MARATTO

article · International Journal of Learning Teaching and Educational Research

Implications of Separate Marks for Physics and Chemistry in Grade 12 Results

2026Open accessUniversity of Venda

Abstract

The South African Grade 12 with a bachelor’s endorsement is the most common route for admission into university degree programmes. However, many learners do not meet the required Physical sciences and Mathematics marks for admission into mainstream degrees and instead enter Extended Curriculum Programmes (ECPs) that aim to develop their academic capacity. This study assesses whether reporting separate Grade 12 Physics and Chemistry grades, rather than a Physical sciences grade, would better reflect the students' abilities and strengthen admissions and placement decisions in South African higher education. Using a longitudinal analysis of historical performance data from first-year ECP students over a 10-year period, together with stakeholder perspectives, the study examines the likely consequences of separating the subjects on the Grade 12 certificate. The main findings are that (1) learners who know their strengths are better informed when making subject and career choices, and (2) teaching and learning can improve when curriculum changes respond to clearer performance indicators. Based on these findings, the study recommends a pilot project to test the feasibility of awarding separate grades for Physics and Chemistry in South African schools, alongside careful implementation and the ongoing assessment of fairness and practical constraints. If workable, separate reporting could support more accurate admissions decisions and the better placement of students into appropriate programmes, including ECP pathways.

Research topics

  • Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Medical Education and Admissions
  • Educational Assessment and Pedagogy

Sustainable Development Goals

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.26803/ijlter.25.2.35

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.