1. Centre for Higher Education Practice
“Festival of Innovative Practice”
June 16th 2011, Jordanstown Campus
Does placement matter? An empirical study of final year performance
CHEP funded (Round 2)
Project Team
Dr Peter Green (Jordanstown campus) senior lecturer (Project leader)
Mrs Helen Foster (Jordanstown campus) lecturer
Mr Philip Houston (Jordanstown campus) work experience consultant
Dr David McAree (Magee campus) lecturer
Mrs Claire McCann (Coleraine campus) lecturer
Dr Douglas McCulloch (Jordanstown campus) lecturer
Mr Michael Pogue (Jordanstown camous) lecturer
Dr Brian Rushton (Coleraine campus) Professor of Botany

2. INTRODUCTION
 Employability is the key factor with regard to the
inclusion of a work-based placement within full-
time undergraduate degree programmes.
 It may be argued that from a students
perspective degree classification is the “currency
of employment” (Tomlinson, 2008).
Knight and Yorke (2004).
 If students attribute little “value-added” to taking a
work placement year they may opt not to engage
in a placement period, despite the views of
educationalists and employers on the benefits of
work experience.

3. INTRODUCTION
• In 2007, approximately 50% of University of Ulster
graduates had undertaken a recognised placement in
some form, but placement is now currently optional on
many courses.
• The BSc Business Studies degree for example, has
witnessed a fall from 65% in 2007 to 45% in 2009 in
students opting to take a placement year.
• Nationally in the UK, whilst the percentage of graduates
has increased by 9.1%, those graduating with placement
has fallen by 7.1% in the period from 1999 to 2003
(HEFCE, 2009).

4. Trends at Ulster
2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11
Business Studies (J) 92 69 59 59 48 45
Business Studies (M) 86 104 93 69 54 17
Marketing 48 43 42 45 50 57
HRM 34 35 26 47 34 41

5. International considerations
 Arthur and Little (2010) report that 55% of all
European graduates had undertaken a
placement period, with over 80% in Finland,
Germany and the Netherlands, whilst the
observed figure for the UK is 29%. Given the
claimed importance of placement from both
educationalists’ and employers, the downward
trend in the UK is clearly undesirable (see, the
Confederation of British Industry, 2009).

6. INTRODUCTION
 An important research question, from both an
educationalists and students perspective is
therefore, does the completion of a work
placement year, despite the fact that it does not
contribute directly to the final degree mark in a
mathematical sense, have a positive and
significant impact upon final year performance
and consequently, upon degree classification?

7. OBJECTIVE
 This study investigates the impact of students
taking a work placement (internship) year on the
final degree mark and hence classifications
achieved by the 2009 cohort of students on nine
undergraduate degrees at the University of
Ulster.
 A number of control variables are explored.
Namely, total tariff points on entry, prior tertiary
level degree performance, and gender.

8. THE LITERATURE
 Bourner and Hamed (1987) provide evidence
that the taking of a work placement year is
associated with improved degree results, having
controlled for A-level scores on degree entry
(see also Davis 2003).
 Gomez, Lush and Clements (2004) find that on
average, students who take a year long
placement gain an advantage of 4% in the final
year, compared to students who did not complete
a placement year.

9. THE LITERATURE
 Rawlings, White and Stephens (2006) conclude
that internship or placement has a significant
positive impact upon academic performance (see
also Wallace 2002 and Mendez 2008, 2011).
 None of the aforementioned studies specifically
investigate the impact of a work placement year
on business related degrees.

10. THE LITERATURE
 Duignan (2002) compared the academic
performance of business undergraduates and
reported no difference between the performance
of students undertaking a placement year and
those not. The failure to produce evidence of a
beneficial effect is attributed to a failure to fully
exploit the learning potential of placement. In
particular, the structure and management of the
placement are contributory factors.

11. THE LITERATURE
 Essentially, Duignan (2002) argues that the
placement student is a “transient” between the
workplace and University, each of which has its’
own value and reward system. Consequently on
return to University and study, a student may be
demotivated, loosing any potential learning
transfer from the workplace.

12. THE LITERATURE
 Gracia and Jenkins (2003) provide some
evidence that students who opt to take a year of
supervised work experience before their final
year, perform better than those who do not, on
an undergraduate degree programme in
accounting and finance at the University of
Glamorgan.

13. THE LITERATURE
 In the context of an undergraduate degree in
Economics at the University of Surrey,
Mandilaras (2004) similarly finds that there is a
statistically significant positive relationship
between the completion of a placement year and
academic attainment, as measured in terms of
degree classification.
 Surridge (2009) finds that there is statistically
significant better performance for students
completing placement on accounting and finance
degrees.

14. THE LITERATURE
 Higson (2011) also concludes that undertaking a
placement year improves degree performance,
but that “better” students take a placement year
using data from all students studying Combined
Honours Business Administration who graduated
from Aston University between 2002 and 2008.
 Green (2011) provides evidence from a study of
a single cohort of Business Studies students at
the Jordanstown campus which suggests that the
completion of a placement year on average,
improves the final year classification award
achieved by students from 2.2 to 2.1.

15. THE LITERATURE
 HEFCE (2009) provides some interesting statistics with
regard to this study:
 71% of students graduating with a placement year in 2003,
achieved a 2.1 or above, compared with 60% of other three
year courses (based upon classified degrees).
 “... that students who studied abroad for part of their course
entered with higher qualifications than other students, and
placement students entered with lower qualifications than
other students.” (page 25)
 With regard to entry and classifications, “....the higher
overall (classification) rate for those who studied abroad or
did a placement can not be entirely explained by
differences in entry qualifications.” (page 27)

16. DATA
 The empirical evidence presented is based upon
data gathered relating to the graduating cohort of
students on nine undergraduate degrees in 2009.
Only students who entered on the basis of UK
entry tariff points were included, thus students
entering with Irish Leaving Certificate or joining
the programme of study either in second year, or
third year (via franchise or alternative
qualifications, such as HND) were excluded. In
addition, students were excluded if extenuating
circumstances prevented them from taking all of
the final year modules.

17. DATA
 Students who had repeat assessment to
complete, in final year modules were included on
the basis of their first attempt results. Similarly,
when gathering data on second year degree
marks, the mark employed was that achieved on
the first attempt for those students who had to
complete repeat assessment before either
proceeding to work placement, or directly into
final year. The final sample thus consisted of
530 students.

18. TABLE 1: Student profile on graduation 2009
Total tariff points on entry
Descriptives BSJ BSC BSM ACC HRM CS CAM ECON MKT TOTAL
Mean 304 255 254 338 295 264 378 280 287 296
Median 300 240 240 340 300 280 370 270 280 300
Mode 300 240 240 320* 240* 280 400 260 260* 240
Standard 41 41 55 38 45 53 34 42 38 58
Deviation
First Quartile 280 240 220 310 260 220 340 255 260 249
Third Quartile 325 280 290 360 330 300 400 313 320 340
Number of 97 91 79 88 25 30 54 14 52 530
students
Final year degree marks
Descriptives BSJ BSC BSM ACC HRM CS CAM ECON MKT TOTAL
% % % % % % % % % %
Mean 59 60 61 57 63 62 65 64 61 60
Median 59 61 61 60 63 61 65 63 62 61
Mode 54* 61* 58* 60* 63* 60* 65* 63 54 60
Standard 7 6 7 12 5 8 5 4 9 8
Deviation
First Quartile 55 57 57 53 60 54 61 62 58 57
Third Quartile 64 64 66 63 67 69 68 68 68 65
Second year degree marks
Descriptives BSJ BSC BSM ACC HRM CS CAM ECON MKT TOTAL
% % % % % % % % % %
Mean 55 56 57 57 56 61 63 54 57 57
Median 56 55 56 55 54 63 63 53 58 57
Mode 62 52 60 55 53 63* 63* 51* 59 62*
Standard 6 8 7 8 6 5 6 6 6 7
Deviation
First Quartile 49 50 53 52 60 58 59 51 53 52
Third Quartile 61 62 63 63 67 64 66 60 62 63
*Multiple modes exist, lowest value is taken.
BSJ Business Studies, Jordanstown, Ulster Business School
BSC Business Studies, Coleraine, Ulster Business School
BSM Business Studies, Magee, Ulster Business School
ACC Accounting, Jordanstown, Ulster Business School
HRM Human Resource Management, Jordanstown, Ulster Business School
CS Consumer Studies, Coleraine, Ulster Business School
CAM Communications, Advertising and Marketing, Jordanstown, School of
Communications.
ECON Economics, Jordanstown, Faculty of Social Sciences
MKT Marketing, Jordanstown, Ulster Business School

19. METHODOLOGY
 A combination of both parametric and non-
parametric statistical tests is employed to
investigate the issues of interest. Both
parametric and non-parametric tests are
employed due to the relatively small sample
sizes which may invalidate any standard
assumptions regarding the distribution of the
variables investigated when employing
parametric tests.

20. METHODOLOGY
In addition, multivariate models to explain final
year degree mark are developed. Specifically,
the following models are investigated:
Y = α0 + α1X + α2M + α3DIS + α4GEN + μ
Y = β0 + β1X + β2M + β3MDIS + β4GEN + σ

21. Question 1
Is there a relationship between the average final year degree mark and
total tariff points on entry?
Table 2
Yes. There is a positive and statistically significant relationship.
Question 2
Is the completion of a work placement year associated with a higher
final year degree mark?
Table 3
Yes. Those students who complete a placement year have a
statistically significant higher average final degree mark, which
transcends a classification boundary (62.98 compared to 58.94).

22. Question 3
Do students who complete a work placement year have higher total
tariff points on entry?
Table 4
Yes. Students opting to proceed directly to final year on average have lower
total tariff points (295.78 compared to 296.59), but the difference is not
statistically significant.
Question 4
Do students who complete a work placement year have higher average
second year performance?
Table 4
Yes. Those students who complete a placement year have a statistically
significant higher average second year degree mark, which does NOT
transcend a classification boundary (58.14 compared to 55.95).

23. Question 5
Is the average final degree mark for students taking placement higher
than the average mark they achieved in second year?
Table 5
Yes. Those students who complete a placement year have a
statistically significant higher final year mark than the second year
degree mark, which transcends a classification boundary. (62.98
compared to 58.14)
Question 6
Is the average final degree mark for students opting not to take a
placement year higher than the average mark they achieved in second
year?
Table 5
Yes, but although the difference is statistically significant it does NOT
transcend a classification boundary. (56.94 compared to 55.95)

24. Question 7
Does gender impact upon the final degree mark achieved by students?
Table 6
Yes. Female students have statistically significant higher average
marks which transcend a classification boundary (61.65 compared to
57.22)
Question 8
Is the taking of a placement year a surrogate for gender?
Table 7
No. Individual analysis reveals that for both male and female students
those who complete a placement year have higher average final year
marks which are statistically significant and represent a difference in
classification (male students, 60.4 compared to 54.54, and female 63.86
compare to 58.39).

25. Table 8: Ordinary Least Squares estimation of multivariate model (Full
sample)
Y= α0 + α1X + α2M + α3DIS + α4GEN + μ (1)
α0 α1 α2 α3 α4 RA2
22.264 0.008 0.593 4.492 -1.986 0.446
(0.000)** (0.120) (0.000)** (0.000)** (0.001)**
Number of observations is 530.

26. Table 9: Ordinary Least Squares estimation of multivariate model
(Placement students)
Y= β0 + β1X + β2M + β3MDIS + β4GEN + σ (2)
β0 β1 β2 β3 β4 RA2
29.680 0.009 0.433 0.085 -1.718 0.409
(0.000)** (0.091) (0.000)** (0.018)* (0.007)**
Number of observations is 293.

27. IMPLICATIONS
 Does a work placement year results in tangible gains?
 Will students be able to afford to do placements?
 Students’ would appear to be more concerned with a
placement year extending their period of study, which is a
particular dimension of affordability.
 Perhaps the answer to the question of affordability lies in
more innovative ways of incorporating placement within the
curriculum design of undergraduate degrees, which
explicitly recognise the contribution of a work placement
year to student learning and employability.

28. FUTURE RESEARCH
CHEP funding round 4.
Student engagement and employability: An
empirical investigation into the impact of a work
placement year.

29. FUTURE RESEARCH
 This study seeks to investigate whether
employability, as measured by employment at a
graduate level within six months of completing
university study is associated with student
engagement as measured by the completion of a
one year work placement. As such this study
builds upon the research of Foster et al (2011),
but extends it specifically into the area of student
engagement and employability.

30. FUTURE RESEARCH
The methodology employed will consist of both
parametric and non-parametric analysis,
specifically employing correlation analysis and
binary logistic regression. The dependent
variable in the latter will be a dummy variable
taking the value of 1 for those students gaining
graduate level employment within six months of
graduation and zero otherwise. The form of the
model to be estimated is

31. FUTURE RESEARCH

32. FUTURE RESEARCH
Where, pi is the probability of a student (i)
gaining graduate level employment within six
months of completing university study, β0 is a
constant term introduced to capture the impact of
omitted variables and the independent variables,
are a combination of dummy variables (for the
completion of a placement year, final year
degree classification, degree specialisation, the
nature of the work experience gained on
placement and gender) and other control
variables including total tariff points on entry, and
second year degree performance