7.5.3: Module and Credit Framework

Principles

1. Durham University has adopted a credit framework for its taught programmes in line with its own mission and definition of standards and taking into account as points of reference the QAA Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ) and the Higher Education Credit Framework for England and Wales. A summary of the framework is given at paragraph 14 and the notes below explain the rationale for the framework adopted, particularly where this diverges from the national guidelines.

2. In drafting the University's credit framework and the regulations by which that framework is put into practice we have taken into account the need to assure ourselves that:

a. standards are consistent across subject areas;

b. standards provide logical progression between levels of modules and awards;

c. our credit framework articulates with national guidelines;

d. awards are made to students as the result of a defined learning experience within Durham University which justifies the award of a Durham qualification;

e. students are rewarded appropriately for successful study but are offered learning opportunities to redeem failure early in their programme of study;

f. an appropriate degree of flexibility is allowed to those designing the curriculum, to provide for:

• a choice in line with students' abilities and interests;
• for specialist modules reflecting areas of research expertise and reinforcing the link between teaching and research in the curriculum. Such modules may be taken by relatively few students but it is important that these opportunities be provided and that the modules are viable.

3. The Durham University framework adopts credit as the currency in which student achievement is defined. Credits are gained when modules are successfully completed and a module is therefore defined in terms of the number of credits which each is worth, as well as in terms of its level, learning outcomes, title and content. Successful completion of a module indicates that a student has achieved the learning outcomes specified for that module. The credits gained are at the level of the module concerned and the regulations indicate how many credits must be gained and at what level to achieve any given award.

4. The University operates at HE levels with a basic module valency of 20 credits at undergraduate level, and 15 or 20 credits at taught postgraduate level. We believe that this allows student learning to be defined and assessed within a unit which is small enough to provide a clear structure but large enough to minimise the dangers of excessive fragmentation of the subject area. It also provides for some economies of scale in learning and teaching and in assessment: larger modular units give students more scope to make links between different elements of the subject area within the same module and for this to be assessed; smaller modules can fragment the subject and deny students the opportunity to take an overview of the material. Further, there is a 'start-up cost' for each module - for the student coming to terms with its material and its modes of learning and teaching and at the point of assessment, where, for example, a 10-credit module cannot necessarily be assessed with an examination paper of half the duration of a 20-credit module or with an essay of half the length.

5. We are aware that external examiners regularly criticise programmes working with 10-credit modules for over-assessment. By opting for larger modular units we believe that we can offer students the chance to demonstrate greater quality of thought and understanding and staff the opportunity to develop wider-ranging approaches to a given topic. We also regard as important savings in the associated administration compared with what would be required for a larger number of smaller modules.

6. The University has level and qualification descriptors which articulate with those in the FHEQ and within which departments prepare subject-level descriptors and assessment criteria, taking into account the relevant subject benchmarks. This structure provides a framework to assure consistency in the standards of the awards made across the University.

7. The University is fully committed to the principle that a student should register for and be committed to an academic pathway of study with a defined (although in many cases flexible) structure and specified learning outcomes. As a consequence of this the University does not operate a Credit Accumulation and Transfer System (CATS) by which credits may be accumulated and retrospectively brought together to qualify the student for an award. The University is happy to allow Accreditation of Prior Learning (APL) by which a student who has already achieved the learning outcomes for specified modules may be given credit for them without taking the module(s) concerned at Durham. However this is limited to one-third of the approved programme to ensure that all students follow a minimum proportion of the Durham programme of study and can therefore justify the award of a Durham (as opposed to any other) degree. We also believe that study at university is more than just the accumulation of credits but reflects a total experience which is itself developmental above and beyond the curriculum: while we cannot quantify this in classifying degrees we wish to ensure that the award of a Durham degree is not made to students who have not been able to benefit from the overall experience which we offer.

Specific Issues

8. At the undergraduate level the Durham University credit framework permits modules to the value of 40 credits to be taken from a level below that of the student's current level of study (e.g. to allow Level 2 modules to be taken at Level 3). We recognise that this represents a larger credit value than that anticipated in the national credit guidelines (viz 30 credits). We debated carefully the issues associated with this question and our final decision was based on the following considerations:

a. we wished to promote flexibility within the curriculum to enable students to have some choice of modules where this is academically appropriate. Since we operate with 20-credit modular units at undergraduate level (for reasons explained above) the national limit of 30 credits meant that in practice students would be able to take only one module from a lower level and we felt that this was too restrictive;

b. our regulations allow students to take only 10 credits more from a lower level than the national guidelines recommend, and we did not believe that standards would be compromised significantly by this difference. We would be permitting 1/3 of the year's modules to be taken from a lower level in comparison with ¼ permitted by the national guidelines. However scope for student choice and flexibility in curriculum design are effectively doubled from one module to two modules per year (cf a. above). We regarded this gain as more substantial than the risk to standards;

c. to ensure that standards are not put at risk by this provision and to support progression we have restricted the lower level from which a module may be drawn within undergraduate programmes to the level adjacent to the level at which the student is studying (eg within Level 3, 40 credits may be taken from Level 2 but not from Level 1) and we do not permit Level 0 modules to be taken within an HE programme. This is more rigorous than the national guidelines which provide for no such restrictions.

9. With respect to taught postgraduate Masters degrees we permit up to 30 credits to be taken from modules at a lower level. We decided that such modules could be drawn from any level of an undergraduate programme (not simply from Level 3). This was specifically to permit ab initio teaching (eg of a language or use of a statistical package) which might be necessary as part of the development of a specialist area of study (for example an archaeologist specialising in Medieval archaeology at MA level might need to learn Latin). In such cases the programme would be a fully valid postgraduate (not graduate) level award because the student would have studied the main subject at first degree level and be developing a specialist area of expertise for their second degree, but it would be necessary to ensure that particular skills could be acquired ab initio. Further, the skill acquired would normally contribute to Masters-level work during the programme, for example within the dissertation, so that the outcomes of the skill and its application would be demonstrated at Masters level.

10. After long debate we decided to permit compensation in up to 40 credits at Level 3 of Bachelors and integrated Masters degrees provided that the student has marks of 30-39% in the modules to be compensated and an average of at least 40% in all the modules for that level of study including the modules to be compensated. This may include a failed module carried from Level 2, offering an opportunity for a student to redeem failure and gain an Honours degree rather than an Ordinary degree. This permits credit to be awarded in the case of marginal failure on the basis of an overall performance which is sufficient to merit the award of the qualification concerned. However this is permitted only in respect of modules, failure in which does not compromise achievement of the learning outcomes of the programme as a whole. The regulations for each programme will therefore indicate any modules which are crucial to those learning outcomes and for which compensation cannot be permitted. Such modules will typically include the dissertation or project module. More limited compensation (20 credits) is permitted at Level 4 of an integrated Masters degree, reflecting the higher standard of the Masters degree.

11. We have introduced an Ordinary degree in parallel with each Honours degree to provide a valid pathway for students failing at Honours level. This replaces our previous policy of allowing students to graduate carrying failed modules which we recognised did not enable us to ensure that all learning outcomes were met. At the same time we were determined to provide students with an opportunity to redeem failure sustained at an early stage in their studies, when for example they had chosen subsidiary modules unwisely, failed to manage their time across all six modules, or encountered work which they initially found particularly difficult. We believe that the credit framework and associated regulations should, as far as possible, support students in developing the necessary skills to succeed at Honours level rather than simply penalising them for failure. We therefore made provision for limited resit opportunities (60 credits) at Level 2 and for students who transfer to the Ordinary degree stream at Level 2 and pass at least 100 credits at that level to transfer back to Honours.

12. The Ordinary degree is awarded to students gaining a total of at least 300 credits which may include failure in 20 credits at Level 1 and/or 2 (after resits as applicable). Those transferring to the Ordinary degree at the end of Level 1 who pass 120 credits at Level 2 may transfer back to Honours at Level 3. This means that some students will graduate with an Honours degree carrying a failed Level 1 module. We have not taken these decisions lightly. In doing so we have taken into account the following requirements:

a. to provide clear stages in qualifications for part-time students who may take up to 9 years to complete a degree;

b. to provide exit qualifications for all students including those failing at Honours level (or equivalent at Level 1);

c. to leave open the possibility that students who fail a modules at Level 1 may redeem that performance at Level 2 and transfer back to Honours at Level 3;

d. to offer a system which is internally consistent.

13. We further believe that standards are safeguarded by the following considerations:

a. failure in modules at Level 3 (or where appropriate at Level 4) cannot be condoned for the award of an Honours degree although there is limited compensation, as described above. Our qualification descriptors reflect the fact that graduates should have developed the ability to manage their time across a range of subjects by the end of their programme;

b. where students are awarded an Honours degree with only 340 credits (or 460 credits for an integrated Masters degree), the failed module will be at Level 1 whereas the learning outcomes for the degree programme as a whole will typically depend on final honours modules (those taken at Level 2, 3 and, where appropriate, 4);

c. students will not be allowed to progress to the Ordinary degree at Level 2 if they have failed a module at Level 1 which is a pre-requisite for study at Level 2;

d. and that any issues of concern arising from this approach are out-weighed by (1) the transparency of this approach and (2) the opportunity afforded to students to learn constructively from their mistakes.

Durham University Credit Framework

14. The University's Credit Framework is as follows:

*340 exceptionally for students who fail a module at Level 1, transfer to the Ordinary degree stream, pass all Level 2 modules, transfer back to Honours and pass all subsequent modules.

15.  Integrated Masters degree:

16.  Honours degree:

17.  Ordinary degree:

*but progression not permitted if failure is in a prerequisite module for level 2

** but progression not permitted if failure is in a prerequisite module for level 3