This is an interesting debate - but so
far it has been UK centric - understandably so since most of the members
of this list are in the UK. It wasn't until I moved to Canada that I discovered
that not all degrees are graded in the same way. I have removed my class
of degree from my CV because colleagues have no idea what a 2.i means (not
sure they would understand a 'first' either, but I didn't get one so can't
find out!). Degrees are not classified here, they are awarded with or without
honours, but students also have a transcript which is used if classification
matters - for professional courses, masters, doctorates etc. Isn't there
some debate in the UK as to whether or not to keep the class system for
degrees, given that UK students also get a transcript?
The other big difference is the range
of grades used - the allocation of grades it is still arbitrary in my mind,
since not everyone uses a rubric and most people don't seem to have heard
of second or blind marking, but the range is wider. Or at least the top
end of the range is wider but the lower end is not used at all. For example
for a masters course this is the grading scale:
0 - 59% F, 60 to 69% C, 70 to 74% B,
75 - 79% B+, 80 to 84% A-, 85 to 89 A, 90 to 100% A+
With so much emphasis on the top end
of the scale one might think students would be happy with a B or B+ but
no, that is not the case. Most students are anxious and keen to negotiate
if they get anything less than a straight A.
Sorry if this is somewhat divergent
from the original post but I thought I'd share as I find it fascinating....
Celia
Celia Popovic
• Director
Teaching Commons
YORK UNIVERSITY
1046 Victor Phillip Dahdaleh (formerly
TEL) Building
4700 Keele Street
Toronto ON • Canada M3J 1P3
T 416.736.2100 ext 55922 F 416.736.5704
[log in to unmask]
• www.yorku.ca
•
www.yorku.ca/teachingcommons
•
Teaching
Commons Communities of Practice - Join Now!
•
TC
Learning, Teaching and Assessment Programs
Details of my new co-edited book Advancing
Practice in Academic Development can be found here: https://www.routledge.com/products/9781138854703
Latest article with Mandy Frake-Mistak and
John Paul Foxe - "The instructional skills workshop: a missed opportunity
in the UK' is available online here: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14703297.2016.1257949
Newly available - the Educational
Developers' Cookbook: http://teachingcommons.yorku.ca/educational-developers-cookbook/
This electronic mail (e-mail),
including any attachments, is intended only for the recipient(s) to whom
it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential
and/or exempt from disclosure. No waiver of privilege, confidentiality
or any other protection is intended by virtue of its communication by the
internet. Any unauthorized use, dissemination or copying is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this e-mail in error, or are not named as a recipient,
please immediately notify the sender and destroy all copies of it.
From:
Peter Hartley <[log in to unmask]>
To:
[log in to unmask],
Date:
03/06/2017 07:33 AM
Subject:
Re: Categorical
Marking
Sent by:
"Online
forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development Association"
<[log in to unmask]>
I would also join the argument in favour of a grading
system - after all we do end up sorting students into grades (the typical
pass/merit/distinction at PG and the degree classes for UG) so why not
focus on that throughout the course?
It might also resolve an issue which I think is implicit
in the first comments from Stephen and John. Stephen mentioned “the full
100% mark range” and John talked of the “full range of scores from 0
to 100”. There are a few assumptions in there which I would challenge.
For a starter it assumes that marks behave like numbers and I have issues
with that (happy to expand on that if folk are interested). But for
this discussion I would like to query the notion of the range of marks.
Until fairly recently the actual range of marks used by
examiners was something like 30-80. Anything less than 30 was complete
disaster; you usually had to have an argument with external examiners to
award anything over 80. Going further back in time (which unfortunately
I am able to do with starting clarity) anything over 75 was regarded as
‘too generous’. And where did this scale come from in the first place?
Focusing just on UG for the moment, why is there a 30-point
scale for First Class students and only a 10-point scale for everyone else?
In a system which often uses average marks to determine
final grade then doesn’t this give these students an ‘unfair' advantage?
For example, if a student can earn 90% for a 20-point
module then they have boosted their overall average for the year by a couple
of percent compared with that same student being marked according to previous
conventions - and a couple of percent can often mean a difference in degree
classification.
And doesn’t this almost guarantee some amount of grade
inflation?
So I think that grades deserve much more use (and investigation
as Rachel suggests) alongside other ways of escaping from the problems
of numerical marking, such as the work on programme-focused assessment
which benefited from the contributions of Chris and colleagues (http://www.pass.brad.ac.uk
).
Best wishes
Peter
On 6 Mar 2017, at 11:55, Rachel Forsyth <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
Completely agree with Chris
(as ever) - four pass grades would be great. Here it is not compulsory,
but we use it on our own PGC LTHE and I much prefer it. It’s stepped,
or step marking here, and we offer this guidance http://www.celt.mmu.ac.uk/assessment/lifecycle/5_step_marking.php
- we couldn’t find any studies on this either. What would you look at,
if there were a study? Student and staff satisfaction with a reduced range
of grades?
Rachel
From: Online forum for SEDA, the
Staff & Educational Development Association [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Chris Rust
Sent: 06 March 2017 11:05
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Categorical Marking
John
In my view this is a half-way house
to dealing with assessment problems/issues that doesn’t go far enough
and essentially fudges the issue. Much better to do away with the
use of numbers altogether because of the baggage they bring and to use
grades instead. You also need to reduce the number of assessment
choices to something sensible in terms of granularity. At Brookes,
before I retired and the project was shelved, we were moving to a grade
based marking system (see attached) based on Biggs SOLO taxonomy with 4/8
pass grades.
Best wishes
Chris
Chris Rust
Professor Emeritus
Oxford Brookes University
"Before acting on this email or opening any attachments
you should read the Manchester Metropolitan University email disclaimer
available on its website http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer
"