TASK FORCE MEMBERS
Gordon Bear –Professor of Social Psychology, School of Theoretical and Applied Science
Cynthia Brennan—Registrar
Rachel Budin—Assistant Professor of Theater—School of Contemporary Arts
Joseph Cataliotti—Assistant Professor of Neuropsychology—School of Theoretical and Applied Science
Jason Hecht—Associate Professor of Finance—School of Administration and Business
Carter Meyer—Associate Professor of History—
Stephen Rice, Chair—Associate Professor of American Studies—
Tilahun Sineshaw—Associate Professor of Psychology—School of Social Science and Human Services
Alisa Smith—Assistant Professor of Law and Society—School of Social Science and Human Services
Anita Stellenwerf—Associate Professor of Accounting—School of Administration and Business
Warner Wada—Professor of Painting—School of Contemporary Arts
I. CHARGE AND ACTIVITIES
In his September 2002 report, Provost Cody convened a Task Force on Grading charged with examining the grading policies at the College and comparing those policies with the grading practices of the faculty. He noted that in recent semesters far more grades were awarded in the A and B range than in the C range, so that it seemed problematic to call a C “average,” which is the term used in the Grading and Evaluation Policy printed in the college catalogue and on the back of the official transcript. In questions, including whether there are grading patterns that need to be addressed, whether grading should be more rigorous, whether the grading practices of the faculty should be monitored, and whether certain grades such s the W and the P are serving their intended purposes.
The Task Force, which consisted of two faculty members
from each of the five academic units at the College, first met in early October
and then met regularly during the remainder of the fall semester and through
the spring semester. We focused our efforts on four areas. First, we collected
data on grading practices at the College and examined the College’s grading
policies. This data was provided by Babette Varano at the Office of Institutional
Research. Second, we conducted a written survey of the faculty in which we invited
all faculty members to respond to questions on their grading practices and on
the College’s grading policies. Professor Alisa Smith performed most of the
labor in devising the survey, and she both entered the data into the computer
and wrote the summary and analysis. Third, we held a forum with students to
discuss student perceptions of grading. This forum was organized by Professor
Carter Meyer. Finally, we compiled information on the grading policies at COPLAC
(Council of Public Liberal Arts Colleges) schools and at the other
II. FINDINGS
The data and information we gathered brought us
to several conclusions. In evaluating the data on grading practices at the College,
it was evident that grades are compressed in the A and B range. During the four
semesters from fall 2000 to spring 2002, for instance, grades awarded in the
A and B range totaled on average nearly 63% of all grades awarded. By contrast,
grades in the C range amounted to on average just under 17% of the total grades
awarded [see Appendix
1]. To conclude that the grading at the College reflects a “grade compression”
is not to conclude that the College has a problem with “grade inflation,” however.
A recent study published by the
The data gathered in the faculty survey was particularly illuminating. In November members of the Task Force distributed to the entire faculty a three-page written survey with questions concerning principles of grading, the College’s grading policies, and faculty grading practices [see Appendix 3]. Seventy-eight completed surveys were received, from faculty inall five academic units at the College. Prof. Alisa Smith’s full summary and analysis of the survey results are provided as Appendix 4 of this report.
While most of the survey responses were quantifiable, a small number of questions invited narrative responses that are better treated in qualitative terms. Three members of the Task Force—Profs. Rachel Budin, Stephen Rice, and Anita Stellenwerf—read through these narrative responses in order to arrive at some generalizations. The first survey question that elicited a significant number of narrative responses was question #7: “In the last five years, have you lowered your standards and expectations in the classroom? A. Yes B. No C. Have not been teaching for five years. If yes, please explain.” Among the more than one dozen respondents who provided some explanation here, two general responses emerged. Some wrote that they had lowered their standards because the quality of their students had declined, either in comparison with students at Ramapo in previous years or in comparison with students they had taught at other institutions. Others wrote that they had lowered their standards because they were concerned that maintaining a high standard in grading could result in negative consequences to their careers, or that it was stressful in the face of student criticism. Narrative respondents to question #9, which had several parts to it and which focused on formal student challenges of grades, seemed to indicate that in most cases the College administration supported the faculty in formal grade challenges, and that faculty were generally satisfied with the outcome of formal grade challenges when they were placed before the administration.
Question #18—“What constitutes academic rigor”—received probably the greatest number of narrative responses. Essentially, these responses fell into two groups. In the first group were those responses that defined academic rigor in very general terms, usually be equating rigor with “high standards.” How these high standards were to be determined or recognized to be in effect was usually left unclear, however. In addition, there was some disagreement as to whether the standards that define academic rigor are universal, or whether they differ by discipline. In the second group were those responses that seemed to concur that standards are important, but that were more inclined to equate academic rigor with making certain that students met clearly specified course objectives. These responses spoke more to the importance of developing students’ analytical abilities and writing skills, and to ensuring their comprehension of the course material, than to a general set of standards. Question #19 asked “should there be different criteria depending on the field of study? Why or why not? Here, the response was almost evenly divided between those who argued “yes in their comments and those who argued “no.” This difference seems to have resulted at lest in part from different interpretations of the question. For those who understood the question to be about whether different disciplines (or fields) should have different general expectations for students in exhibiting fundamentals of thought and expression, the answer seemed obviously to be no. For those who understood the question to be about whether different disciplines or fields should have—or simply d have—different course objectives and different means for determining whether those objectives have been met, the answer seemed obviously to be yes.
Question #21 asked “do you think the ‘normal curve’ should be adopted to measure student excellence? Why or why not?” Virtually all those who responded in narrative form argued against the normal curve. In general, they did so for three reasons. Some argued that the normal curve was simply unfair, because it substituted a subjective, variable, and arbitrary standard of achievement for one that seemed to be more objective, fixed and fair. For these respondents, it seemed important for students to be graded on their own merits, and for faculty to have some discretion in their grading practices. Others noted that the performance of students in the same course can vary substantially from semester to semester, so that a normal curve would over time result in the same grades being given for significantly different levels of work. Finally, a third group noted that courses at Ramapo tend to have students clustered around the high and low ends of performance, rather than in the middle.
In general, it seemed as if those who provided narrative responses to the survey were clear about their grading principles and comfortable with their grading practices. At the same time, it was evident that there are considerable differences among these respondents as to what constitutes sounds grading principles and practices, particularly with regard to questions about academic rigor.
The student forum was also illuminating. Members of the Task Force met with approximately seven students who were invited to participate by the President of the Student Government Association. While we recognize that this is a relatively small group of students whose perceptions might not accord with the perceptions of the majority of students, we found the forum to be helpful. Participants focused on eleven specific questions over the course of an hour or so of discussion. First, when asked about what students thought of receiving a C grade, those students who were present indicated that while some students were satisfied with this grade, others saw it as a personal failure, particularly when given in a course in one’s major. One student indicated that if half of the students in a class received a C grade, then there was a problem with the instructor. Second, students were asked if in their perception there was consistency in grading, and if some professors grade differently from others. Students were in agreement that there is no uniformity or consistency in grading. One student said this was particularly true in Writing Intensive courses. Another said that similar courses (different sections of the same course, for instance) do not have the same rigor, and that there is no uniformity in regard to attendance policy. Several students expressed a desire that professors clearly articulate on their syllabi their grading policies, so that what constitutes A work, B work, C work, and so forth, is made clear. Third, students indicated that they do keep track of the grades they receive for assignments over the course of the semester and they indicated that if they are surprised by the final grade they receive, it generally is because the grade is higher than they had expected. Fourth, when asked if it is hard to receive an A grade, students agreed that his depends on the professor and on the subject. Some indicated that there was a better chance of getting an A grade in a course within one’s major. Fifth, students seemed to be pleased with the current grading system, although they indicated that some professors eliminate the “+” and “-“ grades in their courses. They pointed out that they did not like this practice, as the “+” and “-“ grades can serves as incentives to try harder. Some stated that some professors give two grades on the same assignment—B/B+, for instance—which they thought gave a confusing message to students. Sixth, in response to a question about the amount of time professors take to return graded work, students generally agreed that the time spent on grading decreases as the semester progresses. They also indicated that professors were not consistent in returning graded assignments in a timely fashion, suggesting that one week seemed sufficient to grade exams, while two weeks was appropriate for papers. Seventh, students agreed that grading is not always fair in group assignments. They noted that students in a group often perform at different levels, and that there is a tendency for one or two members of a group to bear the burden of work while others reap the benefit of their labor. Students suggested that two grades be awarded for group assignments, one for the group and one for each individual in the group, and that students be given the opportunity to write evaluations of their group members. Eighth, when asked “under what circumstances would you withdraw from a course and receive a W grade,” students agreed that they opt for withdrawal from a course when failure is imminent, or if they believe they are receiving a grade that is lower than they had expected. They clearly indicated that the W grade was used as a means of protecting one’s GPA. They also indicated that they valued the option of withdrawing from a course in cases of unanticipated problems such as illness. Ninth, in response to a question about whether General Education courses are as rigorous as courses in one’s major, students indicated that General Education courses are usually more general than those in the major, but not necessarily less rigorous. Tenth, students generally agreed that the rigor of courses increased over the four years from freshman to senior, both in the level of thinking required and in the workload. Finally, students indicated that they liked the Pass/Fail option for courses, and that an expanded Pass/Fail system would give them more incentive to take courses outside of their majors that were of particular interest to them.
Finally, examining the grading policies at COPLAC
and
III. Recommendations
Based on our findings, we make the following eight recommendations:
Recommendation #1: The College should change the language in its statement of “Grading and Evaluation Policy” in several ways [see Appendix 6]. First, the language for the “intermediate step” grades (“Excellent” for A-, “Very Good” for B+, “Well Above Average” for B-, “Above Average” for C+, “Below Average” for C-, and “Well Below Average” for D+) should be eliminated. Second, the language for the A grade should be changed from “Outstanding” to “Excellent,” and the language for the C grade should be changed from “Average” to “Satisfactory.” Also, the language for the H+ grade should be changed from “Outstanding in the Honors Programs” to “Excellent in the Honors Programs,” and the language for the H grade should be changed from “Excellent in the Honors Programs” to “Honors Programs.”
Reasoning: We believe the language for the “intermediate step” grades is unnecessary and suggests more uniformity and refinement in grading principles and practices than is supported by the evidence we have gathered. We also believe that there is little if any distinction between a student who does “outstanding” work and a student who does “excellent work,” and that the term “excellent” is the preferable term for those students who warrant the highest grade for a course. Finally, given the current grading practices at the College, the term “Average” for the C grade has the potential to be confusing, while the term “Satisfactory” is unambiguous and seems to be more in keeping with the judgment behind the grade.
Recommendation #2: The policy for the W grade should be changed in two ways. First, the deadline by which students must withdraw from a course should be shortened from 10 weeks into the semester to 8 weeks into the semester. Second, the language for the W grade in the “Grading and Evaluation Policy” should be changed from “Given in exceptional circumstances, with permission of the instructor, for withdrawal from a course” to “Given with permission of the instructor, for withdrawal from a course.”
Reasoning: Our belief is that shortening the deadline by which students must request a W grade might encourage them to fully commit to a course earlier in the semester. The proposed 8-week period is in keeping with the policies of comparable colleges and universities, and it would still give students sufficient time to receive feedback in the course. In addition, changing the language on the “Grading Evaluation and Policy Statement” would have the policy conform to the practice at the College. In the faculty survey, most faculty members who responded to the question about the W grade reported that they never denied a student’s request for such a grade.
Recommendation #3: All members of the faculty should be given a personal report each semester showing the grades they awarded in the previous semester and comparing their grades with the grades awarded by the entire faculty in their discipline, in their Unit, and in the College.
Reasoning: We believe that it is important for faculty to be informed of their own grading patterns, and of how their grading compares to the grading done by their colleagues. Two-thirds of the respondents to the faculty survey seemed to concur on this point, indicating that they would like to receive comparative reports of their grading patterns. Our hope is that the information provided in these reports will encourage faculty members who consistently award grades that fall above or below those of their colleagues to consider the reasons for those differences and whether remedies are warranted.
Recommendation #4: Convening groups should hold discussions during the 2003-2004 academic year in which members work to define the meaning of academic rigor for their respective disciplines or fields and to devise means for upholding a common understanding of rigor in the courses they offer.
Reasoning: The results of the faculty survey made clear that members of the faculty have strong and very different views about what constitutes rigor, and about how best to ensure that courses are rigorous. Our belief is that the convening group is the best level for faculty to discuss and seek some consensus about how to define and promote rigor in our courses. Discussions should be both general--what do we mean by excellent? if we establish criteria for excellence that most students are able to meet, should those criteria be changed?--and quite specific. How many pages of reading per week is reasonable to expect in a 100-level course? In a 300-level course? What do we look for in student participation in class discussion? How many pages of writing should we expect of students at each level? What are our criteria for evaluating student writing? How many sources should be used in a research paper at the 100-level? At the 300-level? In seeking to define rigor, convening group members might compare how they would grade a particular paper, exam, or project.
Recommendation #5: Members of the faculty should make sure to use the full spectrum of available grades, including “+-“ grades and “-“ grades.
Reasoning: Grade compression may reflect an unwillingness among some members of the faculty to award grades generally considered by students to be “low” or a sign of failure. But when grades gather at the high end of the scale, as they do at Ramapo, reasonable questions can be raised about what those grades signify. What is more, grade compression and the practice of eliminating the “intermediate step” grades (mentioned by students in the student forum) undermine one important function of grading, which is to provide distinctions among students in their performance. Our hope is that a renewed commitment to employing the full range of available grades will result in grading that more fully distinguishes among “excellent,” “good,” “satisfactory,” and “poor” student performance.
Recommendation #6: The College should institute an annual review of grading patterns, to be conducted by conveners and by deans, who would report periodically to the provost.
Reasoning: Deans and conveners currently receive semesterly reports showing the grades awarded by members of convening groups. These reports do not show patterns over time, however, and they generally are not made a part of any formal review process. Our hope is that such a review process would alert conveners, deans, and where necessary the provost, to anomalous patterns--dramatic upward or downward trends in grading, for instance--that warrant analysis.
Recommendation #7: Convening groups with fieldwork or co-op requirements for their majors should work in concert during the 2003-2004 academic year to establish a common set of principles for evaluating student performance in these courses and to establish greater uniformity in the requirements of these courses.
Reasoning: Data collected by the Task Force clearly suggest that grades awarded for independent study, fieldwork, and co-op courses, in comparison with grades awarded in regular classroom courses, are disproportionately at the high end of the grading scale. While there are a number of possible explanations for this, the grading pattern for these courses should be investigated by those members of the faculty who best know them. Our sense is that considerable differences prevail across the College in the expectations and requirements for these courses, and that when performance evaluations written by student supervisors play a large role in determining final grades, those grades tend to be high.
Recommendation #8: A new Task Force on Grading should be convened during the 2006- 2007 academic year to evaluate whether recommendations 1 through 7 have helped to alleviate the College’s grade compression, and have helped to reconcile the grading practices of the faculty with the grading policies of the College.
Reasoning: As a part of the College’s on-going outcomes assessment activities, we believe that changes in policies and in practices should be evaluated after a period of time to determine if these changes have resulted in their intended effects.
IV. Conclusion
The members of the Task Force agree that there are some grading patterns at the College that remain unexplained, such as the relatively high percentage of grades awarded in the A and B range, and the increase in mean g.p.a. for all disciplines over the last decade. Our recommendations are intended in part to keep faculty informed of the grading patterns at the College, and to encourage them to reflect on the possible causes and implications of those patterns. We agree that the awarding of grades is one of our most important responsibilities as members of the faculty, and we do not intend for any of our recommendations to undermine or abrogate those responsibilities. Our hope is that our efforts will help ensure that the grading practices at the College are in accord with our policies, and that the grades awarded serve the two functions of measuring student achievement and marking distinctions among students in their overall performance.