The Correlation

Between Industrial
Placements and Final
Degree Results:
A Study of Engineering Placement Students

Richard Mendez

University of Leicester
September 2008
The correlation between industrial
placements and final degree results: A
study of Engineering Placement Students
Richard Mendez
University of Leicester

Abstract

The significance of industrial work placements (i.e. the work-based component

of sandwich degrees) on students’ professional development and employability is
widely accepted amongst work-related learning professionals and academics
alike. Indeed, the recent government sponsored report by the Confederation of
British Industry validates such claims. However in recent times, many work-
related learning professionals have begun to explore the assumption that work
placements not only improve employability skills, but additionally academic
performance.

This paper considers the view held amongst many work-related learning
professionals that students undertaking an industrial work placement, often
graduate with a higher degree classification. Additionally, it scrutinises the
assumption that placement students outperform their non-placement
counterparts scholastically.

This paper builds upon results from more comprehensive longitudinal research
from Mandilaras (2004) and Gomez et al (2004). Through an institutional study
of engineering undergraduates at the University of Leicester, it explores whether
students that undertook an industrial work placement as part of their
engineering degree, outperformed their non-placement counterparts. The
statistical analysis offers evidence that suggests a causal link between
completing a placement and achieving higher academic performance in the final
year of an engineering degree.

Page 2
Introduction

The presence of work-related learning and employability themes within higher

education has grown in prominence with the advent of successive government-
backed reports. The most recent being ‘Future Fit: Preparing Graduates for the
World of Work’, produced by the Confederation of British Industry Higher
Education Task Force (2009) and sponsored by the Department for Innovation,
Universities and Skills (DIUS). Reports such as these have encouraged the
development of work-related learning activity (e.g. industrial placements) in
higher education as a means by which to develop students’ employability and
transferable skills.

In light of such interest, the correlation between industrial placements and

students’ employability has been comprehensively explored by practitioners such
as Bowes & Harvey (1999) and Little & Harvey (2006) amongst others. However
there remains a dearth of current literature and research exploring the
correlation between placements and final degree attainment.

Amongst the germane literature, research by Mayo & Jones (1985) and the
Council for National Academic Awards (Davies, 2003) substantiate claims of
correlation. Additionally the Confederation of British Industry’s Higher Education
Task Force (2009) reports on the analysis of research from the University of
Hertfordshire that concluded with similar findings.

However it is the works of Mandilaras’ (2004) and Gomez et al (2004) that

explore this area in greater depth. Using data from the University of Surrey’s
Economics Department, Mandilaras rigorously explores whether the industrial
placement augments academic performance (i.e. increasing the likelihood of the
placement student obtaining an upper second or higher degree class). Similarly,
Gomez et al investigate the impact of the industrial placement on Bioscience
undergraduates at the University of the West of England, Bristol.

Page 3
Mandilaras’ study addresses a host of control variables (including gender,
nationality and prior study of mathematics and economics) that might otherwise
undermine any assertions about correlation. Moreover, Gomez et al’s study
meticulously takes into account variables such as gender, pre-university
qualifications and level 1, 2 and 3 aggregate marks (as percentages). Both
studies suggest a correlation between placements and final degree results.
Mandilaras cites

‘the statistical analysis offers evidence that participation in the placement

scheme significantly increases the chances of obtaining an upper second or
higher degree class’ (Mandilaras, 2004, p.39).

Whilst Gomez et al comment that

‘On average, placement students gain an advantage of nearly 4% in their final

year performance’ (Gomez et al, 2004, p.373).

In exploring the possibility of correlation, this paper compares the final degree
results of engineering placement students with that of their non-placement
counterparts for three cohorts: engineering finalists of 2005, 2006 and 2007 at
the University of Leicester. The analysis section discusses these results and their
implications.

Background: Engineering at the University of Leicester

The Department of Engineering at the University of Leicester is renowned for its

research and academic excellence, having achieved a rating of 5A in the latest
HEFCE Research Assessment Exercise. The department has roughly 240
undergraduate students, 80 taught postgraduate students, and 50 postgraduate
and postdoctoral researchers. Its well-established industrial placement
programme gives students the opportunity to embark upon a full year in
industry within the following degree programmes:

General Engineering

Mechanical Engineering

Page 4
 Electrical and Electronic Engineering

Communications and Electronic Engineering

Embedded Systems Engineering

Students are fully supported in securing industrial placements. They are given a
suite of preparatory sessions, placement support materials, visits from the
placement tutor during the year in industry and information about suitable
placement employers. Indeed the Engineering Department has long-standing
relationships with a host of engineering employers who have offered placements
to Leicester students, but ultimately, it is the responsibility of the student to
secure their own placement.

Past students have taken up industrial work placements with a host of blue-chip
employers such as Toyota, Corus and Caterpillar. Students are assessed on the
basis of an industrial placement report that must be submitted on completion of
the placement. Assessment is marked on a pass/fail basis.

Methodology

Whilst this study does not maintain the level of scrutiny of Mandilaras’ work, it
does take into consideration key variables. Firstly it accounts for the varied
academic abilities of students based on level 1aggregate marks (as percentages)
from the degree. Secondly, it also factors in the students’ year of graduation.
Finally it addresses academic ability based upon students completing a MEng
degree and those completing a BEng degree. Efforts were made to ensure the
students sampled included those likely to get a third, as well as those on target
for an upper second (2:1) and a first degree classification, thus negating
suggestions of skewed results or statistical bias. This section of the paper will
now discuss these variables in more detail.

Page 5
In attempting to assess whether the engineering industrial placement enhances
students’ academic performance, the research methodology selected was that of
a comparative study. As such, this study scrutinised the academic performances
of 80 engineering finalists (compared with the 124 economics students sampled
in Mandilaras’ study and the 164 bioscience students in Gomez et al’s study). 40
of those sampled had undertaken an industrial work placement and the
remaining 40 had not.

Mechanisms were put in place to provide optimum sampling and avoid skewed
results or statistical bias. Firstly, whilst the selection of students (i.e. the 40
placement students and the 40 non-placement students) was randomised, the
selection for each group was established from a pool of student sub-groups. The
three sub-groups were categorised on the basis of students’ academic
attainment in the first year of their engineering degree. Hence, one sub-group
consisted of students whose first year credit-weighted average mark equated to
a third class degree (average <50%), whilst the other two sub-groups
represented those achieving first year credit-weighted average marks of an
upper second/2:1 (60% = average <69%) and a first class average mark
(>=70%) respectively. Based on this spread of first year academic performance
amongst the sample, one could reasonably argue that the binomial distribution
of the sample was legitimate.

The year of graduation was another area under scrutiny from the
aforementioned sample. Hence, finalists from 2005, 2006 and 2007 were
included. The rationale for this was to counter any statistical anomalies that
might occur if the study had focused solely on one particular year.

Finally, both BEng and MEng students across all engineering disciplines (e.g.
Mechanical Engineering, Electrical & Electronic Engineering) were included in the
study. MEng students are known to perform better academically (which is the
reason why they take the more rigorous MEng degree). Had this study omitted
BEng students, then any conclusions drawn from the statistical analysis would

Page 6
have been flawed, given that the sample population would have consisted of the
more academically-able MEng students, hence those more likely to attain a
higher degree class in any case.

For the method of analysis, it was decided that measuring academic

performance by percentage increase/decrease would be expedient. Therefore
this study measured:

overall percentage increase in degree results for the 40 placement

students
overall percentage increase in degree results for the 40 non-placement
students
the top ten individual percentage increases in degree results by
placement/non-placement students

Overall percentage increase was calculated by first calculating the percentage

increase of individual academic results (i.e. subtracting the base year results
from the final year results, then dividing this figure by the base year figure and
finally multiplying by 100). In essence, it calculates the extent to which the
student in question has augmented their academic performance from the start of
their degree to the time they completed. The formula for this is as follows:

(y X - y 1)
X 100
y1
where

y1 = base year (first year’s final mark/score)

y X = final year’s final mark/score

Secondly, once the percentage increase was calculated for all 40 individual
samples in the two main groups (i.e. placement and non-placement), they were

Page 7
totalled up for each group respectively. Hence the 40 individual percentage
increases for placement students were added together to provide the overall
percentage increase in degree results and the same was done for the non-
placement group. The omission of a regression analysis is a noticeable flaw with
the methodology.

Analysis

The computation of overall percentage increase in both groups of 40 illustrates a

substantial difference in academic attainment. The overall percentage increase
for placement students equals 112%. This figure subsumes the placement
students from 2005-7 and thus addresses (to an extent) statistical anomalies
that may occur in any given year.

In contrast, the corresponding statistic for the non-placement cohort equates to

72.8%, thus representing an overall percentage difference of 39.2% between
the two cohorts over the same period. Figure 1 illustrates this difference.

Figure 1: Overall percentage increase in degree results, 2005-7 for placements

students and non-placement students

Non-placement students,
2005-7

Placement student, 2005-7

0 50 100 150

Page 8
The other measure employed to test for a causal relationship between an
industrial placement and better academic performance, is the recording of the
top ten highest individual percentage increases in degree results by
placement/non-placement students.

As with the overall percentage increase, this measure is obtained by considering

all engineering disciplines and the years 2005-7. By isolating the best
performers, this measure enables one to track which group featured most in the
top ten of highest percentage increases. Figure 2 illustrates the results of the
top ten highest percentage increases regardless of year, whilst figure 3 shows
the best individual performance broken down by year and group.

Figure 2: Top ten student placing by highest percentage increases

where = placement student and = non-placement student

25
1st
20 2nd
3rd
15 4th
5th
10 6th
7th
5 8th
9th
0 10th
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th

Page 9
Figure 3: Single highest percentage increase by any one student, by year (per
cohort)

25

20

15
Placement students
10 Non-placement students

0
2005 2006 2007

Whilst figures 2 and 3 illustrate that it is in fact a non-placement student that

achieves the accolade of having the highest percentage increase amongst all
those sampled (albeit only by 0.3%), closer inspection of the results highlights
two salient points.

Firstly, placement students feature seven times in the compilation of the top ten
highest percentage increases in figure 2. When assessing the BEng and MEng
cohorts individually, (not included within this paper) the results remain the
same; placement students still dominate the majority of places in the top ten.

Secondly, figure 3 illustrates the marginal superior percentage increase of the

non-placement student compared with the placement student for 2005. This
marginal difference stands at 0.3% (2005 figures: placement student figure,
19.2%, non-placement student figure, 19.5%).

Page
10
However, when observing years 2006 and 2007, it is indeed the placement
student that has the superior percentage increase with a difference over the
non-placement student of 2.9% for both 2006 and 2007 (2006 figures: –
placement student figure, 10.1%, non-placement student figure, 7.2% and 2007
figures: placement student figure, 15.5%, non-placement student figure,
12.6%).

The findings from the two measures, (that of overall percentage increase and
that of top ten individual percentage increases) seem to corroborate earlier
studies and point towards a strong correlation between participation in
placements and academic achievement. This argument is strengthened by the
fact that the biggest gains in percentage increase occurred amongst those who
were previously underperforming (i.e. those achieving a credit-weighted average
mark of a third - average <50%).

Discussion

So why are industrial work placements responsible for augmenting academic

performance in students? The Confederation of British Industry’s Higher
Education Task Force (2009) stresses the significance of improved student
confidence resulting from a year in industry. In their report they claim

‘increased confidence is widely mentioned by universities, employers and

students as a beneficial outcome of work-related learning and formal work
placements’ (Confederation of British Industry, 2009, p.17).

However this does not fully explain why a work placement student should go on
to attain a better degree result. Others have postulated that metacognition
(learning to learn) is responsible for the improved performance of the student
returning to their final year of study after their placement.

Page
11
Raelin (2000) identifies metacognition as an inherent value-added trait of work-
based learning, whilst Moreland (2005) views metacognition and the related
cognitive and learning styles as components of the broader field of work-related
learning. It is possible that the nature and environment of an industrial work
placement (and contact with professional work colleagues) instils the meta-
cognitive skills necessary for personal reflection, development and enriched
independent learning. Therefore, on returning to university, the student
transfers this new approach to her/his studies and excels.

Another hypothesis is that put forth by Mandilaras (2004). Mandilaras identifies

some potential explanations for the improved academic attainment of returning
placement students. In his paper he asserts

‘it is possible that the placement experience enables the students to mature
more quickly than they otherwise would. Spending a year working in often
competitive environments makes them realise that their future professional
development is to an extent, related to their academic performance. Hence their
ambition is stimulated, they come back to university more focused and
determined to do well’ (Mandilaras, 2004, p.48).

Clearly, there is a level of credibility associated with this hypothesis. Anecdotal

evidence aside, the belief that a student fully immersed in a professional work
context for the duration of a year, might then return to their studies with a more
mature outlook is highly plausible. Additionally Gomez et al (2004) provide
further insights that might explain this phenomenon. Gomez et al postulate

‘One simple factor that may be important is that students returning from
placement are tackling the rigours of the level 3 study one year older than they
would otherwise be’ (Gomez et al, 2004, p.382).

Here Gomez et al suggests the academic improvement of the placement student

may stem from the fact that the placement student will be completing their final
year studies a year later. The supposition being, the older student is better

Page
12
equipped to perform well in the final year of their degree than their younger,
non-placement counterparts. Gomez et al goes on to say

‘Quite often, a placement student undertakes a final year research project in a

completely different area to that experienced during their placement, although
some....skills will be generic. Therefore, it is more likely that the generic skills of
team-working, communication, self-reliance and confidence, time keeping, etc.,
transfer to their approach to the project. Placement students may also benefit
from seeing the practical applications of their studies outside the academic world
and therefore relate to their studies with a greater insight (Gomez et al, 2004,
p.382).

As Gomez el al suggest, could the explanation for the academic-enhancement

properties of placements lie in the fact that placements equip students with
highly developed transferable skills?

The insights provided by Mandilaras and Gomez et al are supported by other

areas of research that scrutinise the relationship between industrial placements
and transferable/employability skills. For example, Knight & Yorke (2004) refer
to the survey that sought the views of employers and recently appointed
graduate employees. The findings from this study suggests overwhelming
consensus from both cohorts that work placements are a major factor in the
development of transferable skills and personal development.

Additionally, in their contribution to the Learning & Employability series of

publications, Knight & Yorke (2004) claim that

‘the thick sandwich (i.e. sandwich degree) typically involves a one-year

placement.....The experience is widely held to benefit the student....anecdotal
evidence attests to greater self-confidence and awareness’ (Knight & Yorke,
2004, p.16).

Page
13
It is not difficult to recognise that the application of skills needed in a
professional work environment may cross over to those necessary to excel in
academia. Indeed, it has been reported by engineering academic staff at the
University of Leicester, that students returning from a year in industry display an
enhanced level of maturity, focus and generic skills, thus giving some weight to
the hypothesises put forth by Mandilaras and Gomez et al.

Whilst caution must be exercised concerning the results of this study (they
cannot be deemed fully conclusive by any measure), these findings are profound
for they justify the presence and further development of work-based learning
elements in the curricula of universities, not only as a means by which to
enhance students’ employability, but also as a mechanism by which to possibly
augment academic learning. Indeed work placements remain the best
mechanism by which to illustrate to students, the application of their academic
studies to the world of work and vice versa.

Conclusion

By utilising data from the University of Leicester’s Department of Engineering,

this paper has examined the efficacy of industrial work placements on improving
academic performance amongst engineering students. Evidently, the findings
illustrate a causal link between placements and improved academic
performance. The robustness of the statistical evidence is limited by the sample
size and the sampling methods adopted. The omission of any regression analysis
limits the evidence gained from this study.

Additionally, further research might usefully compare placement students’

results with those of the entire cohort/year of engineering students. Limitations
aside, the findings from this research provides justification for the presence of
quality-assured industrial work placements in academia, as such programmes
not only augment the employability of the student, but they also enhance their
maturity and academic prowess.

Page
14
This paper also informs work-related learning practitioners and academics alike,
that the continual development of work-based learning within curricula should be
actively encouraged in order to aid students in comprehending the application of
their studies to industry.

Acknowledgement

I would like to extend my gratitude to Dr Aldo Rona from the Department of

Engineering at the University of Leicester for his assistance during the
compilation of this research.

References

Bowes, L. & Harvey, L. (1999) The Impact of Sandwich Education on the

Activities of Graduates Six Months Post-Graduation, Birmingham: Centre for
Research into Quality.

Confederation of British Industry (2009) Future Fit: Preparing Graduates for the
World of Work, London: Confederation of British Industry Higher Education Task
Force.

Davies, L. (2003) Experience-based Learning within the Curriculum – a synthesis

study, Sheffield: Association for Sandwich Education and Training.

Gomez, S., Lush, D. & Clements, M. (2004) Work Placements Enhance the
Academic Performance of Bioscience Undergraduates, Journal of Vocational
Education and Training, vol. 56, no 3, pp. 373-386.

Knight, P. & Yorke, M. (2004) Learning, Curriculum and Employability in Higher

Education, London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Knight, P. & Yorke, M. (2004) Embedding Employability into the Curriculum,

York: Higher Education Authority.

Little, B. & Harvey, L. (2006) Learning Through Work Placements and Beyond,
Sheffield: Centre for Research and Evaluation.

Page
15
Mandilaras, A. (2004) Industrial Placement and Degree Performance: Evidence
from a British Higher Institution, International Review of Economics Education,
vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 39-51.

Mayo, R. & Jones, and L. (1985) Proceedings of the Fourth World Conference on
Co-operative Education, pp 428-31, Edinburgh: Napier College.

Moreland, N. (2005) Work-related Learning in Higher Education, York: Higher

Education Authority.

Raelin, J. (2000) Work-based Learning: The New Frontier of Management

Development, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

About the author

Richard Mendez (MBA, BA) is the Work-related Learning & Employability

Tutor/Officer at the University of Leicester. He is responsible for developing and
teaching aspects of work-related learning within academic departments. His
most recent work has included the development of a credit-based employability
module embedded within the Mathematics with Management degree programme
at Leicester.

Richard is also the programme convenor for Access to Employability, a

programme that aims to enhance the employability of students with disabilities
through specialist workshops and pre-arranged work placements with local
employers. Richard is a member of the Chartered Management Institute (CMI),
the Association for Sandwich Degree Education and Training (ASET) and an
affiliate member of the Association for Graduate Careers Advisory Services
(AGCAS).

Page
16