The essential characteristic of **norm-referencing**
is that students are awarded their grades on the basis of their
ranking within a particular cohort. Norm-referencing involves
fitting a ranked list of students’ ‘raw scores’
to a pre-determined distribution for awarding grades. Usually,
grades are spread to fit a ‘bell curve’ (a ‘normal
distribution’ in statistical terminology), either by qualitative,
informal rough-reckoning or by statistical techniques of varying
complexity. For large student cohorts (such as in senior secondary
education), statistical moderation processes are used to adjust
or standardise student scores to fit a normal distribution. This
adjustment is necessary when comparability of scores across different
subjects is required (such as when subject scores are added to
create an aggregate ENTER score for making university selection
decisions).

Norm-referencing is based on the assumption that a roughly similar
range of human performance can be expected for any student group.
There is a strong culture of norm-referencing in higher education.
It is evident in many commonplace practices, such as the expectation
that the mean of a cohort’s results should be a fixed percentage
year-in year-out (often this occurs when comparability across
subjects is needed for the award of prizes, for instance), or
the policy of awarding first class honours sparingly to a set
number of students, and so on.

In contrast, *criterion-referencing*,
as the name implies, involves determining a student’s grade
by comparing his or her achievements with clearly stated criteria
for learning outcomes and clearly stated standards for particular
levels of performance. Unlike norm-referencing, there is no pre-determined
grade distribution to be generated and a student’s grades
is in no way influenced by the performance of others. Theoretically,
all students within a particular cohort could receive very high
(or very low) grades depending solely on the levels of individuals’
performances against the established criteria and standards. The
goal of criterion-referencing is to report student achievement
against objective reference points that are independent of the
cohort being assessed. Criterion-referencing can lead to simple
pass-fail grading schema, such as in determining fitness-to-practice
in professional fields. Criterion-referencing can also lead to
reporting student achievement or progress on a series of key criteria
rather than as a single grade or percentage.

Which of these methods is preferable? Mostly, students’
grades in universities are decided on a mix of both methods, even
though there may not be an explicit policy to do so. In fact,
the two methods are somewhat interdependent, more so than the
brief explanations above might suggest. Logically, norm-referencing
must rely on some initial criterion-referencing, since students’
‘raw’ scores must presumably be determined in the
first instance by assessors who have some objective criteria in
mind. Criterion-referencing, on the other hand, appears more educationally
defensible. But criterion-referencing may be very difficult, if
not impossible, to implement in a pure form in many disciplines.
It is not always possible to be entirely objective and to comprehensively
articulate criteria for learning outcomes: some subjectivity in
setting and interpreting levels of achievement is inevitable in
higher education. This being the case, sometimes the best we can
hope for is to compare individuals’ achievements relative
to their peers.

Norm-referencing, on its own — and if strictly and narrowly
implemented — is undoubtedly unfair. With norm-referencing,
a student’s grade depends – to some extent at least
– not only on his or her level of achievement, but also
on the achievement of other students. This might lead to obvious
inequities if applied without thought to any other considerations.
For example, a student who fails in one year may well have passed
in other years! The potential for unfairness of this kind is most
likely in smaller student cohorts, where norm-referencing may
force a spread of grades and exaggerate differences in achievement.
Alternatively, norm-referencing might artificially compress the
range of difference that actually exists.

Criterion-referencing is worth aspiring towards. Criterion-referencing
requires giving thought to expected learning outcomes: it is transparent
for students, and the grades derived should be defensible in reasonably
objective terms – students should be able to trace their
grades to the specifics of their performance on set tasks. Criterion-referencing
lays an important framework for student engagement with the learning
process and its outcomes.

Recognising, however, that some degree of subjectivity is inevitable
in higher education, it is also worthwhile to monitor grade distributions
– in other words, to use a modest process of norm-referencing
to watch the outcomes of a predominantly criterion-referenced
grading model. In doing so, if it is believed too many students
are receiving low grades, or too many students are receiving high
grades, or the distribution is in some way oddly spread, then
this might suggest something is amiss and the assessment process
needs looking at. There may be, for instance, a problem with the
overall degree of difficulty of the assessment tasks (for example,
not enough challenging examination questions, or too few, or assignment
tasks that fail to discriminate between students with differing
levels of knowledge and skills). There might also be inconsistencies
in the way different assessors are judging student work.

Best practice in grading in higher education involves striking
a balance between criterion-referencing and norm-referencing.
This balance should be strongly oriented towards criterion-referencing
as the primary and dominant principle.

In summary: