Chronology - Ungraded Passes and Ungraded Fails July 2011: Board of Coursework Studies:

considered a revised University Policy on Ungraded Passes and Ungraded Fails raised concerns in that the policy, which excludes Ungraded Pass units in the

calculation of a Weighted Average Mark (WAM), may have significant implications for NC2012 and therefore referred the policy to the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Education), with a specific request to the Teaching and Learning Committee to consider strategies to include Ungraded Pass units in the calculation of WAM and GPA.

Sept 2011: Proposers of the language majors in the Bachelor of Arts expressed concerns about the impact of Ungraded Pass / Ungraded Fail policy on study abroad.

Proposers of the language majors met with the Chair (Board of Studies for the Bachelor of Arts) and the Senior Academic Reviewer and requested that a discussion paper be prepared which may propose a university-wide approach to study abroad issues.

Senior Academic Reviewer drafted a paper, which recommended the following, for consideration by the Board of Coursework Studies:

1. “The maximum number of points that may be credited towards the major or

majors of any student’s undergraduate course is 24 for each major – the equivalent of half the units that comprise it.

2. Other work completed overseas may be credited as complementary units and/or electives, and may satisfy some or all of the broadening requirements.

3. Students who wish to spend more than one semester overseas should not normally be permitted to do so in a way that prevents them from taking at least one and preferably two of the Level 3 units of their major at UWA.

4. As a general rule, results obtained overseas during approved study abroad/exchange programs should be recorded on a pass/fail basis only, and excluded from any calculations for postgraduate or Honours applications.

5. Where host universities are well known, and especially where exchange agreements are in place, the International Centre and discipline experts should explore the feasibility of either recognising the grades awarded (where appropriate) or creating conversion tables so that grades achieved abroad may be used within a WAM calculation at Level 3. If such tables are produced or updated, they should be presented to Academic Council on an annual basis.

6. If a proposed program of study abroad would mean that a student undertakes more than 50% of a major at Level 3 in units with an ungraded pass/fail schema, where no conversion table has been devised the student must receive advice from the International Centre and faculty advisers at or before the point of enrolment indicating any impact of their study choice upon their WAM calculation, and other relevant matters.”

Oct 2011: Teaching and Learning Committee considered a discussion paper entitled University

Policy on Ungraded Pass and Ungraded Fail Discussion paper and recommended to the Board of Coursework Studies that the following multi-step approach (option 5) be endorsed:

1. “With the exception of Study Abroad students, no more than 50% of the credit points available (a maximum of 24 CP/ 4 units) in a single major at Level 3 may be undertaken as units with a grading schema of “ungraded pass and ungraded fail”;

2. Normally, all students must complete at least one conventionally-graded Level 3 unit within a single major, offered at UWA itself, to provide a minimal basis for the calculation of a WAM for Honours entry;

3. Wherever feasible, Study Abroad students at Level 3 should conform to the

Attachment I1

50% rule; 4. For students (including those majoring in a language) whose Study Abroad

program includes units taken for credit in their major, no more than 24 points in total will be credited towards their major. Any additional points taken in excess of 24 points will be designated as electives within the degree;

5. Where destination universities for majors are well known, the International Centre and discipline experts will explore the feasibility of creating conversion tables so that grades achieved abroad may be converted for use within a WAM calculation at Level 3. If conversion tables are produced or updated, they should be presented to Academic Council on an annual basis. If an acceptable conversion is achieved, the units will then no longer be treated as ungraded pass of ungraded fail units;

6. If a Study Abroad student undertakes more than 50% of their major at Level 3 in units with a grading schema of ungraded pass and ungraded fail, where no conversion table has been devised the student must receive advice from the International Centre and faculty advisors at or before the point of enrolment indicating any impact of their study choice upon their WAM calculation, and other relevant matters.”

Oct 2011 Board of Coursework Studies:

agreed that although the discussion paper from the Teaching and Learning Committee and the study abroad paper from the Senior Academic Reviewer had a different origin and focus, they both converged in their recommendations;

endorsed (R99/11) the recommendations as presented by the Teaching and Learning Committee; and

noted, however, that the policy implications of the inclusion or otherwise of the ungraded pass / ungraded fail units in the GPA calculation had not been directly explored and agreed with the following way forward:

That a discussion paper with specific focus on the following be prepared:

o the comparative advantages and disadvantages of WAM and GPA instruments as selection tools for University courses;

o arguments for and against using both types of instruments and associated calculations; and

o should ungraded units be dealt in a different way? If yes, suggest how.

That the discussion paper be prepared under the auspices of the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Education) with assistance from the Associate Director, Student Services (Admissions) in consultation with faculties and experts from other constituencies such as the International Centre, Study Abroad and Student Services.

That the discussion paper be presented to the Admissions Committee early in Semester 1 2012 before it is referred to the Board of Coursework Studies for further consideration.

The full minutes from the meeting of the Board of Coursework Studies held on 20th October 2011 is available on the web at: http://committees.intranet.uwa.edu.au/acaboard/board_of_coursework_studies/minutes/2011/20_october

Attachment I2

Weighted Average Marks, Grade Point Averages and Ungraded Results – a Discussion Paper

TRIM FILE REFERENCE:

FILE PATH ON SERVER: P:\STAFF\WBETTS\ADMISSIONS COMMITTEE\2012\20120531 - GPA, WAM AND UNGRADED RESULTS PAPER V1.0.DOCX

DOCUMENT STATUS

Draft Ready for Review x Final

DOCUMENT MODIFICATION HISTORY

Version Number

Primary Author(s) (name and position) Description of Version

Date Completed

Provided To

0.1 Wayne Betts First draft 03/05/2012 PVC(E), GRSO, IC, Law, FMDHS

1.0 Wayne Betts Following feedback 31/05/2012 PVC (E)

1.0 Wayne Betts Final 3/08/2012 Executive Officer, Board of Coursework Studies

DOCUMENT APPROVAL

Approved By (name/position of approver) Signature Date

Attachment I3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 3 2 WAM, GPA – CHARACTERISTICS, ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES ............................. 3 2.1 Precision ......................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Differentiation at high achievement levels ...................................................................................... 4 2.3 Impact of fail grades ....................................................................................................................... 5 2.4 Accessibility .................................................................................................................................... 5 3 THE USE OF GPA AND/OR WAM IN SELECTION DECISIONS.................................................... 5 4 THE USE OF UNGRADED PASSES AND FAILS ........................................................................... 5 4.1 Ungraded passes ........................................................................................................................... 6 4.2 Ungraded fails ................................................................................................................................ 6 APPENDIX A CALCULATION OF THE WEIGHTED AVERAGE MARK (WAM) .............................. 8 APPENDIX B CALCULATION OF THE GRADE POINT AVERAGE (GPA) ...................................... 9

Attachment I4

1 Introduction

This paper has been prepared at the request of the Board of Coursework Studies (R 99/11). Its brief was to focus on the following:

• The comparative advantages and disadvantages of WAM and GPA instruments as selection tools for University courses;

• Arguments for and against using both types of instruments and associated calculations; and • Should ungraded units be dealt with in a different way? If yes, suggest how.

The paper compares and contrasts the characteristics of Weighted Average Marks and Grade Point Averages and provides examples to illustrate the comparative advantages and disadvantages of both measures and to assess the appropriateness of their use in selection decisions. The implications of differing approaches to ungraded units are then considered. As the discussion prompting the request for this paper concerned selection to high-demand Cycle Two coursework degrees, this has been kept in mind in developing the discussion that follows. Some of the discussion would not be applicable to consideration of these instruments in selecting, for instance, scholarship recipients.

2 WAM, GPA – characteristics, advantages and disadvantages

The Weighted Average Mark (WAM) calculation produces a mark out of 100, representing the average of a student’s unit percentage scores, weighted according to the credit point value of each unit. The Grade Point Average calculation assigns a value to each unit’s grades (for example, a pass is given a value of 4, while a High Distinction is given the maximum value of 7) and calculates a weighted average of these values. Appendix A describes the calculation of the Weighted Average Mark (WAM) in greater details. Appendix B outlines how the GPA is calculated.

2.1 Precision The use of percentages provides the WAM with a greater degree of precision than the GPA, which is calculated from values on an eight-point scale (0-7). The WAM also captures variation in achievement within individual grades (for example, 71 and 79 fall within the Distinction grade), which the GPA is unable to do. In the following example, Student A has marks towards the top of each grade range, while Student B consistently scores towards to bottom of the range. As a result, despite having identical GPAs, there is a material difference in the WAMs of the two students. Student A Student B Grade Mark GPA value Grade Mark GPA value Unit 1 P 58 4 P 52 4 Unit 2 D 76 6 D 70 6 Unit 3 C 67 5 C 61 5 Unit 4 P 59 4 P 53 4 Unit 5 C 68 5 C 62 5 Unit 6 D 78 6 D 71 6 Unit 7 D 77 6 D 72 6 Unit 8 P 56 4 P 50 4 WAM, GPA 67.4 5.00 61.4 5.00

Example 1: WAM differentiation within grades

Attachment I5

This level of precision would seem to make it a very attractive proposition in terms of making finely-grained selection decisions. However, the apparent precision of the WAM can be somewhat misleading when comparing achievement from discipline areas (or even units within the same discipline area) with varying mark distributions. This difficulty is compounded significantly if the selection process requires comparing achievement from numerous institutions, both inside and outside Australia. With this in mind, it could be argued that the broader, seven-point scale underlying the GPA calculation compensates somewhat for variation in individual unit marks. However, because the GPA is reported at up to two decimal points it, too, can present a superficial level of precision that is misleading. The broader scale of the GPA, obviously, does not completely mitigate the challenge of comparing results from a variety of institutions and raises the question of whether, for instance, a Credit at University X is equivalent to a Credit at UWA. To make public judgements on the assessment rigour of other institutions by weighting their results differently would probably be unpalatable to the University. However, if there were to be any weighting applied, it may be acceptable to weight results from Group of Eight institutions more highly than those from non-Go8 universities. Ideally, decisions should be made on the basis of analysing the performance of students from different institutions, with a range of GPAs, once they commence postgraduate study at UWA. However, while there may be sufficient numbers of students from other WA universities to constitute a valid study, it leaves unanswered the question of how to treat results from other institutions.

2.2 Differentiation at high achievement levels One of the significant advantages of the WAM over the GPA is that it allows for differentiation of achievement at High Distinction level (80+). The GPA assigns all High Distinction (and equivalent) results a maximum value of 7. In this context, the WAM obviously has a clear advantage over the GPA in selecting students at the highest level of achievement as the following example demonstrates. Student A Student B Grade Mark GPA value Grade Mark GPA value Unit 1 HD 92 7 HD 80 7 Unit 2 HD 95 7 HD 82 7 Unit 3 HD 90 7 HD 85 7 Unit 4 HD 93 7 HD 83 7 Unit 5 HD 94 7 HD 82 7 Unit 6 HD 92 7 HD 84 7 Unit 7 HD 90 7 HD 85 7 Unit 8 HD 95 7 HD 80 7 WAM, GPA 92.6 7.00 82.6 7.00

Example 2: WAM differentiation at HD level

This strength of the WAM, however, may be of theoretical rather than practical interest as few - if any - postgraduate courses would require differentiation at that level. The requirement for more finely-grained differentiation occurs at a lower level of performance: at the margin of selection. The current Graduate-entry Medical Program selection process (which will be also used for selection to the MD) satisfactorily selects students using a combination of GPA1, interview score and GAMSAT results. The selection margin for Graduate-entry Law (and, it is presumed, for the JD) is around a GPA of 5.5. Any applicants with GPAs of 7 are, of course, at the top of the list and would be the first choice for admission.

1 The Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences utilises a GPA calculation methodology shared by members of the Graduate Entry Medical Schools Admission (GEMSA) consortium that differs slightly from the methodology used by UWA, as outlined in Appendix B. The most notable difference, in the context of this paper, is that the FMDHS GPA calculation acknowledges achievement in the upper half of a GPA band. That is, a mark of 67 is assigned a value of 5.5 rather than 5.0. However, the maximum GPA value assigned is still 7.0 (applied to any mark of 80 or above).

Attachment I6

2.3 Impact of fail grades The GPA calculation assigns a value of zero to fail grades. This can have a significant impact on the overall GPA calculation. The WAM, however, uses the actual mark, even for fail grades and therefore provides at least some recognition for the results achieved. Example 3, below, demonstrates the relative impact of two Fail grades on Student A, whose GPA is dragged down considerably by the inclusion of two zero values in the calculation, even though their overall WAM is only four points below that of Student B. Student A Student B Grade Mark GPA value Grade Mark GPA value Unit 1 P 51 4 P 51 4 Unit 2 P 59 4 P 59 4 Unit 3 C 65 5 C 65 5 Unit 4 C 66 5 C 66 5 Unit 5 P 53 4 P 53 4 Unit 6 P 58 4 P 58 4 Unit 7 F 40 0 P 50 4 Unit 8 F 30 0 P 50 4 WAM, GPA 52.8 3.25 56.5 4.25

Example 3: Impact of Fail grades on WAM, GPA

The WAM, therefore, is a more ‘forgiving’ instrument in its treatment of fail grades.

2.4 Accessibility The major advantage of GPAs over WAMs is one of ubiquity. Not all institutions provide percentages. Also, results currently retrieved through the Automatic Results Transfer System (ARTS), provided by TISC for undergraduate applications and through QualSearch for postgraduate applications, are reported only as grades, not percentages. ARTS records also include a Grade Point Average, calculated according to rules specified by the relevant university. So, while the WAM may be seen as a superior instrument to the GPA in terms of precision, the GPA is the value that is readily available for all applicants, or easily calculated, even when individual unit percentage marks may not be provided.

3 The use of GPA and/or WAM in selection decisions

In the light of the assessment above, the WAM may be the most appropriate instrument to use in ranking a pool of applicants where there is confidence in the relative comparability of marking standards – for instance, within UWA or the Group of Eight – while the GPA provides sufficient discrimination for most selection purposes and its ubiquity makes it practical for assessing applicants from a wider range of institutions.

4 The use of ungraded passes and fails

This discussion relates directly to calculation of the Grade Point Average as, obviously, ungraded passes and fails do not record percentages and therefore cannot be used in the calculation of a Weighted Average Mark. The issue is whether or not such grades should be used in GPA calculations. The minutes of the Board of Coursework Studies from 20 October 2011 record “that strategies for the inclusion, where possible, of ungraded pass units in the calculation of the GPA should be considered.” The following discussion explores this.

Attachment I7

4.1 Ungraded passes The first question to be considered is whether ungraded passes should be included in the calculation of the GPA. At first glance, it would seem logical that they be included. However, the reason why they are not routinely included by any Australian University (according to the Grading Manual produced annually by the of Australasian Conference of Tertiary Admissions Centres (ACTAC)) is because of their negative impact on the GPA of students who regularly achieve results at higher than pass grades, as the following example demonstrates. Scenario A Scenario B Grade GPA value Grade GPA value Unit 1 HD 7 HD 7 Unit 2 D 6 D 6 Unit 3 C 5 C 5 Unit 4 C 5 C 5 Unit 5 HD 7 HD 7 Unit 6 D 6 D 6 Unit 7 UP 4 UP N/A Unit 8 UP 4 UP N/A GPA 5.50 6.00

Example 4: Inclusion of UP in GPA calculation >4.0

Here it is obvious that a GPA including UP grades (Scenario A) pulls down the overall GPA compared to Scenario B, where the UP grades are ignored in the calculation. The only time that UP grades could usefully be used in the GPA calculation is where their inclusion would actually improve the overall GPA (that is, where the GPA would be below 4.00 without the inclusion of UP grades), as Example 5 demonstrates. Scenario A Scenario B Grade GPA value Grade GPA value Unit 1 P 4 P 4 Unit 2 P 4 P 4 Unit 3 F 0 F 0 Unit 4 F 0 F 0 Unit 5 P 4 P 4 Unit 6 P 4 P 4 Unit 7 UP 4 UP N/A Unit 8 UP 4 UP N/A GPA 3.00 2.66

Example 5: Inclusion of UP in GPA calculation <4.0

In terms of selection decision-making, the exclusion of ungraded passes from the GPA calculation ensures that students who have such units as part of their academic record (including study abroad results) are not disadvantaged.

4.2 Ungraded fails If ungraded passes should be ignored in the calculation of the GPA, does it not follow that ungraded fails should also be disregarded? The argument for including ungraded fails in the GPA calculation is that they represent a failure to achieve the requirements of a unit. This failure to satisfy requirements should be acknowledged through some consequence in the GPA calculation. Example 6 illustrates:

Attachment I8

Scenario A Scenario B Grade GPA value Grade GPA value Unit 1 HD 7 HD 7 Unit 2 D 6 D 6 Unit 3 C 5 C 5 Unit 4 C 5 C 5 Unit 5 HD 7 HD 7 Unit 6 D 6 D 6 Unit 7 D 6 D 6 Unit 8 UF 0 UF N/A GPA 5.25 6.00

Example 6: Inclusion of UF in GPA calculation

In this instance, it could be argued that Scenario B advantages the applicant by ignoring the unit failure. Documentation supporting Academic Council’s 2007 discussion and subsequent decision to include ungraded fails in the GPA calculation pointed out that, if UF grades were ignored, it would set a precedent for ‘administrative’ fail grades such as FN to also be excluded. It would also mean UWA would be the only Australian institution (according to the ACTAC Grading Manual) to ignore ungraded fails in GPA calculation. In light of the broad selection principles that satisfactory performance should not disadvantage a student (behind the UP discussion, above) but that unsatisfactory performance is relevant to selection decisions (the UF discussion in this section), it can be argued that the University’s current policy and practice in relation to ungraded passes and fails is appropriate.

Attachment I9

Appendix A Calculation of the Weighted Average Mark (WAM)

WAM (Weighted Average Mark) explained

WAM is your Weighted Average Mark for the whole course based on your current achievement. WAM will only appear on your Statement of Academic Record if you commenced your course from 2005 onwards.

WAM is calculated as follows:

Mark Range Default Mark Code Description Result Lower Upper

HD High Distinction Pass 80 100

D Distinction Pass 70 79

CR Credit Pass Pass 60 69

P Pass Pass 50 59

PS Passed Supplementary Exam

Pass 50

N+ Fail Fail 45 49

N Fail Fail 0 44

FN Fail due to non-completion Fail 0 FC Fail component Fail 48 FS Fail Supplementary Exam Fail Original mark

retained

Note: Unfinalised results are not included in the calculation.

Source: http://ipoint.uwa.edu.au/app/answers/detail/a_id/347/~/what-is-wam-%28weighted-average-mark%29%3F

Attachment I10

Appendix B Calculation of the Grade Point Average (GPA)

Your Grade Point Average explained

At UWA your grade point average (GPA) is a simple numerical index which summarises academic performance in a course. Your GPA is reported on your Statement of Academic Record and published under the studentConnect Progression Link. GPA will only appear on your Statement of Academic Record if you commenced your course from 2005 onwards.

(a) The GPA calculation includes all attempts at units which are awarded a numeric grade or the result `Withdrawn-Failure' (which is converted to a 1).

(b) Unfinalised results are not included in the calculation.

Code Description Result GPA Value HD High Distinction Pass 7 D Distinction Pass 6 CR Credit Pass Pass 5 P Pass Pass 4 PS Passed Supplementary

Exam Pass 4

N+ Fail Fail 0 N Fail Fail 0 FN Fail due to non-completion Fail 0 FC Fail component Fail 0 FS Fail Supplementary Exam Fail 0 UF Ungraded Fail Fail 0 WE Not permitted to sit exam Fail 0 Source: http://ipoint.uwa.edu.au/app/answers/detail/a_id/348/related/1/session/L2F2LzEvdGltZS8xMzM2MDE4NDIxL3NpZC9DQW8tNjlYaw==

Attachment I11

EXTRACT FROM MINUTES OF A MEETING OF ADMISSIONS COMMITTEE HELD ON TUESDAY 19TH JUNE 2012 AT 2.15 PM IN THE SENATE ROOM

FOR THE ATTENTION OF THE BOARD OF COURSEWORK STUDIES

7. CONSIDERATION OF THE DOCUMENT ‘WEIGHTED AVERAGE MARKS, GRADE POINT

AVERAGES AND UNGRADED RESULTS – A DISCUSSION PAPER’: REF – F31167, F35326

The Chair introduced this item and drew member’s attention to Attachment J, a paper prepared under the auspices of the Pro-Vice Chancellor (Education) and written by Mr Wayne Betts, Associate Director, Student Services (Admissions). This document, ‘Weighted Average Marks, Grade Point Averages and Ungraded Results – a Discussion Paper’, was a response to a request from the Board of Coursework studies (R99/11) arising from a wider discussion about the University Policy on Ungraded Units. Members had before them Attachment K, the October 2011 minutes of the Board of Coursework Studies and may have referred to the corresponding agenda item from that meeting for more detailed background information. The Chair thanked Mr Betts for his efforts in writing this paper and invited members to respond to the conclusions in the paper. In responding to the discussion Mr Betts noted that he had restricted his focus to responding to the specific points raised by the Board of Coursework Studies. These are:

o The comparative advantages and disadvantages of WAM and GPA instruments as selection tools for University courses

o Arguments for and against using both types of instruments and associated calculations; and o Should ungraded units be dealt with in a different way? If yes, suggest how.

The scope of the paper did not extend to wider issues of policy, including the contentious issue of comparing marking systems from a range of disparate universities against UWA. Members concurred that using the WAM is appropriate where fine discrimination is required when ranking UWA students, however the GPA is an appropriate mechanism when assessing applicants from a wider range of institutions, particularly when it is one of a range of assessment methods used to rank and select applicants. For example, in the ranking and selection of MD, DMD and DPM applicants. The paper concluded that the University’s current approach to the exclusion of ungraded passes and the inclusion of ungraded fail grades in the calculation of GPA is still appropriate. The issue, identified in the Board of Coursework Studies discussion, on whether there is any possibility of assigning grades other than an ungraded pass to successfully completed Study Abroad units, remains unresolved, though it was noted that current resources within relevant expert areas are not sufficient to pursue such exploration in the near future. The Chair noted that wider issues concerning ungraded results impacting on students’ progression (in the NC 2012 environment) towards cycle 2 courses requires monitoring and review. This would be considered in various relevant forums at UWA including the Boards of Study and the Board of Coursework Studies, and was agreed to by the Admissions Committee as an appropriate course of action. The Chair brought the discussion to a close, affirming the Committee’s agreement to endorse for the Board of Coursework Studies the conclusions arrived at in Attachment J, ‘Weighted Average Marks, Grade Point Averages and Ungraded Results – a Discussion Paper’. RESOLVED - 10 to endorse, to the Board of Coursework Studies, the conclusions arrived at in Attachment J, ‘Weighted Average Marks, Grade Point Averages and Ungraded Results – a Discussion Paper’. Date Sender

(Name) File to (Name) Action Required Recipient

Initials Date Actioned

Action Taken

Folio Number

Tues 22nd June 2012

Barbara Levit

Kabilan Krishnasamay

For Board of Coursework Studies agenda

Attachment I12