'Right' Grading

Establish valid and reliable grading

Fellowship participants emphasised that it is important that the program team identifies and clarifies exactly what indicators and evidence will be used to allocate and distinguish between different grades (for example fail, pass, credit, distinction and high distinction) and that this process is benchmarked within and beyond the university and is compliant with the institution’s assessment policy. They also suggest that how these criteria and indicators will be applied be specifically discussed with students, using examples, in the first session of each unit of study.

  • Is everyone who will grade assessment tasks clear on the indicators and evidence they will use to allocate different grade levels?
  • Make sure that how grades will be allocated is based on agreed evidence. Do this by:
    • Producing exemplars of different grades
    • Building these exemplars into assessment-focused learning guides in each unit of study. Assessment focused learning guides:
      • Start with which of the program level outcomes this unit is addressing
      • The objectives and learning outcomes for the unit
      • The assessment task(s) to be completed in the unit and how/why these validly measure the desired outcomes
      • Then give clickable exemplars of what a fail and a credit would look like in a similar (but not the same) assessment task
      • Followed by the learning methods and resources built into the unit to help students do as well as possible on their assessment.

Outcomes and assessment-focused learning guides
In universities like Western Sydney University assessment focused unit learning guides have been used with high levels of success in showing students what different grades look like in practice. The UWS Assessment Guide 2015 gives more detail on a range of ‘fit-for-purpose’ assessment tasks, different grade indicators and a wide range of examples.

An explicit set of grading indicators in a diabetes education course at UTS
Below is one example of a grading system with indicators used in a diabetes education course in the 1990s which attracted high levels of positive student feedback and which builds on the works of John Biggs (1992) and his SOLO Taxonomy.

 

Grade Notation Criteria
High Distinction H

As per Distinction but highly consistent levels of appropriate,
creative or original insight. Consistently cuts to the core of
the issue. Highly reflective, sharply perceived with
consistently high levels of critical perception. Evidence of
wide reading, always appropriately applied, especially to the
critical appraisal of material presented in the course. Nothing
included that is not to the point. Exceptionally well argued
and presented. Evidence that most aspects of stance (empathy,
persistence, commitment to excellence, enthusiasm, willing-
ness to take sensible risks and learn from errors, action
oriented, ability to tolerate ambiguity) are present.
Distinction D

As per Credit but more consistent transformation, selectivity
and appropriate application of course material. More consist-
ent evidence of critical appraisal of course material and of
adding new ideas or insights. Some evidence of appropriate
use of wider reading to critically appraise course material.
Starting to go beyond the given, flashes of creativity and
insight that are significant. Above average in layout and
succinctness. Evidence that many aspects of stance
(empathy, persistence, commitment to excellence, enthusiasm
willingness to take sensible risks and learn from errors, action
oriented, ability to tolerate ambiguity) are present.
Credit C

Evidence of a broad understanding of key points raised in
course materials with some evidence of transformation,
selectivity and appropriate application. All assessment quest-
ions answered appropriately, succinctly and relevantly. Some
evidence of wider reading with patchy use of this to critically
appraise course material. Basic requirements of layout and
length for assessment tasks met. Evidence of that some
aspects of stance (empathy, persistence, commitment
to excellence, enthusiasm,willingness to take sensible risks
and learn from errors, action oriented, ability to tolerate
ambiguity) are present.
Pass P

Evidence of understanding of the basic points in the course
material with a basic level of appropriate application to
real life practice. Very little critical appraisal of course
material and no great additions or insights. Evidence of
minimal wider reading. Unintegrated and possibly more
encyclopaedic more than succinct.
Basic requirements of length and layout of assessment
tasks are met. Evidence of that some aspects of stance
(empathy, persistence, commitment to excellence, enthusiasm,
willingness to take sensible risks and learn from errors,
action oriented, ability to tolerate ambiguity) are present.
Resubmit Not an official University grade

If you have failed for any reason to meet the criteria for a Pass
and you have submitted your work sufficiently ahead
of time we will tell you what needs to be redone in order
to achieve a P. If you are able to resubmit the work prior
to the date at which we must submit final grades we will
be happy to remark it.

Submit an example