Annexure 1: Awarding Grades

The system of awarding grades, described in the Monograph of Grading for Universities (AIU) with reference to a hypothetical normative table (on a seven-point scale) is given below:

The Normative Standard Table

*2.0 From Marks to Grade

Answer books that are to be marked should thoroughly be randomised. This will ensure that all examiners will be making sets of answer books that are equivalent in quality. Each examiner has both good and bad ones and each set (or bundle) is no better or worse than any other. In such a case, we can be reasonably sure that differences in the marks of examiners may be attributed to their different standards of marking, not to differences in the abilities of students. Also the identity of the student and of his college should be removed from each answer book.

After the examiners have assigned the marks the university does the scaling and theme grading. Dandekar* has given the normal distribution of the range of marks among the population, but the distribution of marks as given by the examiners is usually not normal and often far from being normal. He therefore, feels that the frequency distribution of marks in the earlier year is better than applying the normal distribution. The simplest and most direct description of pattern of distribution is to indicate the number or the proportion of candidates who has secured marks between certain ranges.

The second column (percentage of candidates) represents a decision that the entire range of marks shall be divided into 7 groups and that each group shall contain the indicated percentage marks. The third column (range of marks) is determined empirically. It is based on the actual marks awarded in the particular subject in the last 3 years (a period of 4 or 5 years also can be considered).

The way the second and third columns are arrived at for this particular subject is something like this: The answer books for each year are arranged in the rank order of their marks, from highest to lowest and a tabulation of marks for each year is made. The distributions for the 3 years are combined to form the normative standard scale (to be used for the current year). These tables can be prepared one for each subject and become the standard for the subject. This table, it should be noted, need not concern the examiners. They only mark the papers as they choose and return them to the university. If the last examination the examiners marked was in 1975, they would be required to mark in 1976 examination in the same way as they were doing earlier.

The university arranges the returned papers in rank order and then re-marks them to fit the standard scale. The normative table for the particular subject would be used to convert the marks of students into grades, with the result that a uniform standard of marking is applied to all examinees. The disparate standards of examiners would not effect (sic) them. The normative standard should be kept updated by revising it each year, adding the latest years marks and discarding those of the earlier year.

This would keep the standard scale always based on data or the latest 3 year period. It is recommended that the percentages in the second column be maintained, the range or marks would differ according to subjects… letter grades would thus be the symbols to be used in announcing examination result. The overall grades are needed if we wish to combine the grades for different papers. Assuming that there are 8 papers for the papers for the course each carrying 100 marks and that the grades obtained by a student are O, A, A, B, A,B, A in differing papers, the grade point average of the student, according to our 7 point scale would be

(6 + 5 + 5 + 4 + 5 + 4 + 5 + 4)/ 8 = 38/8 = 4.75

a {i.e., OGPA/CGPA 4.75 on a seven point scale (4.75/7)}. pp. 6-10