�鶹��ý�����

The undergraduate outcomes at �鶹��ý����� over a five-year period up to the academic year 2021/21 are represented in Table 1 and Figure 1. The proportion of 1st and 2:1 degree combined (hereafter referred to as good degrees) increased year on year up until 2020/21, with a decrease in 2021/22 (-7%).��

The decrease is driven by a decline in the proportion of 1st class degrees awarded (-10% since 2020/21), and a material increase in the award of 2:2 degrees (+6%). ��There have been less substantive changes in the award of a 2:1 or 3rd class degrees. ��

The longer term position over the reporting period indicate an overall positive trend for Bangor, with an increase of 6% in good degrees over five years. ��It is important to note the impact of the pandemic in 2020 and 2021, resulting in a significant increase in 1st/2:1s awarded, a pattern mirrored across the UK sector; the current proportion of good degrees remains higher than the pre-pandemic years, and is in line with .

Table 1. Undergraduate degree outcome profile for �鶹��ý����� 2018 – 2022

Figure 1. Distribution of undergraduate degree outcomes for �鶹��ý����� 2018 – 2022

Based on the University’s rigorous Quality Assurance procedures (including External Examiners’ reports which indicate we are maintaining academic standards), it is our view that the increase reflects improved student performance and enhancements in teaching. Note, the most recent edition of The Times and Sunday Times Good University Guide (2023) ranks Bangor in 85th position (out of 132) for the 1st/2:1 indicator.

The proportion of each degree classification by subject area (this is an internal classification of subjects at �鶹��ý�����, based on the subject area of the degree course) at Bangor, for 2021/22, is provided in Figure 2. There was some variation between subjects, with the proportion of first-class degrees awarded ranging from 73% for Chemistry, to 23% for Health Sciences (HEIW) and Business. The proportion of 2:1 degrees awarded ranged from 66% for Philosophy & Religion, to 18% for Chemistry.

The proportion of 2:2 degrees awarded was highest within Health Sciences (HEIW) with 3^rd class degrees also highest in this subject area. Across all subjects the proportion of 2:2 and 3rd Class degrees awarded ranged between 7% - 34% and 1% - 7%, respectively.

The range of good degrees awarded also varied, with six subject areas having awarded good degrees in 90% and more cases. These were Philosophy & Religion, Health Sciences (non-HEIW), Law, Chemistry, Welsh & Celtic Studies, and Medical Sciences. The proportion of good degrees awarded was below the University average (of 77%) within six subject areas: Sport, Health & Exercise Sciences, Education (non-ITE), Electronic Engineering, Computer Science, Biology, and Health Sciences (HEIW).

Across subject areas, there was a range of 36% between the highest and lowest proportion of good degrees awarded in 2022.

Figure 2.��Distribution of undergraduate degree outcomes for �鶹��ý����� 2022, by subject��

Figure 2 may indicate a tendency for students taught in smaller cohorts to achieve better degree outcomes. This might be due to the effects of small group teaching and more staff contact. However, it should be noted that some of the larger cohorts shown above are for degrees with professional accreditations (HEIW-funded Health Sciences degrees, teacher training within Education). The University will explore these issues further to understand them better. ��

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.

Table 2. Undergraduate degree profile, by student demographic groups

Gender

Across the review period, the data for all demographic characteristics largely reflects the overall University dataset, showing a decrease in the proportion of students achieving a good degree (Table 2). However, female students ( 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)��have generally attained a higher proportion of good degrees than males, with the gap having been at its widest in 2018 and 2019 (+6.7%). While the gap has narrowed, as illustrated in Figure 3, female attainment remains higher (+3.8% in 2022). Female students are the only underrepresented group that achieves a positive awarding gap.��

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

Age

Whilst there has been an increase in the proportion of mature students achieving a good degree over the review period, there are significant and consistent differences in proportions of good degrees awarded by age, as highlighted by Figure 4, with students commencing their studies before their 21st birthday consistently achieving a higher proportion of good degrees. While the awarding gap narrowed in 2022, to -5.9% (from -8.3% in 2021). These data indicate that the University needs to continue to focus on supporting mature students throughout the learning process.

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

Disability

The proportion of students with a disability achieving a good degree is 3% below the University average. This gap has widened from -3.0% in 2021, to -3.6% in 2022 (Table 2), however it remains narrower than awarding gaps for other underrepresented groups (Figure 5).

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

Ethnicity

Overall, the proportion of BAME students achieving a good degree has increased over the review period, however BAME attainment remains 6.9% below that of White students in 2022, and 7% below the University average. 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.��These data indicate that the University needs to focus on taking steps to support BAME students throughout the learning process.

Figure 6. 1st/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. The awarding gap remains substantial in 2022 (-7.3%), although this has narrowed considerably since 2021, albeit against a decline in overall performance. ��

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

Deprivation

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) generally attained a lower proportion of good degrees, compared to students in the least deprived areas of Wales (Table 2). While the awarding gap closed in 2021 (-0.9%), it widened considerably in 2022 (-12.3%). Between 2021 and 2022, the proportion of 1st Class degrees awarded to those from the most deprived areas reduced by 10% with the proportion of 2:2 degrees increasing by 10% for this group over the same period. A similar trend is evident in the case of students from the least deprived areas, with the proportion of 2:2 degrees awarded increasing by 9%. However in this case these is a lesser decrease (-3%) in the proportion of first class degrees awarded. These data indicate that the University needs to continue to focus on taking steps to support students from high-deprivation neighbourhoods throughout the learning process.

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

The University's ��Strategy 2030, is supported by four pillars which are: research excellence, transformative learning experience, an ��excellent student experience and a thriving Welsh language and bilingual environment. In order to deliver transformative learning our Teaching and Learning strategy to 2025 has 6 priorities.

• Delivering ambitious curricula that are of regional and global significance
• Enabling our students to successfully contribute to our regional and global graduate market��
• Using leading technological innovations to enhance our digital learning environment, digital capability and develop our virtual international classroom
• Providing high quality mobility and flexible opportunities for students ��
• Accelerating ��our teaching and learning environment��
• Securing operational resilience��

The University's Centre for the Enhancement of learning and Teaching (CELT) supports our aim of developing transformational learning and works across our teaching and learning priority areas.�� CELT is an academic centre located within our School of Educational Sciences.�� Working with seconded academics from across the University it promotes evidence-based innovation and to provide institutional leadership on key issues such as assessment, for example developing an.

The University is accredited by Advance HE to recognise staff as Higher Education Academy (HEA) Fellows through either its CPD Recognition Scheme, or its credit-bearing Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education (PGCert HE: Stage 1 and 2), its Postgraduate Certificate in Medical Education Practice, and its Teaching Human Sciences in Higher Education programmes.��
��
During the last accreditation cycle, which ran from summer 2018 to summer 2022, our accredited provision recognised the excellent work of staff across all categories of fellowship: Associate, Fellow, Senior and Principal. ��In all 340 staff were awarded a PGCertHE (stage 1 and/or 2); the work of 168 members of staff was recognised through the CPD scheme, while 29 members of staff were awarded through its Teaching Human Sciences in Higher Education programme, and 20 were awarded a ��Postgraduate Certificate in Medical Education Practice.
��
We ensure that our provision across each of our accredited programmes reflects the changing context of Higher Education. For example, we have embedded a theme of sustainability within our ongoing CPD provision, to upskill staff as we embed sustainability within the curriculum in line with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, the Wellbeing of Future Generations (Wales) Act, and the University’s Strategy 2030. We have also enhanced our focus on mental health and wellbeing, again representing this within our ongoing CPD activities, and sharing best practice from departments who have already started to embed resilience training for students within their curricula. In addition, we have placed a significant emphasis on developing digital literacy in our staff members, enabling us to futureproof our offering with regard to the development of digital courses.��
��
In addition to these Advance HE accredited programmes, the University recognises excellence in teaching and learning via the award of annual Institutional Teaching Fellowships. These fellowships are awarded to staff members during graduation, giving recipients a chance to celebrate their achievement in the presence of the students they taught. Between summer 2018 and summer 2022, thirty three Institutional Teaching Fellowships were awarded, based on excellence across five key themes commensurate with stage of career and opportunity afforded by contract type: Enhancement, Innovation, Impact, Scholarship and Leadership.

Alongside the work of CELT Associate Pro-vice Chancellors provide cross-University leadership on strategic areas such as digital learning and learner analytics. The University aims to use data on multiple points of contact with students (Learner Analytics) to inform pastoral and academic support for students which are designed to support their progression and their successful completion as students. During 2021/2, the University’s APVC for Teaching and Learning, led a collaborative group to redesign and relaunch the University’s engagement dashboards for the 2022/3 academic year (available in MyBangor, Students) to include additional data points and to facilitate easier identification of at-risk students. A key modification is that students are now able to view their own data and use it to make decisions on their own learning. was created and is being used by students and staff.

In addition to all-staff Development Afternoons, the University uses a tiered approach to disseminating training and best practice through in-person training. Our Quality Enhancement Unit provide to teaching and learning leaders such as School Directors of Teaching and Learning around issues such as programme design and review. College Directors of teaching and learning provide one to one advice support and training to teaching leaders within schools while nominated senior academics within Schools provide training on a range of assessment-related issues to our collaborative partners.

The University has an Assessment Framework in place which governs the approach we take to assess and the methods we use, The Framework, which has been commended by the QAA, provides guidance on designing assessments appropriate to the field and level of study and clarifies how much students should be assessed per academic credit. It provides an effective way of ensuring parity of experience across subject areas and supports student learning and staff development.

The University has detailed policies and guidance on marking, moderation, feedback, examination board procedures and mitigating circumstances that are set out in the .�� Requirements for internal examining and moderation, and external moderation, are also described there. Marks for all modules across the University are verified each time they are taught, and details of the verification procedures are shared with students. Staff and students can also find detailed information on progression, reassessment and degree classification in Regulation 1.��

Assessment criteria are designed to ensure that students achieve each module learning outcome. These are designed at programme level to ensure the most appropriate fit and subject relevance and relate to each assessment. Module learning outcomes are linked to programme learning outcomes which are benchmarked to sector norms through QAA benchmark statement or professional standards. Establishing clear and robust links between these four elements: assessment criteria, assessments themselves, module and programme learning outcomes and benchmark standards is a key responsibility for our programme approval and reapproval panels. In this way, the University ensures that students graduating from a programme have demonstrated the range and level of knowledge expected. This process is set out in the for programme approval and validation and also in guidelines to approval panels.

Programme learning outcomes and linkages to the modules where they are assessed are publicly available whereas module learning outcomes and marking criteria are shared with students in lectures and in the student’s virtual learning space (Blackboard). ��

The University uses Assessment Reports on the Quality of University Examinations (ARQUE) to compare the marks students achieve on each module with their performance in other modules. This system is used to identify outlying modules ahead of Examination Boards and enables us to have focused and constructive discussions on marking that help ensure consistency and fairness.��

The University takes a collegiate approach to quality and standards and ensures the value of its degrees through a range of Quality Assurance and Enhancement processes for which we share responsibility widely. The Pro-vice Chancellor for Education has strategic responsibility for academic standards and operational support is provided by the Quality Enhancement Unit while oversight is provided by a range of cross-University groups. However, maintaining the integrity of our teaching is the responsibility of all academic staff as is made clear in job descriptions and promotion criteria. Students are also integrated into all levels of quality assurance with student representatives trained, supported and paid for their work on panels and student leaders involved at strategic levels. We work closely with collaborative partners to establish equivalent standards of teaching and assessment across all the University’s awards.��

External scrutiny is an essential part of our quality framework, and we make use of external experts in approving programmes, in entering into new partnerships, or renewing established collaborations and also in parts of our committee structure, for example in discussions around Collaborative Provision. External stakeholders are an integral component of programme design and review, particularly in our industry-facing provision. Involving external experts helps ensure the relevance of our teaching but also challenges us to meet and surpass sector norms. During initial programme approval, external experts ensure that teaching and assessment methods are aligned with sector-wide reference points such as The Framework for Higher Education Qualifications of Degree-Awarding Bodies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and discipline-specific Subject Benchmark Statements ��together with professional and regulatory body requirements where relevant. No new programme can reach the final stage of academic approval without having responded fully to external advice.��

Where the University considers new UK or international partnerships, expert opinion enables us to harness the experience of sector leaders in managing academic standards across a range of collaborations. In these cases, external expert advice helps us ensure that academic management is robust and expectations around quality and processes are shared.��

External Examiners are appointed by the University with specific responsibilities to ensure the assessment procedures have been followed and to verify that the standard of the University’s awards is at least comparable with standards across UK Universities. They are ��as adapted in the . External examiners are provided with online induction��which sets out the University’s expectations of them and also described the responsibilities Schools have, particularly with regard to ensuring that External Examiner feedback is acted upon.��

External examiners review all core assessments leading to the final degree classification and moderate marking to confirm that it aligns with expected levels, is consistent and that the University’s own procedures and practices have been followed. Annual external examiner reports are submitted centrally to the University and are available to students to ensure transparency. A digest of External Examiner reports is considered by the Quality Assurance Task Group in order to provide assurance that assessment practices have taken place in accordance with our regulations�� and to address any areas of concern.��

Programmes are subject to continuous monitoring with an opportunity for major enhancement or redesign, usually through a 5-6 year cycle of revalidation. Consideration of external examiner reports for the intervening years is an essential element of revalidation. All programmes are also subject to annual review which ensures the enhancement of the student experience. Annual reviews of programmes respond to , to student performance data particularly focusing of any outliers and engage fully with External Examiner comments in order to define objectives for the next year and propose any modifications to the programme. As these plans are discussed collectively by programme teams or Schools, staff and peer reflection on the teaching during the past year is expected and plays an important part in.

In order to use this process effectively to improve and refine our teaching and assessment, a ,��considers Annual Programme reviews. It reflects on issues raised, best practice, trends across the University, enhancement opportunities and training needs. During 2021/22, the University has reinforced this process through providing detailed feedback to School on the quality of annual programme reviews and has overseen training on self-reflective programme review through its Colleges. ��
��

�鶹��ý�����’s governance framework structure includes officers of the University, staff and student representation and lay members. The University Council is the governing body of the University and is responsible for the exercise of the University’s powers. It is tasked with approving annual quality statements as required by HEFCW, which include assuring that the standards of awards for which we are responsible have been appropriately set and maintained. The Council also reviews the University’s degree classification report and degree outcomes reports. An annual Quality Assurance Report and continuous, ongoing dialogue helps satisfy the Council that the University continues to meet these standards.

The Senate is the principal academic authority of the University and is responsible for all academic issues affecting the University, while the University Executive provides strategic direction [/about/university-management-and-governance]. Both bodies report to the University Council. The Senate and Executive are supported by the Teaching and Learning Strategy Group, which is tasked with ensuring the delivery of the Teaching and Learning Strategy, managing and reviewing institutional teaching and learning policy and with assuring the maintenance of the quality and standards of teaching. ��is Chaired by the Pro-vice Chancellor for Education and also considers issues relating to student performance and degree classifications including issues relating to equality, diversity and attainment gaps.

The University Quality Assurance Task Group oversees the implementation of the Quality Assurance mechanisms set out above while the Collaborative Provision Sub-group oversees standards, and quality mechanisms across the University’s Collaborative provision. Both committees report to the Teaching and Learning Strategy Group. School Boards of Studies and Examination Boards are responsible for the quality of their awards and are guided by the University’s regulations and advice provided by the Quality Enhancement Unit.

Responsibility for managing the University’s quality framework sits within the Student Services Division, where Student Administration is tasked with supporting Examination Boards, providing guidance on issues such as continuation and progression and updating regulation 1. The Quality Enhancement Unit provides advice on the approval, reapproval and modification of programmes, modules and partnerships. It oversees external examiner appointments and support and has overall operational responsibility for the Curriculum Management System which provides an accurate and updated record of all our teaching together with clear responsibilities for reviewing any changes.

The Quality Enhancement unit has responsibility for managing and reviewing guidance and policy on programmes and module design, programme review, and on the academic management of external partnerships.

All major issues identified or brought to our attention by External Examiners, student complaints or student feedback and representation are addressed by the University and reported to enable us to learn and to extend best practice.

The University has two UK collaborative partnerships leading to its awards. Its major partnership is with Grwp Llandrillo Menai (GllM), with whom it offers around 50 validated degree programmes. These are approved and reapproved through identical processes to the University’s own and correspond to the in terms of the level of teaching and assessment. During validation, the alignment of programme to the University’s own Assessment Framework is also verified.��

Assessment and marking of the University’s collaborative provision is overseen by External Examiners that are appointed by the University. Senior University academics in cognate fields are appointed as Moderators on validated provision. Moderators visit partners, interact with staff and students, attend examination boards and are responsible for ensuring that the annual review of programmes follows the University’s own procedures which include attention to trends and variations in student performance. Annual Moderator reports address issues including the operation of the programme, the integrity of assessment and the conduct of Examination Boards and are collated by the University’s Quality Enhancement Unit and with themes and issues arising discussed at the University’s Collaborative Provision Sub-group and reported to the University’s Teaching and Learning Strategy Group.��

The University also offers a programme with Coleg Cambria through a franchise arrangement. Materials and assessments are provided by the University and as is the case for validated delivery, these are scrutinised by External Examiners appointed by �鶹��ý�����. An academic lead who is also responsible for the on-campus version of the programme, liaises with the programme team at Coleg Cambria and ensures that examination boards follow the University’s regulations. The academic lead is also responsible for overseeing the annual review process in collaboration with the partner’s staff.

Academic, management and quality colleagues at GllM and Coleg Cambria were involved in the development of this document and in the ongoing review of our quality practices. ��

The University uses a single algorithm to determine degree classifications for Bachelor’s (Honours) Degrees. ��The calculation involves adding the overall percentage for L5 (year two) modules to the overall percentage for L6 (year three) modules with the L6 [year 3] modules having double weighting and the whole divided by three: [L5 + (L6 x 2)/3]. 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].��

The algorithm has remained consistent since the University received independent awarding powers, but is reviewed every 5 years.��

The Centre for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching (CELT) has produced a that provides staff with a wide variety of ideas and practical advice e.g. exploring the use of , taking advantage of the lessons learnt from the shift to the Blended Learning approach.

The resource also includes a toolkit of high-quality student engagement interventions developed during 2022 and based on collaborative work across North Wales, led by the University and funded by QAA Cymru. This is searchable by method and by objective achieved (retention, performance and improved student experience) to enable its use at classroom and strategic levels [ .

The information is flexibly packaged so that staff can opt for either short format presentations, or for longer, more comprehensive coverage of information and ideas. An important part of the Teaching Resources site concerns online . Staff are presented with guidance on how to both design and deliver assessment, as well as how to prepare for and to provide effective feedback. The overall effect is to encourage staff to reflect on the purpose of their assessment, to consider the links with the intended learning outcomes, to devise authentic assessments where appropriate, and to ensure that module level assessment also aligns to programme level outcomes. Much of the information and training applies equally to both blended as well as digitally enhanced learning environments. The �鶹��ý����� Assessment Framework document and , addressing the verification of marks, act as the sound basis, both for academics to ensure fair and consistent procedures in assessment & feedback design and marking, as well as a reference points for External Examiners to check for due process in these regards.

The University has continued to invest in teaching facilities (including laboratory and performance facilities), library services, social learning facilities and learning technology. Indeed, the quality of physical and virtual learning resources was noted in the University’s Gold Teaching Excellence Framework evaluation.

In 2021/22, work has started, in partnership with students and staff to further develop an inclusive teaching and learning environment, for example, by diversifying and decolonising curricular, as appropriate, across disciplines.

The University places a high priority on caring for and supporting all our students to help them thrive in all aspects of their time at University and offers support via peer guides and personal tutors, student services which includes access to Wellbeing services, Disabilities support and student administration.�� The Teaching & Learning Support Team provides a range of individually tailored, group-based, and self-access support, for example, one-to-one appointments, workshops and learning resources to help develop the skills needed to succeed at university. The Centre also offers help with academic writing, maths and statistics, presentations, reading and research.

The following actions arising from the 2021/22 Degree Outcomes Statement are currently in progress:

• Including degree classification profiles as part of Annual Review��
• Improving the focus and quality of the annual review of programmes through the Quality Enhancement Group.

Following our assessment of the current degree outcomes statement, we will work to reduce awarding gaps for all students but prioritising mature students, BAME students and students from high deprivation areas by:

1. Ensuring that the transition to university is tailored to meet the needs of all students, for example, by ensuring 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.
2. Ensuring that assessments are inclusive and provide equitable challenge for all students, and to raise and encourage all students’ academic aspirations.
3. Starting work to 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.

��