1. Making the Grade Moving to a GPA-based System in a UK University
Dr. Gavin Brown
Senior Lecturer in Biochemistry,

2. Please ask questions as we go along!
A plan for the day
Presentation – what has Lancaster done and why?
Discussion – a role for GPA at Leeds?
Break
Presentation – impact on classification, effecting change
Discussion – how might change happen at Leeds?
Final questions
Please ask questions as we go along!

3. The Lancaster GPA System

4. Drivers for change Simplification Comments from external examiners
Limited use of the full marking range
Complexity of our regulations
Some inconsistency wrt operation of exam boards
Concerns from LU staff
Burgess Review
Ensure regulations are fair, transparent and fit for purpose
Possible future changes in the sector

5. Simplification An example from Lancaster’s old classification system
The mark profile consisted of an overall average plus the mark distribution of 16 module marks (15 credits each)
To get a first you need:
An average of 70%+ OR
An average of 68%+ and 8/16 marks at 70%+ OR
An average of 68%+ and 6/16 marks at 70%+ OR
An average of 68%+ from the best 14 marks and 8/16 at 70%+ OR
An average of 68%+from the best 15 marks and 7/16 at 70%+ OR
Exit velocity …

6. External examiner in a humanities subject, 2006
External examiners
Common feedback about using the full range of marks in some subjects, but …
“I read a project where the supervisor had commented that it was the best dissertation they had read in over 20 years and was of publishable standard. The supervisor had given it 72%. I thought that was rather unfair, I would have given it 78%”
External examiner in a humanities subject, 2006

7. Concerns from LU staff Complexity
Treatment of mitigating circumstances
Inconsistency between subjects (joint degrees)
Special rules
Exit velocity

8. Summary of ‘problems’?
Reluctance to use the full range of marks in some subjects
Quantitative subjects wanted overall average, qualitative subjects wanted mark distribution
Creeping complexity of the regulations
Generous condonation rules
Exams boards were fair but there were different approaches
Inconsistent treatment of mitigating circumstances
Lots of ‘special rules’ / system complexity

9. Marking - what we considered
Leaving as was but introducing differential weighting
Allowing departmental/faculty variation (use of mean or distribution)
Moving to a step marking scale based on percentages
Moving purely to a grading scale
Mapping percentage ranges to grade points
Optimal maximum GPA
Number of points on any scale / in any class
Linearity of scale …

10. Timeline Feb 2007 - Project started May 2010 - Approval of principles
Nov Final approval from Senate
Oct Introduced for 1st & 2nd years
Jun First graduating cohort

11. Lancaster’s new system
Qualitative work marked in grades
Quantitative work marked in percentages
Marks converted to a GP (aggregation score)
Classification based on overall GPA
Criteria for borderlines
Resits mandatory
Minimum condonation threshold
Set aside rules for mitigating circumstances

12. Grading criteria (qualitative work)

13. Grading: the pedagogical change
Must not mark in % then ‘convert’ to grade
Use objective criteria to assign a grade
Initially assign the middle grade (A, B, C, D) then revise up or down using secondary descriptors
Use objective criteria for feedback
Bespoke marking criteria for the subject, level, assessment type, etc.

14. Marking in %s (quantitative work)
Marking as usual
Percentages converted to GP
0% = 0.000, 1% = 0.225, 2% = 0.450, 3% = 0.675, …
… 40% = …
… 98% = , 99% = , 100% =

15. 24 point scale A+ and 100% both equal 24
Grade Point Average
24 point scale
A+ and 100% both equal 24
GRADE
(qualitative work)
OVERALL
AGGREGATION
SCORE
(a GPA)
AGGREGATION
SCORE 0-24
(a ‘grade point’)
PERCENTAGE
(quantitative work)
CLASSIFICATION

16. Calculation of module result

17. Calculation of final result

18. The Interactive Transcript A big win!!

19. Classification

20. Borderlines
If a student’s overall GPA falls into a borderline then the higher award is given if:
Half or more of the credits are in the higher class or
The final year average is in the higher class
(exit velocity)
Exam boards can make individual cases to Senate

21. How is the new system better?
Grading scheme linked to objective marking criteria
Promotes use of the full marking range
More straightforward marking
Clearer opportunities for feedback
Percentages still used for quantitative assessments
Classification based on mean only
Less condonation and only if a satisfactory attempt has been made
Exam boards given greater guidance (and less discretion)

22. External examiner feedback – positive
I am very supportive of the shift away from percentages to A,B,C grading
I felt that the new marking system is clear and equitable in ways that our own new 17-point system is not
I am happy to note that Lancaster have moved to a conceptual scale of marking (e.g. A+, A, A- etc). A percentage scale, particularly in Arts subjects, discourages marking at the top end, thus this new procedure will hopefully encourage assignment of marks across the entire scale
I very much welcome the aggregation initiative with the use of letter grades, which will certainly solve the age-old problem of borderline marking and not using the full range of grades, particularly at the upper end of the scale
Uniquely both new and old systems were in operation this year and I can’t help thinking the former will represent an improvement. It will be interesting to see whether the A band gets used more adventurously than the old first class band was, which is surely what it’s designed to do. Greater use of the A band breadth may also have the effect of pulling up B/C/D marks ie. because the dizzying heights of an A+ are a possibility now, that puts lower grades in a revised perspective

23. External examiner feedback – negative
I wonder however if the new assessment system being phased in will be as easy to work with and as transparent to potential employers etc.
I found the new marking scheme to be very confusing (as I was looking at 2nd and 3rd year work there were letter grades, marks out of 24 and %s used). I would recommend the University to use either letter grades or %s
The “24 point” marking scheme is completely new to me, and is not something I have encountered any other university where I have been external examiner, nor in my own institution. I have not yet seen any meaningful justification why Lancaster University should employ this system, or how it helps students or examiners
I am aware that the new assessment regulations are in operation and I broadly welcome its introduction. Despite, its introduction I would still encourage the staff in the department to utilise the full range of marks as my sense of conservatism in marking at the top end still has potential to create problems regarding a student’s classification as the letter grade mark needs to be translated into a numeric mark

24. A Role for GPA at Leeds?

25. Discussion Possible questions to consider …
Are there any ‘problems’ with the current Leeds system?
If yes, how might a GPA system help?
If no, could enhancements be made?
At what point would GPA be used (component, module, overall)?
Would you want a mixed system (%s and grades)?
How much subject variation would you want/need?
What’s in it for your staff?
What’s in it for your students?
What might the reception be to change and why?

26. Lancaster GPA – Impact on Classification

27. Minimising risk: data modelling
Not easy! Changing more than one variable
All graduating cohorts from previous 3 years
‘Qualitative subjects’ – percentage ranges mapped to grades
‘Quantitative subjects’ – percentages converted to scores

28. Distribution of first class averages for final year
% of firsts
Aggregation Score

29. Classification results – overall
% of cohort
Year

30. Classification results – science and technology
% of cohort
Year

31. Classification results – business and management
% of cohort
Year

32. Classification results – arts, humanities and social sciences
% of cohort
Year

33. Classification conclusions
Several factors at work (increasing entry grades, compulsory resits, final year resits, etc)
Increase in overall proportion of ‘good degrees’ (GDs) broadly in line with increased intake qualifications
Quantitative subjects show more GDs but with variability in firsts
Qualitative subjects show slight improvement in GDs but number of firsts improved

34. Lancaster GPA – Effecting Change

35. How did we go about making a change?
Took 3.5 years
Started with a cross-faculty working party (including ‘difficult’ subjects)
Consultation with other universities
Establish principles
Outline planning permission from Senate
Several rounds of consultation with amendments and compromises
Visits to departments
Post-implementation monitoring group

36. Communication with staff and students
Departmental staff meetings
Faculty teaching committees
Students’ Union Council
Student Course Representatives
Staff and Student FAQs
Flyers + s
Student Newspaper
Students’ Union social media

37. Staff FAQ How will work be marked in the new scheme?
What do I put on student work?
How are final marks calculated?
What happens if a student fails my module?
What do I do if a student has mitigating circumstances?
What if a student has still failed after resitting?
What does a student need to progress between years?
What are the penalties for late submission?
What will appear on a student’s transcript? …

38. Lessons learned Tackle the cause, not the symptom
Be prepared to compromise
Use enthusiasts
The lead must invest a lot of time
Consult with external examiners and employers
Introduce parallel benefits for students
Don’t underestimate system implications (student records systems, Turnitin, etc)
Piecemeal is problematic!

39. Discussion Possible questions to consider …
What would be the process of change at Leeds?
Who would lead it?
Who needs to be involved?
What role would/might students have?
Where would the hurdles be?
Can you get the data for modelling?
Is it worth it?

40. Any final questions …?