Degree outcomes statement

Degree Outcomes Statements are part of a sector wide commitment to protect the value and ongoing credibility of Higher Education qualifications. This statement therefore provides stakeholders with information about the way the university manages the academic standards of its awards and meets the Office for Students’ ongoing conditions of registration (B4 and B5). The statement compares outcomes over the past five years.

1. Institutional degree classification profile

The tables below summarise the good honours outcomes between 2017 and 2022. Across all groups there was an increase in the proportion of good honours in 2019/20 coinciding with the first year of the Covid 19 pandemic, but the overall level has now decreased and is currently lower than prior to the pandemic. While there has been a decrease overall, this has happened at differing rates for different student groups, for example, black, asian and minority ethnic (BAME) student outcomes peaked in 2019/20 and then reduced to pre-pandemic levels in 2020/21 while the attainment for white students has continued to be over 80% good honours. The awarding gap for BAME and disabled students has increased, with the latter being the highest it has been in the last five years in 2021/22.

Table 1: Good honours, overall summary

Academic Session	Overall
2017/18	75.1%
2018/19	72.5%
2019/20	78.8%
2020/21	76%
2021/22 (latest year)	70.6%

 

 

Table 2: Good honours, levels of disadvantage

Category	17/18	18/19	19/20	20/21	21/22	One-year Change	Five-year Change
POLAR Q1-2	71.1	70.8	76.5	74.5	69.9	-4.6	-1.2
POLAR Q3-5	76.1	73.8	77.6	78.5	72.7	-5.8	-3.4
GAP	5.0	-3.0	-1.1	-4.0	-2.8	1.2	-2.2

 

Table 3: Good honours, ethnicity

Category	17/18	18/19	19/20	20/21	21/22	One-year Change	Five-year Change
BAME	72.6	67.6	75.9	69.2	67.7	-1.5	-4.9
WHITE	78.8	80.5	83.7	84.0	81.1	-2.9	2.3
GAP	-6.2	-12.9	-7.8	-14.8	-13.4	-1.4	-7.2

 

Table 4: Good honours, age

Category	17/18	18/19	19/20	20/21	21/22	One-year Change	Five-year Change
Mature	71.5	68.6	76.5	68.5	69.0	0.5	-2.5
Young	76.5	74.1	79.8	78.2	71.2	-7.0	-5.3
GAP	-5.0	-5.5	-3.3	-9.7	-2.2	-7.5	2.8

 

Table 5: Good honours, disability

Category	17/18	18/19	19/20	20/21	21/22	One-year Change	Five-year Change
Disabled	69.8	70.9	79.4	74.5	61.6	-12.9	-8.2
No Known Disability	76.3	72.8	78.7	76.3	73.2	-3.1	-3.1
GAP	-6.5	-1.9	0.7	-1.8	-11.6	-9.8	-5.1

2. Assessment and marking practices

The standard of assessment is assured by ensuring it is conducted according to the relevant sector reference points, primarily the Sector-Recognised Standards; this is reflected in the university’s academic regulations. Where Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs) have additional requirements, these are approved centrally and held in faculty registers.
Marking consistency is supported by a university-wide Assessment and Feedback Policy, and mark descriptors which can be adapted to suit individual subject areas. Any changes must be proposed and approved by the Academic Quality Committee and, ultimately, the Academic Board. Academics who are new to teaching are supported by specific training and development offered through the Centre for Academic Innovation and Teaching Excellence (CAITE). 
Oversight of assessment rigour is supported by the recruitment of suitability qualified external examiners, using the criteria of the Quality Assurance Agency’s (QAA) guidance on External Expertise. Examiners undertake a complete induction programme to understand marking rubrics, academic regulations and degree algorithms. Inexperienced examiners are assigned a more experienced mentor. (Guide to External Examining)

 

3. Academic governance

Academic regulations are considered annually through the academic committee structure, with final approval resting with the Academic Board. The same regulations are used for both internal and collaborative provision and where there are any deviations from standard practice (usually because of Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body involvement) these are also approved through the committee structure and articulated in programme specific regulations.
The terms of reference and constitution of assessment boards are included within the academic regulations for taught programmes and a standard agenda is used for all boards. This agenda includes an item explicitly seeking confirmation that moderation has taken place in line with the university’s policy and regulations. If the appropriate internal and external moderation has not taken place, the results cannot be ratified until this has happened. The constitution of assessment boards includes a representative from the Directorate of Library and Student Services and this role is included in the requirement for quoracy. This role provides an independent viewpoint and is intended to ensure consistent interpretation and implementation of the regulations.

4. Classification algorithms

Since 2011-12 DMU has used the following formula for the classification of the honours degree:

• Best 105 credits of the 120 studied at level 5, single-weighted, and the:
• Best 105 credits of the 120 studies at level 6, triple-weighted.

If the outcome of the above classification calculation is within two per cent of the next classification band, then the consideration band rules will be applied. The algorithm is outlined in the academic regulations alongside worked examples to ensure that it is clearly understood by students and staff.

5. Teaching practices and learning resources

The university is undertaking a significant change programme, Education 2030, which is changing the way programmes are structured and delivered, including the move to block delivery starting with level 4 in 2022/23. Where block learning has been introduced in other HEIs, there is evidence that students attain better outcomes and Education 2030 should support all students to attain their best possible outcome.

6. Good practice and action

Inclusion and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) are the cornerstone of DMU’s approach to learning and teaching.

7. Risks and challenges

DMU is confident that it follows sector good practice in its quality assurance mechanisms, and that its collaborative partners are fully part of our quality processes. The Academic Board continues to monitor student outcomes.