LTC13-P75
13 December 2013
Scaling of Marks as part of the Moderation Process
Rob Pearson, Programme Quality and Teaching Partnerships
The practice of scaling marks as part of the moderation of assessment is common across the sector, with many Universities having explicit scaling policies. The Committee is asked to approve a scaling policy, which has been developed following consultation with Schools, for implementation with immediate effect.
1. Introduction
Scaling is the practice of adjusting all the marks for a module/assessment if, after application of all other methods of moderation, the overall mean mark for that module/assessment lies outside a specified range.
The practice of scaling marks as part of the moderation of assessment is common across the sector, with many Universities having explicit scaling policies: a brief internet search produces scaling policies for Newcastle, Birmingham, Lancaster, Exeter, Bristol and Durham Universities amongst others.
Loughborough does not have a scaling policy, but the need for a debate on the adoption of a policy was highlighted in the recent PPR of Mathematical Sciences and in subsequent discussion with the AD(T) for Science.
2. The principles behind scaling
A review of current policy across the sector has highlighted the following common principles of scaling:
•
It is usually employed, on an exceptional basis, when the mean mark for a module/assessment lies outside of the expected range
•
Some Universities specify an expected range of 55-65%, others opt for comparison to previous cohorts and/or other modules within that year
•
The algorithm then applied is the minimum required to bring the mean within the expected range
•
Scaling should only occur after a process of internal moderation
•
The process should be transparent to students and recorded in Board papers
It should be noted that criterion-referenced assessment (e.g. marking schemes, marking criteria) should be used for all assessments. Norm-referencing (the process of allocating students’ marks according to a fixed distribution of bands of achievement which is determined by the performance of the cohort overall) is not permitted as a means of assessment at Loughborough.

3. Action for Learning and Teaching Committee
A draft scaling policy was considered at Quality and Standards Sub-Committee on 30
September 2013, and was then put out for consultation to Schools.
The general consensus of the responses received was in favour of a University policy for the scaling of marks as well as for the principles outlined in the document. In particular there was agreement with the principle that such a policy should be applied in exceptional circumstances only, and not be the rule.
The most common area of comment was in regard to the definition of mean mark, and whether that alone is an appropriate trigger point. While the policy already recognised that the expected mean module marks may differ between degree programmes, Departments and Schools, the policy has been revised to clarify that Schools may also deem it appropriate to take into account factors such as the median range of marks and the standard deviation.
It has also been clarified that scaling must not be applied to assessments for which a zero mark had been awarded for a non-submission.
Learning and Teaching Committee is therefore asked to approve the policy presented in
Appendix 1 for implementation with immediate effect.

1. The Principles of Scaling
1.1. Scaling is the systematic adjustment of a set of marks for a module/assessment in order to ensure that they properly reflect the achievements of the students concerned as defined by the assessment criteria.
1.2 Scaling is a process which may be employed, on an exceptional basis , to enable the mean mark for a given module to fall within expected ranges derived from:
(i) previous student performance over an appropriate time period (e.g. 3-5 years); and/or
(ii) the range of mean marks in that particular year for all modules taken by a given cohort of students.
1.3 Scaling is not a mechanistic process, but one which requires academic judgement, the key question being whether marks fairly reflect student achievement. The use of scaling should therefore be exceptional and not the rule.
1.4 Scaling should only occur after a process of internal moderation, whereby a sample is scrutinised by a second internal examiner to check that the assessment criteria have been applied consistently (and where applicable that the marking scheme has been followed) and the outcomes of the assessment are fair and reliable.
2. The Scaling Process
2.1 After completion of the moderation process for each module, and any resulting adjustments to marks have been made, the range of mean marks for all modules within a year of study that contribute to the final award should be reviewed. As part of this review process, Schools may determine expected ranges within which all mean module marks for a year of study should lie, derived from 1.2 (i) and/or 1.2 (ii) above.
2.2 The range of expected mean module marks may differ between degree programmes, cohorts,
Departments and Schools but in each case will be based on the evidence of student performance. Schools may also deem it appropriate to take into account factors such as the median range of marks and the standard deviation.
2.3 After investigation of any module with a mean outside the expected range derived from 1.2 (i) and/or 1.2 (ii) above, the marks can be either:
(a) confirmed, if the marks awarded are deemed to be a fair and accurate reflection of student performance on the module in comparison with performance on other modules in the same year of study; or
(b) scaled, if the marks awarded are deemed not to be a fair and accurate reflection of student performance in comparison with performance on other modules in the same year of study. Scaling should take place using an appropriate algorithm, agreed with the
External Examiners, such that the mean is changed by the least amount to lie within the expected range.
Example Scaling Methods:
1) Simple addition: A notional percentage is added to every mark.
2) Multiplication by a factor: Every mark is multiplied by the same factor.
2.4 Scaling should be applied fairly to all students taking the module and not just a problematic subset (e.g. failures or high passes).
2.5 Scaling must not be applied to assessments for which a zero mark has been awarded for a nonsubmission.
2.6 External Examiners should always be consulted about the process where the marks relate to summative assessments.
2.7 The system used by the Board should be clearly minuted by the Board.
2.8 If scaling is applied, the Board should identify and address the underlying reasons for the need to adjust the marks so that the situation is not repeated in subsequent years.