A Criterion-Referenced Equal-Interval Grading Model as an Alternative to the Linear Transformation Scale in Higher Education
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background and Aim: Grade transmutation continues to be practiced in some higher education institutions and has recently attracted renewed policy attention in the Philippines due to concerns regarding the accuracy and transparency of reported grades. When grades are systematically transformed beyond students’ actual performance levels, they may obscure learning gaps, reduce the fidelity of assessment outcomes, and hinder meaningful comparisons across courses, programs, and institutions. To address these concerns, this study proposes a criterion-referenced equal-interval grading model for higher education as an alternative to the Linear Transformation Scale (LTS), a widely used transmutation-based approach that converts raw percentage scores into higher reported percentages.
Materials and Methods: The study employed an analytical-deductive design based on mathematical formalization and comparative modeling rather than empirical data analysis. A direct grading function was constructed using the official 5-point grading scale by dividing the passing raw-score interval from 50% to 100% into 21 equal-width intervals corresponding to official grades from 3.0 to 1.0. Scores below the passing threshold were assigned a grade of 5.0. The mathematical properties of the proposed model were examined and compared analytically with those of the LTS on the 100-point scale. A representative institutional equivalency schedule was used to illustrate differences in grading outcomes between the two approaches.
Results: The proposed model demonstrated several desirable properties, including a discrete official grade structure, equal-interval classification within the passing range, and monotonicity with respect to raw performance. Analytical comparisons showed that LTS-transmuted percentages are consistently greater than or equal to the cutoff-equivalent percentages generated by the proposed model, with a positive uplift observed for all non-perfect raw scores. Application of a sample institutional equivalency schedule further illustrated how this uplift can result in more favorable official transcript grades despite identical raw performance levels.
Conclusion: The proposed criterion-referenced equal-interval grading model provides a transparent, consistent, and mathematically explicit alternative to transmutation-based grading systems. The framework may assist higher education institutions, academic policymakers, registrars, and quality assurance offices in evaluating existing grading policies, conducting comparative grade simulations, and considering direct grading approaches that more accurately reflect students’ demonstrated academic performance.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright on any article in the International Journal of Sociologies and Anthropologies Science Reviews is retained by the author(s) under the under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permission to use text, content, images, etc. of publication. Any user to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose. But do not use it for commercial use or with the intent to benefit any business.
References
Barnes, K. D., & Buring, S. M. (2012). The effect of various grading scales on student grade point averages. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 76(3), Article 41. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe76341
Bearman, M., & Ajjawi, R. (2018). From “seeing through” to “seeing with”: Assessment criteria and the myths of transparency. Frontiers in Education, 3, Article 96. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00096
Berezvai, Z., Lukáts, G. D., & Molontay, R. (2021). Can professors buy better evaluation with lenient grading? The effect of grade inflation on student evaluation of teaching. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(5), 793–808. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1821866
Bloxham, S., & Boyd, P. (2012). Accountability in grading student work: Securing academic standards in a twenty-first century quality assurance context. British Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 615–634. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2011.569007
Bloxham, S., Boyd, P., & Orr, S. (2011). Mark my words: The role of assessment criteria in UK higher education grading practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36(6), 655–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075071003777716
Cebu Technological University. (2018). Student manual 2015 edition. https://www.ctu.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Final-Student-Manual-as-of-April-24-2018.pdf
Ciftci, S. K., & Karadag, E. (2024). Grade inflation effects of capacity expansion in higher education: A longitudinal study in undergraduate teacher education programs from 2003 to 2022. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, Article 856. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03387-6
Department of Education. (2015, April 1). Policy guidelines on classroom assessment for the K to 12 Basic Education Program (DepEd Order No. 8, s. 2015). https://www.deped.gov.ph/2015/04/01/do-8-s-2015-policy-guidelines-on-classroom-assessment-for-the-k-to-12-basic-education-program/
Department of Education. (2020, October 2). Interim guidelines for assessment and grading in light of the Basic Education Learning Continuity Plan (DepEd Order No. 31, s. 2020). https://www.deped.gov.ph/2020/10/02/october-2-2020-do-031-s-2020-interim-guidelines-for-assessment-and-grading-in-light-of-the-basic-education-learning-continuity-plan/
Department of Education. (2025, September 2). Interim guidelines for the assessment and grading system for the pilot implementation of the strengthened senior high school curriculum (DepEd Memorandum No. 074, s. 2025). https://www.deped.gov.ph/2025/09/03/september-2-2025-dm-074-s-2025-interim-guidelines-for-the-assessment-and-grading-system-for-the-pilot-implementation-of-the-strengthened-senior-high-school-curriculum/
Eiszler, C. F. (2002). College students’ evaluations of teaching and grade inflation. Research in Higher Education, 43, 483–501. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015579817194
Father Saturnino Urios University. (2023). Student handbook: College. https://www.urios.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/College-Handbook.pdf
Holy Cross College. (2020). College handbook. https://holycross.edu.ph/hcc/hcc/COLLEGE_HANDBOOK.pdf
Johnson, V. E. (1997). An alternative to traditional GPA for evaluating student performance. Statistical Science, 12(4), 251–278. https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1030037959
Karadağ, E. (2021). Effect of COVID-19 pandemic on grade inflation in higher education in Turkey. PLOS ONE, 16(8), Article e0256688. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256688
Kulick, G., & Wright, R. (2008). The impact of grading on the curve: A simulation analysis. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(2), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2008.020205
Lok, B., McNaught, C., & Young, K. (2016). Criterion-referenced and norm-referenced assessments: Compatibility and complementarity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(3), 450–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1022136
McClure, J. E., & Spector, L. C. (2005). Plus/minus grading and motivation: An empirical study of student choice and performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(6), 571–579. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500260605
Mehvar, R. (2025). A practical guide to grade adjustment or curving for pharmacy and other professional health programs. Pharmacy, 13(1), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy13010004
Micha, E., Sekar, S., & Shah, N. (2024). What is best for students, numerical scores or letter grades? In Proceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 2949–2957). https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2024/327
Sadler, D. R. (2005). Interpretations of criteria-based assessment and grading in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(2), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293042000264262
Sadler, D. R. (2009). Grade integrity and the representation of academic achievement. Studies in Higher Education, 34(7), 807–826. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802706553
Stroebe, W. (2016). Why good teaching evaluations may reward bad teaching: On grade inflation and other unintended consequences of student evaluations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 800–816. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616650284
Tomkin, J. H., & West, M. (2022). STEM courses are harder: Evaluating inter-course grading disparities with a calibrated GPA model. International Journal of STEM Education, 9, Article 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00343-1
UCSI College. (n.d.). Student handbook: Procedures and guidelines. https://www.ucsicollege.edu.my/sites/default/files/student-handbook.pdf
Untalan, S. (2026, February 5). DepEd to phase out “mass promotion” policies, end “grade transmutation.” GMA News Online. https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/975515/deped-to-phase-out-mass-promotion-policies-end-grade-transmutation/story/
Vanderbei, R. J., Scharf, G., & Marlow, D. (2014). A regression approach to fairer grading. SIAM Review, 56(2), 337–352. https://doi.org/10.1137/12088625X
