Degree Outcomes Statement 2025
1. Institutional Degree Classification Profile
The degree classification profile for the University of South Wales (USW) for the academic years 2016/17 to 2023/24 is illustrated in the table below.
| Academic Year | First Class Honours | Upper second class honours | Lower second class honours | Third class honours/pass | Unclassified | Ordinary non honours | Good honours |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016/17 | 22.42% | 42.88% | 25.53% | 6.28% | 0.52% | 2.37% | 65.30% |
| 2017/18 | 24.80% | 41.11% | 25.31% | 6.68% | 0.00% | 2.10% | 65.91% |
| 2018/19 | 26.55% | 42.96% | 23.02% | 6.20% | 0.00% | 1.26% | 69.51% |
| 2019/20 | 34.35% | 41.27% | 19.65% | 4.26% | 0.00% | 0.47% | 75.62% |
| 2020/21 | 36.15% | 39.77% | 18.45% | 5.23% | 0.00% | 0.40% | 75.92% |
| 2021/22 | 29.33% | 41.14% | 22.63% | 5.29% | 0.00% | 1.60% | 70.47% |
| 2022/23 | 32.65% | 38.63% | 22.15% | 4.33% | 0.38% | 1.86% | 71.28% |
| 2023/24 | 29.75% | 41.91% | 19.61% | 3.10% | 5.37% | 0.25% | 71.67% |
The table shows a change in how the data is reported following the move from the HESA student return to the HESA Data Futures return from 2022/23 onwards. Across the sector there has been a significant change in the proportion of students showing as having an "Unclassified" degree – this would include students awarded a non-honours degree and students where an honours classification has not been included for some other reason (integrated masters, for example).
For USW the combined (unclassified and ordinary) increase from 2021/22 to 2023/24 was from 1.60% to 5.62% of graduates. For comparison, the University Alliance (UA) increased from 2.39% to 5.07%, for the UK sector it was from 4.99% to 6.40%, and for Wales it was from 2.85% to 3.78%. These do not count as good honours and make up most of the decrease in good honours rates for each of the sector groups. Since this change has remained consistent across 2022/23 and 2023/24, it appears to represent a sustained trend rather than a temporary fluctuation. It’s still largely institution specific though, with some institutions showing a particularly large increase in “Unclassified” records.
The University’s profile of First and Upper Second Class honours degrees (good honours) has shown growth over this period. The Good Honours levels have returned to what they were pre-pandemic (although with a slightly different profile of First class and upper second class awards – with an increase in first class and decrease in upper second class).
2. Assessment and Marking Practices
The validation and review of courses provide the opportunity to quality assure the initial design of courses, ensuring that learning outcomes and assessment are clearly mapped against the QAA quality code, meet PSRB requirements, consider QAA Subject benchmark statements and align to the national qualifications framework. This provides assurance that degree standards are maintained and that external experts (PSRBs representatives, service users, students, employers, stakeholders), as identified by the QAA, both inform and quality assure our courses.
The University’s Academic Blueprint outlines a set of identified principles to ensure consistency of approach to developing and implementing courses, ensuring that no course is over assessed, that a course wide approach to assessment is adopted and that modes of assessment are varied and develop employability attributes. The Blueprint is regularly reviewed and updated as required.
The Assessment for Learning Policy operationalises the assessment elements of the Blueprint, by providing principles of assessment and requirements and thus drives enhancement in assessment practice. The latest version of the policy stresses the use of RUBRICS and student choice within assessment design. Positive feedback and enhanced student engagement is reported since the implementation of Student Choice in Assessment.
A University Assessment Tariff additionally supports the Assessment for Learning Policy. The Tariff comprises of approved modes of assessment, maximum word counts, presentation timings and exam/test duration. Any amendments to courses, whether at revalidation or modification, are reviewed against the policy criteria.
An annual course level Assessment Dialogue is required at the end of each academic year, where staff course teams and students meet to review the course assessment offering, providing an opportunity to reflect on current practice and make changes for the forthcoming year. Assessment Dialogue guidance outlines the expectations and necessary resulting actions. These dialogues are informed by external examiner comments and data sets (i.e. NSS, good honours, LEO, withdrawal figures) together with feedback and reflection from both staff, students and external examiners and assessment boards. Assessment Dialogues provide an opportunity for staff development through reflection and understanding of sector data. They also link into the continuous monitoring process with actions set against any issues raised and the modification process where assessments can be amended for future delivery. A central system to collate the assessment deadlines is being introduced this year and links to an aim to introduce these dates to personal student timetables. In addition, an assessment dashboard is being developed for better visualization of data.
Another element of Quality Framework that we use to ensure consistency to support the practices above are the Regulations for Taught Courses. These include areas such as marking scales and regulations related to progression and award.
An area which has seen a growth in interest over the last decade has been that of academic integrity. USW has signed up to the QAA Academic Integrity Charter (alongside the other HE institutions in Wales) with an associated action plan being approved by the Quality Assurance Committee. An artificial intelligence working group has also been formed to review the University’s position with regards to the impact on assessment processes and regulations.
Moreover, USW has introduced Epigeum's Academic Integrity learning module. This module supports academic integrity by providing an asynchronous, interactive training that educates students and staff on the principles and importance of honest academic conduct and awareness of using Generate Artificial Intelligence safely and ethically. Through engaging scenarios, quizzes, and case studies, the module helps users understand key concepts such as plagiarism, proper citation practices, and the consequences of academic misconduct. It encourages critical thinking and ethical decision-making, fostering a culture of integrity across academic institutions. By clearly outlining expectations and offering practical guidance, the module empowers learners to uphold high standards of academic honesty in their work.
3. Academic Governance
Academic governance is essential to protecting the value of qualifications that are awarded by the University. Academic Board provides an Annual Report to the Board of Governors which provides assurance to them that quality and standards are being maintained. As part of the Medr Quality Assessment Framework for Wales, the Board of Governors are asked to confirm a number of statements on an annual basis, including, for providers with degree awarding powers, that the standards of awards for which they are responsible have been appropriately set and maintained. To assist the Governors in making that assurance, there is a reporting mechanism that feeds up through the institution via Faculty and Institutional level Quality Assurance Committee (FQAC and QAC) to Academic Board. There is also a Partnership Quality Sub Committee (of QAC) which oversees any Partnership arrangements. The Quality manuals outline the ‘gatekeepers’ for each key area of activity at all levels within the University and which committee engagement/oversight occurs within.
The University has moved to a position of risk-based quality assurance. A key part of this is the Continuous Monitoring process which ensures that course leaders establish a risk rating for their course. One of the key indicators in this process and areas for review is degree outcomes. These are reported on an annual basis at Course, School and Faculty level through FQAC and QAC. Discussion is held at both these committees about comparability of performance within (FQAC) and across faculties (QAC), clear actions are set to address any identified issues. The process also involves a senior auditor at Faculty level. These are senior members of staff who are external to the Faculty and bring an external view to discussions held within the Faculty and allow for the sharing of good practice. Partner colleges complete the same process, and their commentaries are fed into USW course level reporting and a review of their reports is presented at both QAC and Academic Board. Should the outcome levels fall outside set parameters the risk rating would be raised and a response made for action in the corresponding action plan. This information is also reviewed at Assessment Boards with regards to performance of cohorts in comparison to previous cohorts and university performance indicators. The External Examiner is asked to comment annually on maintenance of standards through their engagement with assessment processes such as assessment boards and moderation and an institutional level report that reviews their findings is presented to QAC and Academic Board for discussion and assurance. A two-tier external examiner system was introduced within USW. There are now Subject and Super Externals. The Super was introduced to provide oversight and comment on consistency of application of regulations at our Progression and Award Assessment Boards. Academic staff and external assurers are also asked to comment on outcomes at re-validation events.
A sub-committee of QAC is the Regulations Sub-committee which meets regularly throughout the academic year. Regulations are published on an annual basis, but the committee provides an opportunity for areas of review to be carried out with an aim to make recommendations to QAC for any regulatory change. The regulations related to degree outcomes and learning and teaching related practices have been reviewed twice at an institutional level in the last seven years.
A series of papers were presented to the Quality Assurance Committee regarding the overall position of degree outcomes in USW, with subsequent more focused reports commissioned. The Chair of the committee was tasked to oversee the creation of an institutional differential outcomes action plan in response to the reports and discussions held at the committee. LTEC were commissioned by QAC to oversee the finalisation and implementation of the differential outcomes action plan. The institutional differential outcomes are still an area of focus for LTEC.
4. Classification Algorithms
The University of South Wales (USW) classification regulations are published within its Regulations for Taught Courses. USW uses following algorithms to ascertain a student’s classification at degree level:
- Method 1: Calculate the average of the marks from the 180 credits obtained from the best 60 credits at level 5 and the 120 credits at level 6.
- Method 2: Calculate the average of the marks from the 120 level 6 credits.
- Method 3: Calculate the average of the marks from the best 100 credits at level 6 for direct entry students.
*Note: Core modules cannot be excluded from the classification of an award.
The degree is then classified using the higher of the two averages calculated by the methods described above and award a classification based on the following table:
| Mean % | Classification |
|---|---|
| At least 69.5% up to 100% | First Class Honours Degree |
| At least 59.5% and less than 69.5% | Upper Second Class Honours Degree |
| At least 49.5% and less than 59.5% | Lower Second Class Honours Degree |
| At least 39.5% and less than 49.5% | Third Class Honours Degree |
- If a student has passed 360 credits with only 100 at level 6, we will calculate the average of all level 5 modules (whether 100, 120 or 140 credits) and count this as 20 credits at level 6. We will then use Method 2 to calculate an average mark and award a classification accordingly.
- If a student has passed 360 credits with 140 at level 6, we will calculate the average over all 140 level 6 credits and this average will be weighted as 120 credits. We will then use Method 1 to calculate an average mark and award a classification accordingly.
5. Teaching Practices and learning resources
USW 2030 Strategy guides the Learning and Teaching principles, and along with the complementary Curriculum Design Principles, provide a framework for thinking about designing and reviewing the course through multiple lenses. Our Learning & Teaching principles such as employability, sustainability, and inclusivity, underpin course design and development and graduate attributes.
At the University of South Wales (USW), curriculum design begins with the intended curriculum, where clear learning outcomes align with USW’s Learning and Teaching Principles—focusing on Challenge Based Learning and the 3 Es of employability, enterprise and entrepreneurship, inclusivity, research, sustainability, digital literacy co- design, and active learning. All courses must align with QAA subject benchmark statements as well as the QAA Quality Code for setting and maintaining academic standards. For some subject areas there are also specific professional standards that sometimes need to be adhered to. These external reference points, alongside the Framework for Higher Education (FHEQ), and the Credit and Qualifications Framework (CQFW) make explicit the expectations of standards for bachelors and masters level degrees in a range of disciplines. This is followed by the enacted curriculum, where course delivery ensures these outcomes are brought to life through engaging, student-centred teaching methods.
Continuous enhancement and evaluation—through student feedback, reflective practice, and performance data—ensures ongoing alignment with institutional principles. This cyclical process promotes quality assurance and fosters innovation, creating a curriculum that is responsive, effective, and aligned with both academic standards and student needs.
Resources in the area of assessment design and its impact on the student experience (including outcomes) are available on the internal USW SharePoint site – the assessment lifecycle hub. This is a one stop shop to assist staff through the lifecycle of an assessment. Whilst there is the central CELT team, staff are also supported at Faculty level through their Heads of Learning, Teaching and Student Experience, Associate Dean (Student Outcomes) oversee the graduate outcomes and related activity.