Memorandum 51
Submission from the University of Portsmouth
STUDENTS AND
UNIVERSITIES
Our response focuses on two areas:
A: degree classification, portability, and student
plagiarism, and
B: student support and engagement.
Key points (A):
— There is in our judgement considerable
potential to propose a standard methodology for degree classification.
— However, if a standard methodology were
established it would be almost meaningless unless agreement about
marking scales and the criteria they represent was also reached.
— The current system of peer group review
through the QAA and by use of external examiners provides a good
means of maintaining confidence in the standard of degrees.
— The evidence is that plagiarism is not
as widespread as commonly inferred.
— Universities are increasingly taking
on the role of educating plagiarism out of students through addressing
deficiencies in basic study skills and particular competences.
Key points (B):
— Research is needed to understand the
extent, causes and effect of disengagement of students.
— The reported lower achievement of males
and students from BME groups needs to be understood and addressed
(as far as possible) through institutional initiatives linked
to learning, teaching and assessment strategies.
— Strategies to ease transition and promote
social and academic acculturation, whilst resource intensive do
have a positive impact on retention.
— HEIs are being challenged to support
the increasing number of students with severe and complex physical
disabilities and mental health problems which require resources
beyond that available.
— More flexible funding regimes that promote
a proper credit accumulation and transfer system would permit
more students to continue in HE and eventually achieve an award.
A. Degree classification, confidence in the
value of degrees, portability and student plagiarism.
"whether the methodologies used by UK HEIs
to determine degree classifications and the distribution of degree
classes awarded are appropriate, the potential methodologies for
the standardisation of degree classifications within, and between,
HEIs, and the effectiveness of the Quality Assurance Agency in
monitoring degree standards"
A.1. The methodologies used commonly relate
to assessment results arising from studies in Year 2 and Year
3 of a three year undergraduate honours programme, levels 5 and
6 respectively of the QAA Framework for Higher Education Qualifications.
They are normally based on the use of a formula to determine mean
averages of marks from different units or modules. The formulae
and the weightings they attribute to different levels and modules
vary from institution to institution but they are all trying to
calculate a mean average performance. Less commonly there is use
of various formulae to try and identify the modal performance.
A.2. The QAA was until recently recommending
that institutions should adopt a common methodology when determining
degree classifications. As a result many more institutions than
was the case 10 years ago now have something like an institutional
standard methodology for classifying degrees. It is not uncommon
however for particular disciplinary traditions to hold sway either
within an institution or between institutions in the sector.
A.3. There is in our judgement considerable
potential to propose a standard methodology. However, there is
unlikely to be a consensus view within the sector about what the
detail of that methodology should be. Academics hold very deep
attachments to the particular features of a methodology with which
they have become familiar, and come to equate this with both academic
standards and their own academic judgement.
A.4. In any case, if a standard methodology
were established it would be almost meaningless unless agreement
about marking scales and the criteria they represent was also
reached. This too would be difficult to accomplish because many,
both within and outside the HE sector, have chosen to reject the
idea of criteria referenced marking as opposed to the use of normative
values.
A.5. The HE sector has however made progress
in agreeing and operating benchmark statements to define the characteristics
of particular subjects, and it has accepted (through the QAA Academic
Infrastructure) common descriptors to characterise the different
levels of learning. It might now, perhaps through the agency of
the QAA, agree and operate common criteria to determine the qualities
to be associated with first class performance, upper second class
performance, lower second class performance, third class performance.
It is likely however that these criteria, as with the benchmark
statements, would have to be subject-specific.
A.6. The use of external examiners in a
slightly more systematic and commonly defined way, with perhaps
some "independent" scrutiny of the process, could be
a more effective means of monitoring degree standards. This could
also be done under the aegis of the QAA.
"The advantages and disadvantages of the
UK's system of degree classification and the introduction of the
Higher Education Academic Record"
A.7. The advantage is that the terms used
to describe classification have some meaning and some currency
both within and without the world of academia. The disadvantage
is that many do not like either the meaning or the language, and
have come to regard the terms as archaic and divisive.
A.8. Some means of quickly ranking overall performance
however is important both to potential employers and to other
educational establishments. In other countries this is often done
by a Grade Point Average. However there is no globally-acceptable
methodology for that approach either, and similar issues about
what the grades mean would have to be resolved.
A.9. A transcript of marks is an important
supplement to this ranking process which allows a more detailed
and informed judgement to be made. To build on the idea of a basic
transcript however in the voluminous but loosely prescribed ways
required both by the Higher Education Academic Record, and by
the Diploma Supplement upon which it is closely modelled, seems
to be self defeating, if the purpose is to convey clear information
to employers and other educational establishments. We very much
doubt whether these documents will ever enjoy any widespread support
or demand from employers and other stakeholders.
"The actions that Universities, Government,
and others have taken, or should take, to maintain confidence
in the value of degrees awarded by Universities in the UK"
A.10. The current system of peer group review
through the QAA and by use of external examiners is a good means
of maintaining confidence in the standard of degrees. Fitness
for purpose is well maintained through the processes introduced
in the wake of the Dearing Report. External scrutiny of and involvement
in curriculum approval runs the risk of undermining the autonomy
of UK Universities. This autonomy has in many ways been the most
significant factor in establishing the prestige enjoyed by UK
Universities.
"The relationships between degree classification
and portability"
A.11. This consideration depends very much on
what portability is envisaged. If the portability is an EU issue,
as was the argument behind the creation of the Diploma Supplement,
then there are many other factors (eg linguistic competence) perhaps
more pressing and critical in improving portability of qualifications
than the use of a commonly understood ranking of degree outcome.
If the portability relates to movement between HEIs in the UK
then the establishment of credit frameworks has done much to improve
this portability. Degree classification however does not play
much part in this because of the issues discussed above about
common methodologies and criteria referenced marking.
"The extent to which student plagiarism is
a problem in Higher Education, and the availability and effectiveness
of strategies to identify, penalise and combat plagiarism"
A.12. The evidence is that plagiarism is not
as widespread as commonly inferred. In our experience it is more
a problem of poor, lazy scholarship than it is of any systematic
attempt to cheat the system, although there are spectacular examples
of the latter and these will always attract adverse comment.
A.13. Many students come to University lacking
the necessary levels of scholarship to tackle the expectations
and rigours of University assessment. There is strong evidence
of lazy and unquestioning use of primary sources for example or
of insufficiently well grounded scientific and mathematical skills.
This lack of necessary skills encourages consideration of plagiarism
by some students when confronted by the kind of assessment tasks
expected of them in an HEI.
A.14. Universities increasingly therefore
are taking on the role of educating plagiarism out of students
through addressing deficiencies in basic study skills and particular
competences. This is a role in which HEIS are becoming innovative
and increasingly competent, through use of dedicated software
or complementary learning activities such as the Maths caf
at the University of Portsmouth.
A.15. Educating plagiarism out of students
is proving an effective strategy but it incurs a high overhead
and eats into the curriculum space which ought to be available
for other purposes.
A.16. HEIs also have to become more adept
at using assessment strategies which in themselves are less vulnerable
to the plagiarist. For example HEIs must mix assessment types
and not rely too heavily on traditional assessment approaches
such as the essay. The questions asked in assessment have to be
carefully worded to require evidence of independent thought and
individual contribution. Marks can be awarded for activities that
require the individual unambiguously to make their own contribution,
eg through question and answer at presentations, through use of
log books to chart the "construction" of an assessment
response, through controlled "in-class" testing, or
even through viva voce examinations. This in turn requires a greater
focus on the development of academic staff in the use of a variety
of assessment approaches.
B. Student support and engagement
"the effectiveness of initiatives to support
student engagement in the formulation of HE policy, and how the
success or otherwise of these initiatives is being assessed"
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT
AND STRATEGIES
TO REDUCE
NON-COMPLETION
B.1. The lack of engagement of students
with their studies is reported to be an increasing problem in
HE. Although a link between attendance (for full time campus based)
of students and attainment is often speculated there is little
research to confirm or refute this. Similarly it is suggested
that the increased use of e-learning may lead to nonattendance
and disengagement of some students :- but again there is little
research on this topic. Research is needed to identify the true
extent of, and contributing factors to, the problem of disengagement
and the impact it has on achievement.
B.2. Data from our own institution supports national
data regarding the experience of males and BME students. Both
appear more likely to be excluded and proceed from level to level
with "trailing failures" and less likely to achieve
a good (1st/2.1) degree and graduate employment (6 months post
graduating). Whilst the reasons for this differential achievement
are complex with origins well before the students enter HE, institutions
nevertheless need to consider their learning, teaching and assessment
strategies in the light of the data.
B.3. Research shows the importance of social
and academic acculturation for all students, and particularly
those from non-traditional backgrounds. Although resource intensive,
effective transition strategies, opportunities for small group
teaching, opportunities for collaborative and social learning
and the Personal Tutor system all contribute to integration and
retention. Our own initiatives to support students through their
transition has gained good student feedback and research is underway
to determine the impact of this initiative on learning and retention.
B.4. A particular challenge facing HE is
the number of students with severe and complex disabilities and
mental health problems. This can have considerable resource and
logistical implications for institutions. Mental health can affect
completion in a number of ways:
B.5. The move from a supported school/home
environment to the independent demands of University academic
and social life can be sudden and much more demanding than the
student or family or indeed other mental health processionals
realise.
B.6. The same level of support often cannot
be provided (eg one on one daily assistance in the classroom)
and there is no-one to monitor the student's capacity to look
after themselves on a daily basis.
B.7. Mental ill health can by its nature
make it difficult for students to be regular and focussed in their
studies, and indeed to access the treatment that can be helpful
to them.
B.8. Some mental health conditions have
no known effective "treatment", and in these cases students
may struggle for a year or two but withdraw eventually as they
are unable to cope and there is nothing further that can be done
to support them.
B.9. Students suffering from anxiety are
very likely to seek postponement or deferral of their formal assessments
as they approach them as a direct consequence of their condition.
This has clearly damaging progression implications as the number
of delayed assessments accumulates and at some stage most such
students simply fail to represent themselves and are ultimately
recorded as having failed due to being "written off after
time".
B.10. The University has recognised the
problems students may face and introduced a procedure whereby
such students are rapidly identified and contacted before the
accumulated deficit of work becomes overwhelming. Such students
are offered the opportunity to suspend their studies without penalty
for as long as they feel it necessary, subject only to the actual
continuation of the course. This has two outcomes, either a return
to study when able or a managed withdrawal over time without the
taint of failure or personal guilt.
B.11. It would be even more helpful if the
funding for students with mental health needs through the DSA
could extend to include counselling for specific learning/mental
health difficulties, where this required input beyond what was
normally offered.
B.12. This year's raising of the non-medical
helpers allowance component of the DSA from £12,420 to £20,000
for the explicit purpose of increasing the accessibility of HE
for the more severely disabled is welcome but has a corollary
impact on the overall institutional financial burden that has
not been recognised by additional Institutional funding. Course
tuition on a one-to-one basis of very severely disabled candidates
may now be necessary as is specific adaptation of Hall residential
rooms to meet very specialised needs. Our own institution this
year had to install a Parker bath at a cost of over £10,000
as spinal atrophy meant that the normal disabled provision of
a wet room and shower chair would not meet the individual need.
B.13. More flexible funding regimes that
promote a proper credit accumulation and transfer system would
permit many students to continue in HE and eventually achieve
an award.
December 2008
| 
