30846 Debt cover.qxd
9/11/04
6:07 pm
Page 1
Measuring and recording
student achievement
Measuring and recording
student achievement
Report of the Scoping Group chaired by
Professor Robert Burgess
Contents
Chair’s foreword
3
Executive summary
4
Part 1: Introduction
7
Background
Methodology
7
11
Part 2: Identifying and addressing the issues
13
Introduction
13
Section A: Describing, measuring, recording
and communicating achievement
15
Representing achievement
Criteria
The honours degree classification system
Alternative methods of representing achievement
15
17
17
21
Section B: Value added
25
Dimensions of value added
Issues affecting value added
Obtaining data to determine value added
25
28
29
Section C: Credit
33
What is credit?
Actual and potential benefits of credit
Criticisms of credit
Issues in the development of higher education credit in England
34
35
37
38
Section D: General issues
42
Consultation with key stakeholders
Communication with key stakeholders
Terminology
Timing
Leadership and ownership
42
43
43
43
44
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
1
Section E: Conclusions
45
Conclusions
Summary of recommendations
Next steps
45
45
47
Notes
49
Annexes
Annex A Scoping Group terms of reference
Annex B Scoping Group membership
Annex C sub-group membership and terms of reference
Annex D references
2
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
51
52
53
56
Chair’s foreword
I am delighted to introduce the report of the Measuring and Recording Student Achievement Scoping
Group. It contains our recommendations for taking forward work in a number of areas which will be the
key to realising a successful future for UK higher education, providing a sound basis for describing,
measuring, recording and communicating student achievement in the Twenty-first century.
As a Scoping Group it has been our task to scope issues rather than provide solutions and thus our
recommendations are in the form of pointers towards future directions and further work which must be
taken forward by the sector. Scoping was necessary because this is a vast landscape of complex issues
and in engaging in this task we have had to prioritise. Nonetheless, over the past nine months we believe
we have cleared enough ground for there to be clarity and vision and a sound evidence base upon which
to build.
In undertaking this task we acknowledged the need to recognise academic and institutional autonomy and
also the need for consensus in proposing change. We were aware at the outset that the UK higher
education sector has already had many of these issues under active discussion and our scoping work
soon revealed that there had already been significant progress in many areas. We saw an important part
of our task as acknowledging and recording this work as it represents a solid basis for future direction.
Our ultimate aim is that students will benefit directly from the pointers we have proposed for further
investigation and we were particularly concerned to put student interests at the heart of our deliberations
and in making recommendations. However, all stakeholders, internal and external, need to be involved in
pursuing the next stage of work.
We are acutely aware that our recommendations represent a considerable programme of work which we
are now handing to Universities UK and SCOP to take forward in partnership with the Funding Councils
and other organisations. In addition we have, perhaps audaciously, set a deadline of the end of December
2005 by which we think clear progress should have been made. The Group felt very strongly that, having
raised expectations within the sector, and among other key stakeholders and policymakers, there is a
need to maintain momentum in pressing ahead with these matters.
In commending our report to the sponsoring bodies I would like to thank all those who have assisted us in
our discussions. The report is the result of a team effort by all members of the Scoping Group and
observers, those who chaired the sub-groups, sub-group members and consultants and advisers, all of
whom have given generously of their time and contributed much to our understanding of the issues that
need to be resolved. Finally, all this work would not have been completed without the strong support of
Greg Wade, Clare Taylor and Helen Bowles, together with Jane Denholm of Critical Thinking who used
her expertise to shape our discussions into a coherent report that the whole Scoping Group can
recommend.
Professor Robert Burgess
Vice-Chancellor, University of Leicester
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
3
Executive Summary
The Measuring and Recording Student Achievement Scoping Group was established by Universities
UK and the Standing Conference of Principals (SCOP), with the support of the Higher Education
Funding Council for England (HEFCE) in October 2003 to review the recommendations from the UK
Government White Paper The Future of Higher Education relating specifically to recording student
achievement, value added, degree classifications and credit systems.
It was originally intended that the Scoping Group would meet twice. However, the scale of the work
required it to meet five times between October 2003 and June 2004. In addition, following the October
meeting, a series of three sub-groups was established to undertake detailed work and identify issues
for consideration and resolution by the full Scoping Group. It was not the function of the Scoping
Group fully to address and solve all of the issues. Its purpose was to:
• consider definitions and issues relating to the major themes;
• consider what problems or opportunities needed to be addressed; and
• recommend a programme of work, and who should take forward this work with reference to current
good practice.
The scoping work has demonstrated that there is currently a considerable degree of work underway in
the UK higher education sector in matters of describing, measuring, recording and communicating
student achievement. The Group also identified some major, as yet unresolved, issues. The full report
addresses a number of these and suggests ways in which they could, and in some cases should, be
taken forward.
The key conclusions are that:
• Whilst the UK honours degree is a robust qualification which continues to serve us well, the existing
honours degree classification system has outlived its usefulness and is no longer fit for purpose.
There should be further investigation of alternative classificatory systems for representing
achievement which better meet the needs of different audiences and a set of criteria need to be
identified and agreed for the purpose of evaluating such a system. There is merit in incorporating
some of the existing initiatives in this area including the higher education Transcript, the Progress
File and Personal Development Planning. Account must also be taken of developments elsewhere
in the UK, in other sectors and European developments such as the Diploma Supplement and the
Europass;
• The sector should actively investigate the feasibility of designing models for predicting value added
for potential students. Existing databases could be used to this end but any proposals will need to
be carefully trialled and piloted with students and institutions to determine their robustness and
usefulness; and
4
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
• Whilst acknowledging the autonomy of higher education institutions, the sector should work towards a
common further and higher education credit system for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, articulating
effectively with the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework and the European Credit Transfer
System (ECTS) in Europe. To bring this to fruition, terminology will have to be agreed and defined.
The Scoping Group makes the following recommendations:
Recommendation 1: there is a need for further investigation of classificatory systems for the
appropriate and effective representation and communication of learning and achievement.
Recommendation 2: a series of criteria for an effective system of representing and communicating
student achievement should be identified and agreed by the higher education sector.
Recommendation 3: since the current system of degree classification no longer provides a sufficient
means of summarising student achievement, it should be reviewed.
Recommendation 4: proposals for changing the degree classification system should not merely focus
on the undergraduate degree but should take into account the complete range of higher education
qualifications.
Recommendation 5: developments in describing, measuring, recording and communicating
achievement should take place in parallel with, and as complementary to, the Diploma Supplement
and ultimately the Europass.
Recommendation 6: higher education institutions should continue to implement Personal Development
Planning within the guidelines developed by the Progress File Implementation Group. There should
continue to be evaluation of the impact of learning and the representation of learning and achievement
of different forms of Personal Development Planning.
Recommendation 7: in taking work forward on recording achievement in higher education full account
should be taken of existing congruent practice including developments in schools and further
education colleges, in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. The opportunity should be taken particularly
to ensure that this dovetails with emerging proposals and policies for 14-19 education. Attempts
should be made to ensure that optimal transitions for students, from school and further education into
higher education, and within higher education itself, would be possible.
Recommendation 8: the feasibility and value of adopting, adapting, extending or designing a model for
predicting value added to students of undertaking particular higher education studies should be
actively pursued. This could include a range of factors such as financial value added and a
comparison of the performance of different cohorts of students.
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
5
Recommendation 9: since it will be necessary to achieve a common understanding in developing
credit proposals, credit terminology, the relationship between credit systems and qualification
frameworks, and their respective functions and parameters, should be defined and agreed.
Recommendation 10: the stakeholder organisations should strive for a common higher education
credit system in England, Wales and Northern Ireland which would help facilitate continued
developments of local/regional schemes for student progression.
Recommendation 11: following agreement on a credit system, a concerted effort should be made to
achieve more consistent and widespread use of credit in higher education. The developments should
take into account current developments in Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and in further education
in England.
Recommendation 12: the sector should closely monitor and engage with the development of the
European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) as the common European credit system.
Recommendation 13: a detailed implementation plan, setting out how and when all of the
recommendations contained in this report will be implemented, should be prepared for consultation by
no later than 31 December 2005.
Recommendation 14: the institutional representative bodies, in partnership with the Funding Councils,
should retain responsibility for, and provide leadership in, taking forward all the recommendations in
this report. In view of the impact any changes will have on other UK countries, Universities UK and
SCOP with the support of HEFCE should now invite their counterparts in Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland to participate in all future developments.
6
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
Part 1: Introduction
Background
1.
The UK Government White Paper The Future of Higher Education, published in January
2003, makes a number of far-reaching proposals touching aspects across the range of
institutional activities and requiring fundamental changes to higher education in England. As
well as announcing major changes to funding arrangements, including the introduction of topup fees, a number of initiatives are proposed to ensure fair admissions, increase and widen
access and redress for complaints. The Future of Higher Education has also renewed
attempts to raise the esteem of, and strengthen, learning and teaching activities relative to
research activities – it asserts that ‘teaching has for too long been the poor relation in higher
education’.1 A range of teaching-related proposals form the backdrop to this report.
2.
The Measuring and Recording Student Achievement Scoping Group was established by
Universities UK and the Standing Conference of Principals (SCOP), with the support of the
Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) in October 2003 to review the
recommendations from the White Paper relating specifically to recording student
achievement, value added, degree classifications and credit systems. As we explored these
themes we uncovered a range of issues that were currently under discussion in the sector.
Clearly, although the White Paper is largely concerned with the English higher education
system, many of its proposals will impact directly and indirectly on the higher education
sectors within the other UK countries. The Scoping Group noted that many of the issues it
was considering transcended national boundaries and we therefore invited onto our Group
observers from the higher education funding agencies in the devolved administrations, who
were encouraged to be fully involved in our deliberations. Similarly, although the White Paper
mainly impacts upon the higher education sector, the Scoping Group has been aware that
those further education institutions which offer higher education will also be affected.
3.
The full terms of reference for the Scoping Group are at Annex A and membership of the
Scoping Group is at Annex B.
4.
The background to the work of the Scoping Group is drawn from The Future of Higher
Education:
‘We must also ensure that we have robust ways of describing, measuring and recording
student achievement which are helpful to the student, to institutions, to employers, and to
other stakeholders. Existing arrangements need to be strengthened in a number of ways.
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
7
‘First, we will review with Universities UK, the Standing Conference of Principals, and the
Quality Assurance Agency the progress being made on the use of transcripts and personal
development portfolios. We want them to be used to enable learners to understand and
reflect on their achievements, and to present those achievements to employers, institutions,
and other stakeholders.
‘Second, we have asked HEFCE to review current methodologies for recording student
achievement and to develop more sophisticated ways of measuring ‘value added’ – the
distance travelled by the individual learner.
‘Finally, we have asked HEFCE to evaluate recent research on the honours classification
system, particularly given the increasing numbers of first and upper-second class degrees
being awarded. We will ask them to convene a review group with the sector to consider
possible alternative methods for presenting the overall achievement of students (in addition
to detailed achievements by module, subject, or individual learning experience contained on
transcripts). We want to ensure that whatever system universities use is transparent and
adequately conveys the difference between the achievements of individual students, so that it
has credibility with students and employers. We will need to ensure that any change in
methodology does not undermine the current high standing of our honours degree’.2 And,
‘There are a number of ways of providing additional flexibility [including]:
Credit systems, which make it possible to break off and start again without having to repeat
learning, will become increasingly important as the routes into and through higher education
become more varied. They help motivate learners, recognising achievement along the way;
and they help institutions develop flexible curricula. Many institutions have internal credit
systems, and there are a number of consortia with shared ones. HEFCE will work with
partners in the sector – from 2003 onwards – to build upon the best current practice, and to
scale this up so that there is widespread and consistent use of credit across higher
education.’3
8
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
5.
The Scoping Group was mindful in its deliberations that against the backdrop of the White
Paper is a range of other developments in higher education including the Government aim to
increase participation in higher education towards 50 per cent of those aged 18-30 by the end
of this decade. In addition, developments at European level through the Bologna Process now
affect a range of spheres of higher education activity. Many of the Bologna proposals
specifically concern issues of interest to the Scoping Group, reflecting a wider, international,
interest in these areas and a shared acknowledgement that they need to be addressed. In
particular Ministers4 have agreed on behalf of the higher education sector that it will address
three specific areas; the use of credits and the introduction of credits in a qualification
framework (by 2010); and the award of a Diploma Supplement (by 2005). The Scoping Group
is aware that the Diploma Supplement is part of the Europass proposals, which means it will
become a requirement on institutions if, as anticipated, a decision is made by the European
Parliament and Council for adoption of the Europass Framework.
6.
We were also acutely aware that most of the issues we were charged with considering are
already under active discussion – and in some cases action – in the UK higher education
sector. A considerable amount of work is already in progress and we have been fortunate to
be able to build upon this in reaching our own conclusions which we view as contributing to
an ongoing debate. Evidence, including trend reports from the Quality Assurance Agency for
Higher Education (QAA) and recent research for the Scottish Enhancement Theme Group on
Assessment5, indicate that the UK higher education sector often leads the way in terms of
identifying, debating and resolving issues relating to measuring, recording and
communicating student achievement. There are strong indications that UK practice is ahead
of current thinking in several areas. For example, following the Dearing recommendation,
Progress Files, containing both a transcript of formal learning and achievement, and more
personal records evidencing the wider achievements of individuals, have already been
agreed by the sector through its representative bodies. Dearing also called for the
implementation of the higher education Transcript, for which a minimum data set has been
defined, by 2002-03 and for the Personal Development Planning6 element, which is intended
to support the creation of such personal records, by the 2005-06 academic year. Personal
Development Planning will underpin the Progress File and improve students’ capacities to
communicate information about their learning, and is now being implemented.
7.
However, we were also aware that the higher education sector is currently contending with a
number of important issues which are, as yet, unresolved. The Scoping Group saw the
identification of these as its first task. We acknowledged that a range of coherent
relationships existed between the issues of recording student achievement, measuring value
added, degree classification and credit.
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
9
10
8.
We agreed that we wanted to explore how to achieve a richer and broader approach to
representing student achievement. This is a vast field of inquiry so we have had to be
selective. For example we have not chosen to consider ‘assessment’ issues in any great
detail on the basis that this was too complex to scope along with everything else. Institutions
themselves and the Higher Education Academy are taking forward quite detailed work on
assessment while over one fifth of the (HEFCE) Fund for the Development of Teaching and
Learning’s current projects are concerned with assessment. We also agreed early that certain
other topical issues such as perceived ‘grade inflation’ would unduly overload our work
programme. Nonetheless we believe all of these issues very important and need to be taken
forward in future. At our first meeting we therefore agreed to focus on the following key
areas:
• robust ways of describing, measuring, recording and communicating student
achievement;
• progress on implementation of transcripts and Personal Development Planning;
• current methodologies for recording student achievement;
• developing more sophisticated ways of measuring value added;
• evaluating recent research on the honours classification system including identifying
possible alternative methods for presenting the overall achievements of students for
further consideration;
• building upon the best current practice on credit systems, and how potentially to scale
this up so that there is widespread and consistent use of credit across higher education;
and
• alignment with European developments.
9.
We agreed that, as a Scoping Group, it would not be possible to fully address and solve all of
these issues but that our purpose was to:
• consider definitions and issues relating to the major themes;
• consider what problems or opportunities needed to be addressed; and
• recommend a programme of work, and who should take this forward with reference to
current good practice.
10.
This report considers these themes in depth in Part 2.
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
Methodology
11.
The Scoping Group agreed it was important to acknowledge the considerable amount of work
already being carried out by the sector on the issues it was charged with exploring. We have
also been careful to acknowledge academic freedom and institutional autonomy and have
framed our proposals and recommendations within this context. In addition, the impact on the
student and the student experience are of paramount importance and guided our thinking at
all times. At its first meeting, therefore, the Scoping Group agreed a set of key principles
which would underpin the way it worked. These were:
• to respect institutional autonomy and academic professionalism;
• to ensure that the interests of students were a primary concern of all aspects in the work
of the Group;
• to ensure that proposals were, as far as possible, ‘owned’ by the sector via effective
communication and consultation;
• not to shy away from suggesting radical change if this was the consensus of the Group;
• to ensure clarity about the problems we were trying to address/opportunities we were
trying to exploit or create;
• to ensure that proposals were, as far as possible, evidence-based both through reviewing
previous work as well as commissioning further research and highlighting examples of
good practice; and
• at all times be concerned about the possible burden of recommendations on institutions
and staff.
12.
It was originally intended that the Scoping Group would meet twice. However, the scale of the
work required it to meet five times between October 2003 and June 2004. In addition,
following the October meeting, a series of three sub-groups was established to undertake
detailed work on each of three themes:
• curriculum, assessment and classification;
• credit systems; and
• value added.
13.
The sub-groups were charged with reporting back to the full Scoping Group which used their
deliberations to consider the issues as a piece and in further detail. In full session the
Scoping Group members variously challenged, accepted and refocused the emphasis of this
work, using it to inform the contents of this final report and the recommendations that arise
herein.
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
11
12
14.
The Scoping Group commissioned a number of reviews of literature, research and
consultancy reports to inform its work.7 As outlined at paragraph 8, above, our scope was
necessarily selective but we saw covering the groundwork related to this in a comprehensive
manner, and thus developing an evidence base, as one of our main tasks. This report is fully
referenced and a full bibliography of resources is at Annex D. Our recommendations and
conclusions are therefore informed by research and evidence. In a report of this nature there
was not space to reproduce all of this evidence but we believe it will provide a firm basis from
which to proceed and we commend it to the sponsoring organisations in following up on our
recommendations.
15.
The membership of each of the three Sub-Groups and their terms of reference are attached
at Annex C.
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
Part 2: Identifying and
addressing the issues
Introduction
16.
The Scoping Group has considered many of the themes and issues identified by Government
in some depth. The issues inter-relate but we found three general themes a convenient way
to examine them, which we consider below.
17.
The themes for consideration are:
A.
18.
B.
19.
C.
Describing, measuring, recording and communicating achievement
This section addresses general conceptual and practical issues relating to the theme of
describing, measuring, recording and communicating achievement. Flowing from this it also
identifies and considers in depth two more specific issues: the utility of the honours
classification; and the different ways of representing and communicating learning through
ongoing initiatives such as Personal Development Planning, transcripts and the European
Diploma Supplement.
Value added
The Scoping Group was aware that the term ‘value added’ has many different meanings and
we have briefly identified and considered each of them in scoping this theme. More
specifically, this section also considers the different audiences for information, how to obtain
information, the potential for developing and applying the approach to value added in schools
to higher education, and the possible effects the introduction of a widely-used model or
indicator might have.
Credit
20.
This section considers the actual and potential benefits of credit, points of criticism and issues
in the development of higher education credit in England – including agreeing a common
system, articulation with other frameworks, European imperatives and the definition of terms.
21.
These three themes are considered in Sections A-C below.
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
13
D.
14
General issues
22.
We also identified some generic practical issues arising from our work, which have led us to
make some further additional recommendations and pointers for taking the work forward and
these are considered in Section D at the end of Part 2. They concern the need for leadership,
consultation and communication with key stakeholders, the need to define terminology and
timescale for the work.
E.
Conclusions
23.
Finally, at Section E, we summarise our main conclusions and identify some strategic
questions that need to be addressed by the sponsoring bodies in taking the work forward.
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
Section A: Describing, measuring, recording
and communicating achievement
24.
The Scoping Group acknowledges that changing needs on the part of students and
employers have prompted changes to the curriculum which in turn require a reconsideration
of how achievement is described, measured, recorded and communicated. For example,
whilst the UK honours degree remains a highly robust qualification, we recognise the views
of some in the sector that the honours degree classification system requires reconsideration
and has outlived its usefulness as a means of classifying awards. There are many other
issues we could have considered – including the debate on alleged ‘grade inflation’ which will
need to be explored by the sponsoring bodies in taking the work forward.
25.
This Section considers how general issues relating to the theme of describing, measuring,
recording and communicating achievement can be addressed, as well as identifying two
more specific issues: the honours classification; and the different ways of representing and
communicating learning through ongoing initiatives such as Personal Development Planning,
transcripts and the Diploma Supplement. We consider that the term ‘achievement’, being
broader and more inclusive than ‘learning’, is more appropriate to our intended meaning and
use it deliberately throughout this report.
Representing achievement
26.
The Scoping Group has considered the overall issue of representing achievement and
concluded that establishing an understanding of the way achievement is represented, and
the purpose(s) of representing achievement in the context of moving from an elite to a mass
higher education system, is essential to both conceptual and practical progress. For example,
we are concerned about how far the use of degree classification, or similar grading systems,
as a proxy for the level of acquisition of learning and skills, is understood by potential users
such as students and employers. We are further concerned about how far the different
purposes and ways of representing achievement, and the limitations on what can be
represented, are clearly understood by potential users. We have been mindful that, from this
year, all higher education graduates should receive a transcript as well as a summative
classification and we consider this, and its potential, in more detail below.
27.
In terms of the overall issue, we have concluded that ‘fitness for purpose’ is a key concept in
considering how to represent achievement, and what achievement to represent. In exploring
these issues further we believe the sponsoring bodies will need to:
• develop a deeper understanding of the types of learning and achievement that can be
represented in higher education, the modes of representation and the information that
different forms of representation convey;
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
15
•
•
•
identify the different ‘users’ of information about learning and achievement (eg, students,
employers, academic audiences), the kind of information they need, why they need it and
how they use it;
identify and address the different purposes of assessment including, for students,
acknowledgement of what has been learned; and
establish the linkages between evaluation, assessment and description.
28.
Following from this, in the development of any new framework for representing achievement,
the Scoping Group urges that attention be paid to a number of important issues:
• the representation of learning and achievement not only summatively (to future audiences
upon completion of a period of study), but also specifically to support formative activity
and reflective thinking by the student;
• the need to take full account of diversity in higher education, both in terms of student
diversity and in terms of the increasing range and scope of provision; and
• the recognition that different means of representing higher education outcomes might be
used in various different ways by those considering graduates for future opportunities.
29.
Student progression has become an important concept in higher education and different
methods and modes have been developed to record students’ learning and progression and
we envisage that more will be developed in future. We have concluded that, in representing
student learning and achievement, whether for formative or summative purposes, full
consideration should be given to the significance of the process of learning (and the
consequent development of capabilities such as enquiry, analysis, synthesis, problem
solving, reflection and self-evaluation, criticality and creativity). Future work should therefore
seek to represent such outcomes.
30.
In terms of the overall representation of learning and achievement, in the curriculum context,
there is a need to encompass a number of elements and we have concluded that future work
will be needed to consider whether and how they might be validated and supported, and by
whom. These are:
• subject-based learning (including the demonstration of knowledge and skills acquisition);
• personally recognised learning, (beyond that anticipated by those who designed the
formal learning outcomes and objectives); and
• learning derived through the education process (both subject and self-related, such as
the capabilities identified at paragraph 29 above).
Recommendation 1: there is a need for further investigation of classificatory systems for the
appropriate and effective representation and communication of learning and achievement.
16
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
Criteria
31.
A system which aims robustly to describe, measure, record, and communicate student
achievement must conform to a set of agreed qualities. We have noted and augmented the
criteria identified by Byrne and Hornby (2004) for the Scottish Enhancement Theme Group
on Assessment.8 Although we acknowledge the inherent tensions in attempting to reconcile
certain criteria, since these will sometimes work against one another, we believe these
should be considered in more depth and developed into a basis from which to take forward
the consideration of the different methods and approaches outlined above. In addition we
have applied them to the existing honours degree classification system (see below). The
criteria, for further consideration and development, are:
• equity/fairness (horizontally between different subjects and different institutions and
vertically within institutions);
• simplicity of approach;
• transparency (to UK stakeholders and internationally);
• reliability/consistency;
• validity;
• fitness for purpose (in terms of usefulness to different stakeholders);
• administrative efficiency; and
• acceptability to stakeholders.
Recommendation 2: a series of criteria for an effective system of representing and communicating
student achievement should be identified and agreed by the higher education sector.
The honours degree classification system
32.
The honours degree classification system is essentially a means of expressing an overview
indication of a student’s performance on a degree programme – usually in terms of First,
Upper Second, Lower Second, Third, Pass and Fail. It has been in existence for around two
centuries and was apparently first introduced in Oxford at the beginning of the Nineteenth
Century – at a time when only a small minority of students even there were studying for
honours. Nowadays, the wider picture is intended to be provided by the higher education
Transcript (and the European Diploma Supplement) which provides a more detailed record of
achievement at module level. As the system still most widely in use in UK higher education,
the honours degree classification should be the first such system of representation and
communication to be considered as outlined at Recommendation 1. The White Paper
suggested that work be done to ‘evaluate recent research on the honours classification
system, particularly given the increasing numbers of first and upper second class degrees
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
17
being awarded’. It recognised that possible alternative methods might be needed for
presenting ‘the overall achievement of students (in addition to detailed achievements by
module, subject, or individual learning experience contained on transcripts)’ and expressed a
concern that any system used should be transparent and adequately convey the difference
between the achievements of individual students. The White Paper was also concerned that
any change in methodology should not ‘undermine the current high standing of our honours
degree’.
33.
18
The Scoping Group is aware that many stakeholders share some of these concerns and that
‘revision of the degree classification system is perceived by many as an essential form of
modernisation of the higher education sector’.9 We considered the existing system in some
depth as part of this scoping exercise. We have concluded that so much has moved on in
higher education over the past decade or so, in terms of significant and comprehensive
pedagogic developments, that the relationship of the degree classification system to the
curriculum and the student experience is now akin to the tail wagging the dog. We have
identified a range of factors in favour of reviewing the current system and a parallel need to
demonstrate variation of ability and achievement so as to differentiate between students.
Factors pointing towards the need for review include:
• lack of transparency, particularly for students and potential employers of graduates;
• the need for changes in higher education structures and practices (eg, modularisation,
more flexible conceptions of higher education curriculum structures and definitions of
knowledge, the accreditation of prior experiential learning, and assessment by
coursework rather than examination) to be reflected within assessment practices and the
representation of outcomes of student learning;
• disciplinary differences and variation across modules, with research evidence suggesting
different rates of achievement between Sciences and Arts and Social Science disciplines,
and differing marking practices across disciplines and between institutions;
• considerable local variation in respect of grade borderlines and policies on borderlines;
• the regulations governing the honours degree classification were devised to measure fulltime study and are less suitable for part-time structures which are increasingly popular;
• concerns that, in a system of near-mass higher education, the significance of the degree
classification, particularly when allied to concerns about ‘grade inflation’, is diminishing
alongside such factors as the reputation of the university or college (ie, it is ‘where you
obtained your degree’, rather than the class of your degree, which is increasingly significant);
• the cost effectiveness of maintaining a system within which assessments are reduced to
a simple scale;
• support from employers for ‘the finer detail that is available in the academic transcript
section of the Progress File’ and for Personal Development Planning in assisting students
in ‘articulating their reflections in their CVs, job applications and at job interviews’;10 and
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
•
34.
a general interest in the higher education sector in a ‘broader attestation of an individual’s
achievements, through some form of transcript’,11
The Scoping Group therefore concludes that the current system of degree classification is not
sufficiently ‘fit for purpose’ (a concept we discussed at paragraph 27 above, and one which
we believe to be key in this context).
Recommendation 3: since the current system of degree classification no longer provides a
sufficient means of summarising student achievement, it should be reviewed.
35.
We are, however, also aware that there is no obvious single alternative to the honours
degree classification. If the honours classification is replaced, the HE sector needs to decide
whether there is a continuing need for an indicator of the overall performance, and if so,
whether this indicator can be more informative and more satisfactory than the current degree
classification. Examiners amass a vast quantity of information in order to be able to reach the
summative degree classification and we believe there could be potential to make more of this
more widely available.
36.
We considered some research commissioned by the Scottish Enhancement Theme Group on
Assessment which identified a range of different systems and methods operating across the
world, and concluded that possibly none of these could, or should, be adopted wholesale by
the UK sector.12 Nonetheless, we recommend that the key features of a number of other
systems should be explored in more depth. Any new system must at least match the quality
and standards that the ‘old’ system provided. The criteria identified at Recommendation 2,
(possibly further developed) should be used when considering the development of a new
system for the UK. The systems and methods to be explored should include:
• summative systems such as the UK honours degree classification method/system (and
exposition of the main variants currently in operation);
• pass/fail systems (including those where the student has to pass all of the programme –
eg, the UK MB ChB – or most of the programme e.g. the newly-established Foundation
Degree or the systems used in Sweden and Norway);
• transcripts including a transcript-only approach (such as that formerly in use at the
University of California Santa Cruz) and the case for a radical redesign of the existing
higher education Transcript;
• the use of grade point averages (including considering the different methods in use in
classifying degrees in the USA and Denmark); and
• the use of cumulative points scores (such as those in use in Italy and Germany).
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
19
37.
These different systems are not all separate and mutually-exclusive options. For example, a
student could obtain a degree classified as Pass/Fail but with a detailed transcript (indeed
most such Pass/Fail systems incorporate a transcript element). Clearly some systems include
an overall summative judgement and some provide a wider picture (instead of, or as well as,
a summative judgement). We have not gone so far as to recommend the key features of a
new method of classification but we do believe that in taking the work forward the sponsoring
organisations should consider the best and most relevant practices and elements of a range
of systems, with a view to developing something bespoke and appropriate to the UK
situation.
38.
In considering alternative approaches, and planning future changes, careful consideration will
also need to be given to the curriculum and assessment and the impact on marking practices
of removing the honours classification.
39.
In addition, any new system must seek to reflect a much greater range of aspects of learning
and achievement, whilst recognising that there are likely to be a variety of needs in respect of
different purposes and different audiences for that information (e.g. academic, employer,
student). In planning future work, the emphasis should be on identifying alternative ways
forward rather than revisiting trends in, and methods used for, degree classification with a
view to preserving them. Further, proposals should focus not only on the undergraduate
degree but should take into account the range of higher education qualifications. We
envisage that, in future, graduates in higher education will be able to draw on a more
comprehensive bank of evidence from which they can emphasise the information most
appropriate to the audience they are addressing.
40.
The central challenge will be to define and develop a system that resolves academic issues,
is useful to employers and useful and encouraging to students. Proposals for change need
to be carefully researched and developed in order to meet the needs and carry the
confidence of, actual and potential users. Identified systems will need to be developed,
piloted and evaluated (to ensure that they are appropriate and that they work) then
introduced over time in order to gain general acceptance and understanding. Whilst it is
important to respect institutional autonomy it would be unhelpful, and confusing to students
and employers in particular, to have a proliferation of numerous different approaches.
Further, we have noted that ‘partial reform could reinforce institutional hierarchies and create
further differentiation in the labour market’13 and we would wish to avoid this.
Recommendation 4: proposals for changing the degree classification system should not
merely focus on the undergraduate degree but should take into account the complete range of
higher education qualifications.
20
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
41.
We consider further the concepts and practicalities of representing achievement further
below.
Alternative methods of representing achievement
42.
As well as recommending that other methods of representing achievement in other countries
are explored, we have considered in more depth some parallel and relevant developments in
the UK.
43.
The Scoping Group acknowledged the positive response of the higher education sector to the
recommendation of the Dearing Inquiry (endorsed by the Government and supported by the
sector representative bodies) to develop a Progress File within which learning and
achievement can be comprehensively represented. We believe this has the potential to be
developed further and consider this in more detail below.
44.
We also fully acknowledged that the Diploma Supplement, arising from the Bologna Process,
is a significant development.14 The UK is committed to meeting the ‘objective that every
student graduating as from 2005 should receive the Diploma Supplement automatically and
free of charge’. We have given careful consideration to the Diploma Supplement which is an
instrument that aims to describe the associated qualification in an easily understandable way
and relate it to the higher education system within which it was issued. It is designed to
provide a description of the nature, level, context, content and status of the studies that were
pursued and successfully completed by the individual named on the original qualification to
which this supplement is appended.
45.
Within this context, we have concluded that:
• much of the information required for the Diploma Supplement could be derived from the
minimum data set agreed for the transcript element of the higher education Progress File;
• those items not included in the transcript which are required by the Diploma Supplement
appear to be generally available from a student record system, or other parts of an
institution’s regulations and record systems.
46.
There are a number of activities which could provide a way forward in helping the sector to
introduce the Diploma Supplement. In the first instance, those higher education institutions
that are interested in taking steps towards introducing the Diploma Supplement in their
institutions should be encouraged to do so. The Progress File Implementation Group and
larger Advisory Group should be invited to consider the practical implications of meeting the
objectives set out in the Berlin Communiqué 15 – including how UK higher education providers
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
21
can introduce a document, in line with the European Commission/UNESCO requirements for
the Diploma Supplement and in time to meet the 2005 objective. In the medium term,
perhaps by 2008, the UK higher education sector should aim to work towards a more
detailed, electronic portfolio model, in line with the European Commission Europass initiative
and taking account of the developing CEN (European Committee for Standardisation)
standard. Finally, the relevant parties need to do much more to raise awareness of the
Diploma Supplement among UK higher education institutions, employers, professional bodies
and students.
47.
The Scoping Group has also noted that a review of evidence on the learning processes that
underlie Personal Development Planning (PDP) conducted by the EPPI-Centre found that
‘most studies reported a positive effect on learning outcomes’, in terms of student attainment
and approaches to learning. We endorse its conclusion that ‘the implications are that the
development of PDP should be encouraged but a policy steer, supported by targeted funding,
may be necessary to ensure that relevant, good quality and properly described research and
evaluation is undertaken to extend our knowledge of the most effective strategies and
contexts for PDP as well as the effects of these on different outcomes and the nature of the
information on learning that derives from different forms of PDP’.16 Work in progress by the
Higher Education Academy has drawn attention to the relative paucity of international
research aimed at evaluating the impacts of PDP.17 We have concluded that higher education
institutions and further education colleges need encouragement and support to undertake this
necessary work.
Recommendation 5: developments in describing, measuring, recording and communicating
achievement should take place in parallel with, and as complementary to, the Diploma
Supplement and ultimately the Europass.
22
48.
Institutions have already been committed to providing supplementary information in various
forms. Using the Progress File as the basis, these could potentially be brought together and
augmented if necessary, to meet stakeholder requirements for representing achievement.
49.
Most importantly (and linked to our conclusions above) Personal Development Planning
(PDP) offers a way of engaging students in representing their own learning, in creating
customised information about their learning and achievement and communicating this
information to different audiences with different needs and interests. The new capacities to
provide information about learning developed through PDP represents significant added
value on both the transcript and Diploma Supplement models of information providing.
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
50.
We therefore conclude that higher education institutions should continue to implement PDP
within the guidelines developed by the Progress File Implementation Group and a structured
programme of research and evaluation should be developed to identify the impacts of
learning and the representation of learning and achievement of different forms of PDP.
Further work is necessary in considering the following areas:
• the range of approaches to the implementation of Personal Development
Planning/Progress Files that have been developed;
• students’ views on how they have used the Progress File to understand and represent
their own learning and achievement – while they are students and when they are
applying for jobs;
• employers’ views on how they have used the Progress File to evaluate the learning and
achievement of students;
• the views of course and admissions tutors; and
• the institutional needs identified through the recent institutional survey undertaken by
CHERI.18
51.
A structured process of enquiry should be instituted to enable information to be gathered
from these key stakeholders. Once collated, this should be disseminated to inform the
implementation of ‘best practice’ throughout the sector and also to form the basis of an
agenda for further work concerned to ensure that the potential identified by the Scoping
Group might be fully realised.
Recommendation 6: higher education institutions should continue to implement Personal
Development Planning within the guidelines developed by the Progress File Implementation
Group. There should continue to be evaluation of the impact of learning and the representation
of learning and achievement of different forms of Personal Development Planning.
52.
In considering Progress Files in higher education, we have been particularly aware of
developments in schools and further education colleges and the work in England of the
Working Group on 14-19 Reforms – the Tomlinson Review. The final report from that group
was published in October 2004 and envisages that detailed transcripts will be necessary to
accompany the new awards proposed by the reforms.19 The report indicates that these will be
rooted in the existing Progress File and will encompass a range of types of information.
Whilst recognising that this is an England-only initiative, we consider it important in optimising
student transitions between the different education sectors that any further work done on
recording achievement in higher education is able to fully dovetail with the outcomes of the
Tomlinson Review and subsequent parallel activities in schools and further education
colleges, throughout the UK.
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
23
Recommendation 7: in taking work forward on recording achievement in higher education full
account should be taken of existing congruent practice including developments in schools and
further education colleges, in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. The opportunity should be
taken particularly to ensure that this dovetails with emerging proposals and policies for 14-19
education. Attempts should be made to ensure that optimal transitions for students, from school
and further education into higher education, and within higher education itself, would be possible.
24
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
Section B: Value added
53.
The White Paper invited the sector ‘to develop more sophisticated ways of measuring ‘value
added’ – the distance travelled by the individual learner’. We have addressed this specific
issue in the context of the many different meanings which are assigned to the term ‘value
added’.20 We have also considered audiences for information, how to obtain information, the
approach within schools and the potential effects of change.
Dimensions of value added
54.
The term ‘value added’ has been part of the language of higher education in the UK since the
late 1980s. Value added has, however, been used with a variety of meanings in different
sectors but is seen to include:
• comparative learning gain: students’ relative learning gains, estimated by comparing their
qualification outcomes with those of students elsewhere with the same entry
qualifications (or other measure of prior learning);
• comparative institutional effect: the relative amount of students’ learning gains that can be
attributed to the institution;
• distance travelled: students’ learning gains, estimated by comparing their entry and exit
qualifications;
• wider benefits: the value of the institution’s experience to the student, over and above the
achievement of formal qualifications;
• community benefits: the value added by the college to the local community or wider
society;21 and
•
55.
potential financial benefit gained by the student as a result of participating in higher
education.
We consider each of these six meanings below.
Comparative learning gain
56.
We noted with interest that value added calculations have been made in the schools sector.
However these are based on numbers of, and results from GCSEs taken. GCSEs are
conducted within the context of curricula and testing that have a high degree of commonality.
In higher education, there are curricular variations within the same subject area, and
localised assessments on completion. We believe, however, that the existence of substantial
sets of data from the higher education sector may make the comparison of student gain
feasible, though only with considerable judiciousness, as we discuss below. Such
comparisons may offer helpful information to aspiring entrants to higher education.
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
25
Comparative institutional effect
57.
The difference between students’ attainment prior to and after they complete a course of
study is not the same as the difference an institution makes in their education. Not all
‘growth’ is necessarily attributable to the time spent under an institution’s aegis: natural
maturation and engagement in a variety of extra-curricular activities will also contribute.
58.
If the aim is to measure the relative value added (say, between broadly similar courses in
broadly similar institutions), it may be justifiable to assume that the extraneous variables
balance out for cohorts of reasonable size. The challenge is much greater if the aim is to
make an assessment, in absolute terms, of the value added by higher education.
Distance travelled
59.
‘Distance travelled’ measures the development of the individual, in that it applies to the
educational gain made by an individual student. In its idealised form, a test would be given
on entry and at the end of the programme, with the difference in performance being the value
added. This neglects issues such as the appropriateness and feasibility of using the same
test (or parallel forms) on a pre- and post- basis, and the technical problems associated with
the computation of gain scores.
60.
The alternative approach is to have different pre- and post- tests, provided that the
relationship between the two is calibrated to enable some interpretation of the gain to be
made. Whilst this might be feasible for some relatively generic aspects of curriculum, the
variability in final assessment is likely to make it impractical for the more specific aspects.
61.
Students learn many valuable things during their time in higher education which are not
necessarily captured in formal assessments – many aspects of employability fall into this
category.22 In other words, ‘measurements’ may only cover part of the ‘distance travelled’ by a
student.
Wider benefits
62.
The preceding paragraph could have been located under this sub-heading, since the
experience of higher education has both intended and collateral effects. Higher education is
not only about academic gain but also has other positive effects on the wider economic and
social environment as, for example, the two HEFCE documents on the ‘wider benefits of
higher education’ attest.23 Again, there are practical difficulties associated with disentangling
intended from unintended consequences.
26
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
Community benefits
63.
The existence of a higher education institution within a community/region/country clearly has
a major impact on the locality in a wide range of ways. The provision of a workforce with
higher level skills and the capacity to provide higher level training and skills, and the benefits
of student volunteering are just some of the examples of value which higher education
institutions add to their local communities, although these aspects are difficult to measure.
They have been reflected in impact studies that have been conducted over the years.
Potential financial benefit
64.
The financial return to a student from higher education is currently a matter of considerable
policy interest and has considerable public policy implications, since it bears on the issues of
student funding and on student choice of study programme. The ideal measure compares the
earnings of graduates24 with those of people who, though having equivalent entry
qualifications, opted not to enter higher education.
65.
If the intention is to compare institutions with reference to the financial benefit gained by their
students, then finding comparable student cohorts is likely to be a problem. The entry profiles
of individual higher education institutions may be too different for comparisons to be valid.
66.
Other considerations are the effects of increased numbers of graduates in the workforce on
both graduate and non-graduate remuneration, and the time-scale over which studies of
financial benefit should be conducted. When longitudinal studies report, the data are of
retrospective interest and may not reflect current circumstances. The development and use of
a ‘cohort’ might enable value added information to be more relevant to contemporary
circumstances.
Feasibility of using value added
67.
The Scoping Group considered that one of the advantages of a value added perspective is
that ‘it provides information in ways which can enable some parts of…complex judgements
[about achievement] to be placed on a systematic footing’, but we caution that ‘an obvious
weakness is that the evidence initially available to inform such perspectives is likely to be
rather limited.25 However, whilst ten years ago there was limited information in the post-16
education sector about value added, now, as we have noted below at paragraph 81, there is
an emerging system (albeit not uncontroversial) for presenting information on relative value
added in post-16 education.
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
27
68.
We concluded that value added is a useful concept which will have practical application,
particularly to potential applicants to higher education, if data can be accurately and usefully
collected, analysed and represented. We argue below that some modest steps can be taken
in the near future but agree with Gray (2004) that ‘full-scale implementation of value added
approaches across the higher education system is, however, a more distant prospect’.26
Issues affecting value added
Audience
28
69.
As with representing achievement, ‘fitness for purpose’ is an important concept when
considering value added. Some aspects of value added relate to institutions and some to
individuals and different audiences will take different approaches to value added, depending
upon what most interests them. Students are likely to focus on the potential of the
combination of programme and institution to enhance their position. For them, past
performances of students within the sector may have some predictive value. Further, the
potential economic return may have some influence on the choices they make. An institution,
on the other hand may well be more interested in the achievements of its students compared
with those of its previous cohorts, and/or compared with those of cohorts from comparable
institutions.
70.
Having examined the considerable complexities surrounding this issue, the Scoping Group
concluded that the emphasis of future work should be on the provision of information to
enable intending students (and their advisers) to make choices that are as informed as
possible. As far as the intending entrant is concerned, this is potential value added.
71.
In considering the provision of information to potential students we have been acutely aware
that such information will only be useful if it is accurate and if students can apply it to their
own situation in a useful and straightforward manner. What we are proposing goes well
beyond crude league tables. We have noted the development of the Teaching Quality
Information (TQI) website which is intended to provide information in such a form that
students can come to their own judgements regarding the best choice of programme,
institution and curriculum for their particular needs and background circumstances. When
value added indicators are being developed, we believe there is merit in considering this as a
way of using the information.
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
72.
Although we are proposing that the indicators developed should be aimed at prospective
students, institutions will nonetheless need to have confidence in the base data and for a
measure to succeed, confidence-building in relation to key elements of the system (for
example in relation to the comparability of degree standards within and between institutions)
will need to be undertaken. Clearly parents, advisers and to some extent employers and
other stakeholders, will also have an interest in this but we see the needs of the prospective
student as paramount.
73.
All of these considerations point to a staged approach, based on careful piloting with selected
datasets and within a number of selected institutions. The question of what types of
information would be useful, and should be produced, needs to be tested through trial with
prospective students. The outcomes could then be tested to determine their validity, their
usefulness, particularly to students, whether there is demand from students, and to consider
whether further information is needed and whether its collection is manageable. We believe
this could most appropriately be developed through the Teaching Quality Information (TQI)
Liaison Group.
Recommendation 8: the feasibility and value of adopting, adapting, extending or designing a
model for predicting value added to students of undertaking particular higher education
studies should be actively pursued. This could include a range of factors such as financial
value added and a comparison of the performance of different cohorts of students.
Obtaining data to determine value added
74.
The consideration the Scoping Group has given to these matters has made it clear that whilst
it is relatively easy to state the features of higher education which a value added approach
should be seeking to address, it is difficult to develop them in practice.
Using datasets
75.
The Scoping Group identified a number of sources of data and means of determining value
added which could be useful to the student. The development of sector-wide databases in recent
years opens up the possibility of providing analyses of student performances, disaggregated
according to need. The feasibility of such an approach was demonstrated for us by HEFCE
analytical services using real data for Engineering and Technology in six anonymised institutions,
covering two indicators: degree class and first destination.27 For the degree class indicator, the
actual degree classification of the graduate cohorts were set against the attainments that would
be expected for students of Engineering and Technology in each particular institution, given their
entry qualifications. For the destinations indicator, the destination was set against the degree
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
29
classifications actually awarded. A prospective student could use such information as part of their
decision-making process. We are aware, however, that value added comparisons, even at
departmental level, can be flawed for a wide range of reasons, and that if they are ‘such errors
will be compounded when they are aggregated to the institution as a whole’.28
76.
The performance of a cohort of students can, with due caution relating to variables such as
cohort size, entry qualifications and curriculum, be compared with that of a broader population
of students.29 It should be noted that such indicators are of comparative value added, and
reflect past performances of cohorts. They are suggestive of the potential of the study
programme in a particular institution for adding value to intending students. The caution of the
financial services industry (that past performance is no guarantee for the future) applies.
77.
We are aware that if there is no linear, or quasi-linear metric for student achievements, then it
will be difficult to ensure continuity of the number-based approach to calculations of value
added. We consider this to be a potentially serious problem, and one which the sponsoring
bodies will need to take account, in taking this work forward.
Complementary awards and ‘individual’ value added
30
78.
In addition to using datasets, undergraduate students, as individuals, may have the
opportunity to complement their academic award with an award testifying to achievement in
areas such as work placement, employment and voluntary service. Some awards are
potentially available to all students such as the City & Guilds Licentiateship, and the CRAC
InsightPlus award. Other awards have been established by particular institutions for their own
students such as the Glamorgan Employment Experience Certificate/Diploma, York Award,
the Essex Skills Award, and the Warwick Skills Certificate.30
79.
The institution-specific awards we investigated varied considerably in the way in which the
institutions had sought to complement academic studies. We found that the uptake was high,
on a per-institution basis, when compared with the level of uptake of the two awards mentioned
in the previous paragraph, that are potentially open to any institution. However, the institutional
examples may be unrepresentative of the level of uptake of similar kinds of award across the
sector as a whole. Respondents to the inquiry conducted for this scoping study indicated their
belief in the value to students of the City & Guilds Licentiateship and InsightPlus in developing
self-awareness regarding their achievements. There was no indication that the more
advantaged students were over-represented in the student cohorts. There was little evidence to
say whether or not employers valued student success on these programmes.
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
80.
Whilst the achievements made by students can be construed in value added terms, the use
of complementary awards is an issue which needs further consideration by the sponsoring
organisations in taking this work forward. Much will depend upon whether the existing degree
classification is replaced with a system which embeds this kind of information or whether
there is still a role for supplementary awards in recognising achievement and in respect of
the credit implications. We have recommended earlier (at paragraphs 42-52) that students
should be able to recognise and communicate their own individual value added via Personal
Development Planning and the Progress File. The sponsoring bodies will need to find a way
to reconcile these various elements of value added to optimise the benefits to students.
The approach to value added in schools
81.
We considered the transferability to the higher education sector of the value added approach
applied to school performance. We have noted that the DfES approach to value added
concentrates on core curriculum subjects. This method uses a score based on tests in
English, Mathematics and Science at entry and a score based on GCSE results, combined,
at exit. There is also the analyses of A-level, AS-level, Advanced GNVQ exams and now
AVCEs conducted as part of the Advanced Level Information System (ALIS) project by
Professor Peter Tymms, Carol FitzGibbon and colleagues at Durham University31 which we
consider might be worth further exploration. In addition the Learning and Skills Council is
leading some pilot work in value added for post-16 education.
82.
Although there are some parallels with other education sectors, our investigations yielded
concerns regarding the equivalence of similar degree classes in respect of a subject at
different institutions and of similar degree classes in respect of different subject disciplines.
There is a need for stability in outcome measures – a matter that is problematic for higher
education, where institutions determine their own awards. We agree that ‘considerable
empirical work would be [needed] to explore associations and variation within and between
institutions and across subjects’.32 Nonetheless, entry and exit issues could be taken forward
and the work of HEFCE analytical services (at paragraph 75 above) might form the basis of a
way ahead along with the ALIS work mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
Collateral effects
83.
The Scoping Group has also noted that the introduction of a measure or performance
indicator affects institutional behaviour. The Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) provides a
strong case in point, but indicators with less immediate effects on institutional funding can
nevertheless influence the behaviour of institutions.
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
31
•
•
•
32
indicators based on entry and exit performances can be affected by institutions, since it is
possible to lower the former (though this could have an adverse effect on retention and
completion) and raise the latter. There is a concern in both the US and the UK that
grades have been inflated over time, though analysis of the proportion of UK ‘good
honours degrees’ shows that in some subject areas there has been no increase, whereas
in others the increase has been marked;33
an indicator based on the financial benefit to students/graduates is unlikely to affect
institutional behaviour – except in terms of marketing - to any great extent because the
benefit is independent of the institution once the ‘positional values’ of the institution and
qualification are taken into account; and
the introduction of formal test instruments, such as those currently being piloted in the
US, may result in ‘teaching to the test’, for a range of reasons.
84.
The Scoping Group urges the sponsoring organisations, in taking this work forward, to be
aware that the introduction of a measure/indicator will only be successful if it gains the consent
of the institutions: there are examples of state-level activities in the US in which disagreements
with institutions led to the intended effectiveness not being achieved in practice.34
85.
The introduction of value added as an indicator should be accompanied by an awareness
that unintended consequences could have adverse effects. The potential consequences of
pursuing a particular approach should be borne in mind by the sponsoring bodies.
86.
Since progress with developing value added indicators will be dependent initially on the
action and outcomes that arise from Recommendations 1-5, on exploring new systems of
representing and communicating student achievement, and latterly upon whether they will
provide information that will be useful to students and potential students, we propose that this
work should be undertaken towards the latter part of the timetable at Recommendation 13.
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
Section C: Credit
87.
The White Paper stated that ‘there are a number of ways of providing additional flexibility
[including]…credit systems, which make it possible to break off and start again without having
to repeat learning’, adding that these ‘will become increasingly important’. In addition, the
Schwartz Report on Fair Admissions to Higher Education very recently identified the lack of a
national credit transfer system as a ‘problem’ causing barriers to students wishing to transfer
between institutions. That Report specifically welcomed the fact that this Group is scoping the
topic.35
88.
There are also imperatives at European level. The European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
in seeking to further facilitate mobility, is intended to help students attain transnational
experience, cultural maturity, and not least, language skills; all of which are increasingly
required by employers in the European labour market. ECTS is now to be developed into a
credit accumulation and transfer system for lifelong learning.
89.
The Scoping Group has noted the planned development of a national framework for the
recognition of student achievement led by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority working
with the Learning and Skills Council. In addition we have noted the creation of credit and
qualifications frameworks in both Scotland and Wales which are now in the process of
implementation and that there have also been advances in Northern Ireland. We
commissioned a report on the lessons to be learned from the design and implementation of
the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework to inform our work.36
90.
Against this backdrop, the Scoping Group is aware that the England, Wales and Northern
Ireland Credit Forum will publish a report of a major survey of higher education credit
practice. The results are not yet available but it is believed that a majority of higher education
institutions in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are now using credit and the
overwhelming majority of these award credit in respect of learning achievement. However, we
have been mindful that higher education institutions are autonomous bodies and that a
significant number of institutions remain sceptical about credit and do not consider it relevant
to their own situation. There is no formally recognised credit system in England but there is A
Common Framework for Learning (inCCA 1998)37 which was affirmed in the credit guidelines
published by the higher education credit bodies in 2001. We are aware that these guidelines
have influenced current practice.
91.
This section considers the actual and potential benefits of credit; points of criticism; and
issues in the development of higher education credit in England – including articulation with
other frameworks and definition of terms.
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
33
What is credit?
92.
Credit38 is fundamentally a tool for measuring the equivalence of learning achieved by the
individual. As a consequence there are a number of different functions that credit may serve.
It provides a mechanism for higher education institutions to design modules/programmes in
different disciplines that are similar in volume and intellectual demand. It also provides a
basis for recognising learning achieved in other institutions or elsewhere. Credit values and
levels give information about the amount of learning and the academic demands of that
learning. The award of credit indicates satisfactory completion of a module but it does not
reveal further information on the quality of the student performance.
Defining terms
34
93.
We have noted that within higher education and between sectors there is inconsistency in the
usage of terms such as ‘credit system’ and ‘credit framework’. As far as the student is
concerned such inconsistencies may not matter but they could create confusion at the
interface between sectors.
94.
The Scoping Group believes that it is helpful to distinguish three key elements, and some
initial defining features are set out below. We have adopted these as working definitions but
they will need further discussion and illumination as the proposed work progresses. These
are:
• credit system;
• credit framework/credit and qualifications framework; and
• scheme.
95.
A credit system defines the broad underlying principles that are shared by validating bodies
and institutions using that credit system. A credit system may operate across more than one
sector (eg, further education and higher education) and across national boundaries. A credit
and qualifications framework sets down the recommended overall credit requirements for
qualifications. It may operate cross-sector or within a sector and it too may be national or
international. A scheme sets down the detailed agreements on procedures and entitlements
on such matters as student progression. A scheme operates at institutional, regional or
possibly sub-sector level.
96.
The Scoping Group considers that the task ahead to promote more consistent and
widespread use of credit should be concerned with agreeing a system/framework and
developing local/regional schemes.
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
97.
The potential parameters used to define each one are identified in the Table below.
Elements and features of credit
Elements
International/National
National
Regional/sub-regional/local
Credit System
Credit & Qualifications
Scheme
Framework
Features
The basis for the award
The recommended minimum
The specific credit requirements
of credit
credit requirements for
for qualifications on offer
qualifications.
through the scheme
The definition of the credit
Guidance regarding the
Agreements on routes within
value
Accreditation of Prior
or between institutions
Learning
The credit levels and their
Recommendations with regard Agreements on the entitlements
descriptors
to the re-use of credit for
of students for entry &
qualifications
progression
The fundamental principles
Recommendations with regard
on the use of credit
to recording student
achievement
98.
The Scoping Group believes that the proposed distinction between a national credit system,
a higher education credit and qualifications framework and institutional/regional credit
schemes offers a useful starting point. A widespread and shared understanding of the credit
system and framework should facilitate the development of model schemes.
Recommendation 9: since it will be necessary to achieve a common understanding in
developing credit proposals: credit terminology, the relationship between credit systems and
qualification frameworks, and their respective functions and parameters, should be defined
and agreed.
Actual and potential benefits of credit
99.
The Scoping Group has noted that there is substantial qualitative evidence of local benefits
for those institutions that have chosen to use credit systems.39 There are indications of the
benefits of inter-institutional use of credits across partnerships or networks and we are aware
that further identification of good practice will be developed through work sponsored by
HEFCE.40
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
35
100.
The Scoping Group has identified a number of potential different positive roles for credit:
Institutional and individual roles for credit
•
•
•
•
•
credit can be used to help ensure that programmes of learning in different disciplines or
contexts are comparable in terms of magnitude and demand. This can be helpful in
programme design, and particularly useful for innovative programme design, by providing
a framework for comparability;
credit accumulation can enable students to track their progress towards an award. This
can be particularly useful on flexible programmes allowing students to vary the pace or
mode of study;
credit can assist in enabling students to transfer from one programme to another;
credit can enable students to be rewarded for learning achieved, even if they do not finish
their full programme of study and therefore, at the same time can contribute to providing
a more detailed and accurate picture of national completion rates; and
credit can enable an institution to recognise learning from very different contexts, for
example Accreditation of Prior Learning and Work Based Learning.
Inter-institutional and regional roles for credit
•
•
credit can provide a secure basis for networks of further and higher education institutions
to agree progression pathways; and
credit can help enable institutions to design programmes, which are offered by a range of
colleges and universities.
National roles for credit
•
•
providing it is firmly based upon principles relating to learning achievement, credit can
provide an instrument for developing qualification frameworks and contribute to public
understanding of different qualifications; and
credit can assist in enabling the transfer of learning from one institution to another outside
formal progression agreements.
International roles for credit
•
•
36
credit can help to facilitate student exchange and mutual recognition of learning (for
example, the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) has facilitated student exchange
successfully for 15 years, recently claiming one million participants.); and
credits could potentially contribute to the development of a European Qualifications
Framework, thus contributing to public understanding of different qualifications
internationally.
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
Criticisms of credit
101.
The Scoping Group is aware that, despite the substantial actual and potential benefits of
credit, outlined above, there are some common criticisms of the role of credit and the use of
credit in practice. Some of these stem, we believe, from credit being taken out of context or
from different understandings of credit while others stem from credit-related developments.
Whatever the reason, confusion exists and needs to be resolved. We have identified a
number of common and recurring issues which we believe firstly need to be tested for their
validity and then, where appropriate, addressed. These criticisms include:
• credit is not necessary in institutions where most of the students are studying on a full
time basis and is primarily aimed at part time students needing ladders and bridges;
• there is confusion regarding the use of credit and variation and inconsistency in practice;
• compensation and condonement are often treated differently and outwith the credit
system;
• a mismatch of the credit size of modules can cause problems;
• problems of articulation between credit systems can descend into vacuous debates about
numbers;
• the use of credit makes it difficult to achieve the intended holistic development of
disciplines (eg, professional practice in medicine);
• credit is responsible for increasing the assessment burden on students;
• credit is responsible for unsatisfactory semester arrangements;
• the use of credit in programmes allows students to choose easy/easier options;
• employers are indifferent to credit; and
• credit encourages ‘pick and mix’ programmes, which have little academic coherence.
102.
The Scoping Group recognises that there is a tension between the perceived advantages
and perceived disadvantages of credit and a consequent variation in the attitude to the use of
credit in the higher education sector in England, on the part of institutions. For some
institutions credit is a natural and integrated tool, for others credit is regarded as having no
useful purpose to serve and it is sometimes perceived as a potential threat to existing
systems. The Scoping Group has, however, concluded firmly that the benefits and potential
benefits of credit to students in particular, but also to other stakeholders, combined with
developments in other higher education systems and other education sectors, point to a need
to encourage and stimulate its use. In addition, the consequences of actions relating to other
aspects of this report (such as a reconsideration of the honours classification and a greater
emphasis on Personal Development Planning) point to credit being a particularly useful and
practical concept in future.
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
37
103.
We fully acknowledge, however, that it will be up to individual autonomous institutions to
decide what features they wish to accept or reject in any credit system. In order to develop a
shared sense of the purposes of credit, it will be necessary – and important – to engage,
through discussion and dialogue, with the diversity of views in the sector, and to produce a
measured and objective case for proposals, which should be substantiated by evidence.
Recommendation 10: the stakeholder organisations should strive for a common higher
education credit system in England, Wales and Northern Ireland which would help facilitate
continued developments of local/regional schemes for student progression.
Issues in the development of higher education credit in England
General issues
38
104.
In taking forward this work, a range of issues need to be addressed. The Scoping Group
notes that different types of credit systems can perform different functions. Not all credit
systems are capable of providing a good measure of equivalence. Some have been designed
for very specific purposes, which they fulfil satisfactorily without measuring equivalence.
Furthermore, there are limits with regard to other purposes, which the credit may serve. In
the UK the established major national credit systems are based upon awarding credit in
respect of the achievement of designated learning outcomes. Learning outcomes set out the
knowledge, understanding and skills, which a student should demonstrate before they are
deemed to have passed a module or unit of study. The UK credit systems also recognise that
learning outcomes may be achieved at different levels of intellectual demand – these are the
credit levels. Thus credit is always awarded at specified credit levels.
105.
Although credit is awarded in respect of learning achievement, it is impractical to try to
quantify the number of credits awarded as a direct measure of the learning outcomes. For
example, it would be ill-advised to use the number of learning outcomes as a measure. It is
necessary to provide an indirect measure of the amount of successful learning. The credit
systems in the UK use notional learning time as an imperfect, but the best-available,
measure of the quantity of successful learning. The amount of credit awarded is an indirect
measure of the volume of successful learning and the credit level indicates the intellectual
demand of the learning. In this way credit is capable of serving an important function in
contributing to the definition of academic standards but it is important to emphasise that
credit alone does not define academic standards. In addition to identifying the credit at a
specified level, it is necessary to contextualise the learning by indicating the curriculum
content.
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
106.
The Scoping Group considers that it will be important in taking forward credit issues to learn
the lessons gained from the development and implementation of other further/higher
education frameworks in the UK. The lessons from the implementation of the Scottish Credit
and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) will be especially useful as a starting-point. In a study
prepared for the Scoping Group (Gordon 2004) it was reported that while there were several
positive aspects to implementing the framework there were also a number of key issues
which had arisen as part of the SCQF work, these included:
• there were some problems reported with the level of particular awards such as advanced
honours programmes…conversion to Masters Degrees and the Graduate Diploma;
• the need to revise and adjust, sometimes ‘fairly radically’, institutional practice ‘to match
more closely with the descriptions used in the Framework’;
• in a small number of cases ‘inter-institutional collaboration added a complication when
existing institutional policies and practices did not closely match with the SCQF and
views differed over which and how adjustments should occur’;
• some institutions ‘reported difficulties in agreeing common policies on credit transfer from
the HNC/HND qualifications to degree programmes’;
• institutions experienced varying degrees of ease in applying the Framework to all
disciplines for example, medical schools remain to be convinced of the benefits of
adopting the Framework;
• in some cases ‘pre-existing practices in relation to condonement had posed a tension
with the expectations of the Framework which still had to be resolved’;
• although the Framework is explicitly descriptive and not regulatory, it is perceived by
some as ‘an unnecessary and unhelpful bureaucratic burden’;
• although modularisation, semesterisation and credit systems are three separate matters,
late adopters of the Framework found themselves grappling with all three aspects
simultaneously. Early adopters of the Framework tended to standardise to keep matters
simple and manageable;
• there are continuing issues with the understanding of general and specific credit;
• there was concern that well-intentioned publicity should avoid building false or unrealistic
expectations about the transferability of credit.41
107.
The Scoping Group has noted that there are and will be many more institutions involved in
these developments in England than there are in Wales and in Scotland. This emphasises
the critical importance of generating a high level of dialogue by involving higher education
institutions in the process of development.
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
39
Relationship with other frameworks
108.
The Scoping Group considers that it is in the interest of students that every effort be made to
provide a route to the recognition of learning achievements without barriers or hurdles. It is
therefore essential that credit systems in use in different parts of the education system, and
in other parts of the UK and beyond, are as far as possible compatible and share common
principles.
109.
It is a common experience that where two systems interface, some calibration usually
becomes necessary. This necessitates some mutual understanding and interpretation and
should be avoided by setting out to make the credit system as widely shared as possible.
Since the principles that apply in the case of the existing systems (in further education in
England, and in Wales and Northern Ireland) are common to that used in many of the higher
education institutions in England, this would seem achievable. The distinction we draw
between system, framework and scheme (detailed at paragraphs 93-98 above) would protect
higher education institutions from being expected to adopt elements used in other
frameworks, which in their judgement might be inappropriate. It will also be necessary for the
credit and qualification framework developed in England to articulate with the Scottish Credit
and Qualifications Framework.
Recommendation 11: following agreement on a credit system, a concerted effort should be
made to achieve more consistent and widespread use of credit in higher education. The
developments should take into account current developments in Wales, Northern Ireland,
Scotland and in further education in England.
110.
40
The Scoping Group agrees that the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) must also form
part of the vision. ECTS has been successful in facilitating student exchange arrangements
for 15 years and recently announced its millionth participant. We believe ECTS, as currently
constituted, is not suitable for the more challenging task of measuring and expressing
equivalence of learning achievement or acting as the basis of an effective pan-European
credit accumulation and transfer system. In its present form, with the simple representation of
an undergraduate year by the award of 60 credits and with no levels, ECTS cannot assist in
defining academic standards. However, at the Irish Presidency Conference in Dublin in
March 2004, the European Commission Director General for Education and Culture
announced the intention to create a single European system of credit transfer and
accumulation with reference levels which would apply common principles to non-vocational
and vocational learning.
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
111.
Ultimately, credit could be an international currency. The development of ECTS into a full
credit accumulation and transfer system basing the award of credit in respect of learning
outcomes is likely to take place quite rapidly under the impetus of the Bologna process and
the priority development of the over-arching European Qualifications Framework. The UK
should support this evolution very actively and work closely with the European Commission,
the European University Association and other bodies engaged in this development.
Recommendation 12: the sector should closely monitor and engage with the development of
the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) as the common European credit system.
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
41
Section D: General issues
112.
The Scoping Group noted a number of general themes arising from its work, several of which
it believed were of sufficient importance to form recommendations in their own right. They are
largely process-related and apply the benefit of our experiences in undertaking this task to
how we believe it should be taken forward. The issues concern stakeholder consultation and
communication, the need for a glossary of terms, timing and leadership and ownership.
These are considered below.
Consultation with key stakeholders
113.
We have noted that there is ‘a paucity of literature documenting students’ views on the
subject of degree classification’42 and of how they feel about the way their learning is being
measured and recorded generally. In addition, the views of alumni (say graduates after five
years in the labour market) are a further key group from whom feedback should be sought.
The Scoping Group is aware of institutional and national initiatives to follow up with alumni
their recognition of the contribution of undergraduate study three or more years after
graduation and of the interest in this area by a number of higher education subject
communities. The most useful of these studies should be identified, and their results
considered in taking this work forward. We have also identified, as essential in terms of
justifying the work, the use to which potential students would put the value added outputs
generated from it.
42
114.
Throughout this report we have made reference to the considerable amounts of work already
being done on aspects of the issues we have been considering by academic staff in the
higher education sector. It will be vital to build on this existing and ongoing work. It is also
important to recognise that those academic staff who are less directly involved in such
activities, will nonetheless be affected by our recommendations as these are taken forward.
Strenuous efforts should be made to ensure that all academic staff are fully consulted and
involved in future developments arising as a result of this report.
115.
In addition, employers will have a keen interest in the outcomes of the future work. We
believe it is essential that their views are sought whilst thinking is developing so that their
input can be meaningful.
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
Communication with key stakeholders
116.
Communication and explanation will be critical to ensuring students, employers, academic
staff and other stakeholders understand how the learning and achievement of individual
students is to be represented for the future, and in order to secure their acceptance of
change. Work will therefore be needed to ensure that any changes and the reasons for
making such changes are fully understood. We acknowledge that the extensive programme
of consultation we envisage in the preceding paragraphs should raise awareness of the
issues amongst these stakeholder groups. However, particularly in the case of students and
graduates, but also to some extent in the case of academic staff and employers, the vast
majority of those who will be affected by the outcomes of the changes will not necessarily
themselves have been directly involved in developing those changes. The Scoping Group is
concerned that stakeholders do not have to depend on the vagaries of media comment and
hearsay for information about these important issues and urge that ways be found to ensure
clear and consistent communication with these key groups.
Terminology
117.
The Scoping Group was charged with defining terms and we have done some considerable
work on this. However, this task could not be fully realised by the limited resources at the
disposal of the Scoping Group, and we therefore recommend that this work is taken on and
developed by the sponsoring organisations. A detailed glossary of terms relating to
describing, measuring, recording and communicating student achievement should be
prepared. Furthermore, if jargon-free explanations were also developed in parallel, this could
help enormously in underpinning the work on communication and consultation with key
stakeholders.
Timing
118.
The sponsoring bodies will wish to consider their own priorities and timetable for taking
events forward. We are aware, however, that our work has raised interest and expectations
in the sector, among stakeholders and with policymakers. This has served us well in terms of
the goodwill and assistance we have received from a variety of sources. We are concerned
that the momentum for change is not lost and therefore recommend that the sponsoring
organisations should aim to be in a position to come forward with detailed practical proposals
for consultation in all of the major areas outlined in this report no later than December 2005.
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
43
Recommendation 13: a detailed implementation plan, setting out how and when all of the
recommendations contained in this report will be implemented, should be prepared for
consultation by no later than 31 December 2005.
Leadership and ownership
119.
The changes which this report and subsequent work might eventually engender will have farreaching consequences for the provision of higher education primarily in higher education
institutions, but also in further education colleges. The Scoping Group firmly believes that
change must be developed and owned by UK higher education institutions themselves, in
partnership as appropriate with a range of different organisations and agencies including the
Higher Education Academy. Universities UK and SCOP, with the support of HEFCE, have to
date had lead responsibility for facilitating and steering the process through. We believe this
responsibility should now be widened-out to the corresponding agencies in the other UK
countries.
Recommendation 14: the institutional representative bodies in partnership with the Funding
Councils should retain responsibility for, and provide leadership in, taking forward all the
recommendations in this report. In view of the impact any changes will have on other UK
countries, Universities UK, SCOP and HEFCE should now invite their counterparts in Scotland,
Wales and Northern Ireland to participate in all future developments.
44
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
Section E: Conclusions, summary of
recommendations and next steps
Conclusions
120.
Our scoping work has demonstrated that there is currently a considerable degree of work
underway in the UK higher education sector in matters of describing, measuring, recording
and communicating student achievement. We also identified some major, as yet unresolved,
issues. This report addresses a number of these and suggests ways in which they could, and
in some cases should, be taken forward.
121.
Our key conclusions are that:
• whilst the UK honours degree is a robust qualification which continues to serve us well,
the existing honours degree classification system has outlived its usefulness and is no
longer fit for purpose. There should be further investigation of alternative classificatory
systems for representing achievement which better meet the needs of different audiences
and a set of criteria need to be identified and agreed for the purpose of evaluating such a
system. There is merit in incorporating some of the existing initiatives in this area
including the higher education Transcript, the Progress File and Personal Development
Planning. Account must also be taken of developments elsewhere in the UK, in other
sectors and European developments such as the Diploma Supplement and the Europass;
• the sector should actively investigate the feasibility of designing models for predicting
value added for potential students. Existing databases could be used to this end but any
proposals will need to be carefully trialled and piloted with students and institutions to
determine their robustness and usefulness; and
• whilst acknowledging the autonomy of higher education institutions, the sector should
work towards a common further and higher education credit system for England, Wales
and Northern Ireland, articulating effectively with the Scottish Credit and Qualifications
Framework and the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) in Europe. To bring this to
fruition, terminology will have to be agreed and defined.
Summary of Recommendations
122.
In support of these conclusions we are making the following recommendations:
Recommendation 1: there is a need for further investigation of classificatory systems for the
appropriate and effective representation and communication of learning and achievement.
Recommendation 2: a series of criteria for an effective system of representing and
communicating student achievement should be identified and agreed by the higher education
sector.
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
45
Recommendation 3: since the current system of degree classification no longer provides a
sufficient means of summarising student achievement, it should be reviewed.
Recommendation 4: proposals for changing the degree classification system should not
merely focus on the undergraduate degree but should take into account the complete range of
higher education qualifications.
Recommendation 5: developments in describing, measuring, recording and communicating
achievement should take place in parallel with, and as complementary to, the Diploma
Supplement and ultimately the Europass.
Recommendation 6: higher education institutions should continue to implement Personal
Development Planning within the guidelines developed by the Progress File Implementation
Group. There should continue to be evaluation of the impact of learning and the representation
of learning and achievement of different forms of Personal Development Planning.
Recommendation 7: in taking work forward on recording achievement in higher education full
account should be taken of existing congruent practice including developments in schools and
further education colleges, in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. The opportunity should be
taken particularly to ensure that this dovetails with emerging proposals and policies for 14-19
education. Attempts should be made to ensure that optimal transitions for students, from
school and further education into higher education, and within higher education itself, would
be possible.
Recommendation 8: the feasibility and value of adopting, adapting, extending or designing a
model for predicting value added to students of undertaking particular higher education
studies should be actively pursued. This could include a range of factors such as financial
value added and a comparison of the performance of different cohorts of students.
Recommendation 9: since it will be necessary to achieve a common understanding in
developing credit proposals: credit terminology, the relationship between credit systems and
qualification frameworks, and their respective functions and parameters, should be defined
and agreed.
Recommendation 10: the stakeholder organisations should strive for a common higher
education credit system in England, Wales and Northern Ireland which would help facilitate
continued developments of local/regional schemes for student progression.
46
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
Recommendation 11: following agreement on a credit system, a concerted effort should be
made to achieve more consistent and widespread use of credit in higher education. The
developments should take into account current developments in Wales, Northern Ireland,
Scotland and in further education in England.
Recommendation 12: the sector should closely monitor and engage with the development of
the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) as the common European credit system.
Recommendation 13: a detailed implementation plan, setting out how and when all of the
recommendations contained in this report will be implemented, should be prepared for
consultation by no later than 31 December 2005.
Recommendation 14: the institutional representative bodies in partnership with the Funding
Councils should retain responsibility for, and provide leadership in, taking forward all the
recommendations in this report. In view of the impact any changes will have on other UK
countries, Universities UK, SCOP and HEFCE should now invite their counterparts in Scotland,
Wales and Northern Ireland to participate in all future developments.
Next steps
123.
The Scoping Group was charged with scoping the issues for the sponsoring organisations to
take forward. Clearly it will be for those bodies to decide how best to do this and, other than
suggest a date by which clear progress should have been made, we have not sought to preempt them.
Strategic Questions
124.
The Scoping Group has identified the following strategic questions for further consideration
by the sponsoring organisations in taking forward this work. These are not exhaustive but
could provide a basis for planning future work:
• How can the desired qualities of a new system for representing student achievement be
realised and optimised, particularly given that some of them work against one another?
• Who are the main ‘audiences’ for information about achievement? How do their needs
differ and how can information and systems be developed which meet these needs?
• What would be the consequences for producing summative information on achievement
of migrating from the existing honours degree classification system to another system?
• What value added information would be of most use to students and potential students?
• What are the data/statistics in which institutions (and the wider world) can have sufficient
confidence upon which to base a value added measure?
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
47
•
•
•
48
In which aspects of credit practice is it necessary to achieve sector-wide consistency and
how can this be done while respecting institutional diversity and autonomy?
How should the sector manage the simultaneous development of credit systems in the
UK with that of the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) in Europe? How can
convergence between the two be encouraged and effected?
How can the needs and practices of different subjects and professions be recognised and
taken into account in future work ?
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
Notes
1
3
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
11
DfES 2003 The Future of Higher Education paragraph 1.18
DfES 2003 The Future of Higher Education paragraphs 4.7 - 4.10
DfES 2003 The Future of Higher Education paragraph 5.25
Ivan Lewis MP, Minister for England and Wales Skills and Vocational education and Lewis
MacDonald, MSP Scottish Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, signed the
Berlin Communiqué
see Denholm 2004
defined as a means by which students can monitor, build and reflect upon their personal
development
the Scoping Group commissioned reports from the following Professor George Gordon;
Professor John Gray; Professor Louise Morley and Dr Penny Burke
see Byrne and Hornby 2004
Morley, Burke and Carpentier 2004 paragraph 6.1
letter from Chief Executive of CIHE to Chair of Scoping Group 6 May 2004
many of these issues are drawn from the report by Morley, Burke, and Carpentier
Denholm 2004
Morley, Burke and Carpentier 2004 paragraph 6.8
the Bologna Process stems from a Declaration signed in 1999 (by 29 European Ministers of
Higher Education) to create the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) by 2010. For more
information on the Bologna Process and the Berlin Communiqué see: http://www.berlinbergen.no/
differences here should also be recognised, however. Specifically, the transcript element of
the Progress File is an active integral part of this process, providing information to students
as they progress through their course. The Diploma Supplement is a summative document,
providing details of the individual qualifications successfully passed, supplementary for the
actual credential. It was conceived with a view to providing information to employers and
facilitating recognition and mobility across Europe.
Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) 2004
www.ltsn.ac.uk/genericcentre
Brennan and Shah 2003 page 19
DfES 2004 Report of the Working Group on 14-19 Reform paragraphs 189-193
‘value added’ is an elusive term to which several different meanings have been ascribed. We
have found the dimensions outlined by Raffe et al 2001 to be the most useful
these first five meanings drawn from Raffe et al 2001
see papers on the website of the Enhancing Student Employability Co-ordination Team
[ESECT], at www.ltsn.ac.uk/ESECT. The challenge to assessment is discussed in Knight and
Yorke 2003
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
49
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
30
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
50
this is particularly well documented in respect of young entrants to US higher education (see
e.g. Pascarella and Terenzini 1991; Astin 1993) see also HEFCE 2001 The Wider Benefits of
Higher Education; HEFCE 2003 Revisiting the Benefits of Higher Education
or those who leave higher education without graduating, or with an intermediate award
Gray 2004 page 2
Gray 2004 page 1
Puttock 2004
Gray 2004 page 10
this kind of approach was advocated in the CNAA/PCFC 1990 study of value added, and
more recently by Wagner 1998
a listing of the range of awards that is available can be found in Lang and Millar 2003.
the Durham team has undertaken a lot of work on value added (see www.cemcentre.org ).
Pat Sammons Institute of Education, in an email comment
see Yorke 2002
Shulock and Moore 2002 p.59ff
DfES 2004 Fair Admissions to Higher Education paragraph B23
see Gordon 2004
Inter Consortium Credit Agreement 1998 A Common Framework for Learning
like ‘value added’, ‘credit’ is a contested concept and it is therefore very important that a
working definition is arrived at and agreed by the sponsoring bodies in taking forward the
work
for example Report of the Northern Ireland Credit Accumulation & Transfer System (NICATS)
1999 Section 2.3; The Credit and HE Qualifications: Credit guidelines for HE Qualifications in
England, Wales and Northern Ireland 2001 pages 3 and 4; Gordon 2003
Lifelong Learning Networks (HEFCE Circular Letter 12/2004)
Gordon 2004
Morley, Burke and Carpentier 2004
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
Annex A
Measuring and Recording Student Achievement Scoping Group:
Terms of Reference
These are the original terms of reference. They were amended in practice, as the work of the
Scoping Group progressed.
Terms of Reference
To review the recommendations from the White Paper ‘The Future of Higher Education’ (see below)
relating to recording student achievement, value added, degree classifications and credit systems.
As
•
•
•
•
a Scoping Group the main functions will be to:
Consider definitions and issues relating to the topics.
Consider what problems or opportunities need to be addressed.
Recommend a prioritised list of effective actions and who should take them forward with reference
to current good practice.
Actions could include further research and more detailed work.
The Group will aim to have two meetings, the first providing an overview of issues, problems and
opportunities which will lead to further detailed work to inform the recommendations that will arise
from the second meeting.
The group should consider in particular:
• The relationships that potentially exist between recording student achievement, measuring value
added, degree classification and credit.
• Existing work and research that could inform the work of the Group and the taking forward of its
recommendations and the input of experts from the sector.
• The diversity in missions of providers of Higher Education, and their students and the autonomy of
their systems and processes.
• International implications of both the issues and suggested outcomes within the groups remit,
particularly in relation to the Bologna process.
The key areas are:
• Robust ways of describing, measuring and recording student achievement.
• Review progress on use of transcripts and personal development portfolios.
• Review current methodologies for recording student achievement.
• To develop more sophisticated ways of measuring value added.
• Evaluate recent research on the honours classification system – convene a review group to
consider possible alternative methods for presenting the overall achievements of students.
• Build upon the best current practice on credit systems, and to scale this up so that there is
widespread and consistent use of credit across higher education.
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
51
Annex B
Measuring and Recording Student Achievement Scoping Group:
Membership
Members
Professor Robert Burgess
Professor Paul Bridges
Professor Sally Brown
Mark Flinn
Professor Chris Green
Sophie Holmes
Dr Norman Jackson
Mike Killingley
Dr Alan Runcie
Professor David Vaughan
Rob Ward
Peter Williams
Professor Michael Worton
Professor Mantz Yorke
Vice-Chancellor, University of Leicester (Chair)
EWNI Credit Forum, Chair of NUCCAT
ILTHE
Director of Academic Affairs, Edge Hill College
Director of the Regional Office, Anglia Polytechnic University
NUS
LTSN
AGR
QAA/Universities Scotland SCQF Officer
Principal, Cumbria Institute of the Arts
CRA
QAA
Vice Provost Teaching/Learning, UCL
SACWG, Liverpool John Moores University
Observers
Dr Simon Van Heyningen
Celia Hunt
Steve Ingham/Mary Degg
Sean McGarry
Graeme Rosenberg
Emily Joyce
SHEFC
HEFCW
DfES
DELNI
HEFCE
HEFCE
Secretariat
Greg Wade
Clare Taylor
Helen Bowles
Jane W Denholm
52
Policy Adviser, Universities UK
Policy Officer, Universities UK
Policy Adviser, SCOP
Critical Thinking
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
Annex C
Sub-Group Memberships and Terms of Reference
Members of the Curriculum, Assessment and Classification Sub-Group
Professor David Vaughan, Chair
Professor Michael Worton
Dr Norman Jackson
Professor Sally Brown
Rob Ward
Peter Williams
Graeme Rosenberg
Emily Joyce
Sophie Holmes
Dr Simon van Heyningen
Jane Tory
Professor Lewis Elton
Professor Lyn Pykett
Marilyn Shanks
Helen Bowles
William Locke
Greg Wade
Clare Taylor
Principal, Cumbria Institute of the Arts,
Vice Provost Teaching/Learning, UCL
LTSN
ILTHE
CRA
QAA
HEFCE
HEFCE
NUS
SHEFCE Vice-Principal, University of Edinburgh
DfES
UCL
HEFCW University of Wales, Aberystwyth
National Postgraduate Committee
SCOP
UUK
UUK
UUK
Members of the Credit Systems Sub-Group
Prof Paul Bridges Chair
Stephen Adam
Dr Alan Runcie
Dr Jayne Mitchell
Emeritus Professor Beverly Sand
David Blaney
Jane Tory
Professor George Gordon
Greg Wade
Clare Taylor
Helen Bowles
EWNI Credit Forum
ECTS Councillor
QAA/Univ. Scotland SCQF Officer
QAA
Aufait Consultancy
Higher Education Wales
Team Leader DfES
University of Strathclyde
Universities UK
Universities UK
SCOP
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
53
Graeme Rosenberg
Emily Joyce
HEFCE
HEFCE
Membership of the Value Added Sub-Group
Prof Mantz Yorke Chair
Mark Flinn
Prof Chris Green
Mike Killingley
John Thompson
David Thompson
Greg Wade
Clare Taylor
Graeme Rosenberg
Emily Joyce
Celia Hunt
Liverpool John Moores University
Edge Hill College of Higher Education
Anglia Polytechnic University
Association of Graduate Recruiters
HEFCE
DfES
Universities UK
Universities UK
HEFCE
HEFCE
Higher Education Funding Council for Wales
Terms of reference of the Sub-Groups
The following terms of reference are generic to the three sub-groups and provide a general
framework for the work to be undertaken. The sub-groups may decide on particular emphasis :
Contribute to the report of the main group by identifying priorities for further action and
recommendations where possible, given the limited resources and time available.
Support the scoping remit of the main group. Using the expertise, knowledge and contacts of the
members of the sub-groups, supported by the consultant and the secretariat to identify and consider
work already undertaken in the key areas of interest and identify where the sub-groups can add value
in the time available. Undertaking further background work and consideration of key areas to support
the contribution to the main report.
To avoid duplication and overlap in the work of the sub-groups.
54
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
General questions in relation to the work of the sub-group :
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What is to be considered and what isn’t?
What issues can be “parked” as background assumptions?
What evidence already exists?
What should be changed?
What should be accepted?
Where is more work needed?
Are we clear about the needs that are being met?
What outcomes will the further work support – more questions or recommendations?
How many options and requirements can be evaluated?
Specific questions in relation to the work of the sub-groups:
Curriculum, Assessment and Classification:
• What are the issues in relation to academic judgement?
• What are the issues in relation to information?
• What are the issues in relation to other performance?
• What needs to emerge from HE programmes?
• Whose needs are being addressed?
In relation to Honours Classification:
• Consider current situation, alternatives and criteria
• What functions can be delivered and needs met in a robust and effective way?
Credit Systems:
• Is there a clear distinction between credit systems and credit frameworks?
• Where can we learn from the experience of other sectors/countries (QCA/Europe)?
Value-Added:
• The importance of ensuring a robust methodology and meaningful outcomes.
• Consider both quantitative and qualitative measures.
• Build upon and evaluate the experience of other sectors (e.g. schools).
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
55
Annex D
References
Ainley P (1994) Degrees of Difference, Higher Education in the 1990s London: Lawrence and Wishart
Alderman G and Winter R (1993) The Future of the Classified Honours Degree Proceedings of the
National Conference at Senate House University of London June 29th London: SRHE
Alderman G (2002) Tear Up the Class System The Guardian 14 October
http://educationguardiancouk/administration/comment/09976106264400html
Archer L and Leathwood C (2003) Identities, Inequalities and Higher Education in L Archer M
Hutchings and A Ross (eds) Higher Education and Social Class: Issues of Exclusion and Inclusion
London and New York: Routledge Falmer
Astin AW (1993) What Matters in College: Four Critical Years Revisited San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Ball S Reay D and David M (2002) Ethnic Choosing: Minority Ethnic Students and Higher Education
Choice Race Ethnicity and Education 5 (4) 333-357
Black P (1997) Aims Assessments and Workplace Needs Curriculum Matters 32 (5) 351-361
Bowl M (2003) Non-Traditional Entrants to Higher Education: “They Talk About People Like Me” Stokeon-Trent: Trentham Books
Brennan J and Shah T (2003) Report on the Implementation of Progress Files Centre for Higher
Education Research and Information
Brennan J L et al (1993) Students Courses and Jobs: the Relationship between Higher Education and
the Labour Market Higher Education Policy Series 21 London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers
Bridges P and Tory J (2001) Credits Qualifications and the Fluttering Standard Higher Education
Quarterly 55 257-269
Burke P J (2002) Accessing Education Effectively Widening Participation Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham
Books
Byrne R and Hornby W (2004) What’s wrong with Honours Classifications? Presentation to Scottish
Enhancement Themes Seminar Considering the Honours Degree Classification System 11May 2004
(http://www.qaa.ac.uk/scottishenhancement/events/default.htm#notes)
56
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
Centre for Recording Achievement 2004 draft report A South West Centre for Personal Development
Planning/Recording Achievement final report to the South West regional Development Agency
Clouder L (1998) Getting the ‘Right Answers’: Student Evaluation as a Reflection of Intellectual
Development Teaching in Higher Education 3(2) 185-95
CNAA/PCFC (1990) The Measurement of Value Added in Higher Education London: Council for
National Academic Awards and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council
Conference of Ministers responsible for Higher Education (2003) Realising the European Higher
Education Area The Berlin Communiqué 19 September 2003
CIHE (2004) Letter from Chief Executive of the Council for Industry in Higher Education to Chair of
Scoping Group 6 May 2004
Court S (1998) in Jary D and Parker M (Eds) The New Higher Education: Issues and Directions for
the Post-Dearing University Stoke on Trent: Staffordshire University Press
Crozier F (2003) Recent Development in Benchmarking in the United Kingdom and an Overall Look at
Three Benchmarking Subject Statements as Case Studies in European Network for Quality Assurance
in Higher Education Workshop Reports 2 Benchmarking in the Improvement of Higher Education
Helsinki: 23-27
Denholm J (2004) Considering the UK Honours Degree Classification Method A Report for the
QAA/SHEFC Quality Enhancement Theme Group on Assessment Edinburgh Critical Thinking
DfES (2003) The Future of Higher Education Norwich TSO
DfES (2004) Report of the Working Group on 14-19 Reform (Tomlinson Committee)
DfES (2004) Fair Admissions to Higher Education: Draft Recommendations for Consultation (the
Schwarz Interim Report)
Elton L (unknown) Should Classification of the UK Honours Degree have a Future?
Elton L (1998) Are UK Degree Standards Going Up Down or Sideways? Studies in Higher Education
23 (1) 35- 42
Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) Social Science
Research Unit Institute of Education University of London EPPI (2004)
http://eppiioeacuk/EPPIWeb/homeaspx?page=/reel/review_groups/EPPI/LTSN/LTSN_introhtm)
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
57
Eurydice (2003/2004) 2003/2004) National Trends in the Bologna Process Eurydice European Unit
Brussels
Gordon G (2003) Credit Systems in Higher Education submitted to DfES
Gordon G (2004) Report on Implementation of the SCQF Consultancy Report to UUK/SCOP/HEFCE
Measuring and Recording Student Achievement Scoping Group (unpublished)
Gough D A, Kiwan D, Sutcliffe S, Simpson D and Houghton N (2003) A Systematic Map and
Synthesis Review of the Effectiveness of Personal Development Planning for Improving Student
Learning. Report on-line at
http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/EPPIWeb/home.aspx?page=/reel/review_groups/EPPI/LTSN/LTSN_intro.htm
Gray J (2004) Introducing Value Added Perspectives in Higher Education Consultancy Report to
UUK/SCOP/HEFCE Measuring and Recording Student Achievement Scoping Group (unpublished)
HEFCE (2001) Wider Benefits of Higher Education Bristol HEFCE
HEFCE (2003) Revisiting the Benefits of Higher Education Bristol HEFCE
HEQC (1995) Graduate Standards Programme: Interim Report London: HEQC
HEQC (1997) Graduate Standards Programme: Final Report London: HEQC
HEQC (1996) Understanding Academic Standards in Modular Framework London HEQC
Hodgson J (2004) Recording Achievement and Personal Development Planning Excellence Plus
Strategy (http://wwwrecordingachievementorg/downloads/PDP_Update_Bradfordpdf)
Hodson P and Thomas A (2003) Quality Assurance in Higher Education Higher Education 45 375-387
Hornby W (2003) Assessing Using Grade-related Criteria: a Single Currency for Universities?
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 28 (4) 435-454
Inter-Consortium Credit Agreement (1998) A Common Framework for Learning the report of the InterConsortium Credit Agreement (InCCA)
Jackson N and Ward R (2004) A Fresh Perspective on Progress Files – away of Representing
Complex Learning and Achievement in Higher Education in Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education 29 4 August 2004
58
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
Jackson N Gough D Dunne E and Shaw M (2004) Developing the Infrastructure to Support an
Evidence Informed Approach to Personal Development Planning. Paper for the Higher Education
Academy Symposium An evidence based approach in higher education – how far can we take it?’
Manchester 7 July 2004
Jackson N J and Shaw M (2004) Building a Database of Institutional Evaluation Studies to Support
PDP Implementation. Evaluation of the initial search and find strategy developed to identify
institutional PDP evaluation studies April 2004. Report for the Progress File Implementation Group
Knight PT and Yorke M (2003) Assessment Learning and Employability Maidenhead: Society for
Research in Higher Education and the Open University Press
Kohler J (2003) Quality Assurance Accreditation and Recognition of Qualifications as Regulatory
Mechanisms in the European Higher Education Area Higher Education in Europe 28 (3) 317-330
Lang J and Millar DJ (2003) Accredited Work-related Learning Programmes for Students: a guide for
employers York: Learning and Teaching Support Network
Lea R (1999) Does More mean Worse? The Guardian 16 February
http://wwwguardiancouk/guardianeducation/story/0360531323900html
Leckey J F and McGuigan M A (1997) Right Tracks-Wrong Rails: The Development of Generic Skills
in Higher Education Research in Higher Education 38 (3) 365-378
Leman P and Mann C (1999) Gender Differences in Students’ Performances in Examinations: the
Cambridge University Project in Fogelberg P, Hearn J, Husu L and Mankkinen T (eds) Hard Work in
the Academy: Research and Interventions on Gender Inequalities in Higher Education Helsinki
Helsinki University Press 83-92
Lillis T (2001) Student Writing: Access, Regulation, Desire London: Routledge
Lucas L and Issroff K (2003) The Learning Needs of Mature and Part Time Students at UCL London
University College London
McNabb R, Pal S and Sloane P (2002) Gender Differences in Educational Attainment: The Case of
University Students in England and Wales Economica 69 (275) 481-503
McWilliam E, Hatcher C and Meadmore D (1999) Developing Professional Identities: Remaking the
Academic for Corporate Times Pedagogy Culture and Society 7(1) 55-72
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
59
Meadmore D (1998) Changing the Culture: The Governance of the Australian pre-millennial University
International Studies in Sociology of Education 8 27-45
Merrill B (1999) Gender Change and Identity: Mature Women Students in Universities Aldershot:
Ashgate
Millican P (2000) The Decimal Grade System of Degree Classification: A Guide to its Principles and
Development http://wwwleedsacuk/degclass/decgradehtm
Moore R and Muller J (1999) The Discourse of ‘Voice’ and the Problem of Knowledge and Identity in
the Sociology of Education British Journal of Sociology of Education 20(2) 189-205
Morley L (2003) Reconstructing Students as Consumers: New Settlements of Power or the Politics of
Assimilation? in Slowey M and Watson D (Eds) Higher Education and the Lifecourse Buckingham
Open University Press 79-92
Morley L Burke P and Carpentier V (2004) Centre for Higher Education Studies University of London
Institute of Education Consultancy Report to UUK/SCOP/HEFCE
Measuring and Recording Student Achievement Scoping Group (unpublished)
Murray M Conference Keynote (1993) in Alderman G and Winter R The Future of the Classified
Honours Degree London: Society for Research into Higher Education
National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (1997) Higher Education in the Learning Society
(the Dearing Report) Norwich HMSO
Northern Ireland Credit Accumulation and Transfer System (1999) Report of the Northern Ireland
Credit Accumulation and Transfer System NICATS
Owen K, Mok P and Heaven S (2003) The Impact of Higher Education on Employment Prospects and
Earnings Graduate Market Trends Summer
Parlour J (1996) A Critical Analysis of Degree Classification Procedures and Outcomes Higher
Education Review 28 (2) 25-39
Parr J (2000) Identity and Education: The Links for Mature Women Students Aldershot: Ashgate
Pascarella ET and Terenzini PT (1991) How College Affects Students San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Puttock R (2004) Degree Class and Destination Indicators Consultancy Report to UUK/SCOP/HEFCE
Measuring and Recording Student Achievement Scoping Group (unpublished)
60
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
Quinn J (2003) Powerful Subjects: Are Women Really Taking Over the University? Stoke-on-Trent:
Trentham Books
Raffe D Howieson C and Croxford L (2001) The Viability of a Value-added Performance Indicator in
Scottish FE Report to the Scottish Further Education Funding Council
Ramsden P (1998) Out of the Wilderness The Australian 29 April 39-41
Randall J (2002) Quality Assurance: Meeting the Needs of the User Higher Education Quarterly 56 (2)
188-203
Reay D (2001) Finding or Losing Yourself?: Working-Class Relationships to Education Journal of
Education Policy 16 333-346
Reay D Davies J David M, and Ball S (2001) Choices of Degree or Degrees of Choice? Class ‘Race’
and the Higher Education Choice Process Sociology 35(4) 855-874
Richardson J T E and Woodley A (2003) Another Look at the Role of Age Gender and Subject as
Predictors of Academic Attainment in Higher Education Studies in Higher Education 28 (4) 475-493
Robertson, D (1994) Choosing to Change London HEQC
Shore C and Selwyn T (1998) The Marketisation of Higher Education: Management Discourse and the
Politics of Performance in Jary D and Parker M (Eds) The New Higher Education: Issues and
Directions for the Post-Dearing University Stoke on Trent: Staffordshire University Press 153-171
Shulock N and Moore C (2002) An Accountability Framework for California Higher Education:
Informing Public Policy and Improving Outcomes Sacramento CA: Institute for Higher Education
Leadership and Policy
Silver H, Stennet A and Williams R (1995) The External Examiner System: Possible Futures London
Higher Education Quality Council
Simonite V (2000) The Effects of Aggregation Method and Variations in the Performance of Individual
Students on Degree Classifications in Modular Degree Courses Studies in Higher Education 25 (2)
97-209
Simonite V and Browne W J (2003) Estimation of a Large Cross-Classified Multilevel Model to Study
Academic Achievement in a Module Degree Course Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 166 (1)
119-133
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
61
Smith, P (2004) Overview of InsightPlus 2001-2004 Consultancy Report to UUK/SCOP/HEFCE
Measuring and Recording Student Achievement Scoping Group (unpublished)
Strode College (2000) Reviewing Reporting and Recording Student Progress and Achievement Policy
i/policies/Reviewing Reporting Student Progress May 2000/AJ First Adopted: 26th March 1996
Revised: 17 May 2000
Tarlton A (2003) Degree Changes Back on Agenda in Guardian Unlimited Monday September 8
(http://educationguardiancouk/higher/news/story/09830103781400html)
Tarsh J (1990) Graduate Employment and Degree Class Employment Gazette 98 (10) 489-500
Vandelinde D (2002) A Degree of Doubt Tuesday October 1
(http://educationguardiancouk/students/comment/0997680196200html)
Wagner L (1998) Made to Measure The Times Higher Education Supplement 25 September
Ward R (2001) The Centre for Recording Achievement: Developing and Implementing Institutional
Policy on Personal Development Planning
http://wwwrecordingachievementorg/downloads/CaseStudySceneSetterFINALpdf)
Warwick D (1999) Does More mean Worse? The Guardian 16 February
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianeducation/story/0360531323900html)
Winter R (1993) Education or Grading? Arguments for a Non-Subdivided Honours Degree Studies in
Higher Education 18 (3) 197-209
Yorke M (2002) Degree classifications in English Welsh and Northern Irish universities: Trends 199495 to 1998-99 Higher Education Quarterly 56 (1) pp92-108
Yorke M, Barnett G, Bridges P, Evanson P, Haines C, Jenkins D, Knight P, Scurry D, Stowell M and
Woolf H (2002) Does Grading Method Influence Honours Degree Classification? Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education 27 269-278
Websites
www.heacademy.ac.uk
www.eppi.ioe.ac.uk
62
Measuring and recording student achievement • Universities UK/SCOP
30846 Debt cover.qxd
11/19/04
8:30 AM
Page 2
Our mission is to be the essential voice of UK universities by promoting
and supporting their work.
Universities UK
Woburn House, 20 Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9HQ
Tel +44 (0)20 7419 4111 Fax +44 (0)20 7388 8649
Email [email protected] Web www.UniversitiesUK.ac.uk
© Universities UK
ISBN 1 84036 111 5
November 2004
This publication can be viewed and downloaded from the
Universities UK website.