Grading the Access to HE Diploma: a consultation paper

April 2007

Contents

• Introduction to the proposals
  • Background
  • Context
  • Reasons for introducing grading to the Access to HE Diploma
  • Principles for a system of grading for the Access to HE Diploma
  • Developing the proposals
  • Implementation timetable
• Proposals for grading the Access to HE Diploma
  • Introduction: the structure of the proposals
  • Section A: proposals which are common to both models
  • Section B: proposals for unit grading (grade profile)
  • Section C: proposals for portfolio grading
  • Glossary
• Consultation response form

PDF version

Introduction to the proposals

Background

The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) is responsible to the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) for the oversight of quality assurance of Access to Higher Education (HE) and for the provision of advice to government about Access to HE courses. The QAA Recognition Scheme for Access to HE¹ (the Recognition Scheme) describes the structures and mechanisms through which QAA exercises these responsibilities, including the licensing and review of authorised validating agencies (AVAs), the awarding bodies within the Recognition Scheme.

The 2003 White Paper, The Future of Higher Education², asked QAA to come forward with proposals for the development of Access to HE. In May 2004, having undertaken research among stakeholders, QAA published a report³ (the Development project report) on areas which were considered most in need of development, with seven key recommendations. One of these (Recommendation 6) highlighted the need for a standardised approach to the description of student achievement to assure equivalence of requirements made for the award of the Access to HE qualification. The recommendation made two specific proposals relating to an urgent need for a common system of credit for Access to HE. A third proposal suggested that ‘A national system of grading for the Access award should be developed for use on all QAA-recognised Access certificates, through which different levels of individual final achievement can be readily and reliably identified’.

The DfES response⁴ to QAA’s report welcomed the proposals and, in relation to Recommendation 6, asked QAA to ‘take this work forward, and in doing so, to explore a range of options for differentiating learner achievement, to consult relevant stakeholders on the way forward, and to be mindful of the need to maintain – within
a more coherent and consistent framework – appropriate levels of local flexibility in responding to learner needs’. Following a process of development and consultation, QAA addressed the proposals relating to credit and published new qualification specifications for the Access to HE Diploma (the Diploma specifications) in March 2006⁵, for full implementation by 2008-09.

The proposals made in this paper represent the outcome of further work to develop a common system of grading for the Access to HE Diploma.

Context

The Access to HE qualification

A particularly important part of the context for a grading system for Access to HE is the nature of the qualification and courses to which it is to be applied. The Access to HE Diploma is a Level 3⁶, credit-based award. The new Diploma specifications, currently being implemented, set parameters for grading the qualification which have not existed in the past. These parameters include certain requirements which will influence the structure of all Access to HE courses, the accumulation and award of credit, and credit requirements for the award of the Diploma. In particular, the specifications introduce a common credit requirement for the award of the Diploma on all Access to HE courses of 60 credits, with at least 45 to be achieved at Level 3.

From 2008-09, all Access to HE awards will be consistent with this common credit requirement. In addition, all Access to HE courses will be unitised, with each unit being specified as having a certain size (indicated by credit number) and being at a certain level. Students accumulate credits towards particular awards when they successfully complete the particular units which are specified in the rules of combination for the individual named award. Each Access to HE award is therefore defined by its rules of combination, approved at the point of validation. Requirements relating to procedures and processes for validation and moderation of Access to HE courses, and for the award of the Access to HE qualification, are stipulated in the Recognition Scheme.

The Diploma specifications and Recognition Scheme requirements provide the regulatory context for the operation of a grading system for Access to HE.

Good practice in assessment

The process of grading for Access to HE will also operate in a wider educational context which values assessment not only as a final judgement about achievement, but as a significant part of the total learning experience. Good practice in this area requires that any grades awarded are not provided in isolation, or as an alternative to other forms of feedback given to students: it is the totality of the assessment process which enables students to learn from the information provided about their performance, to build on their skills and understanding, and improve their achievement in response.

QAA’s approach to Access to HE

While the Diploma and grading specifications will bring greater consistency to the requirements for the award of the qualification, they were not designed to reduce the variety of curricular and programme structures among Access to HE courses. In presenting these proposals, QAA is conscious of the advice from the DfES to be ‘mindful of the need [for] appropriate levels of flexibility’ (see above, page 1). One of the major purposes - and challenges - of this development process has been to provide a scheme which can assure consistency of standards, while preserving the inherent flexibility of Access to HE and maintaining its ability to respond to changing circumstances and identified need. This led to a recurring theme in our deliberations during the development process: the question of the level of detail that QAA (as the central regulatory authority for Access to HE) as opposed to AVAs (as regionally-responsive awarding bodies) should determine. We envisage a grading system with clearly defined and common features, so that it can be operated consistently. At the same time, we consider that absolute requirements spelled out by QAA should be kept to a minimum, with guidance from QAA being broadly defined, rather than tightly prescribed. While more detailed regulatory requirements may be needed in particular areas to maintain academic standards, and this consultation may help to identify some of those requirements, it is QAA’s view that, wherever possible, decisions about the management of Access to HE provision and the quality assurance of courses are best made by those most directly involved in, and affected by, their development, delivery and outcomes.

Reasons for introducing grading to the Access to HE Diploma

The specific recommendation within the Development project report which led to the development of the present proposals was made because of concerns in four areas, which were identified in the report: students’ views, progression data, fair admissions developments and the credibility of the qualification.

Students’ views

The process of AVA review (1999-2004) involved discussions with former Access to HE students. Analysis of the records of these discussions showed that, when asked about their experiences on Access to HE courses, students commonly raised the subject of grading. Students who enthused about the course they had followed and the quality of teaching provided were often less satisfied about the ungraded Access to HE certificate that they were awarded. Many felt that a grade of some kind would have provided a useful addition to other kinds of feedback about their performance and felt it was unjust that the final award did not reflect evident differences in students’ effort and achievement. Some students also felt that the absence of grading contributed to an unwarranted sense of anxiety about whether they would be able to cope in HE because they had no measure against which to gauge their performance. By the same token, some felt that those students whose achievement was borderline needed to be aware of this in making choices about their futures.

Progression data

Our research looked at progression data and noted that few Access to HE students progressed to pre-1992 universities. This situation was also identified by the Schwartz Committee, which noted in its report⁷ that ‘71% mature entrants admitted on the basis of non-A level qualifications (eg Access and vocational qualifications)…were concentrated in some courses (such as nursing) or in some universities and colleges (typically in post-1992 institutions and colleges of [HE])’.

Of itself, this was not a cause for concern, if it reflected student choice or the greater suitability of provision in post-1992 institutions. However, QAA was concerned to note that the ‘conversion rate’ (ie the proportion of students who were offered places on HE courses out of the total that applied) was worse for Access to HE students than it was for other mature students. Discussions with HEIs indicated that the absence of a reliable means of identifying different levels of achievement, while not the sole cause, was a significant factor in some areas, and this was, in effect, acting as a barrier to progression for Access to HE students applying to certain courses
or institutions.

Fair admissions developments

Our research about the progression of Access to HE students coincided with a more general focus on the ways in which HE institutions (HEIs) selected and admitted students. In 2001, QAA published a section of its Code of practice on student recruitment and admissions⁸, with its emphasis on the need for transparent entry requirements and fair, clear and explicit admissions policies and procedures. The Schwartz Committee’s report also emphasised the importance of transparency for a fair admissions system.

In this context, the absence of a clear and common means for differentiation between Access to HE students was identified as a problem, particularly by selecting courses and institutions. This created a problem both in selecting students and in relation to developing and specifying fair admissions policies. While it was not uncommon for HEIs to indicate in their promotional literature that applications from Access to HE students were welcomed, those same institutions were unable to make clear statements about what individual students, applying to particular courses, might be expected to achieve in order to be considered eligible for a place if, in reality, students were being expected to demonstrate achievement beyond the threshold level signified by the award of the Access to HE certificate.

Those involved in HE admissions expressed their difficulty in ensuring equity, both when selecting between Access to HE applicants and when selecting between Access to HE applicants and applicants with other qualifications. Where the criteria for admission of other candidates were framed in terms of achievement beyond a threshold level, it was not possible to provide comparable criteria for Access to HE. Concern was also expressed about the need to use less reliable means for selecting Access to HE applicants and the implications for the fair treatment of all applicants in these circumstances. The difficulty of equitable treatment has been exacerbated with the increased availability of still more detailed information about other students’ achievement, such as grades achieved on individual A level units and modules and the use of additional tests of various kinds.

The credibility of the qualification

Partly in consequence of HEIs’ attempts to clarify their requirements, a situation developed which, in many respects, made the position much less clear for students and began to pose a threat to the credibility of the qualification.

HEIs that were familiar with the ways in which local Access to HE courses described student achievement sometimes specified requirements for all applicants which were based on those local practices. This resulted in offers requiring achievement of more credits than were available to some students or offers framed in terms of grades that were not used on all courses or which meant different things in different places. In a number of ways, demands were being made of students that they were unable to meet, not because they could not achieve at the standard required, but because the nature of the award did not fully represent the standard of their achievement.

Understandably, Access to HE practitioners were concerned that students should not be disadvantaged by this situation. In some places, ‘credit inflation’ resulted, with more credits being made available within programmes, in response to HEIs’ offers, although more credits did not necessarily indicate a higher level of achievement. This practice threatened to undermine the system of credit, and part of QAA's response has been to standardise the credit requirements of the new Access to HE Diploma. However, while this should clarify the position considerably, it will not address the need for differentiation which led to the situation. Indeed, with the move to a common credit target for all Access to HE courses, the need for a reliable alternative means of describing the standard of performance beyond the threshold is more evident. 

In response to offers based on grades where no grades were awarded, Access to HE practitioners sought to provide information to indicate that students had met HEIs’ requirements. In some cases, this amounted to suggestions to HEIs that students had met specific requirements, when the actual method for describing achievement on the course could not provide reliable information about differentiated achievement. Such informal descriptions of achievement were sometimes arrived at by uncertain means and were not necessarily subject to any process of verification.

This gap between the theory of an undifferentiated award and the practice of providing unreliable information about differentiated achievement, raised concerns about whether the qualification could be fit for purpose in providing reliable information about student achievement. On reviewing evidence from a wide range of sources and considering a number of alternatives, QAA concluded that a coherent, single grading system was the best way to address the situation, to protect the credibility of the qualification and extend the opportunities it offered to students.

Principles for a system of grading for the Access to HE Diploma

In taking forward work this work, a set of principles was established. It was agreed that a system of grading for the Access to HE Diploma should seek to provide:

• fairness - all Access to HE students should experience a system of grading which describes their level of achievement in the same way, and through which equivalent achievement is reflected by the award of the same grade(s)
• equity - students applying to HE should be confident that the grade(s) they are awarded will allow their application to be considered on the same terms as other Access to HE students’ applications. No student should be disadvantaged by the system of grading itself
• simplicity - The system of grading should be sufficiently straightforward in its operation and conception, such that users do not have difficulty in understanding how grades are arrived at or what a grade represents about a student’s level of achievement
• transparency - information should be clear and readily available about the criteria for the award of particular grades; how grades are derived; and what they signify about students’ achievements
• reliability and consistency - specific grades should have the same meaning and represent the same level of achievement on all programmes, across all AVAs. The reliability and consistency of standards and processes should be assured through standard and appropriate quality assurance mechanisms
• validity - the award of grades should be based on the application of sound assessment principles
• fitness for purpose - a system of grading should present useful information to students about the level of their achievement on the Access to HE course. It should also provide information of a nature and in a form that will inform sound decision-making and support equity of admissions to HE
• practicability - any system of grading should not be unreasonably burdensome or costly to administer
• acceptability to stakeholders - the needs of different groups of stakeholders should be taken into account in the design and operation of the grading system
• appropriateness - the design and operation of the grading system should take into account the flexible, variable and unitised nature of Access to HE courses and work with the specifications of the credit-based Access to HE Diploma.

Developing the proposals

Consistent with our usual practice and in wishing to ‘consult relevant stakeholders on the way forward’, as requested by the DfES (see Background, page 1, above), QAA has undertaken the development work with a group of stakeholders from a range of relevant backgrounds in further education (FE) and HE. Following the establishment of the principles, and in accordance with the request from the DfES, the development group considered ‘a range of options for differentiating learner achievement’ and explored a wide range of possible approaches. In spring 2006, six possible grading models were presented in outline, for discussion at a series of round-table events. Analysis of the outcome of these discussions enabled us to identify the two models which had most support and which appeared to have the greatest potential for providing an appropriate means of grading the Access to HE Diploma. It was agreed that these two models should be developed for further consultation, with revisions made in response to comments made during the round-table discussions.

The development group had no remit to select or put forward a preferred model: the direction of its work was provided by the outcomes of the round-table discussions, and the particular focus of this work was the development of two alternative, workable models which would elaborate the two approaches most favoured by participants in round-table discussions, maintaining a real choice for respondents to consider at this consultation stage.

The key reference points during this process were:

• the principles which had been agreed at the outset of the development process (see above, page 5)
• the likely impact of different models for students, providers, AVAs and HE admissions processes
• the group’s shared understanding and experience of the different types and structures of Access to HE courses
• approaches and lessons learned from the assessment regimes developed for other qualifications
• the findings of research on differentiated assessment, and
• centrally, the approach to assessment framed by the Access to HE credit and qualification specifications (see above, page 1).

During the development group’s discussions, much time and consideration was given to examining possible variants of each of the two models, and the applicability and practicability of each feature of the models for different course structures. It is not possible to do justice to the full extent of that debate here or to provide in any detail the many alternative possibilities and suggestions that were considered and the reasons why they were ultimately not pursued. There are a few occasions on which statements about what would not form a part of the model are provided, where there might otherwise be some uncertainty. But this paper does not attempt to provide a full description of operational procedures associated with each model or to detail how they would be applied in particular circumstances. Rather, the proposals that follow are the conclusions of the development group’s debate, described as straightforwardly as possible, though with sufficient information to allow others to consider how the models would work in their own circumstances. The intention of this approach is to enable different stakeholders who will be involved in using the grading system to assess the likely operational impact of each model and to provide feedback on any potential difficulties they might identify, so that these can be addressed before the more detailed final specifications are developed.

The proposals developed by the group were put to a meeting of a sounding board -
a larger number of individuals from AVAs, FE providers, HE receivers and other stakeholders, who had participated in the round-table discussions. In response to the sounding board’s comments, further amendments were then made to the proposals and their presentation in this document.

Implementation timetable

The consultation outcomes will provide the basis for the next stage of development, both in terms of identifying a single model for detailed specification and highlighting areas for further refinement. Following analysis of the consultation outcomes and a decision about which model will be taken forward, the next stage will be a process of testing during 2007-08. The following year (2008-09), the outcomes of the testing process will be assessed, amendments to the grading specifications made and operational guidance and related documentation developed. It is anticipated that full implementation will take place in 2009-10.

The provisional implementation schedule is outlined below. Some of the activities listed within particular years are likely to take place simultaneously, rather than sequentially.

Summer 2006-07

• Analysis of consultation outcomes.
• Grading model to be adopted identified.
• Preliminary discussions with AVAs to plan testing.
• Outline operational description prepared for tests.
• Specification for tests of the identified models confirmed.
• Preparation and staff development for participants in tests.

2007-08

• Tests carried out in relation to the identified model.
• AVAs’ current assessment regulations surveyed and set of common regulations in key areas developed.
• Details of grading model refined in response to outcomes of tests.
• Guidance and standard documentation for AVAs and providers developed.
• Full operational details of grading model and assessment regulations published.

2008-09

• Good practice guide developed for use in HE admissions, providing information about the Access to HE Diploma and guidance about the uses of the grading system in making appropriate offers.
• HE admissions staff informed about grading on the Access to HE Diploma.
• AVAs work with providers to prepare for implementation of grading.
• Amendments made to AVAs’ assessment regulations and other quality assurance mechanisms, as necessary, to prepare for full implementation
  of grading.
• Development of QAA’s processes for monitoring AVAs’ application of grading.

2009-10

• Full implementation of grading on all Access to HE courses. 
• Graded Access to HE Diploma awarded to students.

2010

• Access to HE students enter HE with graded Access to HE Diplomas.
  

Proposals for grading the Access to HE Diploma

Introduction: the structure of the proposals

This consultation document presents two alternative models for grading achievement on the Access to HE Diploma.

• Section A outlines proposals which are common to both models.
• Section B describes proposals for the first option: unit grading. Unit grading involves determining a series of grades for achievement on different parts of the course.
• Section C describes proposals for the second option: portfolio grading. Portfolio grading involves determining a single, overall grade which represents a summation of the student’s performance across the course.

Information about how to respond to the consultation is provided with the consultation response form (see page 23, below).

Section A: proposals which are common to both models

1 A common grading system

All QAA-recognised Access to HE courses will make use of grades according to a common set of grading specifications, and grades will be recorded in the same way for all Access to HE Diplomas.

Details of the grading system will be published by QAA, and will form a discrete section within the regulatory documentation of The QAA Recognition Scheme for Access to HE.

2 The grading scale

A common set of three grades: 'pass', 'merit' and 'distinction', provides the essential structure of the grading scheme. This structure is familiar and widely used in FE, HE and adult education and is sufficiently broad to overcome the difficulties associated with categorising assignments by a percentage or other numerical scale.

Performance cannot be formally recognised, and grades cannot be awarded, outside the three specified grades. Thus, further intermediary grades cannot be added
(eg 'merit plus'); and a distinction grade is the highest that can be awarded
(ie exceptional performance on a Level 3 unit cannot lead to the award of credits at Level 4). No other system of grading is used to record performance on the Diploma.

The grades have no percentage or other numerical equivalent: the grades cannot be represented as, or derived from, percentages or other numerical scales, as there is no reliable method, appropriate for all course structures, which could be consistently applied to assure common outcomes across all Access to HE provision.

3 Academic standards

The grades signify a range of identified academic performance within Level 3 (as currently defined by the NICATS⁹ level descriptors). Any changes which may be made to the Level 3 descriptor, and which are adopted for other Level 3 qualifications in England and Wales, will also be adopted for Access to HE.

In moving from the ungraded to the graded qualification, there will be no change in the minimum standard of performance required for the award of the Access to HE qualification. The award of a ‘pass’ grade indicates the same academic standard as the current minimum, or threshold, standard of performance required for the award of the Access to HE certificate (ie HE progression standard).

The award of ‘merit’ and ‘distinction’ grades allows higher standards of performance on the Diploma to be formally recognised and recorded, according to common definitions of those grades.

4 Grade descriptors

The three grades are defined by a common set of generic grade descriptors. The actual grade descriptors for Access to HE will be developed once the number and type of grades to be used and the model for grading has been agreed, to ensure that they are appropriate to the model to be adopted.

The descriptors provide the key reference point for all grading decisions and can be applied to achievement on all Access to HE courses. Generic grade descriptors are not designed to be matched to the detailed requirements of the assessment task, but are sufficiently broad to be applicable for any subject and activity designed for assessment at Level 3. The same set of grade descriptors can therefore be applied to assessment decisions whenever a grading judgement has to be made for work submitted to meet Level 3 learning outcomes, whatever the course; whatever the subject or particular assessment topic; and whatever the nature of the assessment activity. They can be used to identify the standard of a student’s performance, in relation to achievement on individual assignments, units, modules or courses, within the broad band of performance covered by Level 3.

Grade descriptors are distinct from level descriptors, learning outcomes and assessment criteria. All of these terms have particular meanings within the Diploma specifications and are used in relation to particular functions within the validation and assessment processes for Access to HE courses (see Glossary). Grade descriptors do not affect the nature of the intended outcomes of the planned learning activity or the scope or style of the teaching input or assessment task, except insofar as it must be possible for learners to demonstrate a standard of performance that exceeds a minimum standard of performance. All Level 3 units on Access to HE courses, including the learning outcomes and assessment criteria, will have been referenced to the Level 3 descriptor, as part of the unit/programme validation procedure. As a result, the detailed requirements for the achievement of each unit at the threshold level are all clearly specified.

Grade descriptors comprise a series of statements which, taken together, provide a description of a typical standard of performance for each grade within the level. Each grade is defined by several statements, in the same way as each level descriptor is made up of several statements.

The nature of the judgement made for the award of grades supplements the judgement made for the award of credit. Whereas the latter judgement involves identifying whether all the learning outcomes have been met at the required level, as specified by the assessment criteria, the grading judgement involves identifying which of the grade descriptors most closely describes the standard of performance in the particular evidence of achievement. It is not necessary for all parts of the descriptor to be identified in the evidence for the grade to be awarded, as a professional judgement is made on the basis of a ‘best fit’ evaluation about which of the grade descriptors most accurately describes the evidence. The statements are ‘descriptors’ rather than ‘criteria’: they do not necessarily all have to be satisfied on all occasions. Additionally, not all of the individual statements within a grade descriptor are necessarily applicable for all circumstances or assessment activities.

Further discussion with stakeholders will take place about the wording of the actual grade descriptors before the descriptors are confirmed. However, for illustrative purposes, a possible way of approaching the development of generic grade descriptors is given below. This approach involves taking the separate statements of the Level 3 descriptor and providing equivalent statements to indicate differentiated performance within that level.

A possible approach

The current NICATS Level 3 descriptor states that learning accredited at this level will reflect the ability to:

i  ‘apply knowledge and skills in a range of complex activities demonstrating comprehension of relevant theories

ii  access and analyse information independently and make reasoned judgements, selecting from a considerable choice of procedures, in familiar and unfamiliar contexts, and

iii direct own activities, with some responsibility for the output of others’.

This level descriptor underscores all statements about a minimum required standard of performance on Access to HE courses, and would have informed the learning outcomes and assessment criteria for each unit. In this way, a student who meets all of the assessment criteria achieves the credit on the unit or ‘passes’ the unit.

The three constituent elements of the descriptor could provide the basis of the grade descriptors, with the individual elements expressed in the level descriptor acting as the grade descriptor for the ‘pass’ grade. Those individual statements would have equivalent statements written for ‘merit’ and ‘distinction’ grades.

5 Student achievement to be graded

The Diploma specifications explain that the award of the Diploma is made on the basis of the accumulation of credit; that 60 credits are required for the award of the Diploma; and that 45 of those credits must be achieved at Level 3, with the remaining 15 credits to be achieved at least at Level 2. The material to be graded is that which provides the evidence of achievement for the award of the 45 Level 3 credits.

Each named Access to HE award is defined by its rules of combination, which identify the required achievement, in terms of the combination of particular units (including any allowable alternative or optional units) from which credit must be achieved, at particular levels, for the award of the Diploma. Units on Access to HE programmes may be at Level 2 or Level 3 and all unit specifications stipulate a particular level for the unit. The rules of combination for any individual award specify the particular units which must be achieved to gain the 45 credits at Level 3 required for the award of the Diploma. While it might be possible for the remaining 15 to be achieved at Level 3 or Level 2 (if appropriate learning outcomes and assessment criteria have been written at both levels), the units from which credit awarded at Level 3 is required for the award of the Diploma are stipulated in the rules of combination.

Although Level 2 units are not graded, they are a valued and necessary part of the course: successful completion of these units is necessary for the Diploma to be awarded, and achievement of Level 2 units, as for Level 3 units, is recorded on the credit transcript.

The focus on Level 3 achievement will provide grading outcomes which relate to the same level as the level of the qualification. It will also ensure that grades are awarded on the basis of consideration of evidence of achievement on units of a consistent level and will avoid the likely confusion of applying grades with the same (or different) names at different levels, with the need for the development and application of a different set of grade descriptors.  

In some circumstances, parallel units at Level 2 may be offered, to allow students who do not achieve at Level 3 to be awarded credit at a lower level. This practice is permissible only where the two units have been separately defined and the assessment criteria at Level 2 and at Level 3 are clear and distinct.

Accreditation of prior learning

Only on-course evidence of achievement (ie the material that has been prepared for assessment on the Access to HE course on which a student is studying) is considered for the purpose of deriving a grade/grades. Where the accreditation of prior learning (APL) leads to credit being remitted for any Level 3 units, the number of credits to be achieved on the Access to HE course is reduced proportionately, and fewer on-course units are completed by students achieving the Diploma in this way. In these circumstances, Access to HE grades are based on a smaller volume of material and the standard of the student’s performance in the areas for which credit has been remitted is indicated by the assessment outcomes of the original award or other outcome. No attempt is made to provide an ‘Access to HE grade’ for material which has not been completed on the Access to HE course itself.

6 Assessment and moderation

Requirements relating to the purpose, process and protocols of assessment, including grading, are made clear to all students at the outset of the course.

Common practice in certain aspects of assessment and moderation is important for ensuring equivalence of graded outcomes. Common assessment regulations and guidance for the award of grades (relating, for example, to regulations about resubmissions and procedures for dealing with special cases and mitigating circumstances) will therefore be developed. The development will take place following a survey of current AVA practice.

The award of grades is subject to internal and external moderation processes. While there are some differences between the two models, moderation of grades takes place at the same time as moderation for the award of credit. External moderation is conducted in accordance with the AVA’s quality assurance procedures. Moderation is managed by the AVA, and monitored through QAA’s procedures for monitoring and review of AVAs.

Standardisation within and between AVAs is also necessary. This is an area for further discussion and development with the AVAs.

Section B: proposals for unit grading (grade profile)

7 Grades and credits

Unit grading involves the award of a grade for each unit, in addition to the award of credit. Each unit of an Access to HE course is defined by a set of learning outcomes and assessment criteria. The assessment criteria indicate the characteristics that need to be manifested in the evidence of achievement (eg the student’s assignment, presentation, essay or other material submitted for assessment) in order to demonstrate that the particular learning outcomes for the unit have been achieved. The level of each unit must also be stipulated and, when units are validated, the appropriateness of learning outcomes and assessment criteria for that level are confirmed. When the evidence of achievement has been assessed and it has been confirmed that the assessment criteria have been met, credit can be awarded. In this way, the assessment criteria provide a definition of a required minimum performance for the unit, for the purposes of the award of credit, but do not differentiate between the minimum and higher standards of performance.

The evidence of achievement for each unit is graded. (Credits, as a product – rather than the subject - of the assessment process, are not graded.) The total number of grades awarded will depend on the number of units in a course, but units vary in size, within and between different courses. Therefore, the number of credits for the achievement of the Access to HE Diploma is constant (60 credits with a minimum of 45 at Level 3): the number of grades awarded, while based on the same volume of learning, is variable.

8 Grades for units

Grades are awarded for achievement on all units where credit is awarded at Level 3. Achievement on units for which credit is awarded at Level 2 is not graded.

A grade is awarded on the basis of the standard of performance demonstrated in the material submitted for assessment of a particular unit. Grades distinguish between assessed work at the threshold standard, and that which demonstrates a standard of performance above the threshold. Decisions about the grade to be awarded for each unit -'pass', 'merit' or 'distinction' - are made on the basis of the standard of performance on the unit as a whole, with reference to the generic grade descriptors (see Grade descriptors, above, page 11).

The assessment criteria for the unit operate, in effect, as the ‘pass’ grade descriptor for unit grading, because these provide a statement of the minimum required standard of performance at the prescribed level. That is to say, if the assessment criteria for the unit have been met, no more is required for the award of a 'pass' grade for that unit.

For each unit, the grade is awarded on the basis of one, or more than one, assessed piece of work, according to the particular requirements for the unit. (In the case of integrated units, evidence may be derived from parts of a number of pieces.) Where a unit requires the submission of a number of separate pieces for assessment over a period of time, feedback is given to students before the final grade is confirmed. While feedback will make use of the same broad grades, the provisional status of any such formative grades will be made clear.

Where the submission of more than one piece is required for the assessment of the unit, a single, overall grade for the unit is determined by consideration of the achievement across the whole unit. The general principle to be applied is that the grade awarded should reflect the standard of performance demonstrated in the majority of the assessed material. The way this would be applied in practice is outlined below.

Where the standard of performance is even across several pieces submitted for a single unit, the appropriate grade is awarded.

Where the standard of performance is uneven across the constituent assessed pieces, the weighting of different assessed elements of the unit needs to be considered to determine an appropriate grade.

a  Where constituent elements play an equal role in the assessment of the unit, and are therefore deemed to be equally weighted, the grade awarded for the unit is determined according to the highest performance demonstrated on
50 per cent or more of the evidence of achievement for the unit. In such circumstances, with equally weighted constituent elements, the expectation
is that this would operate in the following way:

i  a unit which is assessed on the basis of two, equally weighted, separate pieces where performance on one is at ‘pass’ and performance on the other is at ‘merit’: a ’merit’ is awarded

ii  a unit which is assessed on the basis of three equally weighted separate pieces:

• two pieces with performance at ‘distinction’ standard and one at ‘merit’: a ‘distinction’ grade is awarded
• one piece with performance at ‘pass’; one at ‘merit’; and one at ‘distinction’: a ‘merit’ grade is awarded
• two pieces with performance at ‘pass’; one at ‘distinction’: a ‘pass’ grade is awarded.

b Where the weighting of the constituent elements is not equal and performance is uneven, the same essential principle will be applied in a way which pays due regard to the different weightings. The possible variations within this category are too numerous for exact prescription to be made centrally for all circumstances, and it would not be not consistent with the QAA’s role in this area to force an inflexible model of curriculum development on programmes.
It will be a function of external moderation to confirm that the general principle is being applied equitably.

9 Recording grades

Grades are provisionally awarded by tutors and subsequently confirmed through a process of internal and external moderation. Information provided to students makes it clear that, while the grades assigned by tutors are recommendations to moderators for final grades, the moderation process could lead to grades being revised.

The individual grades awarded for each Level 3 unit are recorded on a ‘grade profile’. The profile is a feature of the transcript provided by the AVA to accompany the Diploma, which also shows the name, number and level of credits awarded for each unit.

No overall grade is provided because the calculation of a single grade would not be valid or meaningful, given the variation of unit numbers and sizes and their different contributions to different Access to HE awards. Comparisons of overall grades based on such calculations could be misleading in making judgements about different students’ standards of performance. The use of a single grade based on an aggregation of unit grades would therefore have no legitimacy within the QAA Recognition Scheme.

10  Uses of grade profiles

The grade profile provides detailed information about student performance by presenting the grades which have been awarded for all Level 3 units. Units may vary in size (credit volume), so each grade does not necessarily relate to equivalent blocks of study. The profile itself indicates no judgements about the relative importance of the different grades (or of the different units on which they were awarded). Taken together, however, this information might indicate the pattern of the student’s academic development and strengths and weaknesses at different points of the course and in different areas of study.

The profile is not confirmed or made available until moderation has taken place and awards have been made. Access to HE students applying to HE provide a list of all units included in the rules of combination of the award for which they are studying, so that offers can be made with reference to this information (eg offers might require a specified proportion of units to be achieved at a certain grade; or specific grades for particular group of units).

Some students may make their applications to HE post-qualification, in which case, information about achievement on all units will be available. More typically, students on courses who make their applications at the usual date will have completed some units, but while provisional grades may have been indicated, it is unlikely that any grades will have been confirmed through moderation. While information about performance on units completed at the date of application might be included in personal statements or references, it will need to be made clear that these are not final grades. It is also unlikely that reliable predicted grades could be provided at this stage.

Section C: proposals for portfolio grading

11  Portfolios and holistic assessment

A single grade is awarded, based on a review and final assessment of a portfolio of evidence of achievement accumulated throughout the course. The grade represents a holistic summation of the standard of performance achieved by the student over all stages of the course, as demonstrated by the portfolio as a whole. The ‘portfolio’ refers, in this context, to the accumulated evidence of achievement, rather than any particular required format for the presentation of that evidence.

The single portfolio grade awarded may be ‘pass’, ‘merit’ or ‘distinction’. Decisions about the grade to be awarded are made with reference to the common grade descriptors. The grade appears in a separate section of the document which provides the credit transcript awarded with the Diploma.

12  The content of the portfolio

All evidence of achievement must be available for moderation, for the award of credit, and thus the award of the Diploma, to be confirmed. This material is gathered together and presented at the end of the course. The ‘portfolio’ which is the basis of the grade is a sub-set of this material. As such, the submission of a portfolio for grading is mandatory, but the demands on students that are additional to the requirements for the award of credit are minimal. (Standard procedures will make accommodation for exceptional circumstances.)

The portfolio for grading includes all assessed assignments which have been submitted on the course for the award of the 45 Level credits at Level 3 specified in the rules of combination for the award of the Diploma (see Student achievement to be graded, page 17, above). Where options are available and students achieve more than the required 45 credits Level 3 credits as a result, there may be some element of choice in the selection of pieces to be included in the portfolio. Any choices will continue to reflect the structure of requirements provided by the rules of combination.

Students accumulate the material for their portfolios throughout the different stages of the course, so portfolios will include material from all units and areas of the course assessed at Level 3. This will naturally include material assessed by a range of appropriate assessment methods, as such matters will have been considered in the approval of the rules of combination at the point of validation.

13  The assessment of portfolios

Formative assessment relating to the standard of performance is undertaken throughout the course, at the same time as assessment for the award of credit. Judgements relating to the standard of performance across the course as a whole, leading to the award of a single grade, are made at the end of the course.

Feedback during the course

The feedback which is provided to students on the completion of each unit includes both information about whether the assessment criteria have been met (and thus whether credits can be awarded), and qualitative feedback about the standard of performance.

Feedback about the standard of performance on particular assignments or units highlights features of the student’s performance which are characteristic of particular grades, and includes reference to the individual statements that comprise the generic grade descriptors. Such feedback does not attempt to ascribe a definitive grade to each assignment or unit and may highlight features in the student’s work which are characteristic of more than one grade. Feedback is documented by course tutors through the use of standard unit or assignment feedback sheets, or other formal mechanisms used on the course for comments on student performance. By receiving regular qualitative feedback of this kind, which indicates particular areas of strength and weakness of their performance through illustration from within their own work, students develop awareness of how their standard of performance relates to the specific requirements for different grades and are thereby advised about the specific areas in which they may need to improve their performance to achieve a higher grade.

Any use of the ‘pass’, ‘merit’ and ‘distinction’ grades within feedback is no more than an indication of the standard of performance in relation to particular features of that piece of work. Providers ensure that students are informed about the status of
such feedback.

Arriving at a final grade

The portfolio is submitted after internal moderation for the award of credit has been completed. Decisions relating to the award of credit are not revisited and are not subject to amendment.

The assessed evidence of achievement at Level 3 (or ‘portfolio’) provides the basis for the portfolio grade. The grade for the portfolio is based entirely on the standard of performance demonstrated in the portfolio. Guidance on the presentation of the portfolio is given by the provider and is appropriate for the assessment requirements of the particular course. Matters of presentation do not make unreasonable demands on students and are not included in criteria for the grade to be awarded.

When the whole portfolio has been submitted, a nominated member of staff reviews the portfolio, including evidence of achievement with tutors’ feedback, and recommends a provisional grade. It is anticipated that the nominated member of staff (the portfolio assessor) will have been involved in monitoring the student’s academic progress throughout the course, so much of the material in the portfolio will already be familiar. While the student’s work is the primary evidence for the provisional recommendation, the course tutors’ commentaries recorded on the feedback sheets provide useful secondary evidence to assist staff in making judgements about appropriate grades to be recommended for students’ performance across the course as a whole. The provisional recommendation can, in this way, take full account of a student’s performance in curriculum areas which are outside the portfolio assessor’s particular area of expertise. This review of the portfolio includes sampling (rather than rereading in its entirety) the primary evidence. All provisional recommended grade are formally recorded. External moderation follows standard AVA procedures.

Those involved in the assessment of students on the course meet to consider the provisional recommendations and recommendations for grades are confirmed. Grades are awarded by the AVA at the same time as Diplomas are awarded.

A student who submits a portfolio but who has not met the credit requirements for the award of the Diploma is not eligible for the award of a Diploma, and any such portfolios will not be considered for the award of a grade. In these circumstances, credits achieved will be awarded to students, in accordance with the Diploma specifications.

Glossary

Access to HE Diploma (the Diploma)	The name of the new Access to HE qualification which is being phased in to replace the Access to HE certificate. (See Diploma specifications below.)
AVA	Authorised validating agency. The AVAs, which are partnership bodies including HEIs and FECs, hold licences awarded by QAA to act as awarding bodies for the Access to HE Diploma. There are 15 AVAs in England and Wales.
Assessment criteria	Assessment criteria provide descriptions of the specific achievement which must be demonstrated by a student to show that a learning outcome has been achieved.
Diploma	See Access to HE Diploma, above
Diploma specifications	Access to HE qualification and credit specifications,. March 2006 (www.qaa.ac.uk/access/creditspecificationsdraft06/)
Grade descriptors	A series of statements which describes typical performance at a particular grade.
Learning outcomes	Statements of what a learner may reasonably be expected to know, understand and/or do as a result of undertaking a particular process of learning.
Level descriptors	The broad, generic outcomes of study at a specific level. Level descriptors indicate the relative demand, complexity, depth of study and learner autonomy, and are used to identify an appropriate level for the subject of study and appropriate assessment activities.
NICATS	Northern Ireland Credit Accumulation and Transfer System. The full set of NICATS level descriptors are available at http://nicats.ac.uk/about/prn_tlevl_descriptors.pdf
QAA	The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education
The Recognition Scheme	The QAA Recognition Scheme for Access to HE. The Recognition Scheme details the structures and processes of the framework for the recognition of Access to HE courses in England and Wales (www.qaa.ac.uk/access/recognition05/).
Rules of combination	Rules of combination define the required achievement for individual Access to HE awards, in terms of the particular set of approved named units (both mandatory and optional) which are approved for that award. Information includes unit titles, and their credit value and level.

Grading the Access to HE Diploma: consultation response form

Response form - MS Word | PDF version

Responses may be completed and returned by email attachment to: access@qaa.ac.uk

or by post to:
Access to HE consultation
The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education
Southgate House
Southgate Street
Gloucester
GL1 1UB

Please return all responses by Monday 2 July 2007.

¹ The QAA Recognition Scheme for Access to HE (www.qaa.ac.uk/access/) (back to text)

² The Future Of Higher Education, White paper, 2003 (www.dfes.gov.uk/hegateway/strategy/hestrategy/) (back to text)

³ Access to HE Development Project Report, QAA, May 2004 (www.qaa.ac.uk/access/developmentproject/) (back to text)

⁴ Access to HE Development Project Report (Annex 1), QAA, May 2004 (www.qaa.ac.uk/access/developmentproject/) (back to text)

⁵ Access to HE qualification and credit specifications, QAA, March 2006 (www.qaa.ac.uk/access/creditspecificationsdraft06/) (back to text)

⁶ As currently defined by the Northern Ireland Credit Accumulation and Transfer System (http://nicats.ac.uk/about/) (back to text)

⁷ Fair admissions to higher education: recommendations for good practice, Admissions to Higher Education Steering Group, September 2004
(www.admissions-review.org.uk) (back to text)

⁸ Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education, Section 10: Recruitment and admissions, QAA, 2001 (this document was revised in 2006 and is available at www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/codeOfPractice/section10/) (back to text)

⁹ Northern Ireland Credit Accumulation and Transfer System (http://nicats.ac.uk/about/) (back to text)