Professional data review of marks
Dear University College London,
This regards data relating to the successive reviews of students marks at the Eastman Dental Institute as mentioned in the document Academic Committee Review Panel – MSc Restorative Dental Practice.
1) How many students in total studied at the Eastman Dental Institute between 2005 and 2014?
2) How many assessment marks were recorded on the UCL student record systems in total for all students (on all programmes) who studied at UCL Eastman Dental Institute between 2005 and 2014?
3) How many assessment marks in total (for all programmes) could not be validated by the 2014 and 2016 professional data reviews (i.e. because the marked work or its coversheet were no longer available)?
4) Please provide an anonymised spreadsheet showing for all students who studied at the Eastman Dental Institute between 2005 and 2014: (i) module code, (ii) assessment title, (iii) assessment mark before correction, (iv) assessment mark as established through 2014 review, (v) mark as established through 2016 review; if the reviews could not validate the mark please indicate this.
5) How many assessment marks in total have been changed as a result of the professional data reviews in (i) 2014 and (ii) 2016?
6) How many students at have been (i) re-assessed; (ii) offered to be re-assessed; and/or (iii) offered compensation because their original marks could not be validated by the professional data review? If relevant what is the total amount paid in compensation?
7) How many students have been offered or made financial settlements because they were given (i) incorrect marks and/or (ii) incorrect degrees? If relevant what is the total amount offered and paid in settlements?
8) How any students have been contacted to tell them (i) their assessment marks are wrong; (ii) their assessment marks have been changed; (iii) their degree classification is wrong; (iv) their assessment marks could not be validated by the professional review? When were they contacted?
10) Is UCL only contacting students who were given the wrong degrees or is it contacting ALL students who have ANY wrong assessment marks?
11) What is the explanation for why this was investigated by the Academic Committee in 2013 but has taken more than three years to complete the professional data review?
Regards,
Z Wei
Thank you for your message.
If you have submitted a Freedom of Information request please accept this
email as acknowledgement that your request has been received. You should
expect a response from us within 20 working days.
Data Protection & FOI
Legal Services
UCL
Dear Z Wei,
I am writing to seek some clarification with regard to your request for
information received by UCL on 13 September.
I’d be grateful if you could confirm the following:
(1) whether in item 1, we should count the number of students or
the number of student instances (the difference being that if a student
takes one programme, and then later takes another programme, they would
count a 1 student, but 2 student instances).
(2) whether in both item 1 and 2, the time period is anyone who
studied in the 2005/06 academic year through to the 2014/15 academic year
(inclusive). That is, the dates of 1 August 2005 to 31 July 2015. If not
please could they specify exact start and end dates for the period
Regards,
Alex Daybank
Data Protection & FOI
Legal Services
University College London
cid:image003.jpg@01CF4F2E.F65C2E80
Dear Alex Daybank,
I should have given my requests more clearly so I am glad to reply to your questions:
(1) please include the student instances.
(1 & 2) please include records for anyone who was enrolled as a student for any length of time at any point between 1 August 2005 to 31 July 2015 regardless of the date they started or finished or if they finished. I did not mean to ask for students who were enrolled the whole time.
Thank you Mr Daybank.
Regards,
Z Wei
Thank you,
We will now proceed with your request.
Alex
Alex Daybank
Data Protection & FOI
Legal Services
University College London
Dear Z Wei,
I am writing in response to your request for information received by UCL
on 13 September.
UCL holds some recorded information relevant to your request, however
please note that the question you refer to as 11 is not a valid FOI
request as you appear to be asking us to answer a specific question and to
provide our view of an issue rather than recorded information.
Please find answers to the remainder of your questions below:
1) How many students in total studied at the Eastman Dental Institute
between 2005 and 2014?
2,521. This counts all student instances with an enrolment in the years
2005/06 to 2014/15 inclusive. The counting on student instances ensures
that if a student spends multiple years on the same programme they will
only be counted once; And that if a student takes more than one programme
(e.g. a masters, followed by a research degree) both programmes taken by
the student are counted.
2) How many assessment marks were recorded on the UCL student record
systems in total for all students (on all programmes) who studied at UCL
Eastman Dental Institute between 2005 and 2014?
10,412. This figure is calculated by enumerating all the module results
present for the student instances identified in question (1)
3) How many assessment marks in total (for all programmes) could not be
validated by the 2014 and 2016 professional data reviews (i.e. because the
marked work or its coversheet were no longer available)?
In terms of the 2016 of the 599 2013/14 component assessment marks
reviewed, raw data (exam scripts etc.) was not available for 162 of those
components. We do not hold any information relating to what you have
referred to as the ‘2014 review’
4) Please provide an anonymised spreadsheet showing for all students who
studied at the Eastman Dental Institute between 2005 and 2014: (i) module
code, (ii) assessment title, (iii) assessment mark before correction, (iv)
assessment mark as established through 2014 review, (v) mark as
established through 2016 review; if the reviews could not validate the
mark please indicate this.
Please find attached a document containing the 2,521 students referred to
in (1) and their module results. There are approximately 10,000 results.
For some of the students there are no results, this will particularly be
the case for research students who do not take modules, but also for
students who did not get as far as taking module assessments.
As you can see for each module assessment there is the module code, the
module name, the grade, the attached PDF document provides details of the
marking scheme used. Please note that for many of the assessments there
will not be a mark as they would have been on a pass/fail basis.
As you know you requested this information in anonymised form and having
considered this request we concluded that given the low numbers of
students the only way to ensure that no identifiable data is disclosed is
to remove any link between specific students and the module results
provided. This is because were we to link the data to students, even by
way of an anonymised reference number it may still be possible to identify
an individual and their results. For example, if one student mark module
mark is known it may then be possible to ascertain what the other modules
and marks the student took were given the low numbers of students taking
each module. This would result in marks and overall performance data of
individuals on these programme being placed into the public domain. As a
consequence this would amount to a disclosure of personal data.
We considered the reasonable expectations of the data subjects and have
concluded that individuals would not expect their marks to be placed into
the public domain in this way by UCL. As a consequence to do so would
amount to an unfair processing of personal data and a breach of the first
data protection principle. As a result the breakdown of each module and
component has been withheld under section 40(2) of the FOI Act.
Please note we do not hold recorded information relating to part 4 (iv).
With regard to part (v) we hold some information relating to work
conducted in 2016 to assess any element (component or module) undertaken
in 2013/14 to establish where the raw data does not match the mark
recorded in the student records system. Please note that this has found
that the overall impact of these errors had no effect on the final award
classification of those students. This information is not available in our
central records system therefore we need to manually add this information
to the attached spreadsheet so that you can see where marks have been
found to be erroneous. Unfortunately we are not yet in a position to be
able to provide this information, I will provide you with a revised
spreadsheet as soon as possible.
5) How many assessment marks in total have been changed as a result of the
professional data reviews in (i) 2014 and (ii) 2016?
No marks have yet been changed. As aforementioned the 2016 review found
that there was no impact act on overall award.
6) How many students at have been (i) re-assessed; (ii) offered to be
re-assessed; and/or (iii) offered compensation because their original
marks could not be validated by the professional data review? If relevant
what is the total amount paid in compensation?
None, no recorded information held.
7) How many students have been offered or made financial settlements
because they were given (i) incorrect marks and/or (ii) incorrect degrees?
If relevant what is the total amount offered and paid in settlements?
None, no recorded information held.
8) How any students have been contacted to tell them (i) their assessment
marks are wrong; (ii) their assessment marks have been changed; (iii)
their degree classification is wrong; (iv) their assessment marks could
not be validated by the professional review? When were they contacted?
None, no recorded information held.
10) Is UCL only contacting students who were given the wrong degrees or is
it contacting ALL students who have ANY wrong assessment marks?
The work conducted in 2016 has found that that there was no overall impact
on final award for the 2013-14 modules and components marks analysed. An
appropriate communication strategy relating to this matter is under
consideration
You are free to use any information supplied for your own use, including
for non-commercial research purposes. The information may also be used for
the purposes of news reporting. However, any other type of re-use, for
example by publishing or issuing copies to the public, will require the
permission of the copyright owner.
If you are unhappy with our response to your request and wish to make a
complaint or request a review of our decision, please email [1][email
address]. Emails should include the words ‘Internal Review’ in the subject
and be marked For the Attention of the Vice Provost Operations,
alternatively you should write to:
Vice Provost Operations
University College London
1-19 Torrington Place
London WC1E 7HB
Please note, complaints and requests for internal review received more
than two months after the initial decision will not be handled.
If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you may
apply directly to the Information Commissioner at the address given
below. You should do this within two months of our final decision.
If you have any queries or concerns, please contact me using the details
provided in this letter and including the request reference number.
Further information on the Freedom of Information Act is available from
the Information Commissioner’s Office:
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
SK9 5AF
Telephone 01625 545700
[2]www.ico.org.uk
Regards,
Alex Daybank
Data Protection & FOI
Legal Services
University College London
cid:image003.jpg@01CF4F2E.F65C2E80
Dear Z Wei,
Please find attached the outstanding information held by UCL relevant to
part 4 (v) of your request.
Please accept my apologies for the delay.
Regards,
Alex Daybank
Data Protection & FOI
Legal Services
University College London
cid:image003.jpg@01CF4F2E.F65C2E80
From: Finance.FOI Requests
Sent: 11 October 2016 14:58
To: 'Z Wei' <[1][FOI #358623 email]>
Subject: Partial Response: Freedom of Information request - Professional
data review of marks [016-353]
Dear Z Wei,
I am writing in response to your request for information received by UCL
on 13 September.
UCL holds some recorded information relevant to your request, however
please note that the question you refer to as 11 is not a valid FOI
request as you appear to be asking us to answer a specific question and to
provide our view of an issue rather than recorded information.
Please find answers to the remainder of your questions below:
1) How many students in total studied at the Eastman Dental Institute
between 2005 and 2014?
2,521. This counts all student instances with an enrolment in the years
2005/06 to 2014/15 inclusive. The counting on student instances ensures
that if a student spends multiple years on the same programme they will
only be counted once; And that if a student takes more than one programme
(e.g. a masters, followed by a research degree) both programmes taken by
the student are counted.
2) How many assessment marks were recorded on the UCL student record
systems in total for all students (on all programmes) who studied at UCL
Eastman Dental Institute between 2005 and 2014?
10,412. This figure is calculated by enumerating all the module results
present for the student instances identified in question (1)
3) How many assessment marks in total (for all programmes) could not be
validated by the 2014 and 2016 professional data reviews (i.e. because the
marked work or its coversheet were no longer available)?
In terms of the 2016 of the 599 2013/14 component assessment marks
reviewed, raw data (exam scripts etc.) was not available for 162 of those
components. We do not hold any information relating to what you have
referred to as the ‘2014 review’
4) Please provide an anonymised spreadsheet showing for all students who
studied at the Eastman Dental Institute between 2005 and 2014: (i) module
code, (ii) assessment title, (iii) assessment mark before correction, (iv)
assessment mark as established through 2014 review, (v) mark as
established through 2016 review; if the reviews could not validate the
mark please indicate this.
Please find attached a document containing the 2,521 students referred to
in (1) and their module results. There are approximately 10,000 results.
For some of the students there are no results, this will particularly be
the case for research students who do not take modules, but also for
students who did not get as far as taking module assessments.
As you can see for each module assessment there is the module code, the
module name, the grade, the attached PDF document provides details of the
marking scheme used. Please note that for many of the assessments there
will not be a mark as they would have been on a pass/fail basis.
As you know you requested this information in anonymised form and having
considered this request we concluded that given the low numbers of
students the only way to ensure that no identifiable data is disclosed is
to remove any link between specific students and the module results
provided. This is because were we to link the data to students, even by
way of an anonymised reference number it may still be possible to identify
an individual and their results. For example, if one student mark module
mark is known it may then be possible to ascertain what the other modules
and marks the student took were given the low numbers of students taking
each module. This would result in marks and overall performance data of
individuals on these programme being placed into the public domain. As a
consequence this would amount to a disclosure of personal data.
We considered the reasonable expectations of the data subjects and have
concluded that individuals would not expect their marks to be placed into
the public domain in this way by UCL. As a consequence to do so would
amount to an unfair processing of personal data and a breach of the first
data protection principle. As a result the breakdown of each module and
component has been withheld under section 40(2) of the FOI Act.
Please note we do not hold recorded information relating to part 4 (iv).
With regard to part (v) we hold some information relating to work
conducted in 2016 to assess any element (component or module) undertaken
in 2013/14 to establish where the raw data does not match the mark
recorded in the student records system. Please note that this has found
that the overall impact of these errors had no effect on the final award
classification of those students. This information is not available in our
central records system therefore we need to manually add this information
to the attached spreadsheet so that you can see where marks have been
found to be erroneous. Unfortunately we are not yet in a position to be
able to provide this information, I will provide you with a revised
spreadsheet as soon as possible.
5) How many assessment marks in total have been changed as a result of the
professional data reviews in (i) 2014 and (ii) 2016?
No marks have yet been changed. As aforementioned the 2016 review found
that there was no impact act on overall award.
6) How many students at have been (i) re-assessed; (ii) offered to be
re-assessed; and/or (iii) offered compensation because their original
marks could not be validated by the professional data review? If relevant
what is the total amount paid in compensation?
None, no recorded information held.
7) How many students have been offered or made financial settlements
because they were given (i) incorrect marks and/or (ii) incorrect degrees?
If relevant what is the total amount offered and paid in settlements?
None, no recorded information held.
8) How any students have been contacted to tell them (i) their assessment
marks are wrong; (ii) their assessment marks have been changed; (iii)
their degree classification is wrong; (iv) their assessment marks could
not be validated by the professional review? When were they contacted?
None, no recorded information held.
10) Is UCL only contacting students who were given the wrong degrees or is
it contacting ALL students who have ANY wrong assessment marks?
The work conducted in 2016 has found that that there was no overall impact
on final award for the 2013-14 modules and components marks analysed. An
appropriate communication strategy relating to this matter is under
consideration
You are free to use any information supplied for your own use, including
for non-commercial research purposes. The information may also be used for
the purposes of news reporting. However, any other type of re-use, for
example by publishing or issuing copies to the public, will require the
permission of the copyright owner.
If you are unhappy with our response to your request and wish to make a
complaint or request a review of our decision, please email [2][email
address]. Emails should include the words ‘Internal Review’ in the subject
and be marked For the Attention of the Vice Provost Operations,
alternatively you should write to:
Vice Provost Operations
University College London
1-19 Torrington Place
London WC1E 7HB
Please note, complaints and requests for internal review received more
than two months after the initial decision will not be handled.
If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you may
apply directly to the Information Commissioner at the address given
below. You should do this within two months of our final decision.
If you have any queries or concerns, please contact me using the details
provided in this letter and including the request reference number.
Further information on the Freedom of Information Act is available from
the Information Commissioner’s Office:
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
SK9 5AF
Telephone 01625 545700
[3]www.ico.org.uk
Regards,
Alex Daybank
Data Protection & FOI
Legal Services
University College London
cid:image003.jpg@01CF4F2E.F65C2E80
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now