Partner Forum March 2013

Higher Education Review Higher Education Review is QAA's review method for all subscribers in England and Northern Ireland, as well as for providers with access to funding from HEFCE or the Department for Employment and Learning in Northern Ireland (DEL) who are not subscribers to QAA. It will be launched in and succeeds two methods: Institutional Review of Higher Education Institutions in England and Northern Ireland (IRENI), and Review of College Higher Education (RCHE). Page 2

Higher Education Review The overall aim of Higher Education Review is to inform students and the wider public as to whether a provider: sets and/or maintains UK-agreed threshold academic standards for its higher education awards as set out in Part A: Setting and maintaining threshold academic standards of the Quality Code (which refers to The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ)5 and subject and qualification benchmark statements) ; and Page 3

Higher Education Review provides learning opportunities which allow students to achieve those higher education awards and qualifications and reflect the Expectations outlined in the Quality Code, including the UK-wide reference points it endorses provides information for applicants, students and other users of higher education that is fit for purpose, accessible and trustworthy plans effectively to enhance the quality of its higher education provision.. Page 4

Higher Education Review The judgement will be determined by several factors: the provider's awareness of, and engagement with, the Quality Code and the other UK-wide reference points the Quality Code endorses · the extent to which students and staff are engaged in the assurance of quality the strategic mechanisms which a provider has for guiding and reviewing its assurance of standards and quality. Page 5

Higher Education Review Higher Education Review is concerned with all provision that is aligned to the FHEQ. Review judgements may, however, be differentiated so that different judgements may apply, for example, to provision delivered wholly by the provider and offered through arrangements with other organisations; or to undergraduate and postgraduate levels; or to the provision associated with different awarding bodies or awarding organisations. Page 6

Higher Education Review Note: Providers without degree-awarding powers work with awarding bodies and organisations, such as Edexcel and/or one or more higher education institutions, which retain responsibility for the academic standards of all awards granted in their names, and for ensuring that the quality of learning opportunities offered through collaborative arrangements is adequate to enable students to achieve the academic standards required for their awards. Page 7

Higher Education Review Thus, for providers without degree- awarding powers, Higher Education Review is concerned with the way in which these providers discharge their responsibilities within the context of their agreements with awarding bodies and organisations. Reviews of providers without degree-awarding powers are not concerned with how their awarding bodies and organisations manage their responsibilities. Page 8

Higher Education Review University of Kent: Canterbury College: (summer 2014) IFS: Conservatoire for Dance and Drama: K College: Mid-Kent College: Page 9

CPA Recommendation The University of Kent should: “review the mechanisms by which it oversees the feedback from students reported by partner institutions;” Annual Programme Monitoring Page 10

Regulatory Framework Kent has amended its conventions for marking and classification; Students currently in Stage 2 of UG degree programmes Aim of improving consistency and transparency. Has not yet happened for students studying for a Kent award at our validated partners;

Regulatory Framework LTB, in March 2013 agreed that: “with respect to the intake of students at validated partners in 2013/14, that all alternate marking, classification and regulatory practice be withdrawn and that all programmes leading to awards of the University of Kent be subject to the requirements of the Credit Framework in full.”

Regulatory Framework – Areas of Change Stage Weighting Marks achieved while on placement Categorical marking Rounding and display of marks

Areas of Change (2) Universal Application of preponderance Parameters for use of preponderance Classification Boundaries Viva Voce Examination Module Boards / Progression & Award Boards (Pilot in 2012/13) Page 14

Stage Weighting (1) Undergraduate degree programmes Introduction of standard stage weightings: [a] Stage 2: 40%, Stage 3: 60%; or [b] Stage 2: 20%, Stage 3: 30%, Stage 4: 50% for 4 year (non-placement) degree programmes; or, as suggested re. 4 yr placement stage progs: [c] 35% Stage 2, 10% placement stage, 55% Stage 3 Page 16

Stage Weighting (2) Introduced for the cohorts entering Stage 2, 3 or 4 in 2011/12 Comparison of results with pre-2011/12 weightings Students to be awarded the better degree result arising from the comparison Decision now taken to extend comparison to accommodate current stage 1 students Page 17

Placement Marks Where Mark Awarded by Placement Provider: the placement will be graded on a pass/fail basis and will therefore be zero-weighted with respect to classification; Where Mark Awarded by Kent Staff: the mark or marks achieved will be recorded and will carry such weighting towards classification as has been approved by the relevant Faculty Board. Page 18

Categorical Marking (1) Use optional in 2011/12 UG, not PG (unless you want to) Only for relevant assessments: i.e.assessment that requires a qualitative judgement by the marker against criterion referenced standards. Not for assessments that take the form of tests of complex calculation or knowledge that allow for an accumulation of marks on an objective basis. Page 19

Categorical Marking (2) The marking scale contains a fixed number of percentage points in each class band, one of which might be assigned by a marker for a piece of assessed work. Markers should award the appropriate mark from the scale to assessed work as best fits student performance in relation to the assessment criteria. Page 20

Rounding & Display of Marks (1) Current rounding algorithm for UG programmes amended to accommodate the following changes: [a] where the aggregated overall mark awarded for the module falls within one mark of the boundary for a higher class band (i.e. an overall module mark of 39, 49, 59 or 69), it should not be rounded to the nearest integer but should be rounded up to the nearest integer; and Page 21

Rounding & Display of Marks (2) [b] where the final weighted average mark for classification is within 0.5 percentage points of a higher classification boundary, it should be rounded up for classification purposes (e.g. a mark of 59.5% would be rounded up to 60%). Applied to Marks awarded in 2011/12 and thereafter Page 22

Preponderance Changes (1) Stage 1 Cohort in 2011/12 and thereafter Preponderance rubric to be used universally for UG degrees: Except where there is a clear PSRB requirement for degrees to be classified by a specified methodology, all undergraduate degree programmes should be classified by both the average and preponderance methods of classification, with students to benefit from the better result achieved by either method. Page 23

Preponderance Changes (2) Made consistent in terms of : [a] the proportion of credit in each class band required for a higher class of award; and [b] the qualifying mark in each class band required for a higher class of award. Page 24

Preponderance Changes (3) Weighted Average Mark The final weighted average mark for classification purposes will be determined by the application of weighting to the average marks achieved for each relevant stage of the degree programme. The final weighted average mark will be used for classification under both the average and preponderance methods of classification. Page 25

Classification Boundaries (1) Limiting Examiners’ discretion in considering candidates close to a boundary for a higher class; The ‘Two More Marks’ convention will not apply to current Stage 1 students, nor thereafter. i.e. CF will not apply to students entering Stage 2 of a UG degree in 2012/13 Page 26

Classification Boundaries (2) CF : “Boards of Examiners may recommend the award of a higher classification than that indicated by the marks obtained provided that the student would have qualified for a higher classification if he/she had obtained two more marks for each module and provided that the Board of Examiners is satisfied that there is substantial evidence that the marks obtained do not fully reflect the candidate’s overall achievement.” Withdrawn for stage 1 students & thereafter. Page 27

Classification Boundaries (3) Concessions? “Documented evidence of significant medical or personal problems or of unexpected hardship.” “Concessions should be applied at the module level. The Concessions Committee should report to the Module Board its recommendations concerning individual students. Concessions applied at the module level will allow concessions to be resolved by the Module Board at which the grades for that module are agreed, rather than at the end of the student’s final stage.” Page 28

Classification Boundaries (4) “There will be little need to exercise discretion at the Progression and Award Board, except in exceptional circumstances (e.g. for a major concession across the entire performance it may be appropriate for the recommendation of the Concessions Committee to be considered by the Progression and Award Board).” Use of “Notwithstanding” Convention Page 29

Classification Boundaries (5) Viva Voce Examination: “Evidence obtained from a viva voce examination” no longer to be a means of resolving the classification of candidates at the boundary for a higher class of award: “Use of viva voce examination for classification purposes to be discontinued, with effect for the cohort entering stage 2 in 2012/13.” Page 30

Boards of Examiners - Module Board (1) Module Boards – from 2012/13 A separate meeting of examiners (i.e. Module Boards) to consider module marks will allow Schools to address any issues with marks in advance of making recommendations on awards and progression. The attendance of the External Examiner at such boards should be mandatory. Logistics: set a deadline for marks confirmation and Module Boards, return of EE? Page 31

Boards of Examiners - Module Board (2) Module Boards should consider such matters as failure rates and mark distribution and compare marks across modules to identify any modules where the mark distribution is unusual, and, where it is justified by exceptional circumstances, might change the way the mark recorded for a module is calculated (e.g. by changing weightings, or excluding marks for a grossly out-of-line assessment). Such systematic changes should be explicitly confirmed by any external examiners. Page 32

Progression and Award Board – from 2012/13 Progression and Award Board A meeting of the Progression and Award Board will take place no later than one week following the meeting of the relevant Module Board. Internal membership of the Progression and Award Board will include the Head of School, the Director of Studies, the Director of Learning and Teaching and the Chief Examiner. At least one external examiner must also be in attendance. Page 33

Progression and Award Board The Progression and Award Board will have the following functions: to consider the finalised profiles of marks for candidates as presented by the Module Board and make recommendations concerning the classification of awards, progression, referrals and termination of registration; to make decisions on the recommendations of the Concessionary Committee concerning serious individual cases, such as are reported as relevant to its attention; Page 34

Further information LTB40/2011: papers/2011/ltb402011_classification.pdf Guidance on Stage Weighting & Categorical Marking: es_classification_ug.html Guidance for Stage 1 Students cation_changes_stage1.html Page 35