AQSC 60/07-08 (revised 2)
UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK
AQSC and AQSC Working Group on Assessment Conventions
Undergraduate Marking Scale and Honours Degree Classification Convention:
Final Proposals
June 2008
1.
Introduction
The Academic Quality and Standards Committee (AQSC) set up a Working Group to
consider changes to marking conventions and conventions for classifying Honours
degrees. The Group met a number of times in 2004-05. Its work was suspended
while the Burgess Group considered issues of measuring and recording student
achievement, including the continuing validity (or otherwise) of the Honours degree
classification system. Once it became apparent that the Burgess Group’s final report
was going to be significantly delayed and somewhat anodyne, the Working Group
reconvened, reconsidered the issues and finalised a report for AQSC and Senate
during the summer term 2007.
At the meeting of the Senate on 4 July 2007 it was resolved:
(a)
That the Senate was in favour of exploring the possibility of introducing
changes to University assessment conventions if these were no worse than
current practice in some departments and better than current practice in most
departments.
(b)
That a trial, based upon the Assessment Convention proposals put forward by
the Academic Quality and Standards Committee, be piloted in those
University departments who expressed a wish to participate in the pilot
commencing in the Autumn Term 2007/08 as part of continuing discussions
on moves towards the harmonisation of marking for implementation in the
academic year 2008/09.
A new 17-point marking scale was thus piloted in a range of departments during
2007-08, and the results of this, alongside the outcomes of an exercise to model the
likely effects of the new marking scale and a new method of classifying degrees on
the marks of students who graduated in summer 2007. Reflections on the pilot from
departments are included at Annex C.
The Working Group reconvened in April 2008 to consider further developments and
make final recommendations to AQSC. AQSC considered these recommendations
in June 2008, and is now making recommendations to the Senate.
2.
Main recommendations
AQSC is making two significant recommendations to the Senate:
(a)
That the University introduce a new marking scale, based on 17 grade points,
set out in Annex A, on undergraduate modules from Autumn 2008 (initially on
first-year modules from 2008-09, on second year modules from 2009-10 and
so on), except on numeric-based assessments where the full range of
percentage marks from 0 to 100 is used, e.g. many assessments in the
Faculty of Science; some language assessments.
(b)
That the University introduce a unified convention for the classification of all
Honours degrees, set out in Annex B, with effect for students first registering
in Autumn 2008.
3.
Rationale for change
These proposals will bring a mixture of the following benefits:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
4.
There are still considerable divergences in marking practices between
departments and within some departments papers are marked on different
scales. There is also some reluctance to use the full range of marks, in spite
of repeated exhortations. Such diversity is unfair to students.
The proposed marking scale is seen as being a better way of rewarding
intellectual merit and achievement.
A single marking scale used across all departments and degrees at
undergraduate level will facilitate more flexible courses and more interdisciplinary and multi-disciplinary courses.
The new marking scale should simplify the marking process by increasing the
clarity of broad grade descriptors.
A system of degree classification conventions based primarily on the mean of
module results, weighted to take account of different module sizes (credit
weightings) makes easier the construction of degree courses with modules of
different sizes and from different departments, and allows greater flexibility in
course design.
The current system of degree classification is perceived to be unfair to a small
but significant minority of students, especially where different conventions
apply in different parts of a joint degree (particularly those across faculties).
Mean-based degree classification conventions would remove the need for the
current rules for treating fail marks in Arts/Social Studies classification
conventions, which are considered inappropriate by some external examiners
and have led to some students giving up on modules which they do not need
to pass.
QAA has recommended to the University in successive audits that we should
ensure equity of treatment to undergraduates in the degree classification
process, with a clear steer that this should be done by harmonising
conventions across all Faculties (except the MBChB).
Implementation of new marking scale and new classification convention
It is proposed that the new Honours degree classification convention and the new
marking scale be introduced for first-year students registering in October 2008;
students already on their courses will continue to have their work marked using the
existing mark scale for second, third and fourth-year undergraduate modules, will
have their degrees classified under the current conventions. For three-year Honours
degrees the first degrees classified under the new convention would be in the
summer of 2011. This will give departments sufficient opportunity to explain the
grade points and new classification conventions to the students affected, taking
advantage of a range of mechanisms, including student handbooks and SSLC
meetings.
In addition to feedback gathered during 2007-08, further feedback from the pilot of
the proposed new marking scale is available to inform consideration of these
proposals at the meeting of Senate on 2 July 2008. In addition, there would be a
further opportunity for reflection on the implementation details of the new
arrangements before the meeting of the Senate to be held on 1 October 2008.
2
It should be noted that for departments in the Faculties of Arts and Social Studies,
which typically do not count first-year work towards the final degree classification,
2008-09 would present an opportunity for further refinements of the proposed new
marking scale, where experience of using the scale across all first-year modules
highlights potential areas for improvement. In the Faculty of Science, where first year
marks contribute a small proportion to final classifications for many courses, the
majority of assessments are marked according to the full 0-100 scale, so are not
affected by the proposed new undergraduate marking scale. (The exception is the
decision to confirm a pass mark of 40% for undergraduate modules, which will
require some change in some Science departments.)
It is inevitable that changes such as these bring with them a transitional phase,
where two systems will operate in parallel for different cohorts. It will be vital that
departments maintain a clear awareness of which scales and conventions apply to
which students, and that staff and students, Boards of Examiners and External
Examiners are aware of the rules under which their work will be assessed and their
degrees classified. This will be particularly important where students take a year out
for work experience, are following a four-year variant of a course which is also
available as a three-year degree, or temporarily withdraw, and also where
departments teach different cohorts in the same classes.
Part-time students, who can choose how to spread their courses over four to ten
years, present a special case. The logistical difficulties of classifying their degrees
according to the convention appropriate to their first registration would be
considerable. It is therefore proposed that the same approach is taken now as was
adopted when harmonised conventions were introduced for Arts and Social Studies
students in the late 1990s, namely that the new classification convention be applied
at Final Boards of Examiners for all part-time students four years after the convention
is finalised, i.e. summer 2012. Boards of Examiners will be reminded of this
provision.
It will be important to add appropriate information to the Diploma Supplement once it
is introduced at Warwick, to reflect the marking scale and classification conventions
which applied to the relevant cohorts and students.
It will be stated clearly that the University will not consider appeals from students on
the basis that they would have been classified differently had a different convention
applied.
In departments which currently operate pass marks on undergraduate modules other
than 40% (e.g. some Science departments operate a pass mark of 30%), some
redesign of particular assessments may be required, and care will need to be taken
to ensure that Boards of Examiners are fully aware of which pass mark was in
operation during which academic years to ensure there is no detriment to current
students. As boundaries between different classes remain unchanged the
University’s standards will remain unchanged.
The implementation process will include an opportunity for departments to identify
numerically based or other modules which are currently assessed using the complete
0-100 scale and which will continue to be so.
It is recognised that some staff training will be required. LDC and departments would
be invited to consider how best to deliver this.
3
5.
Necessary steps
Should the proposals be approved by Senate, a number of actions would need to be
taken:
action
update Student
Handbooks
arrange training
who
departments
when
summer
vacation
summer
vacation and
during 2008-09
before start of
Autumn Term
in time for
consideration
during Autumn
Term
confirm relative year
weightings
propose special
conventions
departments
specify criteria for
consideration of
borderline cases
departments
in time for
consideration
during Autumn
Term
propose use of vivas in
borderline cases
departments
in time for
consideration
during Autumn
Term
propose continued use
of Seymour formula to
recognise overloads
departments
in time for
consideration
during Autumn
Term
confirm which modules
are to be assessed on
100-point scale
(remainder on 17-point
scale) or vice versa
consider if any
assessment redesign is
required to take account
of pass mark becoming
40%
departments
before start of
Autumn Term
departments
who currently
operate a
different pass
mark
before start of
Autumn Term
TQ and LDC;
departments
departments
4
approval or recording
to be included in
Course Regulations
Faculty Boards, AQSC
during Autumn 08;
then to be included in
List A in the Honours
degree classification
conventions
Faculty Board, AQSC
during Autumn 08;
then to be included in
List B in the Honours
degree classification
conventions
Faculty Board, AQSC
during Autumn 08;
then to be included in
List B in the Honours
degree classification
conventions
Faculty Board, AQSC
during Autumn 08;
then to be included in
List C in the Honours
degree classification
conventions
to be noted by
Academic Office
Faculty Committee
where an amendments
to modules are
required; otherwise
within relevant
departments
6.
Membership of the Working Group as at 28 April 2008:
Chair of the Academic Quality and
Standards Committee
Professor Michael Whitby
Chairs of the Boards of the Faculties or their
representatives
Professor Karen O’Brien (Arts)
Dr Paul O’Hare (Medicine)
Dr Martin Skinner (Science)
Ms Judith Kennedy (Social Studies)
Chairs of the Faculty Undergraduate
Studies Committees/Sub-Faculty of Science
Mr Jose Arroyo (Arts)
[Dr Martin Skinner (Science)]
Dr Fergus McKay (Social Studies)
Professor Jim Davis
Dr Ken Flint
Professor Mark Harrison
Members of the Academic Quality and
Standards Committee with experience of
the proposed new marking scale (or similar)
Deputy President & Education Officer,
Students’ Union
Mr Peter Ptashko
Representative of the Institute of Education
Dr Val Brooks
Representative of the Learning and
Development Centre
Ms Sue Bennett
Representative of the Centre for Lifelong
Learning
Dr David Lamburn
Senior Tutor
Mr Steve Lamb
Assistant Registrar (Examinations)
Dr Joe Taylor
Secretariat
Ms Jenny Bradfield
Ms Helen Hutchings
Dr Julian Moss
MW/JDM/JB, 30.04.08
M:\Quality\Committees\Working Groups\Assessment Conventions Working Group\28.04.08\AQSC 59 0708
AssConvWkgGp FINAL PROPOSALS April08.doc
5
Annex A
The 17 Grade Point Marking Scale: Marking scale and descriptors
These descriptors should be interpreted as appropriate to the subject and the
year/level of study, and implicitly cover good academic practice and the avoidance of
plagiarism. Faculties and departments publish more detailed marking criteria.
With the exception of the top and bottom marks the descriptors cover a range of
marks, with the location within each group dependent on the extent to which the
elements in the descriptor are met.
Class
First
Marking
scale
descriptor
Excellent
1st
Exceptional work of the highest quality, demonstrating excellent
knowledge and understanding, analysis, organisation, accuracy,
relevance, presentation and appropriate skills. At final-year level:
work may achieve or be close to publishable standard.
High 1st
Mid 1st
Low 1st
Very high quality work demonstrating excellent knowledge and
understanding, analysis, organisation, accuracy, relevance,
presentation and appropriate skills. Work which may extend
existing debates or interpretations.
High 2.1
Upper
Second
Mid 2.1
Low 2.1
High quality work demonstrating good knowledge and
understanding, analysis, organisation, accuracy, relevance,
presentation and appropriate skills.
High 2.2
Lower
Second
Mid 2.2
Low 2.2
Competent work, demonstrating reasonable knowledge and
understanding, some analysis, organisation, accuracy, relevance,
presentation and appropriate skills.
High 3rd
Third
Mid 3rd
Work of limited quality, demonstrating some relevant knowledge
and understanding.
Low 3rd
Fail
High Fail
(SubHonours)
Fail
Low Fail
Zero
Zero
Work does not meet standards required for the appropriate stage
of an Honours degree. There may be evidence of some basic
understanding of relevant concepts and techniques.
Poor quality work well below the standards required for the
appropriate stage of an Honours degree.
Work of no merit
OR
Absent, work not submitted, penalty in some misconduct cases
7
For computing module results and means, the points on the marking scale have the
following numerical equivalents:
Class
First
Point on scale
Excellent 1st
High 1st
Mid 1st
Low 1st
High 2.1
Mid 2.1
Low 2.1
High 2.2
Mid 2.2
Low 2.2
High 3rd
Mid 3rd
Low 3rd
High Fail
Mid Fail
Low Fail
Zero
Upper Second
Lower Second
Third
Fail
Zero
numerical equivalent
96
89
81
74
68
65
62
58
55
52
48
45
42
38
25
12
0
Most of the equivalents are as piloted. In response to feedback and further
discussion, the equivalences within the Fail range have been reviewed, with the top
mark moved up from 33 to 38; the other points have been redistributed to maintain
an even spread. The concern with the scale piloted was that work which narrowly
fails to achieve the standard required to pass could exert a disproportionately large
downward effect on a student’s average.
This conversion stretches the scale at the top and bottom of the range, rewarding
excellence more strongly. The following graph illustrates the distribution of the
marks.
z
lo ero
w
fa
hi f il
gh ai
lo f a l
w i
m 3r l
i
hi d 3 d
gh rd
lo 3 r
w d
m 2.
hi id 2 2
gh .2
lo 2 .
w 2
m 2.
hi id 2 1
gh .1
lo 2 .
w 1
m 1s
i
ex h d 1 t
ce igh st
lle 1
nt st
1s
t
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
8
Further details of the 17-grade point marking scale
It is proposed that a new marking scale is introduced, using seventeen identified
grade points which map on to fixed percentages on the 0-100% scale. The aim is to
facilitate greater convergence in the use of mark scales across different faculties, by
encouraging use of the full range of marks. This should help to ensure equitable
treatment of students of similar abilities and achievements across the University,
which is particularly important for inter and multi-disciplinary courses. The proposed
scale should reward excellence appropriately, and should encourage the use of the
full range of marks in all subjects. The proposal is that work should be assessed
initially in terms of its grade point (e.g. Excellent 1st, High 2.1, Mid 2.2 etc). These
grade points are then administratively converted to one of seventeen identified
percentage marks across the 0-100% scale to allow for the computation of module
results, year averages and final overall means used in degree classification
decisions.
Any new marking scale must be designed to allow excellence to be rewarded
appropriately. Although we notionally use a 0-100 scale now, in practice some
disciplines award almost all assessed work marks within a range of (approximately)
35-75. This contributes to relatively low numbers of First-Class degrees being
awarded in some subjects: where a First Class piece of work is given a mark in the
low 70s, regardless of where in the First Class range it lies, the average mark is
depressed, which can lead to marks clustering around the mean. The advantage of
using identified points across the whole 0-100 scale is that the difference between
work which is a low First, a mid First and an exceptionally strong (high or excellent)
First is stretched. This avoids depressing the mean, and allows excellence to be
rewarded. Similarly, stretching the scale in the Fail range means that incompetence
is treated more harshly compared with current practice.
Numeric-based examinations and other assessments which are already marked
using a percentage scale (e.g. on mathematical or language-based papers, where
the full range of percentage marks from 0 to 100 is used, typically where a mark
scheme allocates small numbers of marks to each of several/many questions or parts
of questions) may continue to be marked as such, with departments invited to specify
which assessment tasks would be marked in this way. It is expected that approval
would be granted only where departments confirm that marks achieved on such
assessments are in line with the descriptors in the table (Annex A, above), so that a
percentage mark of 72%, for example, matches the descriptor for First in the table.
The marking process
Examinations and assessments that are to be marked using the new 17 grade point
scale (ie all assessment units other than those approved for continued marking on
the full 0-100% scale) will be marked as follows:
Individual units of assessment (e.g. individual exam answers, assessed essays) are
marked using the 17 grade point scale (e.g. high 1st, mid 2.1) and the associated
descriptors.
Where a module is assessed by one unit of assessment only (e.g. a dissertation), the
grade point is administratively converted to the corresponding fixed percentage and
becomes the module result. Thus the module result for a dissertation module or
other module with only one unit of assessment can only be 0, 12, 2, 38, 42, 45, …,
65, 68, 74, 81, 89, 96.
Where a module is assessed by more that one unit of assessment, the grade point
for each unit should be converted to the corresponding fixed percentage and then
averaged (arithmetic mean) (with appropriate weighting) to produce the module
result. The module result is expressed as a percentage and is not restricted to the
fixed percentage points on the scale.
Thus a module which is assessed by a single exam, with the paper made up of three
questions, equally weighted, may, for example, be awarded the following grade
points: high 2.1, high 2.1, low 2.1. These grade points would be converted to the
corresponding fixed percentages and combined to produce the overall mark for the
paper: we average 68, 68 and 62, and the result for the exam (and in this case the
module) would be 66.
10
Annex B
Proposed unified degree classification conventions
for Honours degrees at the University of Warwick
It should be noted that the appendices to this proposed convention are currently
empty; it is anticipated that where departments wish to continue certain current
practices, these can be proposed and approved by the Faculty Board and AQSC. It
will require departments to set out the rationale for such additional conventions or
rules. Examples might include:
• List A, additional classification conventions: requirements for a particular level of
performance in the language modules of languages degrees
• List B, criteria for treatment of borderline cases: some departments pay particular
attention to exit velocity, while some attach considerable weight to the profile of
candidates’ marks in core modules; vivas: some departments currently use vivas
with borderline candidates
• List C, use of the Seymour formula: departments in the Faculty of Science
currently limit the application of the Seymour formula in different ways; it would
be beneficial to take the introduction of the new convention as an opportunity to
codify its use.
1.
Scope
The classification of all classified Honours degrees is to be determined using these
conventions for full-time students first registered from October 2008 onwards, and for
part-time students who complete their degree courses in summer 2012 onwards.
The classification of Honours degrees for full-time students registered prior to
October 2008 and for part-time students who complete their degree courses prior to
summer 2012 will be carried out in accordance with the previous degree
classification conventions introduced in October 2001. Boards of Examiners will not
consider any appeals against degree classifications obtained by such students on the
basis of these new unified degree classification conventions.
Any additional conventions which operate on particular degree courses or in
particular departments for sound academic reason shall be agreed by the relevant
Faculty Board and the Academic Quality and Standards Committee and set out in
Appendix A.
2.
Determination of Honours degree classification
Course regulations shall specify the relative weightings attached to the different
years/stages in calculating the degree classification. 1
The weight a module carries in the degree classification calculation shall be directly
proportionate to its credit weighting. 2
A candidate’s degree classification shall be based on the arithmetic mean of all their
module marks, weighted to take account of the size of the module (credit weighting),
and year/stage of study.
1
In a three-year degree the course regulations may, for example, attach no weight to modules taken in
the first year and equal weight to modules taken in the second and third years (0%:50%:50%), or the
years may have increasing weight (e.g. 10%:30%:60%).
2
For example, a 30-credit module carries twice as much weight as a 15-credit module from the same
year of study. On a three-year degree where the year weightings are 10%:30%:60% a 24-credit module
in final year carries twice as much weight as a 24-credit module in second year.
The mean shall be expressed as a percentage, rounded to one decimal place. The
mean indicates the classification to be awarded as follows, where M is the mean:
First
M ≥ 70.0%
2.1
69.9% ≥ M ≥ 60.0%
2.2
59.9% ≥ M ≥ 50.0%
Third
49.9% ≥ M ≥ 40.0%
Pass
Degree
39.9% ≥ M ≥ 35.0%
fail
34.9% ≥ M
3.
Where the mean is greater than or equal to
70.0% the Honours degree shall be classified as
a First, except where the mean is less than
71.0%, when the candidate's performance shall
be treated as a borderline case.
Where the mean is greater than or equal to
60.0% and less than 70.0% the Honours degree
shall be classified as an Upper Second
Where the mean is greater than or equal to
50.0% and less than 60.0% the Honours degree
shall be classified as a Lower Second
Where the mean is greater than or equal to
40.0% and less than 50.0% the Honours degree
shall be classified as a Third
Where the mean is greater than or equal to
35.0% and less than 40.0% the degree shall be
awarded as a Pass degree
Where the mean is less than 35.0% no degree
shall be awarded
Consideration of borderline cases
Where a student's mean is greater than or equal to 70.0% and less than 71.0% the
Board of Examiners shall reconsider the student's performance and consider whether
to award a First Class degree or a 2.1. The over-arching presumption is that a mean
of 70.0% or above leads to the award of a First, but departments may specify criteria
for considering cases in this borderline zone above the boundary.
Where a student’s mean mark falls below a class boundary but is within 2.0% of that
boundary the Board of Examiners shall reconsider the student’s performance and
consider whether to promote them to the higher class or not; this provision does not
apply to the boundary at 35.0% between a Pass degree and failure.
The criteria which the Board of Examiners may take into account when considering
borderline performance include:
• performance above the class boundary in final year (“exit velocity”);
• preponderance of module marks above the class boundary;
• performance above the class boundary in core modules or optional core
modules (as listed in course regulations).
Departments should specify the criteria they use for the consideration of borderline
performance. These criteria are set out in Appendix B.
On particular degree courses and in particular departments vivas may be held to
assist the Board of Examiners in the consideration of borderline cases. Where this is
the case an outline of the criteria and process to be used must be approved by the
relevant Faculty Board and the Academic Quality and Standards Committee and will
be set in out in Appendix B.
4.
Treatment of failure
Marks from all modules taken in the relevant years/stages shall be used in the
calculation of the degree class, including any fail marks.
Where a module which contributes to the degree classification has been failed but
passed on resit (e.g. some first-year modules in the Faculty of Science), the pass
12
mark (40%) will be used in the calculation of the degree class, except where the
student is being considered for a Pass degree when the mark achieved in the resit
will be used.
5.
Pass degrees
Pass degrees can be awarded either to students who have followed a Pass degree
course, or to students who have followed an Honours degree course but who do not
qualify for the award of an Honours degree.
Both Honours and Pass candidates will normally be considered for a Pass degree in
cases where the overall mean mark achieved is 35.0% or above and below 40.0%,
after application of the Seymour formula where appropriate
6.
Additional modules and the Seymour formula
[Note: no change is proposed to the operation of the Seymour formula, and
this section is based on the currently approved section of the Honours degree
classification convention for Science degrees which outlines it.]
Some courses and departments permit students to opt to follow and be assessed in
more modules than are required by the course regulations.
Where a candidate has been assessed in one or more additional modules over and
above those required by the course regulations the candidate’s mean shall be
calculated using the Seymour formula, as set out in the currently approved Honours
degree classification convention for Science degrees.
Departments wishing to allow credit overloads and the application of the Seymour
formula shall have such proposals approved by the relevant Faculty Board and the
Academic Quality and Standards Committee, and the departments and degree
courses affected shall be listed in Appendix C.
7.
Mitigating circumstances
Where a student’s performance has been adversely affected by certified mitigating
circumstances these shall be taken into account by the Board of Examiners in
classifying the student’s degree.
List A
Any additional conventions which operate on particular degree courses or in
particular departments for sound academic reason shall be agreed by the relevant
Faculty Board and the Academic Quality and Standards Committee and set out here:
No additional conventions have yet been approved. When additional
conventions have been approved they will be detailed here.
List B
The following criteria are applied in the consideration of borderline performance in
the departments and on the degrees listed:
No criteria for the consideration of borderline performance have yet been
specified. When such criteria have been specified they will be detailed here.
13
On the following courses and in the following departments vivas may be held to
assist the Examination Board in the consideration of borderline cases, once
approved by the relevant Faculty Board and the Academic Quality and Standards
Committee:
No proposals for vivas have yet been approved. When proposals have been
approved they will be detailed here (including an outline of the criteria and
process to be used).
List C
On the following courses and in the following departments students are permitted to
take additional modules over and above those required by the course regulations
following consultation with their personal tutor or equivalent and the Seymour formula
shall be used in determining degree classifications for students who choose to take
such additional modules.
No proposals for allowing additional modules and using the Seymour formula
have yet been approved. When proposals have been approved they will be
detailed here.
14
Annex C
Reflections on the pilot of the proposed new undergraduate marking scale
15
Philosophy
We used the Pilot Marking Scheme for nearly all our first year assessment. Overall,
implementation appears to have been successful, although it is as yet unclear
whether the overall pattern of our first year assessment, including spread of marks,
has been affected significantly. We found four problems with implementing the Pilot:
1. Some examiners found that implementing the Pilot involved additional work, due
largely to its unfamiliarity.
2. Some examiners found some of the instructions a bit unclear, especially
instructions relating to agreeing or averaging Pilot scale marks.
3. At least one examiner found the Pilot scale a little restrictive, in that it failed to
sustain very fine discrimination amongst candidates.
4. The Pilot scale is not applicable straightforwardly to one of our examinations,
Starting Logic, which is marked on a genuine percentile scale. It would be possible,
but we think pointless, to translate marks for this module into the 19 point scale.
Guy Longworth pp Naomi Eilan
School of Engineering
The School has no objection to the proposal. We have previously expressed a
number of concerns about the 17-point scale and these have been addressed in the
latest version.
We have used the approach for several assignments. We have encountered two
problems:
1) Difficulties with applying the grade descriptors as provided. This is no longer a
problem given that we can enhance the descriptors on the scale to meet our
requirements.
2) Concerns expressed by the undergraduates that they feel that the scale will
disadvantage them. There is some cause for this concern in that current marks are
often awarded on a boundary, e.g. 60, 70%, etc.. A pessimist will view the scale as
moving the mark downwards and down a class, this is especially true at 70% where
the available shift is down 2% or up 4%. We expect that experience following
implementation of the scale will reassure students.
Tony Price
Law
Colleagues in Law have been dismayed at the pace of implementation apparently
being pursued on this matter. The Law School volunteered to engage in the Pilot. It
undertook to introduce the system for 1st years where our understanding was that the
proposed system would not alter the Pass/Fail standard. We also selected two
modules in the 2nd/3rd years where we would shadow the existing system, remarking
with the 17 point scale.
The request for a brief report at this stage was unexpected and colleagues are
unprepared to respond usefully in such a short time. In the meantime however I can
make some observations arising from the current process:
1. More thought and clarity is necessary regarding the marking bands adopted.
In Law we settled for example on a fail mark of 35 rather than 33 because the
higher mark has implications for professional condonation.
2. More thought and clarity has to be given to the grade descriptors. We
adapted some of the descriptors but further revisions will be necessary to
address specific assessment modes(e.g. performance based activities)
3. There are unforeseen implications for adopting the 17 point scale at individual
question level (on an exam); at mode of assessment level or at final mark
level. These can be relatively easily resolved but clarity is necessary and a
uniform and agreed approach is needed from the Ctee. Clarity and
consistency of guidance is essential.
4. These are a few of the comments relating to the 1st year process. The pilot
has, as late as lunchtime today, produced anomalies and inconsistencies
between different module convenors requiring some urgent decision making
prior to our 1st year board this afternoon. Colleagues have worked hard to try
and ensure a consistent and considered approach but guidance has been
ambiguous or even contradictory.
5. So far as the 2nd and 3rd year modules are concerned, these are still being
processed. One of my exams for example which is in a module included in
our pilots, is not until Friday afternoon. It was anticipated that the new system
would only affect marks towards the top or bottom of the 100 point scale but
we shall only be able to judge this when there has been time to study the
comparison.
I hope that these comments may be helpful despite their suggesting the emerging
problems (not insurmountable) must be understood before further implementation is
embarked upon. Law is concerned that there has been insufficient opportunity to
understand and test-bed the new system. Our experience in Law so far has been that
the process should not be rushed into if potentially uneven or unfair judgements are
to be avoided and considerable administrative change is to be accomplished. There
also appears to be a much greater need for educating all colleagues if the
consistency which is being sought is to be achieved.
These reflections should serve to explain why, along with other HoDs in Social
Studies, I am of the view that full implementation should only occur when the new
scale has been properly piloted.
Roger Burridge
Economics
At the beginning of the 2007/08 year, the Department of Economics engaged readily
in the pilot scheme of the new 17-point marking scale for undergraduate first-year
courses. We welcomed it in principle because we must manage issues of
consistency in marking scales across subjects within our discipline that the university
faces across departments and faculties. We expected it to help us to manage these
issues in a better way; on the basis of incomplete results, we continue to have that
expectation. We have found the implementation of the new marking scale to be
unproblematic and, on the whole, helpful. We would be happy to proceed more
rapidly with wider implementation. However, since the result of implementation is that
the normal variation in student performance becomes associated with a wider range
of percentage marks, we recognise the need for implementation of the new marking
scale and the updating of degree classification conventions to proceed in step.
Mark Harrison
17
History
Here is the feedback from the two History tutors who participated in the pilot on the
17 point marking scale. NB both used first-year students only, so their comments
reflect assessed (essay) work only, not exams. NB first year work is neither double
marked or monitored.
One tutor found the system unproblematic, and noted that marking on the new
system was somewhat easier, due to the absence of an imperative to distinguish
between marks of 66, 67, 68 etc.
The other marker found the system largely unproblematic in terms of student
response (they had none). However, he noted that 'Operationally, the direct
translation of marks into the current marking scale doesn't work well...as it
compresses marks--you don't use 15, 16 or 17 as these would imply marks over 80.
Thus everyone gets 11-14. I would prefer marking it as in St Andrews where 17
equals extremely good first, 16 excellent first, 15 good first, 14 marginal first and so
on.'
Margot Finn
Theatre Studies
The scheme has not been seen as unduly problematic with first year marking, where
it was piloted. Staff members who have previously worked with North American,
Australasian or European systems say they find it clearer than the entrenched
English system with its osmotic and mystical fixation on the 58-72 range of marks.
However, we feel the need to trial it more thoroughly.
Jim Davis
Comment from two individual members of staff in Theatre Studies: (a)
1. I think the rationale for the scheme is laudable as it has the potential to employ a
wider range of marks and (leaving aside the numbers 1-17) to have these occupy
generally understood descriptive positions (high first, low 2.1) that can be more easily
and swiftly agreed between markers/moderators/externals than the questionable
variation between say a 66 and a 65!
2. At the top end I would rather employ a wider range of marks than the widest range.
Currently the scale is
Low 1st - 74 - 14/17
Mid 1st - 81 - 15/17
High 1st - 89 - 16/17
Exc. 1st - 96 - 17/17
Aside from the issue discussed at the arts board (96 being disproportionately high
and skewing overall marks) it is evident that both at the top and bottom end the gaps
between points on the scale increases. At the risk of being seen wanting to crawl
back into my own comfort zone I'd rather have a less dramatic differentiation at the
top eg
Low 1st - 72 - 14/17
Mid 1st - 78 - 15/17
High 1st - 84 - 16/17
Exc. 1st - 90 - 17/17
And, perhaps controversially, but intended to ensure that the top mark is reserved for
exceptional work, if a student does achieve this then publishing/dissemination of the
18
work should be actively encouraged/supported by the department (or if not, then
change the descriptor because it is raises false expectations in the candidate!)
3. At the bottom end I have yet to inhabit the dead zone below about 35% (unless it
is a straighforward 0% for non-submission). In our discussions of the scheme the
need to embrace the full range of marks has always been assumed to mean go
beyond about 78 BUT if we are not to simply rubber-stamp grade creep then we also
need to attend to the lower depths and consider and utilise gradations of failure
4. The point at which the awkward 1-17 scale is converted to the numerically friendly
1-100% is important and needs to be standardised as repeated rounding of a mark (I
confess to actually using the 1-100 scale to determine a mark then consider where
best it fits on the 1-17 scale so I am guilty of rounding from the off) can result in
significant rises in a classification. Our policy for late submission (5% deduction per
day) cannot be used with the 17 point scale and so a penalised mark will almost
inevitable have to exist in the 1-100 range rather than on one of the points on the 117 scale UNLESS we think it appropriate to change the penalty to a loss of 1 point on
the scale per day (ie an essay marked at 12/17 (65%) that was two days late would
earn a 10/17 (58%)
Comment from two individual members of staff in Theatre Studies: (b)
I find the new marking scale useful especially in overcoming borderline cases, say,
between 2/1 and 1st class work. The existing marking scale offers more opportunity
to highlight nuances in the work though. Perhaps 17 is a bit of an odd number and
maybe extending the scale to 18 or 20 might allow for better precision.
19