ARG meeting 18 April 2007
Paper F
VARIOUS FURTHER ITEMS FOR ARG CONSIDERATION
Paper from the Chair of ARG and the Quality Officer
This paper draws together various items which have been suggested for consideration by ARG following
previous meetings, as follows:
1.
Compulsory modules
2.
Application of half-point grading scale to modules and exams
3.
Module Moderators remarking work
4.
Confirmation of grades
5.
Examination timing and course structures for part-time students
6.
Work to be taken into account for “Consider Distinction”
AS/RD
16-Apr-07
1. COMPULSORY MODULES
A consultation email, copied below, was circulated to ARG members on 05 March 2007. This asked for opinions
on (i) courses specifying compulsory modules to be included in the 4 counted towards the in-course degree
component (currently allowed); and (ii) a pass requirement for particular modules (currently not allowed).
Feedback was:
 “No change" – AH, QB, GC, CH, SHl, SR, KO, AS, RD.
 "Further discussion required" – none.
Therefore the recommendation from ARG will be taken as “no change”. AS suggested that ARG recommend no
change “until we are required to consider the different but related issue of counting all six” – i.e. any
reconsideration to take place after the report of the Credit Framework working group.
From: Rory Donnelly
To:
Bickle, Quentin; Clark, Graham; Higgins, Craig; Horrill, Sue; Hutchings, Andrew; Ormsby, Karen; Rowell,
Sarah; Thorogood, Nicki
CC:
Huttly, Sharon; Shanley, Paul; Sloggett, Andy
Date: 05 March 2007 18:53
Subject: ARG item - compulsory modules
Dear ARG members,
Andy Sloggett has asked if we could consider a particular ARG discussion item by email: question 20 from the
list of items circulated to Exam Board Chairs and Course Organisers, "Should individual MScs be able to make it
compulsory to pass particular modules, or for particular modules to count towards the degree?" His thought was
that it may be easy for us to agree "no change" on this issue, and he'd ideally like to agree this by email for
mention in his interim report to QSC next week.
The consultation in December-January threw up only one strong item of feedback: Paul Shanley objected to the
proposal to make passing certain modules compulsory. His comments were "It flies in the face of a modular
structure if we insist that certain elements must be passed. Logistically, I see problems with this. What
happens if a student fails C1? What do they do for the rest of the year? When do they resit? Do they have to
re-attend? What if they cannot get a visa to return for the module the following year?". However, he did not
object to the existing system of allowing certain modules to be made compulsory though failable.
1 of 4
Currently, as a result of the 2002-03 ARG, Courses can specify particular modules to be included in the four
contributing to the in-course degree component - but cannot specify a requirement to pass those modules. The
detail is given below,. A number of us (certainly myself!) had forgotten that this was the case.
So, (i) if it has been possible for various courses to specify compulsory modules, and this has been working well,
there would seem no reason to change it; and (ii) for the reasons given by Paul, we should probably not
attempt to introduce a pass requirement. If you agree, please could you respond to say "no change"; if
you disagree or think we need to talk through it more, please respond with "further discussion
required".
Thanks and regards,
Rory
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The final report of the 2002-03 ARG noted "Currently courses can require specific Study Units to be taken but
there is no requirement to pass the Unit or to count the grade towards the in-course component". It
recommended "That up to two Study Units might be specified as counting towards the in-course component, but
careful specification must be made".
Based on this, the MSc Marking Scheme was updated as follows at paragraph 1.3 under In-Course Work: "A
simple average of the four best GPs gives the in-course GPA. Some course regulations prescribe that one or
more pieces of assessed work are compulsory and must count towards the in-course GPA. For these courses,
the GPs of the compulsory pieces of work together with the best GPs from the remainder, such as to bring the
total number of pieces of assessed work to four, are averaged to form the in-course GPA. A list of these courses
and compulsory pieces of work are given at Annex A."
Annex A, Compulsory Study Units, currently lists the following:
* Biology & Control of Disease Vectors: 3141 Vector Sampling, Identification and Incrimination; 3176 Methods of
Vector Control
* Immunology of Infectious Diseases: 3134 Advanced Immunology 1; 3144 Advanced Immunology 2
* Public Health (General): 1608 Integrating Unit: Public Health
* Public Health (Environment & Health): 1300 Environmental Health Policy
* Public Health (Health Promotion): 1806 Integrating Unit: Health Promotion Sciences
* Public Health (Health Services Management): 1607 Integrating Unit: Health Services Management
* Public Health (Health Services Research): 1400 Health Care Evaluation
2. APPLICATION OF HALF-POINT GRADING SCALE TO MODULES AND EXAMS
ARG has already recommended modifying the six-point marking scale to run from 0 to 5 in half-point increments
rather than just integers (Paper E Recommendation #1, arising from ARG 01-Feb-07 minutes 18.1 to 18.8, ARG
27-Feb-07 minutes 30.1 to 30.7, and QSC 14-Mar-07 minutes 5.2 to 5.10).
As a general principle, individual grades directly agreed by markers should be on the half-point GP scale. A clear
recommendation has been made on how this should apply to project marking – agreed project components
(three or more per project type) should be marked on the half-point scale and combined into an overall project
GPA according to a pre-determined weighting. However, further clarification is required on procedures to
recommend for marking module components and exam questions.
For modules, suggestion is that they should normally be marked with an overall grade on the half-point scale.
Where more than one assessment component is specified in the module outline (e.g. both individual and
groupwork elements), these components should be marked individually on the half-point scale, and the grades
combined into a GPA according to an agreed weighting. ARG is asked to advise on whether such calculated
module GPAs should then stand, or be rounded to the nearest half-point:
2 of 4


If a combined GPA is carried forward, this is the most accurate reflection of individual students’ work.
However, it might be seen as inequitable for students to be able to achieve a detailed ‘intermediate’ GPA in
one module (to however many decimal places), yet only be able to achieve a half-point GP in another
module. This situation would arise just from some modules having distinct components but others being
marked overall; and the scenario might potentially affect students’ choice of modules.
If a combined GPA is rounded to the nearest half-point, this would ensure consistency/equity across
modules, and simplicity/clarity on transcripts. However, it might be seen as unfair for students whose mark is
rounded down.
For exam marking, the general recommendation has been to use the same approach as currently, but allowing
questions to be marked on the half-point scale – question grades then being combined into an overall paper
GPA, and Paper GPAs averaged to give an exam GPA. ARG is asked to advise on cases where exam questions
are based on mathematical or yes/no or multiple-choice questions, which may be marked numerically before
being converted to a GP on the half-point scale: should such numeric-mark-to-GP conversion always happen at
the level of individual questions, or should it be possible to combine numerical scores at a higher level before
converting to a GPA (e.g. calculating an overall numeric result for the paper, and then converting to a paper
GPA)?
 Requiring that marks be converted to GPAs for individual questions would mean consistency/equity for all
students in how their results are calculated and rounded. However, doing this could introduce an element of
rounding at an earlier stage than necessary – combining these question GPAs would produce a less
accurate overall GPA than would have been possible by converting to a GPA just once, from the overall
numeric total.
 Allowing numeric marks to be carried forward and only converted to a GPA where strictly necessary (i.e. to
calculate total Paper GPA) would be the most accurate reflection of individual students’ work. However, it
might be seen as out of step with other courses/papers which generate a GPA for each individual question
and then combine them.
3. MODULE MODERATORS REMARKING WORK
ARG is asked to reconsider paragraph 2.7.3 of the Guidelines for Reconciliation and Moderation of Module
Assessment Tasks and Grades. This states that “Moderators may re-mark and re-grade, or ask others to remark and re-grade, any or all of the assessed work, as they see fit as long as this does not disadvantage other
students, i.e. is equitable.”
The ITD Taught Course Director (QB – email 27 February 2006) has commented that the phrase “any or all”
implies Moderators could choose to remark individual pieces of work. This is inconsistent with the regulations for
project marking – which state that “If the External Examiner [as Projects Moderator] is unhappy about the
marking of any of the projects, they should request that the grades of all projects be reviewed and if necessary
all the projects remarked.”
QB has noted that Module Moderators will generally only receive a proportion of the scripts, representative of the
grade distribution, and should only be saying whether they feel the overall level of marking was appropriate or
not. Strong suggestion that Module Moderators should not be empowered to remark and alter individual grades;
if they feel that overall marking is inappropriate, they must request that ALL scripts are remarked.
The Dean of Studies (SH – email 05 March 2007) has asked that ARG consider this issue further and
recommend a clear policy on moderation/remarking of Modules, Projects and Exam Scripts. SH has suggested
that “equitable remarking” could be interpreted in various ways: for example, that if one script needs remarking
then all scripts should be individually remarked; or that on the basis of the sample all scripts need to go up or
down a grade; or that if a problem is only considered to be at one end of the marking scale (e.g. E-grades too
harshly marked) then only all scripts at that end need remarking.
4. CONFIRMATION OF FINAL GRADES FOR OCCASIONAL STUDENTS
3 of 4
The Assistant Registrar (SR – email 22 March 2007) has asked ARG to advise on confirmation of final grades for
Occasional students, who are taking individual modules only at the School. At present, it is unclear exactly when
such students should be given their mark, and whether this is specified as provisional or final.
Module marks for internal students are currently issued about three weeks after the end of the module – after
marking, and before moderation (grading information is sent to Module Moderators at the same time). The
sheet given to students specifies that the mark is provisional subject to final ratification by the Exam Board.
Module marks for occasional students are currently not issued until after moderation is complete. They are
issued with a certificate of attendance and the moderated grade. Whilst this is not the final Exam-Board-ratified
grade, it has been felt acceptable to issue grades only in this format because the grade will not be used towards
a Degree at the School. However, such modules/grades may be credited by other institutions sending their
students to us for particular modules, such as MSc Social Epidemiology at UCL. ARG is asked to consider
whether such students should be formally advised of their mark as soon as possible once they have finished, or
whether they should have to wait until the final Exam Board has met in order to receive an agreed grade.
Note also that the Deputy Registrar and Head of Teaching Support Office have discussed this issue, and intend
to propose some alterations to moderation processes (in particular, timing and deadlines) – may be followed up
directly through TMG.
5. EXAMINATION TIMING AND COURSE STRUCTURES FOR PART-TIME STUDENTS
The following suggestion has been raised by an MSc Public Health student: that part time students be given the
option of taking all the compulsory Term One modules in Term One of their first year, and sitting the related
Paper I exam (which draws on those modules) in the summer of their first year. For MSc Public Health, this
would mean such part-time students opting to work “two-thirds time” in Term One – as from the six modules
taken in term one, four (PSR, HEc, BEpi and B Stats) constitute the ‘common core’ later examined in Paper I;
the other two modules feed into what is examined in the integrated Paper II.
Rationale: “Whilst the School is reasonably good at recognising that part time students have issues around class
times, I think it is maybe forgotten that we are also part time during the holidays and during the revision weeks
prior to the summer exams. I am sure other part time students have raised the issue of having to revise classes
that were taken 2 years previously. I feel it would be much better to at least have the option to sit these in the
summer of your first year and then the second exam in the summer of your second year. I feel this would more
reasonably reflect the time you have prior to the summer exams for revision.”
As PHP TCD, NT has requested that this be considered (email 30-Mar-07). As Chair of ARG, AS has given an
initial response regarding assessment implications (email 02-Apr-07) – “I don't see a problem in principle … For
‘split’ half-time students there already exists the option to take Paper 1 in year 1 - this is because they have
taken term 1 as full-time and are therefore in a position to sit Paper 1. There is quite a lot of flexibility about halftime study and I would expect that someone wanting to take Term 1 full-time could do so on the COs say so, and
then be eligible for Paper 1 in year 1 - I will check this with [Registry] but I expect it's just a matter of registering
them full-time initially and then converting them to half-time”.
However AS also noted “that there would be a fees issue. For FT study Registry would want full fees up-front, so
that would be a problem. But I would think that a work-around could be possible without regulation change - it
would just be another variation on ‘split’ study”.
6. WORK TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR “CONSIDER DISTINCTION”
ARG is asked to clarify what elements of student work or performance may be taken into account (or should be
ignored) by Exam Boards when assessing “Consider Distinction” candidates – in particular, whether or not
student performance should be considered for the two ‘worst’ modules which have not been used in degree
calculations.
AS/RD
16-Apr-07
4 of 4