What did you do to create inclusive practice and how did you do it?
The University of Hull’s mission statement is to create a ‘Brighter, Fairer, Carbon Neutral Future’; as such, reducing inequalities in educational outcomes is a central part of our education strategy and philosophy. Awarding gaps are defined as inequalities in who graduates with a 1st or 2i between two different demographic groups. Getting a 1st/2i opens up more graduate employment and study opportunities, so underpins the future careers and aspirations of our students. If there are inequalities in who graduates with a 1st/2i, this will perpetuate inequalities of opportunity. The university therefore sees reducing awarding gaps as a moral and ethical responsibility, as well as a regulatory requirement. The university has established four awarding gap targets within its Access and Participation Plan, agreed with the Office for Students (OfS) as a condition of registration. We have committed to halving awarding gaps for four demographic comparisons by 2024/25:
- POLAR4 quintile – Quintile 5 (highest participation in HE) vs Quintile 1 (lowest participation)
- Mature students – Young students vs Mature students
- Ethnicity – White students vs Black, Asian and Ethnic Minority students
- Disability – Non-disabled students vs those who have declared a disability (including physical and sensory disabilities, long-term health conditions, mental health issues or Specific Learning Differences) Our awarding gap targets therefore take account of multiple dimensions of educational inequality.
At a national level, many institutions are rightly focussing on the ethnicity gap, but we have gone further and taken an intersectional approach.
Why did you implement your example of inclusive practice?
Addressing awarding gaps at a structural level has required bringing together academic and professional staff from across the institution. I have been on a funded 50% secondment to our Teaching Excellence Academy for 4 years to work on this issue, develop resources and support staff to understand the issue and make positive change. This secondment is funded from our Widening Participation budget, and allows for dedicated effort across the institution rather than ‘pockets’ of enthusiasm and good practice. Resources that I have developed include an interactive data dashboard, giving awarding gap data at subject level, which has been invaluable in making the issue relevant on the ground. This was a collaboration with our central Strategic Planning and Business Intelligence unit, who provided invaluable expertise in data management. We also did a rigorous statistical analysis of historical awarding gap data across the institution to understand the role of entry qualifications and tariff, and the intersectionality across the four gaps. Both have been essential in communicating the issues on the ground. I have also written an Awarding Gap Audit tool, aligned to the Inclusive Education Framework, which suggests actions from ‘quick wins’ to programme design. I run workshops at subject level to support programme teams in understanding their data and identifying actions that are appropriate in their context. I also sit on the University Education Committee, and report annually on awarding gap data. Through this committee, I have introduced Awarding Gaps as a standing item on Faculty- and School-level education committees, and embedded reporting and acting on awarding gaps within our quality processes, meaning that all programme teams are required to engage with the issue, monitor their data and identify actions.
What was the impact of your case study?
The immediate impact has been to raise awareness of the awarding gap issue across the institution; all programme leaders should now be aware of the issue, how to find their data and where to find tools to identify actions. This has been a cultural shift, and awareness of educational inequality is now much more widespread. We are now seeing measurable closure of awarding gaps: our 2021/22 awarding gap data shows that all four gaps are now below or at our targets for 2024/25, and well below sector benchmarks. This is partly owed to work done as part of my project, but also through university-wide initiatives that pre-date the impact of my work. For example, we moved to authentic non-exam-based assessment before the pandemic in many disciplines, and the impact of that change can now be seen in our institution-level data. I have also collated good practice from across the institution, using the data to identify subjects with small or narrowing awarding gaps. For example, our Psychology department had independently adopted more objective marking rubrics and embedded assessment literacy into tutorials; I was able to identify a significant closure in their awarding gaps, so both elements of practice are being rolled out more widely.
What were the lessons learned?
Engage with stakeholders across the institution, including academic and professional services colleagues. Understanding and presenting the appropriate data is key for buy-in; work with a data scientist or mathematician to do rigorous analysis, and determine whether data should be presented at programme, subject or faculty level. Don’t assume that all areas of the university have the same issues – considering the data at a more local level helps to get colleagues on board. Use the formal mechanisms within the university to bring about systematic change, rather than relying on enthusiastic individuals only; agendas, terms of references and quality processes are all vehicles to get this issue understood across an institution