The ECTS grading table 2015 Maria Sticchi Damiani University of Ferrara, June 7, 2016

Background Grading/marking practices and cultures in Europe are different due to: different national grading scales 2. different use of the same grading scale in different contexts

Different national grading scales Broader/narrower range of passing marks: from a minimum of 1 (e.g., pass or fail) to a maximum of 14 (e.g., from 18 to 30 cum laude in the Italian system)

2. Different use of the same grading scale in different contexts “Marking higher or lower?” Different types of institutions Different subject areas Different types of degree programmes

Grading in international mobility: main objectives Correct interpretation of the grades awarded to a student in a specific context (i.e., specific country, institution, subject area, programme) Fair transfer of the grades gained in a different context into the student’s home records. What can be done?

A two-step procedure Transparency Describe how your national grading scale is actually used in a specific programme of study, to enable your partners to interpret correctly the grades received by their students Conversion Develop a common device at the international level, to allow for a fair conversion of the grades received abroad into the home grading scale.

The two-step procedure in the old ECTS grading scale: Transparency Describe in statistical terms how the national scale is used for specific reference groups of the institution (students in a single programme of study or in groups of homogeneous programmes), by calculating the percentages of the grades awarded to them over a period of at least three years (distribution curves). Automatic conversion Apply a 5-point frame to the grade distribution curve with standard ranges: highest 10%, next 25%, next 30%, next 25%; lowest 10% (A, B, C, D, E). Use this 5-point scale for automatic grade conversion from one scale to another.

Evaluation of the procedure – First step: no problem Country/Institution/Programme A B C 30 lode 5.6% 10 5% 1 20% 30 15.7% 9 10% 2 35% 29 0.5% 8 35% 3 25% 28 12.3% 7 30% 4 20% 27 11.8% 6 20% 26 9.0% 25 8.3% 24 11.3% 2.7% 6.0% 2.3% 20 5.7% 19 1.9% 18 6.9%

Evaluation of the procedure – Second step: problems Country/Institution/Programme A B C ???????? 30 lode 5.6%] A 10 5%]A 1 20% 30 15.7%] B 9 10%]B 2 35% 29 0.5%] 8 35%]C 3 25% 28 12.3%] 7 30%]D 4 20% 27 11.8%]C 6 20%]E 26 9.0%] 25 8.3%] 24 11.3%]D 2.7%] 6.0%] 2.3%] 20 5.7%]E 19 1.9%] 18 6.9%]

Evaluation of the procedure - Second step: problems The 5-point scale with fixed percentages applies quite well to systems with a broad range of passing grades (e.g., the Italian system) applies less well to systems with just 5 passing grades, whose statistic distribution may not coincide with the fixed percentage provided by A, B, C, D, E it cannot be applied to systems with less than 5 passing grades.

Evaluation of the procedure - Conclusions: The second step of this procedure cannot be consistently applied to all European grading systems. In some cases the actual statistical value is lost in the conversion; in others, there are simply not enough grades for a 5-point scale.

Based on these considerations, the new ECTS Guide (2015) recommends: For transparency, continue the implementation of the first step, i.e, the production of a grade distribution table (with percentages and cumulative percentages) for every programme of study or group of homogeneous programmes in your institution, in order to indicate the level of performance of a student with reference to the group s/he belongs to. This will enable partners to interpret correctly the grades awarded in each specific context.

For conversion, compare directly the two grade distribution tables from the host and the home programme of study, so as to identify the corresponding grades and make the conversion from one grading scale to the other.

Advantages of the new procedure it can be applied to all national grading systems regardless of the number of passing grades; provides transparent data on how grades are actually used in a specific programme of study and allows for their correct interpretation; allows for fair grade conversion from one grading scale to another.

Need for institutional policies on grade conversion Since a grade in one system may correspond to more than one grade in another system, the institution should indicate in advance whether the average or the highest grade will be consistently used.

Disadvantages? it is no longer an automatic conversion device (A in one system = A in another system) requires case by case consideration

In order to solve these problems the EGRACONS project has been developed!!!

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!