1 / 25

Changes to Classification Conventions and Procedures

Office for Quality Assurance and Validation. Changes to Classification Conventions and Procedures . Consistency and Transparency.

jabir
Download Presentation

Changes to Classification Conventions and Procedures

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Office for Quality Assurance and Validation Changes to ClassificationConventions and Procedures

  2. Consistency and Transparency “The Working Group proposes a number of changes to marking practices and the operation of Boards of Examiners, which are intended to improve consistency and transparency in classification of awards. The Working Group seeks in particular to avoid marks appearing on borderlines where possible and to introduce mechanisms that resolve borderline marks consistently.”

  3. Area of Change UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMMES ONLY

  4. Areas of Change (1) • Stage Weighting • Marks achieved while on placement • Categorical marking • Rounding and display of marks

  5. Areas of Change (2) • Universal Application of preponderance • Parameters for use of preponderance • Classification Boundaries • Viva Voce Examination • Module Boards / Progression & Award Boards

  6. 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

  7. Stage Weighting (2) • Introduced for the Kent cohorts entering Stage 1, 2, 3 or 4 in 2011/12 • Comparison of results with pre-2011/12 weightings • Kent Students to be awarded the better degree result arising from the comparison • To be introduced for 3 stage validated UG degree programmes for cohort entering in 2012/13 – No comparison of results.

  8. 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.

  9. Categorical Marking (1) • Use at Kent optional in 2011/12 • UG, not PG (unless you want to) • Only for relevant assessments: i.e. assessments marked out of 100, which require 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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

  12. 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 recorded on Kent’s SDS in 2011/12 and thereafter

  13. Preponderance Changes (1) • Kent students - Stage 1 Cohort in 2011/12 and thereafter • Validated Students - Stage 1 Cohort in 2012/13 and thereafter • Preponderance rubric to be used universally for UG degrees: 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. Classification Boundaries (1) • Limiting Examiners’ discretion in considering candidates close to a boundary for a higher class; • The ‘Two More Marks’ convention (i.e. CF 12.4.1.8) will not apply to • current Kent UG Stage 1 students, nor thereafter • Validated students entering UG stage 1 in 2012/13

  17. Classification Boundaries (2) CF 12.4.1.4: “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.

  18. 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.”

  19. 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

  20. 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 • Kent cohort entering stage 2 in 2012/13. • Validated cohort entering stage 1 in 2012/13

  21. 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?

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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;

  25. Further information • LTB40/2011: https://www.kent.ac.uk/uelt/quality/committees/ltb/papers/2011/ltb402011_classification.pdf • Guidance on Stage Weighting & Categorical Marking: http://www.kent.ac.uk/uelt/quality/guidance/changes_classification_ug.html • Guidance for Stage 1 Students http://www.kent.ac.uk/uelt/quality/guidance/classification_changes_stage1.html

More Related