Entrance Qualifications Affect the Performance of Nutrition Students at University: A Pilot Study

Abstract

This study assessed the effect of admissions qualifications on the subsequent academic performances of BSc nutrition students at a UK university. Entrance qualifications for three groups (Grp01, Grp02, Grp03) reading for a BSc(Hons) degree in, Dietetics, Food & Nutrition or Human Nutrition (n = 105) were determined from their UCAS (Universities and Colleges Admissions Service) points. Academic performances were derived from coursework and examinations marks over four years (Year 1 to Year 4) for three nutrition-focussed courses. The results show that the average entrance qualifications for ‘Dietetics’ students (357 ± 72 points) was significantly higher than those for ‘Food & Nutrition’ (252 ± 49 points) and ‘Human Nutrition’ (277 ± 88 points) students. For the cohort as a whole, entrance qualifications were significantly correlated with academic performance in Year 1, Year 2, and Year 4 but not in Year 3 of study with effect sizes of 11.7%, 12.1%, 9.8% and 2.9%, respectively. The final degree mark for all courses differed by ~5% with 9.8% of variation in final marks explained by differences in entrance qualifications. It may be concluded that, entrance qualifications affect academic performances of nutrition students at university. However, the evidence suggests that student’s academic experiences at university had significant influences on their final degree scores. The findings of this study are discussed in terms of their relevance to teaching practices.

Keywords:

• entrance qualifications
• academic performance
• nutrition

Introduction

Admission to undergraduate courses within UK universities is based on prior educational qualifications, previous experiential learning and personality factors (Chapman 1996). The system for matching prospective students with available courses is administered by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) during which over 40 pre-university qualifications are translated into a unitary scale of ‘UCAS tariff points’. Prospective students require 250–300 UCAS points in addition to subject-specific qualifications (e.g. biology, chemistry and/or another relevant science qualification) for admissions to nutrition courses. Admissions tariffs may be adjusted by universities to align recruitment with year-on-year changes in student demand for places (McCowan 2007, Cardak & Ryan 2009).

The University of Ulster currently offers three Bachelor of Science (BSc) degree courses within the food, nutrition and dietetics subject area, i.e. BSc(Hons) Dietetics, BSc(Hons) Human Nutrition, and BSc(Hons) Food & Nutrition. The effect of entrance qualifications on the performance of medical students has received attention (Lynch et al. 2009, James et al. 2010) but similar research has not appeared related to nutrition students. The null hypothesis for this investigation was that entrance qualifications have no effect on the academic performance of nutrition students at university.

Methods

The study involved three cohorts of students admitted to the University of Ulster to read BSc(Hons) Dietetics (Grp01), BSc(Hons) Food & Nutrition (Grp02) or BSc(Hons) Human Nutrition (Grp03) during 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 academic years. Entrance qualifications were recorded from the total UCAS points for applicants. Academic performances were measured from examination and coursework marks over four years (Year 1 to Year 4). Work-based learning (industrial placement) results from Year 3 were compared for Grp02 and Grp03 only. Subjects were excluded from the study if they had no data for admissions (e.g. transfer students) or final degree marks. Following an initial quality assurance screening, all analyses were performed with anonymous data sets. The final population (105 students) comprised 95% female and 5% male students. The sample sizes for specific cohorts of students were n = 32 (Grp01), n = 33 (Grp02) or n = 40 (Grp03). Statistical analysis employed the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, version 20). Differences between groups were examined using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Turkey post hoc analysis. Associations between different parameters were examined using Pearson’s correlation analysis; for some of the analysis the sample was first stratified according to the three separate groups. Partial correlation analysis was applied to control for the effect admissions qualifications where necessary. Effect sizes were estimated from the magnitude of the squared correlation coefficient (R²).

Results and Discussion

The average entrance qualifications for three groups of students are shown in Table 1. Admissions qualifications for Grp01 students were greater than values for the other two groups (p = 0.001). However, entrance qualifications for Grp02 and Grp03 were not statistically different (p = 0.195). Academic performances in Year 1 and Year 2 of study were different for all groups; Grp01 > Grp03 > Grp02 (p ≤ 0.001). Academic performances in Year 3 and Year 4 were similar for Grp02 and Grp03. The final degree (Year 4) score for Grp01 students (67 ± 4.7%) was higher compared with degree scores for Grp02 (62.2 ± 5.4%; p = 0.002) or Grp03 students (63.8 ± 4.4%; p = 0.029) though the last two values were not significantly different (p = 0.416). For all students considered together, UCAS tarrifs were positively correlated with academic performances in all undergraduate years combined (see Figure 1 and Table 2).

Table 1 A summary of entrance qualifications (EQ) and academic performances for three groups of nutrition students

	Grp01	Grp02	Grp03
EQ	357±72 (a)	252±49 (b)	277±88 (b)
Year 1 (%)	78.0±5.9 (a)	64.0±9.8 (b)	72.0±6.5 (c)
Year 2 (%)	74.8±7.0 (a)	58.0±10.4 (b)	65.0±9.1 (c)
Year 3 (%)	—	73.6±5.7 (a)	73.5±8.0 (a)
Year 4 (%)	67.0±4.7 (a)	62.2±5.4 (b)	64.0±4.4 (b)

Note: Academic performances during Year 1 to Year 4 at univeristy is taken as course-work plus examination marks (%). Year 4 performance = final degree mark. Within each row different letters are signficantly different (p < 0.05).

Figure 1 The relations between entrance qualifications (UCAS points) and first year performance (a) or final year degree mark (b). Associations were examined by correlational analysis, the equation of the straight lines and the lines are provided with R² values to high the straight of effects, in these cases Y1 = 0.0451x + 58.12 (R² = 0.162), Y4 = 0.0224x + 57.26 (R² = 0.14). Here Y1 and Y4, etc. refer to academic performances (average percentage marks) in Year 1 and Year 4. For Year 2 and 3 data (graphs not shown) the equations are: Y2 = 0.0551x + 49.65 (R² = 0.165), Y3 = 0.0164x + 68.97 (R² = 0.029).

Table 2 Relations between entrance qualifications (EQ) and accademic performace

Indices	EQ	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Year 4
EQ	—	0.343**	0.348**	0.170	0.313**
Year 1	0.343**	—	0.727**	0.216	0.464**
Year 2	0.348**	0.727**	—	0.157	0.583**
Year 3	0.170	0.216	0.157	—	0.380**
Year 4	0.313**	0.464**	0.583**	0.380**	—

Note: Pearsons corelation analysis for combinations of indices, e.g. entrance qualifictions is correlated with Year 1 performance with r = 0.343.

*Shows signficant correlations at 0.05 (two tailed).

**Shows signficant correlations at 0.01.

In general, the demand for these university places exceeds supply. Reliance on entrance qualifications ensures that admission process for universities and colleges is equitable and meritocratic (Kennedy and Power 2010). High entrance qualifications are associated with improved degree outcomes though the magnitude of the effect is moderated by other factors (Sear 1983, Peers and Johnston 1994, Chapman 1996, Smith and Naylor 2001, Maguire et al. 2009). Entrance qualifications are also important in relation to a wider range of issues, including affirmative action, widening access, student preparedness for university study, retention and student progression (Jones & Thomas 2005, Gelber 2007, Hoare & Johnston 2011).

In this study, we found large variations (coefficient of variance, CV = 20–30%) in the entrance qualifications indicating a degree of flexibility in ‘grade offers’ made to students (Table 1) probably due to other considerations such as interview performance. Though Grp02 and Grp03 students had similar entrance qualifications the data shows that Year 1 and Year 2 academic performances were different between all groups (Grp01 > Grp03 > Grp02). When all three nutrition courses were considered together, entrance qualifications were positively correlated with academic performances in Year 1, Year 2, and Year 4 (p = 0.001) but not Year 3 with effect sizes of 11.7%, 12.1%, 9.8%, and 2.9%, respectively (Table 2). The industrial placement (Year 3) was least affected by admissions qualifications. Final degree (Year 4) marks were positively associated with academic performances in Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3 as well as admissions qualifications with effect sizes of 22%, 34%, 14% and 9.8%, respectively (Table 2). A partial correlation analysis, to control for the effect of admissions qualificiatons (data not shown), revealed that Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3 accademic performances were associated with the final degree score (p < 0.001) irrespective of admisions qualifications, with an effect size of 16%, 28% and 12%, respectively.

When each nutrition course was considered separately (Table 3), the overall trends were similar to those reported earlier with several important differences between groups. (a) Admission qualifications were positively associated with the final degree score for Grp01 and Grp02 but the relations did not attain significance (p > 0.05) due perhaps to the low sample numbers available for this secondary analysis and the narrower range of admissions qualification within each course. Interestingly, Grp03 students showed a zero or slightly negative association between degree score and entrance qualification. The impact of entrance qualification on degree marks were, 5.8% for Grp01, 6.8% for Grp02 and 0.03% for Gp03. (b) Year 1 academic performances were positively associated with final degree mark with effect sizes of 27% for Grp01, 13% for Grp02 and 3.2% for Grp03. (c) In all cases Year 2 academic performances had the strongest association with final degree score: Grp01(16%); Grp02 (36%); Grp03 (19%). (d) Finally, the industrial placement (Year 3) performance had a similar impact on the final degree score for Grp02 (11%) and Grp03 (19%) students.

Table 3 Relations between entrance qualifications (EQ) and academic performace within three nutriton student cohorts

Student cohort		EQ	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Degree
Grp01	EQ	—	0.043	0.070	0.0a	0.242
	Year 1	0.043	—	0.546**	0.0^a	0.523**
	Year 2	0.070	0.546**	ߞ	0.0a	0.395*
	Year 3	0.0^a	0.0^a	0.0^a	0.0^a	0.0^a
	Degree	0.242	0.523**	0.395*		0.0^a
Grp02	EQ		0.193	0.182	0.072	0.262
	Year 1	0.193	—	0.603**	0.376*	0.366
	Year 2	0.182	0.603**	—	0.033	0.603**
	Year 3	0.072	0.376*	0.033	—	0.339
	Degree	0.262	0.366	0.603**	0.339	—
Grp03	EQ	—	−0.050	−0.022	0.211	−0.018
	Year 1	−0.050	—	0.605**	0.171	0.179
	Year 2	−0.022	0.605**	—	0.270	0.438**
	Year 3	0.211	0.171	0.270	—	0.436**
	Degree	−0.018	0.179	0.438**	0.436**	—

^aNo values for Grp01 work-based placement (see text for explanation).

*Shows signficant correlations at 0.05 (two tailed).

**Shows signficant correlations at 0.01.

The present findings agree, in broad terms, with past investigations into the effect of entrance qualifications on university performance. For instance, a meta-analysis of the literature from 1991–1999 by Salvatori (2001) concluded that ‘… pre-admission academic grades predict subsequent in-course academic performance in all professional disciplines’. High entrance qualifications are associated with improved degree performance though the relation is moderated by teaching quality and learning context. Investigations from Coventry University showed that the likelihood of achieving a good degree was dependant on ‘A’ level results, the nature of the degree subject, gender, age, ethnicity, parental income, social class and the type of (state or privately funded) school attended. In comparison to the 9.8% effect reported for the nutrition students in the current study, entrance qualifications were reported to have 10.9–11.8% effect on the chances of obtaining a ‘good degree’ (mark > 60%) for a cohort of 42,200 female and 52,273 male university students as a whole (see Gayle et al. 2002, Naylor & Smith 2004, Smith & Naylor 2005). A recent investigation using two cohorts of bioscience students from Exeter University (King & Aves 2012) found that ‘A’ level results predicted 17–23% of the variations in final degree marks. Such results suggest a larger influence of entrance qualifications on degree marks compared to the present study, but there are important differences in study design. The investigation by King and Aves (2012) adopted the best three ‘A’ level grades for each student as a measure of their entrance qualification. In contrast, the current study used total UCAS tariffs for each student including marks for a wider range of qualifications.

We found supporting evidence that academic performances of nutrition students were modified by their experiences at university. Firstly, there were strong correlations between most performance indicators in this study, suggesting common underlying factors (Table 2). Secondly, Year 1 and Year 2 academic performances had a grater numeric effect (21% and 34%) on final degree marks compared to entry qualifications (9.8%). Such results are to some extent surprising because examinations and course work marks from the first two years of study do not count directly toward the final degree score at university. Thirdly, a partial correlation analysis, which allowed us to control for the effect of differences in admissions qualifications, confirmed that Years 1–3 academic performances were associated with the final degree scores. Despite general agreement that entrance qualifications affect final degree scores, researchers point to other moderating influences, e.g. changes in student motivation and their attitudes after entering university; for example, differences in the type or amount of teaching and learning at university as compared to college/school may also affect student attainment (Peers & Johnston 1994, Salvatori 2001). In addition, entrance qualifications are not designed to measure non-cognitive or personality factors which may also affect academic performances (Phillips et al. 2003, O’Connor & Paunonen 2007).

This pilot study raises a number of issues for the nutrition course team and teaching practice at Ulster University, which may be of wider interest. At the University of Ulster, nutrition is taught within the School of Biomedical Sciences which has a staff complement of over 85 members. The three nutrition specialisms discussed here are all taught by the same food, nutrition and dietetic subject team. The teaching for Year 1 is focused on bringing all students to a high standard of science competency. As a consequence, compulsory Year 1 courses are offered in Biochemistry, Human Physiology, Chemistry, Biostatistics and Study Skills for Nutrition. All first year nutrition students also undertake further generic study skills training in their first semester at the University. The first year teaching emphasis is seen as vital for future success of the increasingly diverse range of students (Maguire et al. 2009). The three nutrition student cohorts investigated in this study also undertake the same portfolio of first year courses. It is during their second year of study, that students are exposed to discipline-specific content including a range of core courses related to human nutrition, food science, clinical nutrition and other specialist content. Subject to academic standing, students from Grp02 and Grp03 cohorts may transfer between the two academic disciplines before the ending of Year 2. In Year 3, all nutrition students undertake a compulsory placement year with Grp02 and Grp03 able to experience work-based learning in a variety of situations ranging from National Health Sevrvice departments to food industry locations. The dietetic placement training emphasises clinical placement.

The study confirms what has been found with other groups of university students; that admissions qualifications are an important determinant of final degree score (Gayle et al. 2002, Naylor & Smith 2004, Smith & Naylor 2005, King & Aves 2012). In addition, this study suggests that student experiences at university are at least as important as their admissions grade in determining degree outcomes. Student attainments from the industrial placement (Year 3) were least affected by admissions qualifications or other academic indices possibly owing to the emphasis on employability skills. Perhaps one of the most interesting features of the present research relates to ‘informal’ contributions to the degree mark, arising from Year 1 and Year 2 learning. Anecdotal discussions suggest that Year 1 students are highly motivated but that there is an emergent ‘motivational lapse’ in a proportion of second year students because Year 2 academic marks do not count towards the final degree score. However, our finding suggest that the second years’ performance are an indicator of the likelihood of achieving a good degree outcome. Finally, it should be noted that the three courses examined in this study are professional courses, each with their own distinctive outcomes. Our analyses did not consider the comparative difficulties of the three different degree courses or differences in overall professional outcomes. Nevertheless, it is hoped that the findings of this preliminary study will stimulate further investigations into factors that influence the education attainments of nutrition and other bioscience students.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the University of Ulster for funding part of this study. Our special thanks also to members of the Staff Development Unit (University of Ulster) without whose constant support this research could not have been completed.