������ϲʹ�������

The profile of undergraduate degree outcomes at ������ϲʹ������� over a five-year period up to the academic year 2022/23 is given in table 1. The proportion of 1st and 2:1 degrees combined (hereafter referred to as good degrees) has increased year on year up until 2020/21, with a significant decrease for 2021/22, and a further decrease in 2022/23. The decrease in 2022/23 is driven by a decline in the proportion of 2:1 degrees awarded (-5% since last year), with the proportion of first class degrees remaining stable.�� The proportion of 2:2 degrees has increased by 2% since 2021/22, with third class degrees increasing by 3%.��

Table 1. Undergraduate degree outcome profile for ������ϲʹ������� 2019 – 2023

Figure 1. Distribution of undergraduate degree outcomes for ������ϲʹ������� 2019 – 2023

The proportion of different degree classifications by subjects (This is an internal classification of subjects at ������ϲʹ�������, based on the subject area of the degree course.) at ������ϲʹ�������, for 2022/23, is given in Figure 2.�� There is some variation in degree class between subjects, with the proportion of first class awards ranging from 63% for Welsh & Celtic Studies, to 22% for Medical Sciences.�� The proportion of 2:1 degrees ranges from 56% for Social Sciences, to 20% for Electronic Engineering.��

The proportion of 2:2 awarded is highest in Medical Sciences (35%), and Education (non-ITE) (32%), and lowest in Computer Science.�� Third class degrees are highest in Health Sciences (HEIW) (16%) and Health Sciences (non-HEIW) (14%).�� The range across all subjects for the proportion of 2:2 and 3rd Class degrees awarded is 0% - 35% and 0% - 16%, respectively.

The range of good degrees awarded also varies, with one subject awarding 100% (Welsh & Celtic Studies), and two subjects awarding 90% and above: Law, and Philosophy & Religion. Figure 2 indicates that some smaller cohorts of students tend to achieve higher proportions of good degrees, this issue will be look examined further as a result of this data.�� The proportion of good degrees awarded is below the University average of 72% in ten subjects: Health Sciences (non-HEIW), Electronic Engineering, Sport Health & Exercise Sciences, Biology, Music Drama & Performance, English Literature Film & Culture, Education (non-ITE), Business, Health Sciences (HEIW), and Medical Sciences.��

There is a range of 45% between the highest, and lowest, proportion of good degrees awarded across subjects at ������ϲʹ�������.

Figure 2. Distribution of undergraduate degree outcomes for ������ϲʹ������� 2023, by subject

The University reviews its degree outcomes annually to identify any unexpected trends reflecting the requirements of the

��

The University is committed to the targets set out in our Access and Participation Plan including its commitment to provide academic and welfare support to ensure the retention and outcomes of underrepresented groups are comparable to the wider population of students.

As part of this commitment, the University has begun to analyse awarding gaps for students with a range of demographic characteristics. Data in Table 2 relate to all undergraduate students, including international students, with the exception of low participation, which is a UK-specific measure and widening access, which relates to Welsh-domiciled students only.

Gender

Across the review period, female�� (Based on the sex of the student. HESA provide an “Other” category, but insufficient numbers mean we cannot report on data outside the binary definitions of “Female” and “Male” at present) students have generally attained a higher proportion of good degrees than males, with the gap at its widest in 2019 (+6.8%).�� Figure 3 demonstrates that the gap has narrowed thereafter, but female attainment remains higher (+3.0% in 2023).�� The is the only underrepresented group that achieves a positive attainment gap.

Figure 3. 1^st/2:1 degrees awarded by gender: 5 year trend ��

��

Age

There are significant and consistent differences in proportions of good degrees awarded by age, as highlighted by Figure 4, with young students consistently achieving higher levels of attainment than their mature counterparts.�� The attainment gap had narrowed in recent years, but has widened in 2023 (from -5.9% in 2022, to -9.5% in 2022/23).�� The data identify achievement by mature students as a particularly necessary area of focus for the University moving forward.

Figure 4. 1^st/2:1 degrees awarded by age: 5 year trend��

��

Disability

The attainment gap between students with and without a disability has generally been narrower than other groups reported, however Figure 5 shows that, in 2023, the proportion of good degrees awarded to disabled students is higher (+3.3%) than non-disabled students for the first time over the reporting period. Although this is a significant reduction in the gap, from -2.5% in 2019 (Table 2).����

Figure 5. 1^st/2:1 degrees awarded by disability status: 5 year trend��

��

Ethnicity

The disparity in degree attainment within ethnic groups is substantial (Table 2), with consistently lower levels of attainment over the reporting period.�� The proportion of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (The University is currently reviewing the use of BAME: Black and Minority Ethnic, as a reporting category, and is in the process of agreeing new and more appropriate terminology) students achieving a good degree is 10.9% below that of white students in 2023, a decline of 4% since 2022, and 8% below the University average.�� The data identify that eliminating this attainment gap is a particularly necessary area of focus for the University moving forward.

Figure 6. 1^st/2:1 degrees awarded by ethnic group: 5 year trend��

��

Participation

Students from low participation areas (Low Participation Neighbourhoods (LPN) are based on the POLAR 4 methodology, which identifies areas with traditionally low HE participation levels. LPNs are those areas in the bottom two quintiles of areas as defined by POLAR4.�� This only applies to young, full-time, UK domiciled students) generally have lower attainment levels than students from higher participations areas. The attainment gap remains substantial in 2023 (-6.7%), although this has narrowed since 2022 (-7.3%).�� Overall however, the attainment gap has worsened since 2019 (-3.3%).�� ����

Figure 7. 1^st/2:1 degrees awarded by widening participation measures: 5 year trend��

��

Widening Access

The proportion�� of good degrees awarded to students from areas of Wales classified as the most deprived�� (Students from Wales who are domiciled in the bottom two quintile in the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation are classified as living in the most deprived areas; those from the highest two quintiles are defined as from the least deprived ) is just below students from the least deprived areas of Wales in 2023.�� The attainment gap has narrowed substantially in 2023 (-1.1%), from -12.3% in 2021.�� It is positive to note these improvements, however the data shows that attainment of students from high deprivation areas of Wales have generally been lower over the reporting period, and therefore this is identified as a necessary area of focus for the University.

Figure 8. 1^st/2:1 degrees awarded by widening access measures: 5 year trend��

Table 2. Undergraduate degree profile, by student demographic groups

The University has in place a set of principles that governs its approach to assessment. These are set out in an Assessment Framework, produced in 2018, which was commended in the University’s Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) Enhancement Review Report (2018). The principles are wide-ranging, encompassing for example assessment design and detailed guidance on assessment weighting and equivalence.

The Assessment Framework is available to staff and students and is intended to ensure that staff and students share common expectations of assessment. The Assessment Framework outlines the expectation that assessment must incrementally reflect the level of study and deliver an appropriate degree of academic challenge to students. Those designing assessments are required to ensure that assessment genuinely measures students’ attainment of the relevant learning outcomes and provides students with the opportunity to demonstrate that attainment to the highest level possible.

All assessments must be mapped to at least one module learning outcome. These are linked to programme learning outcomes and reflect subject benchmark statements where available and Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body (PSRB) requirements where relevant. Programme and module learning outcomes are grouped according to the criteria set out in the QAA’s degree outcome classification descriptors including professional competencies where relevant. The linkages of module learning outcomes to programme learning outcomes and subject benchmark statements are made explicit on the programme specification, which is maintained centrally by the Quality Enhancement Unit. Assessment approach and mapping to learning outcomes are considered during module validation.

3.1.�� Marking, verification and Examination Boards

As set out in the University’s Regulations for Taught Programmes, an External Examiner must approve all questions used in examinations that count towards an award, in order to assess the appropriateness, relevance and level of questions according to their knowledge of sector norms.��

Students use marking criteria to understand what they are expected to achieve. The University uses subject-specific marking criteria that reflect the disciplinary and professional context of a programme. Module and assessment specific marking criteria are also made available to all students.

The University’s Regulations for Taught Programmes set out the process for the verification of marks and the purpose of this. Marks for all modules across the University are verified each time they are taught. Each School has procedures to deal with major differences between markers and verifiers and a statement of the verification processes used is agreed by the Board of studies and is considered when a School is Audited by the Quality Enhancement Unit. All Schools provide students with details of the verification procedures.

Marked copies of assessments are kept for the External Examiner, who will make a judgement on the appropriateness of marking practices, which they will report at External Examination Boards and in the written report that is submitted to the Quality Enhancement Unit, and which must be addressed by the school in its planning for the next academic year.��

The University uses Assessment Reports on the Quality of University Examinations (ARQUE) summaries as an additional mechanism to compare the marks awarded in different modules within and between years, and to compare the marks students achieve on each module with their performance in other modules. The system, which is maintained by Quality Enhancement Unit staff is primarily used to identify outlying modules at School Boards of Examiners’ Meetings, but also identifies potential differences in student performance by gender.�� The use of ARQUE is routinely praised by External Examiners, who report that it supports transparent and constructive discussions on marks across modules and assures them that marking is consistent and non-discriminatory.

3.2.�� External expertise

External expertise is utilized in the initial approval and validation of a degree programme and in annual quality assurance through the external examining process. Initial programme approval considers the assessment strategy in depth, using internal and external subject expertise in all cases. It ensures that teaching and assessment methods are aligned with sector-wide reference points such as , and discipline-specific . Programmes conferring professional recognition or Licence to Practise, such as Nursing or Social Work, must align with the standards of relevant (PSRBs). In these cases, the University supports PSRBs’ close involvement in validation panels and ongoing monitoring. The same procedure is used to approve programmes reviewed through the 5-6 year revalidation cycle.

In addition to approving examination questions and examining marked assessment, External Examiners are requested to provide an annual written report, and oral comments, to the Board of Examiners. The report provides assurance that the standards of assessment and student performance are comparable with the standards of comparable UK HEI courses and align with national frameworks. In the rare instances where External Examiners raise concerns, the Quality Enhancement Unit ensures that Schools address these in full and these cases and responses are considered by the University’s central Teaching and Learning decision-making body.

External Examiners reports are addressed through the University’s annual review process for all modules and programmes. These reviews are completed by module and programme leads and, in addition to External Examiner comments, must address comparative student performance as set out by the ARQUE data, and student feedback (from various sources including module evaluation) together with pedagogically informed self-reflection.

External Examiners are selected, approved and trained in accordance with QAA Guidance on External Expertise.

The University Council must ascertain that the University meets all standards set out in the Quality Assessment Framework for Wales. The Council is tasked with approving annual quality statements, which include assuring that: “The standards of awards for which we are responsible have been appropriately set and maintained”. An annual Quality Assurance Report helps satisfy the Council that the University continues to meet national expectations and regulatory requirements for degree standards.

As set out in the University’s Charter, Senate is the “academic authority” of the University, responsible for “academic work”. Senate is the ruling body on academic (but not managerial) matters and is responsible for all academic issues affecting the University.

The University Teaching and Learning Strategy Group is delegated by Senate to oversee the implementation of the Quality Assurance mechanisms set out above and considers issues relating to degree outcomes, student performance and degree classifications arising from ongoing internal and external review.

School Boards of Studies and Award Boards (that are sub-groups of Boards of Studies) are responsible for the quality of their awards and are subject to University regulations. Award Boards are attended by Quality Assurance officers in the year prior to Internal Quality Audits to verify that practices are being followed and External Examiners are also required to confirm that these Boards follow University regulations.

The Quality Enhancement Group, which is a sub-group of The University Teaching and Learning Strategy Group, considers annual Programme Level reviews. This group, chaired by the PVC for L&T, including College Directors of Teaching and Learning and Quality Assurance representation, reflects on issues raised, best practice, trends across the University, enhancement opportunities and training needs.

All taught programmes are revalidated on a cyclical 5-6 year basis, usually as part of a school-wide validation of taught programmes. Concerns regarding the quality of teaching and assessment may trigger a validation outside the usual cycle.

��

The University uses a single algorithm to determine degree classifications for Bachelor’s (Honours) Degrees. The calculation involves adding the overall percentage for year two modules to the overall percentage for year three modules with year the second average having double weighting: [L5 + (L6 x 2). For extended undergraduate degrees, the algorithm is [(0.4 x L6) + (0.6 x L7)], however, if approved at validation the year two (L5) modules may also be included as follows: [L5 + (2 x L6) + (3 x L7)]/6.

Enabling our students to achieve the very best degree that they can is at the heart of ������ϲʹ�������’s ethos and is set out in the University’s Teaching and Learning Strategy. A number of University-led enhancements to teaching and learning and student support have had an overall positive effect on degree outcomes at ������ϲʹ������� over the review period. These institutional-level actions dovetail with school and subject-level activities.

The University’s Centre for Enhancement in Learning and Teaching (CELT) has been a focus for innovation, enhancement and support in all aspects of teaching and learning.��

• CELT provides ongoing Continual Professional Development for academic staff across the University.
• CELT supports staff in achieving formal qualifications in higher education teaching via the Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education and HEA Fellowship Scheme. During the period covered by this statement, there has been an upward trend in the success rate of application by staff for HEA Fellowships.
• CELT staff have been at the forefront of enhancement projects for teaching and learning in the University. Key enhancement themes include student retention, curriculum design, assessment and feedback.
  • Work on assessment and feedback has resulted in ������ϲʹ�������’s metric scores for the NSS on this topic being above the sector benchmark during the review period.
  • Work on student retention has seen the University develop engagement dashboards, as part of continuing work to integrate learner analytics into academic and pastoral support for students.
  • As part of enhancement work on assessment and feedback, the University has overhauled its processes for students undertaking supplementary assessment.

������ϲʹ������� has been at the forefront of embedding the principle of co-production within curriculum design, validation and review.�� In addition, the University takes an evidence and data-led approach to decisions around curriculum design and review, utilizing a range of qualitative and quantitative datasets.

The University has adopted the use of lecture capture software as a tool to support student learning and has developed a ‘Panopto Policy’ to provide a guiding framework for its use.�� In addition. the University has continued to invest in teaching facilities (including laboratory and performance facilities), library services, social learning facilities and learning technology.

��

Key actions arising from the 2022/23 Degree Outcomes Statement are:

1. When the HESA data is available, benchmark our decrease in good degrees.
2. Irrespective of the above benchmarking, given the 45% difference in the proportion of good degrees across the Institution, review Schools’ “Degree Classification” action plans with a specific focus on the 10 subject areas below the University’s average to establish that:
   • the action plans are fit for purpose and actions being delivered.
   • degree classification profiles are being meaningfully considered as part of Annual Review Process.

�� �� �� �� �� �� This review and monitoring will take place through the Quality Assurance Delivery Group with reporting to the Education and Student Experience Committee.

3. Evaluate if there has been an improved focus and quality of the annual review of programmes through the Quality Assurance Delivery Group with reporting to the Education and Student Experience Committee.
4. Continue are work on decreasing awarding gaps with prioritisation of mature students, BAME students and students from high deprivation areas by:
   • ensuring that the transition to university is tailored to meet the needs of all students, for example, by making sure that students of all backgrounds are represented within the peer guide cohort and that all students have activities tailored to them within the induction process.
   • ensuring that assessments are inclusive and provide equitable challenge for all students, and to raise and encourage all students’ academic aspirations
   • embedding diversify and decolonise the curriculum to ensure all students see themselves as being represented within the university’s teaching and are introduced to a range of voices and perspectives.