International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education, 2(4), 1-15, October-December 2012 1

Students’ Expectations About

Their Grades vs. Course
Expectations From Them:
Will the Mismatch Ensure
Quality Education?
Satya Sundar Sethy, Department of Humanities & Social Sciences, Indian Institute of
Technology Madras, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

ABSTRACT
The paper presents a research study on the reasons for mismatch between students’ grade expectations and the
actual grades they were awarded in the “Ethics” course at an engineering education institution in India. The
paper also outlines how this event created the social and political stigmas among the authorities to opt for the
re-evaluation of students’ answer sheets. After receiving the re-evaluated grade sheet from the re-evaluator,
some meager and minor discrepancies were noticed which were liable to question, suspicion, and hence not
impeccable. But by overlooking the reasons for trifling discrepancies authorities considered the re-evaluated
grade sheet as the final one. In this context, the study examined the reliability and viability of criteria-based
grading against norm-based grading model with the plausible impacts of authoritarian intervention in
distorting the course instructor’s grade sheet, and its implications on quality retention in higher education.

Keywords: Course Objectives, Criterion-Based Grading, Curved Grading, Norm-Based Grading, Quality
Retention

INTRODUCTION of their achievement in a particular course.

Though there are many interpretations found in
reference to assessment and grading, but in this
paper we delimit their scopes to our contexts
and interpret respectively as:
• Assessment: It refers to judging students’
assignment performance by awarding
score/mark about the quality and extent
Assignments may be asked in the form of
term papers, quizzes, field visit reports, etc.;
• Grade: It signifies a letter grade. The letter
grades are arranged from higher to lower as
S, A, B, C, D, E, U. Here S becomes the top
(highest) grade, U as fail grade, and E as the
lowest pass grade in a course. Assignments’
scores or marks serve as the raw materials
for grade determinations when they are

DOI: 10.4018/ijqaete.2012100101

Copyright © 2012, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
2 International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education, 2(4), 1-15, October-December 2012
aggregated and the result converted into a
symbolic representation of overall achieve-
ment. It refers to the classification of the
level of students’ performance in a course.
If grades won’t be used in the instructional
process, even then teacher can teach and stu-
dents can learn in all educational settings. But
thinking of approval of academic bodies for
an educational programme that consists of a
few courses without incorporating assessment
and evaluation practices, and thereby grading
is something unusual. Grading can’t just be a
customary practice in any educational context
because grades are the basic currencies of our
educational system, and results in both immedi-
ate benefits (e.g., enhance motivation, approval
of family) and long-term consequences (e.g.,
admission to higher educational instituions,
preferred employment) to the students (Tata,
1999). It is available in different forms such as,
letter grade, point grade, etc. On the account
of Frisbie and Waltman (1992) grades provide
information to students for self-evaluation,
analysis of strengths and weaknesses, and creat-
ing a general impression of academic promise.
In higher educational setup, students’ sat-
isfaction about their grades is one among the
other important considerations because grades
received by them are invariably related to their
perceptions, attitude, and behavior towards the
course. Students who received their expected
grades always project their views positively
about the courses, whereas negative connota-
tions were attributed by those who abstained
from their expected grades (Chacko, 1983;
Marlin & Gaynor, 1989; Perkins, Guerin, &
Sciileii, 1990; Snyder & Clair, 1976). Wentzien
(2011) after comparing the students’ expected
grades and the actual grades they had received
at the end of a course, found that those who
had passed the course correctly perceived their
grades as genuine whereas students who had
failed overestimated their grades. Eason et al.
(2009) reported that students who received the
higher grades seem capable of approximately
Copyright © 2012, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
set the class average. Of those expected grades
nearer to the class average, some of them
failed and thus they had strong objections to
the grading pattern, because on the one hand,
they had overestimated their grades by failing
to specify the approximate class average and
on the other hand, they did not meet the course
objectives as course demands from them. Again,
the same study conveyed that students failed to
anticipate their actual grades in a course even
after the syllabus was communicated to them
incorporating the methods of assessment, evalu-
ation criteria, grading model at the beginning
of a course. Students received grades that are
lower than their expectation are more likely to
perceive the grade distribution as unfair. In this
regard, Murstein (1965) submitted that better
students are fairly calculating their expected
grades, but poor students are less accurate and
most often indicated that they deserve a higher
grade, above the class average.
According to Eason et al. (2009) students
are often disappointed and upset with their final
course grades. Some of the angst may be due
to the disagreement as to what is important or
appropriate in evaluating student performance.
The possible differences between faculty and
students may explain much of the dissatisfac-
tion students express when they receive lower
grades than they had expected. Shefrin (2007)
reported that students have the cognitive biases
in their formation of grade expectations and
understanding of why they earn the grades as
they expected. Chan et al (2005) noted that poor-
performing students miscalculate, misgauge,
and misread their own performance although
various cues might available to them. Students
were also not accepting a “strict grade curve”
in the grade distribution (Eason et al., 2009).
This study reported that students received poor
grades because of their low capability to fulfill
the course objectives and not putting the required
efforts as desired by the course. According to
Norvilitis and Zhang (2009) students are likely
evaluating their examination scores relating to
the performance of the whole class and ignor-
 International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education, 2(4), 1-15, October-December 2012 3
ing the achievement of the course objectives.
In this respect, Murstein (1965) raised some
questions about students’ grade expectations
in a course which are our present concern for
examination and discussion. These are: can
students accurately predict their final grades
of a course, do students deserve the grades that
they expect, what is the relation between grade
expected and actual grade deserved? (p.357).
The paper further seeks to answers the ques-
tions: how should the course instructor grade
the student performance? How is grade related
to the assurance and retention of quality in
higher education?
This study tries to respond the above queries
in the context of “Ethics” course, which was
offered to undergraduate students of a premier
engineering educational institution of India in
the semester Jan-May, 2011.
METHODOLOGY
This study considered the total class strength (36
undergraduate students) of the Ethics course.
Feedbacks about their grade expectations were
collected through opinionnaire in three differ-
ent occasions. First, before announcing Quiz-1
assessment scores, second, after declaration
of Quiz-1 assessment scores, and third, after
announcement of Quiz-2 assessment scores.
In the fourth occasion, i.e. at the end of the
course - after final grades were declared, stu-
dents communicated their grade expectations
to the course instructor through asynchronous
(e-mail) mode. In each step students’ behaviour,
perceptions and attitudes towards this course
were recorded.
CONTEXT
Like any higher educational institution, a pre-
mier institution of India has documented the
norms, rules, and regulations for conducting
official examinations, assessing, evaluating,
and grading students’ performance along with
Copyright © 2012, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
other administrative issues in its policy. The
policy includes two obligations among others
for the faculties (course instructors):
1. Inform the students at the beginning of
a course about the assessment strategies
and the relative weight of the various
components;
2. Provide timely and helpful feedback to
students after each assessment.
Not surprisingly, the policy does not con-
tain the clear guidance on how and on what
basis judgments about the quality of student
performance should be made and appropriate
grades to be assigned. It is so because each
course is unique and occupies a distinct place
in a particular program in reference to its cur-
riculum and instructional designs. By the dint
of its distinctiveness, it is approved by the
academic bodies after scrutinizing its relevance,
significance and future benefits to the students.
Thus, it is left to the course instructor to decide
what should be the assessment and evaluation
criteria to judge students’ performance and as-
sign grades to them. Further, the grade sheet is
considered to be final after it is passed in the
class committee meeting.
Without deviating from the above-men-
tioned practices and guidelines, Ethics course
announced 20 marks each of two assignments
(Quiz-01 and 02) and 60 marks for the end
semester examination to the students out of
100 at the beginning of the course. In addition
to that the pattern of assessment, criteria of
evaluation, grading model and course objectives
were informed to them.
As per the schedule, Quiz-01, 02, and End
semester examination were conducted. At the
end of this course, after the approval of class
committee members the final grades were an-
nounced. Here, 12 students dissatisfied with
their grades because they found their grades
were lower than they expected, which they
communicated to the course instructor through
4 International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education, 2(4), 1-15, October-December 2012
e-mail. Among those 05 students were received
the U-grades. In this juncture they did not wish
to understand why they were assigned lower
grades, rather claimed that the evaluation and
grading were unfair and biased. Subsequent
to this incident, the department administration
realized that 05 students failed in a course is a
prestige issue to the department as well as to
the institution. Hence, without understanding
the reasons behind this occurrence, they decided
to re-evaluate the evaluated scripts by another
subject teacher. After receiving the second grade
sheet from the re-evaluator, the differences
on grades were found very meager, which are
liable to questions, suspicions, and hence not
impeccable. But by overlooking the reasons
for trifling discrepancies authorities considered
the re-evaluated grade sheet was the final one.
In this background, the paper examines
the viability and reliability of ‘criteria-based
grading’ against ‘norm-based grading’ model,
the plausible impacts of authorities’ interven-
tion in distorting the course instructor’s grade
sheet, and its implications in retaining quality
in higher education.
Research Findings and Analyses
The curriculum of the “Ethics” course was
designed to assist students to understand some
fundamental questions about life and the sig-
nificance of morality in life endeavour. Among
those what makes an action right, what is good
behaviour, what makes us happy, what qualities
should a person have and avoid having, how
should we treat others, etc. Although these
questions do not have clear-cut answers in the
‘yes’ or ‘no’ form, yet the aim is to become more
rational and ethical in our life endeavour and
enhance our ethical decision making abilities
in various contexts. The major and the minor
objectives were formulated and shared with
students keeping in mind the course expectations
from a world renowned educational instituion.
Upon completion of this course students should
be able to:
Copyright © 2012, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Major Objective
1. Develop their own ethical theories, and
answers to ethical questions;
2. Explain major ethical theories by major
philosophers;
3. Identify the differences among rights, moral
values, and duties;
4. Describe the relationship between ethics
and other sciences;
5. Describe egoism, altruism, and
utilitarianism;
6. Explain theories of punishments;
7. Elucidate the Gandhi’s views on moral
principles.
Minor Objectives
1. Differentiate moral from amoral actions;
2. Explain svadharma and varna dharma;
3. Illustrate the concepts ethical egoism and
psychological hedonism;
4. Describe the shortcoming of theories of
punishments;
5. Distinguish legal rights from moral rights;
6. Elucidate the significance of fundamental
rights;
7. Explain Plato’s and Aristotle’s views on
morality;
8. Analyse purusarthas;
9. Discuss Kant’s imperatives.
There were 38 students enrolled in the Ethics
course but 02 students were invariably absent
in all occasions. Hence, the study considered
the opinions of 36 students. At the beginning
of the course the teacher provided the sylla-
bus and informed the methods of assessment,
evaluation criteria, and adaptation of grading
model to the students. It was observed that
students were savored the lectures which were
reflected from their interactions with the faculty
on subject matters, debate among the peers on
an example by evaluating its appropriateness
within a context, relate and share their experi-
 International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education, 2(4), 1-15, October-December 2012 5
ences on the discussed concepts/issues. On a
whole ‘good-going’ was the common opinion
received from them. Some of their opinions are
presented as below:
A student xxx said, classes were very interesting
because I can relate the discussed concepts to
my experiences.
Student yyy vehemently stated that there were
no problems in understanding the contents, and
I hope I can earn at least A grade.
Student aaa claimed that I think I will earn not
less than B grade.
Student ddd expressed that I am not an average
student at all. I wish I will earn A grade.
As the class rolled on, students took inter-
est in the subject and each class went on with
relevant discussions, arguments and counter
arguments on various issues/concepts. After
Quiz-01, the faculty found that some students
couldn’t score well. The differences were
noticed between students’ expectations about
their scores and actual score they were awarded
with are placed in Table 1 along with the class
average and other details.
Among 22 students who expected more
than class average, 05 failed to meet their
expectations, and fell in the range between
08-10.50 marks, where the class average score
was 11. In this situation they didn’t agree with
Table 1. Quiz-01 details
Quiz-01 Assessment Scores
Class average
Students scored 11 & above
Students scored between 08-10.50
Students scored below 08
Student expected scores above class average
Student expected scores nearer to class average
Copyright © 2012, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
the assessment method adopted by the faculty,
because they found that those who had put less
effort for the Quiz-01 they were awarded with
a higher grade than them. They further noticed
that grammatical wrong sentences cause the
mark deductions from the total. Among average
score expected students, 02 of them could not
receive the grades as they had expected. They
complained that although some information
was misplaced in our answers but neverthe-
less a few were written clearly. So how can we
be assigned such a lower score? Again, they
claimed that such a strict evaluation should not
be accepted because it de-motivated us for our
further studies.
Thus, out of 36 students, 07 could not secure
their expected grades because of not achieving
the course objectives; both major and minor,
which subsume the following issues/points:
1. They did not mention the required and
adequate information while answering the
questions, but emphatically have written
some redundant and related information;
2. They were presented the information nei-
ther logically nor sequentially;
3. They were not aware of the fact that they
were writing each sentence against a bullet
point without elucidating further;
4. Some students even had written some
information in token form without explain-
ing their relevance and significance in the
context.
Max. Marks: 20
11marks
17 students (47%)
17 students (47%)
02 students (6%)
22 students (61%)
14 students (39%)
6 International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education, 2(4), 1-15, October-December 2012
In addition to these, they could not even
predict their scores approximately because of
the following two cognitive biases as mentioned
by Shefrin (2007) and endorsed by Eason et al.
(2009). Similar findings were noticed in this
study as well:
1. Over confidence bias;
2. Self-attribution bias.
Overconfidence bias describes the tenden-
cy of students to make mistakes more frequently
than they believe and view themselves as better
than average (Shefrin, 2007:6). Self-attribution
bias delineates the students’ tendencies is to
take credit for positive outcomes and to blame
others or bad luck for negative outcomes
(Shefrin, 2007:131). Those students suffered
from overconfidence bias, they had expected a
higher grade than average because they usually
believed that they were better than average. But
unfortunately it would be rarest of the rare situa-
tion where we found in a class of 36 students all
are better than average. Also, the overconfidence
bias was tending to cause students to believe
that they had performed better than they actually
had performed in Quiz-01. This was noticed in
case of 05 students who expected their scores
above class average, but unfortunately fell one-
step down, i.e. 08-10.50 marks. Students who
suffered from self-attribution bias attributed
that they received poor grades because of the
shortcomings of the course instructor and the
author of the textbook. This feature was found
Table 2. Quiz-02 details
Quiz-02 Assessment Scores
Class average
Students scored 10.5 & above
Students scored between 08-10
Students scored below 08
Student expected score above class average
Student expected nearer to class average score
Copyright © 2012, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
in case of 02 students who scored below 08
marks. They said that they could not score their
expected grades because they did not understand
the materials, and the instructor did not explain
the material well. Among 14 students who ex-
pected their scores near to class average, only
12 could achieve so. They said that they were
awarded with their expected grades because
they worked hard to understand the materials.
These students are again characterized as the
possessor of self-attribution bias.
After the announcement of Quiz-01 assess-
ment scores, the feedback was provided to the
whole class at large, and specific explanations
were given to some students those wished to
learn how to develop their study skills and
desired to perform better in the forthcoming
examinations.
The Quiz-02 assessment score were not
surprisingly impressive than the Quiz-01. In this
case, again, the mismatch was found between
students’ expectations about their scores and
the actual scores assigned to them, presented
in Table 2.
The class average score was 10.5 marks
out of 20. Among 19 students with expected
scores above class average, 07 were placed in
the range between 08-10 marks, i.e. just below
the average score. Similarly, out of 17 students
with expected grades nearer to class average,
04 couldn’t succeed. Although 02 highly dis-
satisfied students of Quiz-01 had done much
better in the Quiz-02 and scored near to their
expectations, other students still failed to meet
Max Marks: 20
10.5 marks
12 students (33%)
20 students (55%)
04 students (12%)
19 students (53%)
17 students (47%)
 International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education, 2(4), 1-15, October-December 2012 7
their expectations. Here, the mismatch caused
partly because of the cognitive bias phenomena,
and in addition to that a new phenomenon was
noticed, i.e. students’ approaches to learning.
Students’ approaches to learning are equal-
ly important while they expected scores against
their performance. According to Struyven et al.
(2005) there are three approaches to learning
prominently noticed in higher educational set
up. These are:
1. Surface approaches to learning;
2. Deep approaches to learning;
3. Strategic and achieving approaches to
learning.
Surface approaches to learning describe
an intention to complete the learning task with
little personal engagement, seeing the work as an
unwelcome external imposition. This intention
is often associated with routine and unreflective
memorization and procedural problem solving,
with restricted conceptual understanding being
an inevitable outcome (Entwistle & Ramsden,
1983; Trigwell & Prosser, 1991; Entwistle et
al., 2001). Deep approaches to learning, in
contrast, lead from an intention to understand,
to active conceptual analysis and, if carried
out thoroughly, generally result in a deep level
of understanding. This approach is related to
high quality learning outcomes (Entwistle &
Ramsden, 1983; Trigwell & Prosser, 1991).
Finally, the strategic and achieving approaches
to learning describe the student’s intention
was to achieve the highest possible grades by
using well-organized and conscientious study
methods and effective time management skills
(Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Entwistle et al.,
2001). These three approaches are modified
depending on actual contexts. All these ap-
proaches to learning are often subtle and un-
noticed (Struyven et al., 2005:327).
The study found that there is a strong rela-
tion between students’ approaches to learning
and their expected assessment scores. Those
students who do not look for the meaning of a
text, understanding is not their purpose, and they
try to memorize parts, and study the layout with
Copyright © 2012, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
the purpose of meeting the requirements of the
assignment tasks, they did not realize that these
features were not at all sufficient to achieve the
course objectives. These features were found in
case of 07 students who scored between 08-10
marks and expected score above the average.
These students adopted the surface approaches
to learning. Those 04 students who scored below
08 marks suffered with self-attribution bias.
Some of their opinions are presented below,
which were recorded after the declaration of
Quiz-02 assessment scores:
Student xxx said that I had written probably all
the information as the question demanded, then
I should deserve at least 09 out of 10.
Student kkk conveyed that while writing answers
if we concentrate on logical presentation, then
probably we could not able to write answers
properly.
Student ccc humbly stated that Sir, I believe I
had written all the examples you had discussed
in the class but then why didn’t you give me the
highest score.
Student ttt said, although I had not mentioned
some information accurately, yet a few were
correct. So how can you deduct so much mark
for that?
Student ddd reported that I had written so
much for this question but you have given the
same score to my friend who had written even
less than me.
Student ppp said that how can you expect that
while writing the answers we have to write all
the correct English sentences.
Student mmm said that it would be very dif-
ficult for us to write answers if you examine
our papers through English grammar, logical
presentation, adequate and important informa-
tion, etc. criteria.
8 International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education, 2(4), 1-15, October-December 2012
A student said I have missed only 02 points
then I must get 08 out of 10 marks. Here the
student failed to notice that question demands
these two points essentially among others and
failing to do so can score 05 out of 10 only.
However, if a student has written all these
required points, then also (s)he may score 08
out of 10 in an essay type question, because
much after the required information, an essay
type question demands a logical and analyti-
cal presentation of the information, which is
an element of major objective achievements.
Some students recognized that there was a gap
between their perceptions of the type of learning
being demanded and their own actions. Several
claimed that they simply did not have time to
adopt the deep approaches to learning, although
it was demanded in Ethics course. Some freely
admitted that they did not have the personal
motivation to put the required efforts as desired
by the course. Unfortunately these cunning
features can’t be taken into consideration for
grading students’ performance. It is so because
evaluation made through criteria-based model
searches for course objectives achievement only.
Those 12 students who expected a higher
score than the class average and awarded with
the same had adopted the deep-approaches
to learning where they fulfilled all the course
objectives. On the other hand, those 15 students
who scored between 08-10 marks and expected
nearer to the class average adopted the strategic
and achieving approaches to learning and they
had achieved most of the major objectives and
some of the minor objectives of the course.
But unfortunately those 04 students who
scored below 08 marks could not come out from
the surface approaches to learning. They had
achieved a few major objectives only in their
performance. In Ethics course deep approaches
to learning was expected and desired. But
students were not ready to leave their comfort-
able zone of surface approaches to learning.
Hence they had abstained from receiving their
expected grades. Many students believed that
Copyright © 2012, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
just by fulfilling the task requirements, their
performance would be rewarded with a higher
score, but unfortunately the course objectives
demanded much more than this, and hence they
failed to receive their expected scores.
To sum up, there were three principal
reasons for students to refrain from their ex-
pected scores:
1. They were lacking with deep approaches
to learning;
2. Some of them hesitant to understand the
significance of criteria-based evaluation
model;
3. A few were suffered with cognitive biases.
Those students who couldn’t cope with
the deep approaches to learning their expected
scores did not match with their assigned scores.
This phenomenon was noticed in case of 11
students. This situation generated the discomfort
in them about the course, and it was aggravated
to all because of the peer group impacts.
As per the practice, the Quiz-02 assess-
ment feedback was discussed with students in
the class and ample guidance was provided to
them on how to overcome their shortcomings
for achieving the course objectives. It was found
that among 11 students some were ready to adopt
deep approaches to learning and a few were
hesitant to shift from their surface approaches to
learning to deep approaches to learning. In this
case, students who stick to surface approaches
to learning developed negative attitude towards
the course and this was clearly noticeable from
their behavior and attitude in the class interac-
tions and discussions.
After the end semester examination, stu-
dents’ performances were found relatively better
than the Quizzes, but due to the poor scores
in both the Quizzes, they could not receive
their expected grades. The final grades were
determined based on the course objectives
achievement presented in Table 3 and Table 4.
 International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education, 2(4), 1-15, October-December 2012 9
Table 3. Criteria-based grading model
Grade Major Objectives Achieved
S All and creative works
A All
B All
C Most
D Some
E A few
U Irrelevant and Unrelated
Table 4. Students’ grades expectations vs. grades assigned to them
Actual Grades Awarded With
S 01 student (2.78%)
A 07 students (19%)
B 02 students (5.56%)
C 05 students (13.89%)
D 02 students (5.56%)
E 14 students (38%)
U 05 students (13.89%)
After the announcement of final grades,
which was approved by the class committee
members, there were mismatch found between
students’ expectations and the actual grades they
were awarded with, which they communicated
to the faculty through e-mail.
Some of their communications are pre-
sented below:
Student jjj wrote, please recheck my paper, I
was expecting a much higher grade than I am
awarded with.
Student ttt said, in my whole life I did not score
so badly as you have assigned to me, please
re-evaluate my answer scripts.
Student nnn said, I did not fail in any examina-
tion so far, so please re-evaluate my answer
scripts once again.
Copyright © 2012, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Minor Objectives Achieved
All
All
Most
Some
Some
Unimportant but related
None
Final Grades Expected by the Students from the
Course
04 students (11%)
09 students (25%)
12 students (33%)
07 students (19%)
04 students (11%)
00 students
00 students
Student bbb expressed that please change your
grade plan, because it does not suit to me.
Student sss said that although I had scored 12
in the Quizzes, yet I was expecting at least A
grade. Kindly recheck my paper.
Many students had overestimated their
grades and failed to recognize the course ob-
jectives’ achievements. For example, a student
expected A grade by perceived achievement of
all major and minor objectives, but in reality the
student received B grade because of achieve-
ment of all major objectives and most of the
minor objectives, but not all. In contrast to this,
if a student overlooked his/her performance by
expecting a D grade, and in actual he/she was
awarded with C-grade, he/she had perceived that
the achievement only of some major and minor
objectives, but in actual he/she had achieved
10 International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education, 2(4), 1-15, October-December 2012
most of the major objectives and some of the
minor objectives. Thus, those expected their
grades by overlooking their performance, in
some cases D grades became C, B became A. On
the other hand, those overestimated the course
objectives’ achievements; they received below
grades than their expectations. For example, in
some cases S became A, A became B, B became
either C or D, or U grade. From this analysis,
it is asserted that students received poor grades
because of their low capability to fulfill the
course objectives and not putting the required
efforts as desired by the course.
At the end of this course, the grades pre-
sented in the Table 4 (left column) was approved
by the class committee members and announced
publicly. Here 12 students found their grades
were lower than their expectations, but others
did not have any objections about their grades
because they had understood what course de-
manded and what they had delivered. Those
who had objections did not wish to understand
why they were assigned lower grades, the
significance of meeting course objectives, and
the importance of criteria-based evaluation for
quality education.
Though all students had desired for a better
grade, some of them could not receive so because
of lack of deep approaches to learning, failure
to achieve the course objectives, and reluctant
to understand the significance of criteria-based
evaluation model. Thus, on one hand they did
not meet the course objectives communicated
to them at the beginning of the course, on the
other hand, they expected a higher grade on
their performance just by attempting the ques-
tions from their surface approaches to learning.
This study broadly found students are of
two categories based on their grade expecta-
tions from the course: thoughtful and slug-
gish. ‘Thoughtful’ students did not find any
significant change in relation to their grade
expectations whereas, ‘sluggish’ students
expected a higher grade even though they had
not performed well in respect to the course
objectives’ achievements. They were found to
be much poorer prophet and expected at least
B grade in the course. Thus, it is submitted that
Copyright © 2012, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
to be an acute student one needs to adapt the
strategic and achieving approaches to learn-
ing although deep approaches to learning are
praiseworthy.
Conditions for Distorting
the Grade Sheet
Even after offering the timely feedback to the
students on their performance, some of them
could not make out the necessary connec-
tion between course objectives’ achievement
and grade awarding. Since they received the
lower grades against their expectations, they
claimed grading pattern is unfair and biased.
Further, they viewed that evaluation criteria
as not appropriate they could not receive the
grade expected. In this context, they tried to
receive the sympathetic consideration from the
department authorities in the form of re-shaping
their grades. Authorities’ emotions were also
associated with fail and low-grade students
because of a countable numbers and their kind
concerns on students’ negative consequences
in their academic life. The 05 ‘U- grade’ and
14 ‘E-grade’ received by the students perturbed
authorities thinking that it is a prestige issue
for the department and the institution because
of the low rank of the students and number of
failed students.
Authorities are in this regard also hapless
because of the political and social inducements
where public can compare the pass rate of a
course in a particular institution with other in-
stitutions offering similar course. In this regard,
Eason et al. (2009) said that one trend in higher
education may also contribute to the difference
in expectations between course instructor and
students, if institutional authorities, parents/
students regard universities as the service pro-
vider and students/parents as consumers, then
the consumers reasonably want to be satisfied
with their purchase. It implies students’expected
grades are to be protected at any cost.
Hence, without bothering the reasons for
the differences between students’ expected
grades and the actual grades they were awarded
with, the department administration decided to
 International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education, 2(4), 1-15, October-December 2012 11
re-evaluate the evaluated scripts by another sub-
ject teacher. After receiving the re-evaluator’s
grade sheet, the differences on grades were
found very meager, presented in Table 5.
In majority of the cases, re-evaluator graded
the students from sympathetic considerations
that reflect from his/her grading pattern. S(he)
elevated 02 students by adding 02 marks each,
07 students by adding 03-05 marks each on
and above the pre-existed evaluated marks and
awarded them with higher grades without any
justifications and rational bases. Even after
the finalization of his/her grade sheet, (s)he
added 02 marks extra to a few selected students
without any reason and awarded them higher
grades by elevating from A to S (for 01 student),
B to A (01 student), D to C (01 student) and
E to D (01 student). At the last, even after his/
her lenient marking (s)he could not pass 02
students. This clearly shows that re-evaluator’s
grade sheet was designed keeping in mind the
institutional concerns to the previous grade
sheet and institution’s reputation, but not the
students’ performance.
Interestingly, among other differences,
without knowing the course objectives the re-
evaluator evaluated students’ performance and
elevated some students -- U grade to E-grade,
and in majority of cases E-grade to D-grade.
Here, a few pertinent questions may be asked
about re-shaping the grade sheet by the re-
evaluator -- How does the re-evaluator know
what contents are discussed in the class and in
Table 5. Course instructor’s grade sheet vs. re-evaluator’s grade sheet
First Grade Sheet
S- 01 students S- 02 students
A- 07 students A- 07 students
B- 02 students B- 05 students
C- 05 students C- 04 students
D- 02 students D- 09 students
E- 14 students E- 07 students
U- 05 students U- 02 students
Copyright © 2012, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
what (length) extent? What the course objectives
were formulated for evaluating the students’
performance? Which evaluation model was
adopted to evaluate students’performance? Why
a few students deserved 02 marks extra for their
higher grades on and above their final grades?
If students’ overly optimistic expectations
on their grades are to be protected by the depart-
ment administration then either grade inflation
is to be permitted or students’ expectations
are to be modified. If grade inflation is to be
allowed as done by the re-evaluator then qual-
ity becomes questionable and in the long run
it will adversely affect both students and the
institution due to various societal and academic
reasons. Ignoring to protect the quality educa-
tion, the department administration distorted
the course instructor’s grade sheet, which was
also approved by the class committee members
in the hand of re-evaluator, and protected the
students’ expected grades to make them happy
as consumers. Here, grading was assigned not
to enable, rather pollute the quality of learning
achieved by students.
Further, it seems that institution considered
the re-evaluated grade sheet as final, because
they understand the relationship between
students/parents and the institution as like the
consumer and service provider. This situation
implies a failure of understanding the differ-
ences between criteria-based grading and norm-
based grading model. Hence, the discussion is
warranted.
Re-Evaluator’s Grade Sheet
12 International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education, 2(4), 1-15, October-December 2012
Criterion-Based Grading
The increasing use of criteria-based approaches
to assessment and grading in higher education
is a consequence of its sound theoretical ratio-
nale and its educational effectiveness (Sadler,
2005:176). In this model, grades represent
bluntly referring to how well students achieve
the course objectives in their performance on as-
signment-responses and term end examination.
It justifies the relation between the achievement
of course objectives and the grades awarded
without relating to the achievements of other
students in a course (Sadler, 2005:179). This
is more appropriate in a large class of higher
education because objectives stand as the cri-
teria for evaluation. It also assists the faculty
to provide a rationale for grading judgments.
Where grading against explicit objectives has
been attempted, the evaluation tendency has
often been to become more and more specific
and fine grained. In addition, the more objectives
are expressed as distinct outcomes, the more
likely each objective will become operation-
ally isolated from the others, and the overall
configuration that constitutes what the course
is about and what the students are supposed to
acquire by way of integrated knowledge and
skills recedes into the background. In this regard,
Biggs (1999) expressed that there exists a clear
alignment among course objectives, teaching
and learning activities and assessment tasks.
In this juncture, how to formulate course
objectives becomes a vital question. Course
objectives are formulated through behaviourial
and measurable terms. Objectives are statements
which describe what the student is expected to
achieve as a result of instruction. In this regard
Mager (1962) evoked that a behavioural objec-
tive is not properly formulated, unless it includes
a statement of intent, descriptions of the terminal
behaviour desired, the conditions under which
this behaviour is to be demonstrated and the
minimum acceptable level of performance that
signifies attainment of that objective. Thus, it
is deduced that if objectives, learning activi-
ties and evaluation were not congruent, then
Copyright © 2012, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
teaching and learning won’t be enhanced. The
criteria-based grading measures the standards
accomplishment of course objectives.
Norm-Based Grading
In this case, scores on different assessment tasks
are collected and added, then projected onto a
100 point scale. It is also called ‘percentage
grading’. The 100 point scale is then divided
into a few segments according to the number
of grades desired by the institution. The seg-
ments do not have to be of equal size. The grade
cut-off scores are not usually linked directly to
mastery of specific subject matter or skills. It
is left to the concerned faculty to work out for
each course s(he) taught. Norm-based grading
always shows the grade on a curve, where the
grade assigner compares one’s performance
with others of a class. It has nothing to do
with the course objective achievements. Even
without the course objective achievements, if
the evaluator finds one’s performance is com-
paratively better than his/her peers, he/she can
earn a good grade. Here, the evaluator is not
assessing students based on what the course
demands but the evaluation is on the basis of
performance difference between students in
the same class.
Thus, norm-based grading model has some
serious lacunae, such as: determining percent-
age of cut off marks are always determined
arbitrarily by the subject teacher and depends
on his/her attitude and values of the course.
Other drawbacks are:
1. About what percentage of each grade should
generate? Should the average grade be C or
B? Is it okay if everyone gets an A grade?
Should there be an equal number of B and
D grades?
2. Why can’t there be equal number of C and
D grade? How is it justified that if more
students receive a B grade, the course
instructor will push and/or pull a few to
design a grade curve?
 International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education, 2(4), 1-15, October-December 2012 13
3. How the cut-off marks are generated in the
first place? How to decide what should be
the cut-off marks for each grade?
Significance of Criteria-Based
Grading in Higher Education
In case of ‘criteria based grading’, teachers can
easily decide the cut-off marks because it is
solely based on course objectives’ achievement.
But in case of norm-based grading, a relative
comparison is being made among students’
performance of a class, which is not free from
the teacher’s subjective and biased approaches
towards the students’ performance.
In contrast to norm-based grading, the
grades of the students are generated very fairly
through criterion-based grading model. It is so
because the students’ performances are evalu-
ated not in relation to their classmates’ perfor-
mance on an assignment, but the attainment of
course objectives. Although grades generated
through criteria-based grading are not strictly
absolute in meaning, yet it is fair and genuine
in comparison to norm-based grading (Frisbie
& Waltman, 1992: 222).
Norm-based grading gives ample scope to
the faculty to tamper the grade sheet and ruins
the quality education, since no student can know
from their evaluation where exactly they stand
in relation to course expectations. This hap-
pened when re-evaluator re-shaped the course
instructor’s grade sheet by adapting the norm-
based grading and ignored the significance
and validity of criteria-based grading. In the
norm-based grading, failure rates are typically
much lower than pass rates. It is a subjective
grading scale where the faculty may do what-
ever (s)he wants to do on designing the grade
curve. S(he) can draw the bell-shaped curve,
rectangular or something else altogether. Thus,
it does not convey where a student stands in a
course. Strictly speaking, norm-based grading
is essentially self-correcting with respect to
achievement measured on an absolute scale,
because it takes no account of poor course
design, poor teaching or poor assessment
processes or tasks. Conversely, excellence in
Copyright © 2012, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
course design, teaching and assessment equally
go unrecognized (Sadler, 2005:187). Thus,
norm-based grading is not free from errors,
whereas, criteria-based grading is in certain
extent objective in nature, and appropriate for
higher education system.
Essentially, the criteria-based grading
justifies the professional judgments of course
instructor on his/her evaluation and grading
on students’ performance. The most important
feature of this grading model is negligible or
meager differences will be found if we cross
check the grades by another subject teacher. In
this regard, Sadler (2005) stated that even when
there is careful moderation (also called cross
marking) to achieve inter-examiner reliability
within a course, the visibility of the standards
to students is still often minimal. In the Ethics
course, since the criteria-based grading was
followed, the re-evaluator could not assign
the grades of huge difference from the course
teacher grades.
Plausible Impacts of
Administration’s Intervention
on Twisting Grade Sheet
Although a few students received their expected
grades designed due to institutional intervention
through re-evaluator, not all received higher
grades. It has certain plausible impacts in the
teaching-learning scenario. These are:
1. Student received a message that authori-
ties are more students friendly and would
accept allegations in future;
2. Faculty autonomy as subject expert is
questioned, and may affect the moral and
motivation of the teacher;
3. Students received indications that the as-
sessment system in the institution is subject
to questioning, and grading has little link-
ages to achievement of course objectives;
4. The image and reputation of the teacher who
used the criteria-based grading system was
jeopardized, as students know that institu-
tion awards grades and not the faculty;
14 International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education, 2(4), 1-15, October-December 2012
5. Students are taken for granted that without
even achieving the course objectives one
can receive good grade if authorities are
pleased with him/her;
6. The classroom atmosphere becomes ‘learn-
er centric’ instead of ‘learning centric’;
7. Students may not take the assignment
tasks seriously by predicting that they will
be awarded good grades by putting some
allegations/unsatisfactory note.
To ensure quality education, grading
students’ performance in a course is left best
to the course instructor. It is so because the
faculty formulates the course objectives in
accordance with students at the beginning of a
course. The importance of formulating ‘course
objectives’ is to inform the students about the
course expectations followed by assessment
criteria, evaluation methods and grading model.
It apprises the students that assessment score
will be assigned and grades will be awarded
against course objectives achievements. Thus,
any external prescription or guidance would
cut across the teacher’s role as an academic
professional (Sadler, 2005).
CONCLUSION
To retain and maintain quality education “evalu-
ation and assessment benchmarks” among oth-
ers can’t be overlooked (Sethy, 2011), because
it explains at what cost we will ensure the
quality education, if we are not adopting proper
assessment and evaluation methods. Further, if
students’ expectations would be considered as
one among the other criteria for awarding them
grades, then consciously the teachers and institu-
tions are ruining the quality education eternally.
If students expected their grades in accordance
with the course objectives’ achievements, then
they can find a more balance in their grades.
Otherwise, outcome of grade sheet shows a
clear difference between their expectations and
the grades assigned to them.
Copyright © 2012, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Although it is obvious that institutions
emotions are associated with the fail and low-
grade students, but for the interest of the larger
mass and the assurance of quality education, the
practice of use of discretionary power reduces
faculty autonomy and image of the faculty as
expert. Students’ grades should reflect their
actual performance and attainment of course
objectives, formulated by the course teacher/
instructor, are not known to external member
(re-evaluator). Hence, thinking that course
instructor has graded student’s performance
unfairly, and intervention is required to twist
the grade-sheet though re-evaluation can be
avoided by questioning the process adopted. In
this regard, Norvilitis and Zhang (2009) said
that authorities should not worry by thinking
that the faculty graded the students’ perfor-
mance unfairly or changed the grading scheme
unexpectedly or making the grade so harsh and
hard. From these analyses, it is asserted that any
external prescription for twisting the course
instructor’s grade sheet would cut across his/her
role as an academic professional and threatens
quality in higher education.
REFERENCES
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at
university: What the student does. Buckingham, UK:
SRHE & Open University Press.
Chacko, T. I. (1983). Student ratings of instruction: A
function of grading standards. Educational Research
Quarterly, 8(2), 19–25.
Chan, K. C. et al. (2005). Directional accuracy of
self-efficacy and student performance in a senior-
level finance course. Journal of Financial Education,
31(Fall), 26–40.
Eason, J. F., et al. (2009). Grade expectations:
Evidence of cognitive biases in students’ academic
self-assessment in the introductory finance course.
American Society of Business and Behavioral Sci-
ences. Retrieved August 26, 2011, from http//:www.
asbbs.org/files/2009/PDF/E/EasonJ.pdf
 International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education, 2(4), 1-15, October-December 2012 15

Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding
student learning. London, UK: Crom Helm.
Entwistle, N. J. et  al. (2001). Conceptions, styles
and approaches within higher education: Analyti-
cal abstractions and everyday experience. In R. J.
Sternberg, & L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on
cognitive, learning and thinking styles (pp. 103–136).
New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Frisbie, D. A., & Waltman, K. K. (1992). Develop-
ing a personal grading plan. Instructional Topics in
Educational Measurement, 11(3), 217–224.
Mager, R. F. (1962). Preparing instructional objec-
tives. Belmont, CA: Fearon.
Marlin, J. W. Jr, & Gaynor, P. E. (1989). Do anticipated
grades affect student evaluations? A discriminant
analysis approach. College Student Journal, 23,
184–192.
Murstein, B. I. (1965). The relationship of grade
expectations and grades believed to be deserved
to actual grades received. Journal of Experimental
Education, 33(4), 357–359.
Norvilitis, J. M., & Zhang, J. (2009). The effect
of perceived class mean on the evaluation of
instruction. Educational Assessment, Evaluation
and Accountability, 21(4), 299–311. doi:10.1007/
s11092-009-9085-z.
Perkins, D., Guerin, D., & Sciileii, J. (1990). Effects
of grading standards information, assigned grade,
and grade discrepancies on students’ evaluations.
Psychological Reports, 66, 635–642. doi:10.2466/
pr0.1990.66.2.635.
Sadler, D. R. (2005). Interpretations of criteria-based
assessment and grading in higher education. As-
sessment & Education in Higher Education, 30(2),
175–194. doi:10.1080/0260293042000264262.
Sethy, S. S. (2011). Learning at a distance through
mobile devices: A global choice of learners in the
open and distance learning system. Journal of Edu-
cational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 20(1), 83–95.
Shefrin, H. (2007). Behavioral corporate finance:
Decisions that create value. New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill/Irwin.
Snyder, C. R., & Clair, M. (1976). Effects of expected
and obtained grades on teacher evaluation and attribu-
tion of performance. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 68(1), 75–82. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.68.1.75.
Struyven, K. et al. (2005). Students’ perceptions about
evaluation and assessment in higher education: A re-
view. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
30(4), 325–341. doi:10.1080/02602930500099102.
Tata, J. (1999). Grade distributions, grading pro-
cedures, and students’ evaluations of instructors:
A justice perspective. The Journal of Psychology,
133, 263–271. doi:10.1080/00223989909599739.
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Relating learning
approaches, perceptions of context and learning out-
comes. [Special Edition on Student Learning]. Higher
Education, 22, 251–266. doi:10.1007/BF00132290.
Wentzien, D. E. (2011). Study of perceived course
grades vs. actual course grades for Wesley col-
lege students enrolled in a math course. Retrieved
from August 18, 2011, from www.swdsi.org/swd-
si2011/2011_SWDSI_Proceedings/.../PA182.pdf

Satya Sundar Sethy is working as an Assistant Professor of Philosophy in the Department of

Humanities and Social Sciences of Indian Institute of Technology Madras (IITM), Chennai,
India. He has published several papers in international and national journals as well as contrib-
uted book chapters in the edited books. His current interests include Philosophy of Language,
Contemporary Western Philosophy, Information and Communication Technologies in Educa-
tion, Analytical Philosophy, Theories and Forms of Learning, Logic, and Professional Ethics
(Engineering and Higher Education).

Copyright © 2012, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.