learning and achievement’; the target is UK Top 20.The following table illustrates the five year trend in respect of this KPI.

2007/08 / 2008/09 / 2009/10 / 2010/11 / 2011/12
Newcastle / 72.3% / 72.0% / 75.5% / 74.6% / 78.2%
Sector Ranking / 34 / 33 / 29 / 34 / 28
Comparator Group Ranking / 20 / 21 / 17 / 21 / 17

Trends in Undergraduate Degree Classifications at Newcastle University and the HEI sector

The table below provides average comparative data for the HEI sector and our comparator group of 35 universities for the most recent year available, 2011/12.

Firsts as a proportion of all UG degrees 2011/12 / 1st and 2:1 as a proportion of all UG degrees 2011/12
Sector / 16.9% / 65.9%
Comparator Group / 21.5% / 78%
Newcastle University / 19% / 78%

It can be seen that in respect of first class degrees awarded, Newcastle lies below the comparator group average but above the sector average, whereas for first and 2:1 degrees the institution is equal to the comparator group average and again above the sector average. On the basis of this data Newcastle is currently ranked 23 (out of 35) within the comparator group for the percentage of firsts and 17 for the percentage of first and 2:1 degrees.

Point increase in % of 1sts 2007/08 – 2011/12 / Point increase in % of 1st and 2:1s 2007/08 – 2011/12
Sector / 3.6 / 4.5
Comparator Group / 3.7 / 4.2
Newcastle University / 4.6 / 5.9

The table above reveals that the proportion of firsts increased by 4.6 percentage points and the proportion of 1st and 2:1 degrees increased by 5.9 percentage points between 2008/09 and 2011/12. Although the percentages of firsts and 2:1s have risen across both the sector and the comparator group within the past five years, for both indicators the increases are greater for Newcastle than the sector averages.

Factors which may account for the increase in Firsts and First and 2:1 degrees in the Sector

  • Positive correlation with A-level enrolment -HEFCE analyses of the relationship between A-level and degree outcomes note a positive correlation between the proportion of 1st and 2:1 degrees and the selectivity of the institution (Yorke, QAA, 2009).
  • Relative increase in summative coursework and decrease in examinations - Several studies (Bridges et al, 2002; Simonite, 2003) have found evidence that an increase in coursework will shift final degree classifications upwards. The nature of the demand upon students does not necessarily lessen with added coursework, but it undoubtedly shifts.
  • Improved curriculum design and student support -Following from the Dearing Report (1997), curriculum design, content and assessments have become ever more aligned, such that students have become increasingly informed about what they need to do to be successful (Yorke, 2008; Oxford Brookes, 2012). This has arguably resulted in improved performance.
  • Exit-velocity and the weighting of stages- Because students are more likely to perform better toward the end of their degree programmes, higher proportions of 1st and 2:1 degrees are likely to result when later stages are more heavily weighted (Yorke et al, 2008; Yorke et al, 2004; Lindsay, Paton-Saltzberg and Turner, 1998).

Factors which may account for the increase in Firsts and First and 2:1 degrees at Newcastle

There is little or no evidence that changes to the balance between summative coursework and examinations or the influence of weighting of stages has contributed to this increase. The University currently has approximately 70% coursework and 30% examinations (discounting all pass/fail and formative assessments from the totals). The proportions have not changed significantly between 2009/10 and 2013/14.In relation to the weighting of stages, current practice across the University is varied. For a three-year programme, the relative weighting of Stage 2 to Stage 3 can be 1:1, 1:2 or 1:3. For a four-year programme, the relative weighting can be 1:2:2, 1:3:3 or 1:2:3. Although practice at the University reflects this, it is not apparent that programmes more heavily weighted toward the final stage result in higher degree classifications at Newcastle.

The two reasons which are most likely to account for the increase in firsts and first and 2:1 degrees at Newcastle are an increase in entry standards of students and the emphasis that Newcastle has placed on the student experience, most notably on support in relation to assessment, since the advent of the NSS in 2006.

Continuing sector-wide concerns about the validity of the degree classification system

In addition to concerns aboutdifferences between institutions and grade inflation, the variations between disciplines have also raised concerns about the validity and reliability of the honours degree classification system (Universities UK, 2007).Researchers generally agree that scientific disciplines are more likely to use the full marking scale, which in turn results in a ‘flattish’ distribution of final degree classifications (more firsts, but also more 2:2s and thirds). Humanities subjects tend to use a narrower range within the scale and, as a result, have a higher number of 2:1 degrees. Studies (Yorke, 2008; Oxford Brookes, 2012) have also noted the impact that varying marking scales can have on final degree classifications and have argued that while quantitative subjects can and do make full use of the 100-point scale, qualitative subjects would more be fairly assessed on an abbreviated scale.

The claim that, ‘The honours degree classification system is no longer fit for purpose. It cannot describe, and therefore does not do full justice to, the range of knowledge, skills, experience and attributes of a graduate in the 21st century’has been somewhat resolved by the introduction of the Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR), which provides greater granularity in respect of student achievement; however to date it has not been adopted by all HEIs.

A very recent Higher Education Academy (HEA) initiative, building on work of a number of Russell Group institutions, aims to address many issues relating to the honours degree classification system. Beginning in 2013/14, 20 institutions will pilot the introduction of Grade Point Average (GPA) as an alternative or addition to the degree classification system. Because GPA is calculated on a rolling basis from the start of a student’s course and is the final or summative score, it avoids relative stage weightings as a potential source of grade inflation; for the same reason, it also encourages student engagement through the course (Oxford Brookes 2012).

Conclusion

There are multiple and complex reasons for the variability which exists between institutions, within institutions and for the apparent grade inflation seenin respect of degree classification outcomes. The issues which may explain the increase in the award of firsts and firsts and 2:1 over recent years at Newcastle may well relate to an increased emphasis on the student experience and an increase in the qualifications of students admitted. Whilst the most visible and respected league tables and the Government-endorsed source of course information use the % of 1st and 2:1 degrees awarded as a key metric in their compilation, and many major employers use the 2:1 as a cut off point for consideration of applicants, it is understandable that HEIs and students will look to maximise their outcomes. What is clear at Newcastle is that External Examiners, who are the important arbiters of standards, are satisfied that the degrees we awardappropriately reflect student achievement. The possible introduction of the GPA should not be seen as a panacea in solving all the recognised shortcomings of the honours degree classification system.

Professor Suzanne Cholerton
Pro-Vice-Chancellor Learning and Teaching
On behalf of Executive Board / Dr Christie Harner
Development Officer
Quality in Learning and Teaching (QuILT)

27 November 2013

References

Bridges, P, Cooper, A, Evanson, P, Haines, C,Jenkins, D, Scurry, D, Woolf, H and Yorke, M. ‘Coursework marks high, examination marks low: discuss’. Assessment and Evaluation inHigher Education 27 (1) (2002): 35-48.

Department for Education and Skills.The Future of Higher Education (The White Paper). Norwich: TSO, 2003.

Lindsay, R., Paton-Saltzberg, R. and Turner, D. ‘Some effects of programme structure on student marks’. Teaching Forum 46 (Autumn 1998): 12-13.

National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education.Higher Education in the Learning Society (the ‘Dearing Report’). Norwich: HMSO, 1997.

‘Recording Student Achievement: A White Paper for Oxford Brookes’ (2012).

Simonite, V. ‘The impact of coursework on degree classifications and the performance of individual students’. Assessment and Evaluationin Higher Education 28 (3) (2003): 459-70.

Universities UK and GuildHE.Beyond the honours degree classification: the Burgess Group final report, London: Universities UK and GuildHE, 2007.

Universities UK.The Report of the Measuring and Recording Student Achievement Scoping Group (the “Burgess Report”). London: Universities UK, 2004.

Wass, H. “Degree Classifications Annual Report 2013,” Newcastle University, September 2013.

Yorke, Mantz et al. ‘Enigmatic Variations: Honours Degree Assessment Regulations in the UK’. Higher Education Quarterly 62.3 (July 2008): 157-180.

Yorke, Mantz. ‘Honours degree classifications: what we can and cannot tell from statistics’. QAA Quality Matters (September 2009).

Yorke, Mantz et al. ‘Some effects of the award algorithm on honours degree classifications in UK higher education’. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 29.4 (2004): 401-413.

Yorke, Mantz, ‘Trends in honours degree classifications, 1994-95 to 2006-07, for England, Wales and Northern Ireland’.The Higher Education Academy, York (2009).

1