By Dr Chien Hoong Gooi (UNSW School of Psychology)
Published 28 August 2024
I recall the frustration of trying to determine whether a student’s assignment should receive a mark of 83, 85 or 87. Assigning a specific numerical grade proved challenging, especially when trying to reflect how a particular assignment compared to others within a similar range.
In 2019, I transitioned four placement-related courses in the Master of Psychology (Clinical) program from numerical grading to a competency-based system using categorical grades (satisfactory/unsatisfactory). This change was particularly fitting, as clinical-psychology training focusses on the development of competencies across clearly defined domains and areas of practice. These four courses included a clinical-placement component where students were assessed on their ability to work with clients, along with written assignments detailing their client interactions.
For context, the Master of Psychology (Clinical) program is an accredited pathway, enabling graduates to register as psychologists in Australia, and subsequently pursue further clinical training to become clinical psychologists. Our program has a small, dedicated cohort of approximately 12 students, who engage in an intensive curriculum that encompasses coursework, a research thesis and over 1,000 hours of clinical placements.
Transitioning from numerical grades to categorical assessment has yielded positive outcomes. Markers now use comprehensive rubrics for each assessment item that clearly indicate whether submissions meet pre-established criteria and incorporate constructive qualitative feedback. The anxiety of deliberating between marks like 83, 85 or 87 is now a thing of the past.
In 2020, all course convenors for the Master of Psychology (Clinical) program collectively decided to extend categorical grading to all remaining program assessments, including for coursework and the research thesis — which had previously been marked using numerical grades.
Feedback from staff, students and alumni has consistently affirmed that this shift has been beneficial. Some of the advantages we have observed include:
- Enhanced focus on qualitative feedback: We now devote less time to navigating the distinctions between numerical grades, allowing for richer qualitative comments that guide student learning.
- Clearer expectations through comprehensive rubrics: The transition prompted our team to develop detailed rubrics outlining the competencies expected for each assessment. These rubrics are shared with students prior to submission, clarifying assessment expectations.
- Opportunities to revise and resubmit: Our internal marking process includes a revise-and-resubmit option, granting students the chance to improve their submissions after a discussion with the marker regarding areas for enhancement. This fosters valuable teaching moments that address and rectify any performance deficits, as opposed to merely passing students with low scores.
- Alignment with competency-based training: Our grading approach now closely aligns with the competency-based framework central to clinical-psychology training.
- Reduced stress for students: Students experience less pressure and competition over numerical grades, allowing them to focus more on genuine learning rather than merely aiming for high distinctions.
However, the transition has not been without challenges. Some downsides include:
- Increased marking workload: The revise-and-resubmit approach has led to a higher volume of assignments requiring assessment. Nonetheless, this increase is somewhat mitigated by the reduced time spent on assigning numerical grades.
- Challenges in award determination: We have eliminated the “with excellence” designation on student transcripts, which is overall less significant at the postgraduate level in our field. We still have an internal grading category for “pass with merit” for exceptional performance, which, although it does not appear on official transcripts, is used to help determine suitable recipients of student awards. I have also since become aware that there are other UNSW grading systems that include CM (competent with merit), CO (competent) and CN (not yet competent) grades.
- Approval delays for assessment changes: Major adjustments to assessments require consensus from a Faculty committee, often leading to long wait times for approval.
As we approach four years since implementing the competency-based grading system in our program, I see no reason to revert to numerical marks. Concerns about declining training standards have proven unfounded; we have instead fostered a more focused learning environment with greater student satisfaction.
If you are interested in exploring how courses at UNSW are piloting competency-based grading, I encourage you to reach out to Nexus Fellows Professor Elizabeth Angstmann and Associate Professor Helen Gibbon.
What makes particular subjects suitable (or not) for competency-based grading?
***
Reading this on a mobile? Scroll down to learn about the author.