Generic Descriptors: a health check

Abstract

The Credit Accumulation and Transfer Scheme (CATS) is a system that awards academic credits for achievement. Credits are awarded at different levels: 1, 2 and 3 (associated with the three full-time years of study on an undergraduate course in Britain) and level M (associated with British Master's qualifications). This paper will scrutinise two of the assumptions upon which CATS is based: (1) there are comparable notions of levels 1, 2, 3 and M across both institutions and disciplines, and (2) there is linear progression through these levels.For these assumptions to hold, educators must agree on progressive/hierarchical level descriptors. The results of a national study in the field of healthcare showed that educators agreed on some descriptors and that some descriptors described non-progressive characteristics of learning. Therefore, there is some comparability between institutions and disciplines in higher education (which is a requirement for transfer in CATS). The non-progressive descriptors undermine the assumption that student progression is necessarily linear. LevelsThe Credit Accumulation and Transfer Scheme (CATS) is a system used by British higher education institutions to award academic credits for achievement. Credits are awarded at different levels: 1, 2 and 3 are associated with the three full-time years of study in an undergraduate course, and level M is associated with Master's qualifications. CATS is based on the assumptions that there are broadly similar standards at each level and that there are comparable notions of levels 1, 2, 3 and M across both institutions and disciplines, assumptions that were inherited from the Council for National Academic Awards (CNAA) (CNAA, 1989;Robertson, 1996). Robertson (1996) argued that when CNAA was operational it could formally claim that institutions had mutual confidence in one another's standards. However, he questioned the assumption behind CATS and argued that there was a lack of mutual recognition and a lack of confidence in mutual standards.CNAA was the first British higher educational organisation to define levels:Level 1: the standard of a course unit in the first year of a full-time, three-year degree or honours degree. Level 2: a course unit will be assigned to level 2 if it is of the standard normally encountered in the second year of a full-time, three-year degree or honours degree. Level 3: corresponds to the standards of course units normally encountered in the final year of a three-year, full-time degree course.

The Achilles' Heel of Quality: The assessment of student learning

“…18. Difficulties are reported in getting agreement on criteria and their application in a subject (Greatorex, 1999;Woolf et al, 1999) and in a School (Price & Rust, 1999).…”

Developing and applying level descriptors

“…A great deal of time and effort has been used to construct level descriptors and gain an agreement on their wording. Greatorex (1999) found that HE educators could agree on the appropriate levels for descriptors, but this does not indicate how the level descriptors are used, e.g., they might not be applied consistently. The uses of level descriptors, i.e., the consistent application of the level descriptors and developing an understanding of level descriptors, are discussed below.…”

“…Greatorex (1999) explains that when educators write level descriptors to cover a variety of disciplines and professions (generic descriptors)-for example, in Higher Education Credit Accumulation and Transfer Schemes-they can be so general that they are meaningless. Additionally, a study by Winter (1993) found that similar words are used to describe achievement at different levels, e.g., Masters level and undergraduate level.…”

“…This is when methods designed to encourage agreement between experts-like the nominal group technique and/or the Delphi method-might be useful for developing level descriptors upon which there is some agreement. For example, Greatorex (1999) used the Delphi method to identify the extent to which educators agreed on the appropriate levels for level descriptors for Healthcare degrees. The Delphi method has a first round of brainstorming when all the possible aspects of level descriptors are listed.…”

Developing generic criteria and standards for assessment in law: processes and (by)products

“…A growing body of literature around the experience of criterion-referenced assessment has elaborated on problematic as well as beneficial aspects (Greatorex, 1999;Price & Rust, 1999;Ecclestone, 2001;Rust, 2001;Dunn et al, 2002;Knight, 2002a, b;Hornby, 2003;Miller, 2003;Sadler, 2003Sadler, , 2005Taras, 2003;Orsmond et al, 2004;Woolf, 2004;O'Donovan et al, 2005). As suggested by titles such as 'How criteriabased grading misses the point' (Sadler, 2003) and 'Summative assessment in higher education: practices in disarray' (Knight, 2002b), policy implementation can be far from straightforward.…”