OPINION: NEW GRADING SCALE CAN LEAD TO UNFAIR AND UNCLEAR GRADES
If we replace 7 with the characters 6 and 8, we no longer have a middle character, but are forced to divide the middle field without anything substantial to base this division on. I understand that it may feel tame to get a grade of 7, and that there may be a need to elaborate on the grade. But the need for more detailed feedback is simply not met with several unexplained middle grades, writes Olav W. Bertelsen, associate professor of computer science.
This is an opinion piece, the views expressed in the column are the writer’s own.
On November 11, Omnibus reported that employees and students at AU are satisfied with the government's proposal for a new grading scale.
AU reactions to the government's proposal for a new grading scale
I agree that it’s necessary to change the numerical leaps in the middle because they’re perceived as too large. We just have to remember that the leaps between 4, 7 and 10 were intended to give a certain weighting in the calculation of averages. The problem with the large leaps can be solved by simply naming the grades something else, for example, A to G (as in the ECTS system) or 0 to 6 (covering two failed and five passed grades).
My experience as a long-time examiner and grader in exams where you cannot count correct answers in percentages is that with the current scale with five passing grades, we have good opportunities for fair and transparent grading. We have an average grade, which in practice means that the student has achieved what we want with the subject. We have a grade that is given when it’s clearly better than what we expect everyone to achieve, and we have a grade that signals that the performance is (close to) perfect. At the other end, we have a grade for when the performance is good, but not at the level we’d like everyone to reach, and then we have a grade for just passing.
IT'S NOT A PROBLEM THAT MANY GET A 7
“The grade 7 has gradually become a bit of a default character,” William Poulsen tells Omnibus, as if it’s a problem. But it's not exactly a problem that there are many people in the middle. This shows that the teaching has worked, that the level has been set correctly, and that the students have prioritised doing well in all subjects.
If we replace 7 with 6 and 8, we no longer have a middle grade, but we are forced to divide those in the middle into those who are slightly better and those who are bad, even though, in most cases, there is nothing substantial to base it on. Of course, we’ll have to find something to justify the differences, but most likely it’ll be based on idiosyncrasies and prejudices. With the new grading scale, fairness and transparency are compromised.
THE NEED FOR FEEDBACK IS NOT MET WITH MORE UNCLEAR GRADES
I understand that it can feel a bit flat to get a grade of 7, it’s rarely a surprise. The need to clarify what the grade actually represents then becomes urgent. The need for more detailed feedback is simply not met with several unclear grades in the middle.
I’d clearly encourage that in the future we’ll also have a grading scale with five passing grades and a clear middle grade. It’s less crucial whether this is done by introducing entirely new grades, such as letters, or by making 4 the minimum passing grade, as Berit Eika suggests in Omnibus, so that 8 becomes the new 7, and 6 becomes the new 4.
Olav W. Bertelsen is an associate professor at the Department of Computer Science and joint union representative for academics (members of academic staff and academic staff in administrative positions) at the Faculty of Natural Sciences.
This text is machine translated and post-edited by Lisa Enevoldsen