Competency Assessment and Grading

Competency grading is especially suitable, but not limited, to the following situations.

• Introductory/foundation courses, especially where students come from diverse backgrounds. This is often the case in introductory courses where students have taken different subjects in high school or are coming to university after time away from study. Competency grading minimises the advantage/disadvantage of students’ prior experiences and opportunities (Salehi et al. 2019; Richard et al. 2022).
• Where the key focus of the education is for students to obtain specific skills and knowledge necessary to enter a profession or be employed in a particular field rather than on whether students have excelled (see, e.g., Lyboldt et al., 2023). Students demonstrate acquisition of these skills and knowledge to a requisite level of proficiency required for entry into the workplace or profession.
• For student cohorts where wellbeing is of particular concern due to increased levels of anxiety and competitiveness concerning grades and ranking (see, e.g., Bliss & Sandomierski, 2021).
• To encourage students to take creative risks or to choose a challenging course. Traditional grading methods which place emphasis on the process of external evaluation have long been recognised as inhibiting creativity (Amabile, 1979) and encouraging students to seek ‘easy’ class options (Blum, 2020). Further, allowing students to resit/resubmit a task after receiving feedback – a common characteristic of competency grading – encourages a growth mindset as students learn from their mistakes (Gibbs, 2020).
• In contexts where it is difficult to assess students by comparison to each other. This is often the situation in experiential learning courses such as work placements and internships, where students have unique learning experiences, supervisors, and opportunities. Competency grading is particularly beneficial in Work Integrated Learning (WIL) courses.

A well-designed assessment regime may include up to four tasks, set up as ‘hurdles’. Students are required to demonstrate a specific level of competency to be successful in the assessment task (e.g., a credit or distinction standard under traditional points-based grading). Students may be provided with more than one opportunity to attempt one or more tasks, although the nature of the assessment and resource and time constraints must be considered. Students are required to demonstrate competency in all tasks to be successful in the course and receive an SY grade. This model is especially suited to foundation and first-year courses, and courses where there is greater emphasis on ensuring students demonstrate competency in specific skills or knowledge rather than on expertise, excellence, or performance relative to other students.

Grade options and meaning

UNSW Assessment Implementation Procedure (as at 10 May 2024) and the Academic Progression Procedure (as at 1 January 2021)

Competency with merit grading provides further options for grading beyond SY/FL: CM (Competent with Merit), CO (Competent) or CN (Not Yet Competent). A well-designed assessment regime might include two or three hurdle tasks that students are required to pass to attain a CO grade, with an additional more challenging final task undertaken to determine whether students reach the level of CM for the course overall. This model is suitable for courses where competency grading is appropriate but where some comparison of student performance is desired.

Grade options and meaning

UNSW Assessment Implementation Procedure (as at 10 May 2024)

This model is a hybrid of traditional grading and a competency approach. There is a focus on students demonstrating competency, while a numerical mark provides a basis for comparison among students. A well-designed assessment regime might include two or three hurdle tasks that students must demonstrate competency in before they are eligible to undertake a final assessment task (e.g., an end-of-term examination) where they demonstrate they have achieved a higher level of knowledge and/or skills acquisition. For example, students are awarded 50 marks for passing the earlier tasks while the final assessment determines the remaining 50 per cent of the grade. Ideally, students are provided with multiple opportunities to demonstrate they have acquired competency in the earlier tasks. This grading method is especially suitable for courses undertaken in later stages of a program and where a numerical grade is required.

Grade options and meaning

UNSW Assessment Implementation Procedure (as at 10 May 2024)

This model retains traditional grades but without an outward-facing numerical mark. A nominal value is associated with the grade and is included in the calculation of the WAM but is not included on the academic transcript. This model is good for courses/programs seeking to reduce student focus on points-based marking but requiring students be graded in a way that provides a basis for comparison and communicates a student’s level of achievement (e.g., to external stakeholders such as the discipline’s profession). 

This model enjoys some of the benefits of competency grading as it reduces student anxiety concerning small differences in marks, which is especially useful for disciplines where there is subjectivity in assigning a mark with single digit precision (e.g., where there is a consensus between markers that the work is of a credit standard but variance as to the specific number between 65-74 to be associated with the grade). 

Grade options and meaning 

UNSW Assessment Implementation Procedure (as at 10 May 2024) 

• Raised academic standards as students need to demonstrate a higher level of competency of the learning outcomes (Simonds et al, 2017). In traditional grading, students only need 50 per cent to pass the course and can achieve that mark from just part of the course material.
• Higher quality student participation, engagement and learning due to a focus on intrinsic motivations and autonomous learning behaviours (Cook et al. 2014; Harrison et al., 2013; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
• Encouraging a growth mindset in students where they learn from their mistakes (Richardson et al., 2021).
• Encouraging creative risk-taking as students have the opportunity to recover from mistakes (Anguís, 2012).
• Improved psychological wellbeing as anxieties, ‘perfectionism’, and competitiveness are reduced since students are not competing for marks or being ranked against each other (Bloodgood et al., 2009; Bliss & Sandomierski, 2022; Lyboldt et al., 2024).
• Increased equity among students as students receive the same grade for successful completion of the task/course irrespective of their background or the privilege associated with their high school (Salehi et al., 2019). Some cohorts, such as first-generation students, benefit immensely from this levelled playing field (Richard et al., 2022)
   

• Reduced time spent justifying and moderating marks including defending the minutiae between individual student marks. This creates more time to provide meaningful feedback to students for how they can improve (Harland et al., 2015; Bonneville-Roussy et al., 2017; Lyboldt et al., 2023).
• Reduced administrative work as lowered student stress levels results in a reduction in mark-seeking behaviour such as anxious emails, requests for remarks and consultations, and responding to review of results applications. 
• Fewer student integrity issues since the incentive to “cheat” is reduced with the removal of grades and rankings (Gibbs, 2020).
• Improved academic standards and better prepared students since well-designed assessment tasks in competency grading raise the standard required to pass (Boritz & Carnaghan, 2003; Bensah et al., 2011; Henri et al., 2017; Cuzcano-Huarcaya et al., 2023).
• Innovative course and assessment design due to reduced reliance on traditional grade-generating assessment tasks (e.g., invigilated exams) (Gibbs, 2020).
• Potential for improved course evaluations as students report improved satisfaction with the quality of education (Bliss & Sandomierski, 2022; Lyboldt et al. 2023).
   

Notwithstanding the many benefits, implementing competency grading is not without challenges. These should be given serious consideration prior to moving to an ungraded approach. 

• A significant mind shift is required from both academics and students and assessment and grading reform requires buy-in from both (Steele et al., 2014; Sullivan & Downey, 2015; Townsley & Schmid, 2020). Consultation with teaching staff later in a program is also recommended to ensure alignment between student competencies certified in early courses and knowledge and skills required for later courses.
• Course and assessment revision will usually be required. Assessments using a competency-based framework need to be well-designed with hurdle requirements to help students reach the desired level of competency. As a result, there may be an upfront time cost in reforming assessment (Sullivan & Downey, 2015; Simonds et al., 2017). There is evidence that if the grading-basis for a course is simply switched to pass/fail with no other assessment reform, students may put less effort into coursework (Butcher, 2023; although see also Bliss & Sandomierski, 2022).
• Increased time spent giving feedback where courses have been designed to provide students with multiple opportunities to resit/resubmit assessment tasks to meet the requisite standard of competency (Simonds et al., 2017).
• Loss of opportunity for a high grade needed to apply for internal program transfers, scholarships and awards (e.g., dean’s lists) and other opportunities (e.g., postgraduate students seeking a Commonwealth Supported Place in the Juris Doctor, which requires a distinction average, and in some programs in the School of Population Health.) Competency grades are excluded from WAM calculations, therefore increasing pressure on students to achieve high marks in fewer opportunities.
• Accreditation bodies sometimes require students to obtain a minimum standard in particular courses, measured by a numerical grade. Accreditation requirements must be canvassed prior to moving to a non-points-based approach.
• Students on exchange may require a numerical grade to satisfy the study abroad requirements of their home institution. UNSW Exchange should be notified of a change to non-numerical grading.
• Late submissions: late penalties do not apply where competency grades are used instead of numerical grades. However, an assessment task that is submitted late is still subject to the rules in the UNSW Assessment Implementation Procedure.
   

• Clearly defined competencies: Ensure that the competencies are clearly defined and measurable. Students should know exactly what is expected of them in terms of knowledge, skills and abilities.
• Constructive alignment: As with all well-designed assessment, constructive alignment between the course learning outcomes and assessment tasks is essential (Biggs, 2011). 
• Multiple assessment methods: Use a variety of assessment methods to evaluate student competency. This allows students to demonstrate their understanding in different ways.
• Progressive assessments: Design assessments that build upon each other, allowing students to demonstrate increasing levels of proficiency as they progress through the course.
• Formative and summative assessment: Use a combination of formative assessments (to provide feedback and support learning) and summative assessment (to evaluate competency) through the course.
• Competency threshold: Identify the ‘pass’ mark for a task. It does not need to be 50%, it can be as high as 100%. Consideration should be given to the requisite standard a student should reach to demonstrate competency of the learning outcome. Consideration should also be given to whether students must pass all assessment tasks to pass the course overall.
• Hurdle tasks: Identify if any of the tasks should be ‘hurdles’. Hurdle tasks are where students are required to pass the task before being able to move onto the next task or to pass the course overall.
• Resubmission: If students who receive an Unsatisfactory or Not Yet Competent grade in an assessment task are permitted to resubmit or resit tasks, this process should be clearly set out in the course outline.
   

• Frequent feedback: Provide regular and specific feedback to students on their progress towards competency of the CLOs. Ideally, the process of feedback and evaluation is not the end point of the learning but also the motivator and method of learning (Simonds et al., 2017)
• Rubrics: Use clear and detailed rubrics to outline the criteria for success. This helps students understand expectations and provides transparency in the grading process. 
   

• Revisions to academic offerings: Changing the grading basis of a course requires a Revision to Academic Offering proposal to be created in ECLIPS. The proposal must be approved by your Faculty Board or Faculty Education Committee prior to the annual the “Early Editing Deadline”. See ECLIPS Key Dates and Deadlines here. Changes to assessments can be made prior to the “Late Editing Deadline”. More information about ECLIPS editing information can be found here. Contact your Director of Learning and Teaching for support.
• Competency grading pilot: If you’re interested in exploring competency grading in your course in 2025, contact the Chairs of the UNSW Competency and Mastery Model Working Group: Professor Elizabeth Angstmann (Science) and Associate Professor Helen Gibbon (Law & Justice). More information about the pilot can be found here. 
   

Amabile, T. M. (1979). Effects of external evaluation on artistic creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 221-233.

Anguís, D. (2012). Development and assessment of generic competences in engineering degrees through creativity. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 2(1), 22-30. doi: https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.34.

Bensah, E. C., Ahiekpor, J. C., & Boateng, C. D. (2011). Migrating from subject-based to competency-based training in Higher National Diploma Chemical Engineering: The case of Kumasi Polytechnic. Education for Chemical Engineers, 6(3), e71-e82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2011.04.001.

Bloodgood, R. A., Short, J. G., Jackson, J. M., & and James R. Martindale, J. R. 2009. A Change to Pass/Fail Grading in the First Two Years at One Medical School Results in Improved Psychological Well-Being. Academic Medicine, 84(5), 655-662

Biggs, J. B. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (4th ed). McGraw-Hill/Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press.

Bliss, J. & Sandomierski, D. 2022. Learning without Grade Anxiety: Lessons from the Pass/Fail Experiment in North American J.D. Programs. Ohio Northern University Law Review, 48(3), 555-578.

Blum, S. 2020. ‘Introduction’, in Blum, S. (ed), Ungrading: Why Rating Students Undermines Learning (and What to Do Instead). West Virginia University Press.

Boritz, J. E., & Carnaghan, C. A. (2003). Competency-Based Education and Assessment for the Accounting Profession: A Critical Review. Canadian Accounting Perspectives, 2(1), 7–42. https://doi.org/10.1506/5K7C-YT1H-0G32-90K0

Butcher, K., McEwan, P. J., & Weerapana, A. (2023). Making the (letter) grade: The incentive effects of mandatory pass/fail courses. Education Finance and Policy, 1-24.

Cuzcano-Huarcaya, M.-A., Mendez Vergaray, J., Cuzcano-Santa Cruz, C. M., Sanchez Diaz, S., & Flores, E. (2023). Teaching competency in virtual education: Systematic review. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 12(3), 1429.

Henri, M., Johnson, M. D., & Nepal, B. (2017). A Review of Competency-Based Learning: Tools, Assessments, and Recommendations. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(4), 607–638. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20180.

Gibbs, L. (2020). ‘Let’s talk about grading’ in Blum, S. (ed), Ungrading: Why Rating Students Undermines Learning (and What to Do Instead). West Virginia University Press.

Lyboldt, K. E., Bach, K. D., Newman, A. W., Robbins, S. N., & Jordan, A. J. (2023). Impact of Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory Grading on Student Motivation to Learn, Academic Performance, and Well-Being. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 50(5), 554–563. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme-2022-0020.

Richard, M., Delgado, J., LeGresley, S., & Fischer, C.J. (2022). Implementing Competency-Based Grading Improves the Performance of Women and First Generation Students in Introductory Physics. Arxiv Cornell University DOI: http://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.10574. 

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.

Salehi, S., Burkholder, E., Lepage, G. P., Pollock, S., & Wieman, C. (2019). Demographic gaps or preparation gaps?: The large impact of incoming preparation on performance of students in introductory physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(2), 020114.

Simonds, J., Behrens, E., Holzbauer, J. (2017). Competency-based education in a traditional higher education setting: a case study of an introduction to psychology course. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 29, 412-428.

Steele, J. L., Lewis, M. W., Santibanez, L., Faxon- Mills, S., Rudnick, M., Stecher, B. M., & Hamilton, L. S. (2014) Competency-based education in three pilot programs: What it is, how it's implemented, and how it's working. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Sullivan, S. C., & Downey, J. A. (2015). Shifting educational paradigms: From traditional to competency-based education for diverse learners. American Secondary Education, 43(3), 4-19.

Townsley, M. & D. Schmid. (2020). Alternative grading practices: An entry point for faculty in competency-based education. The Journal of Competency-based Education, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cbe2.1219.