Grade Point Average (GPA)

Transcription

1 Grade Point Average (GPA) Professor Philippa Levy 6 th June 2014

2 Outline GPA Reasons for considering GPA The GPA pilot Next steps 2

3 GPA Not new Representation of the standard achieved by a student during and at the end of their degree programme Associate a summative number to each module Calculate an average of these as a final summative grade Cumulative GPA can be calculated Common globally but much variation in detail of models Including how module grades from the different years of a degree are credit weighted to calculate a final GPA reflecting student performance in the latter stages of their degree, or performance throughout their degree 3

4 Honours Degree Classification - issues The cliff edge Lack of granularity Discretion and boundary treatments Different algorithms Exit velocity weightings Dropping credit Use of profiling (e.g. median) Use of year 1 modules Different marking practices across disciplines and institutions May not motivate students Lack of international understanding/comparability Note: use of GPA would only address some of these 4

5 HDC/GPA current history Reservations of fitness for purpose of Honours Degree Classification expressed in national reports e.g. Dearing Report into higher education (1997) Burgess Reports (2004, 2007, 2012) Group of interested universities (GIU) meet Leading to a proposed GPA model (2012) Oxford Brookes white paper introduces GPA in tandem with HDC (2012) December 2012 meeting of DBIS, HEA, UUK plus others to consider GPA model to replace/add to HDC HEA undertakes scoping work and plans a GPA programme of work ( ) To facilitate national debate about the potential use of GPA in UK higher education; GPA Advisory Group set up (September 2013) 5

6 GPA benefits, issues Perceived benefits Greater granularity and transparency Avoidance of cliff edge Greater student commitment Reduction of appeals Globally understood and international comparability Compatible with HE marking culture Possible issues Continuous pressure on students Possible grade pressure and inflation (mitigating factors in UK) Not yet understood in UK Doesn t solve all problems of HDC new cliff edge? Note: summative GPA complements rich picture HEAR 6

7 GIU proposed model Grade Standard Grade point UK current descriptor A+ Excellent 4.25 Top 1 st A Excellent 4.00 Good 1 st A- Excellent 3.75 Low 1 st B+ Good 3.50 High 2.i B Good 3.25 Mid 2.i B- Good/Satisfactory 3.00 Low 2.i C+ Satisfactory 2.75 High 2.ii C Satisfactory 2.50 Mid 2.ii C- Satisfactory 2.25 Low 2.ii D+ Adequate rd D Pass 1.00 Low 3 rd or pass D- Marginal Fail 0.50 Marginal Fail F Fail 0.00 Fail 7

8 GIU - comments US approach (broadly) of attributing grades/marks at module level for aggregation 13 point scale using F (0) to A+ (4.25) used Various GIU models tested on Nottingham and Birmingham student data As far as possible individual student achievement categories are maintained Results should not disadvantage UK students internationally Should have the ability to discriminate high achievement Leaves open the possibility of grade/numerical initial assessment of work in qualitative and quantitative disciplines Leaves open the possibility of exit velocity Applicability to taught PG programmes 8

9 The pilot - role of the HEA Co-ordinate a broad programme of information sharing Facilitate the GPA pilot Commission research to complement as appropriate Consult with students, employers and other groups 9

10 GPA pilot anticipated outcomes and outputs For the HE sector Recommended national GPA system that provides a consistent and transparent approach for key stakeholders Enhanced awareness and understanding of issues relating to its introduction and use, and associated resources For piloting institutions Informed decision making and planning in relation to full institutional implementation (alongside HDC) potentially from

11 Piloting institutions Bangor University - University of Birmingham - University of Edinburgh - Hull College - Kingston University - University of Leeds - University of Leicester - Northumbria University - City College Norwich - University of Nottingham - The Open University, Oxford Brookes University - Richmond, the American International University in London - University of Sheffield - University of Southampton - South West College (Northern Ireland) - University College London - University of the West of England - University of the West of Scotland - University of Winchester -York St John University 11

12 Pilot GPA model 12

13 Optional pilot model for quantitative subjects 13

14 Pilot - questions and issues (1) Pilots explore and report back on questions in these areas: Acceptability of proposed scale in relation to institutional provision and its robustness in comparison with current system Implications for marking practice in qualitative and quantitative subjects Preferred institutional approaches to progression weighting with GPA Operational issues relating to marking, moderation, exam boards, appeals and systems requirements for reporting of student results, and dual running of GPA alongside degree classification Issues arising that relate to institutional assessment policy and practice 14

15 GPA Pilot - questions and issues (2) Institutions able to look at the issues associated with conversion of current module grades/percentages to the GPA Institutions asked to model the use of the GPA scale retrospectively in comparison with degree classification system (use of cohort data) No prescribed approach to progression weighting - an opportunity to investigate issues relating to different approaches and potential for unified UK-wide approach 15

16 GPA -pilot process and support Institutional working groups of c5 people, incl. a student and/or student rep, senior manager, academic staff, others e.g. employer rep 4 HEA-facilitated meetings, attended by 2 working group members (one to be a student or student rep) 4 special interest groups established: proposed scale; regulations & procedures; implications for students; transfer of credit Online tools to facilitate support and exchange of learning Piloting institutions presenting updates and to provide a short report for July 2014, using templates and guidance; HEA to capture, synthesise and report on experiences and learning HEA to evaluate pilot and disseminate from autumn

17 Institutional reporting to date Working groups formed in HEIs involving academics, students, senior staff Some groups involving employers, wider groups of students in internal consultation (e.g. through focus groups) Minority of institutions are carrying out data modelling exercise only Approximately half are using the two GPA scales (for qualitative and quantitative subjects) Most institutions modelling using mirror approach, then additional approaches (e.g. straight average ) Need to carry out impact analysis (e.g. gender, disability) 17

18 Emerging issues Can GPA and HDC be expected to work in parallel? Should we recognise that GPA and the HDC measure different things If so, how do we explain and implement? Are there scales which lead to greater mirroring (i.e. cause less disturbance in comparison with the HDC)? Does the pilot scale generate GPAs that are internationally comparable? Should we use the introduction of GPAs to revise marking practices and scales? 18

19 Wider programme 32 higher education providers in a wider group shadowing pilot engagement with students - NUS employers : Association of Graduate Recruiters PSRBs Other special interest groups e.g. Academic Registrars Council 19

20 Next steps and future activity 30 May Institutional reports 18 June Fourth facilitation meeting Initial findings based on institutional reporting Student record systems Student perspectives September final facilitation meeting Report on outcomes of pilot Publication of report wider dissemination Supporting implementation Supporting further pilot 20

21 Follow up Further information, FAQs Contact Acknowledgments: Prof. Graham Curtis, Dr Erica Morris, Dr Geoff Stoakes 21