Education Committee: Working Party on Grading
Introduction
Following discussion of grading issues in 2004, Education Committee set up a
working group to frame recommendations for its consideration. The Grading Working
Group was made up of Gay Brennan, Jennifer Weller, Lorraine Stefani, Doug Carrie,
Ivan Reilly and John Morrow.
It was decided to focus on two issues, the use of descriptors and the basis on which
classifications of honours are awarded. Responses to a paper discussed by faculties in
2004 suggested that these matters might be progressed. They are important in terms of
students’ expectations and the transparency and consistency of examining procedures
across the University.
The Working Group gathered information from faculties, schools and departments
and examined prevailing practices. While significant variations are apparent, there are
also patterns of common practice which indicated that it should be possible to arrive
at a consistent position on each issue.
Descriptors
A number of schools and departments already use a variety of descriptor statements to
inform students of expectations and, in some cases for the guidance of staff. The
Working Group recognised that these variations reflect the distinct nature of
requirements in different disciplines and that it would not be appropriate to seek
uniformity in the details of descriptors. It accepted, however, the research-based
arguments on the value of descriptors that appear in teaching and learning policy
statements.
The Working Group recommends that Education Committee consider
developing a policy statement on descriptors on the following lines: All schools
and departments should develop a set of descriptors that are appropriate to the
requirements of their discipline and which align specified levels of attainment
with letter grades on a 9 point scale. Descriptors should be included in
information on marking and assessment that is made available to students.
Classes of Honours
Information on the assignment of classes of honours showed that while there is
consistency of practice across a number of faculties there are also some marked
variations. These are indicated in the document attached. The Working Group
believes that these variations are undesirable since they suggest that different
standards are applied in signalling what is the most significant outcome of an honours
programme, that is, the class of honours with which the degree is awarded. In so far as
these differences are purely formal, they are likely to be confusing; if they are
substantive then they are indefensible. The Working Group took the view that classes
of honours should be aligned consistently with particular grades across the University.
John Morrow and Lorraine Stefani were assigned the task of communicating with key
staff members in the Faculties and the School of Theology to try to work towards
consistency. Following these discussions they suggest that Education Committee
considers framing a policy on the assignment of classes of honours.
It is recommended that a policy statement on this issue include a clear definition
of what students need to achieve in order to gain a First Class Honours Degree. For example, it might specify that ‘in order to qualify for a First Class Honours
Degree, students’ overall performance must be within the
‘A’ range.’ The other
Degree classifications would then follow on from this definition.
The policy should also specify a process for determining classes of honours which
starts with the identification of an appropriate set of descriptors to be aligned on
a 9 point letter grade scale. These descriptors will be disciplinary specific, easily
understood and made available to students, tutors and academic staff members.
The grade for each component of a course of study will be translated into a GPA
to produce an overall GPA. The assignment of classes of Honours should be
based upon identical GPAs across all Faculties, Schools, Departments. On the
basis of definition offered above classes of honours might be aligned with GPAs
as follows: 7.0 and above 1st class honours, 5.0- 6.0 for a 2.1 classification, and 5-4
for a 2.2 level degree.
John Morrow
November 2005
