Attributes expected in biosciences graduates are not necessarily those assessed in examinations

This questionnaire survey, conducted in partnership with the Institute of Biology, sought to determine the attributes that departments expected biological sciences graduates to possess; what attributes they actually assessed in assigning Honours degree classification; and the pattern of current programme provision.

Expected attributes found to be common across the sector

As part of its Graduate Standards Programme the Higher Education Quality Council (now the Quality Assurance Agency) produced a generic profile of attributes that graduates might be expected to possess, within the following groupings: subject mastery, intellectual/cognitive, practical, self/the individual, and social/people. All departments participating in the current survey considered that this generic profile could be used to characterise the expected attributes of their graduates, although some urged caution in its use. The rank order of essential attributes (see Table 1) did not differ appreciably across different subject disciplines within the biological sciences, and across different types of institutions (old, 60s i.e. post-Robbins, new).

Some expected attributes and actually assessed attributes differed in ranking

Some interesting differences in ranking were observed between expected individual attributes and those that departments claimed to assess and utilise in deciding degree class (Table 1). Knowledge of subject content and range was elevated 6 places to top position in assessed attributes; investigative skills was depressed 3 places, coupled with laboratory skills elevated 2 places; communication was depressed by 7 places; and originality was elevated 11 places. The differences in ranking probably reflect the relative ease and familiarity of departments with assessing certain attributes as against others. The most often used assessment methods were practical project, course work, and written examination paper, with peer- and self-assessment coming more into play for social/people and self/the individual skills.

Degree programmes predominantly full time and academically based

Across the biological sciences sector teaching was overwhelmingly campus-based and 76% traditional face to face. 95% of students overall were full time (91% at new universities) and 97% followed conventional programmes of specified duration. 70% of programmes offered the possibility of work experience, and, on average, 30% of students on those programmes took up the opportunity, although this varied widely.

Overall mean provision was focused 80% on a particular discipline (71% at new universities) and 20% on a more general scientific education. Essentially all departments stated that their programmes were >50% discipline focused. A mean of 82% of provision was academically based rather than vocationally based (68% at new universities), and no department considered that its approach was predominantly vocational. Essentially all departments stated that the programme focus was >50% on providing skills for careers in the biological sciences.

Less than four hours small group sessions per week

98% of students entered the programmes intending an Honours degree. This may make it unlikely that the Dearing vision of an expansion of sub-Honours programmes will gain easy acceptance. 71% of programmes overall were considered to be prescribed or wholly integrated, rather than highly customised, although there was wide variation between institutions. The distributions of the numbers of hours practical work, and of lectures, per week over the usual three year programmes, are shown in Tables 2 and 3 respectively. The mode was overwhelmingly (always >82%) for 0-4 hours small group sessions or tutorials per week, with relatively little change over the course of the programme.

67% of assessment was examination based and 33% by continuous assessment. Overall, the pattern of examination was evenly divided between end of module and end of year. Practical work contributed 1-25% of the final degree mark in 64% of programmes, and 26-50% in the remaining 36%. Non-final year grades most frequently contributed 1-25% of the final degree mark (46% of courses), or 26-50% (33% of courses), but did not contribute at all in 19% of courses.