SENATE
SiMON FRASER
MEMORANDUM
UNIVERSITY
?
S.7q_99
From
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES
H. M. EVANS, SECRETARY
Subject
RECOMMENDATIONS .?P
L
, ICY ?
P!.LPES
...........
Date...S
SEPTEMBER
?
.]97,9
FOR GRADING PRACTICES
Action undertaken at a series of meetings of SCUS in 1977, 1978 and lastly on
September 11, 1979 leads to the motion which follows:
MOTION: ?
"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.79-88, the proposed
Policy Guidelines for Grading Practices."
General Background Information
1. i) In September 1976 Senate approved motion as follows:
"That Senate direct the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies to review
grading standards and procedures and to report back to Senate regarding ap-
propriate policy guidelines for grading."
ii)
SCUS established a sub-committee which, after several meetings, presented
its report to SCUS. The Chairman of SCUS chaired the sub-committee. That
report was discussed extensively at SCUS and many revisions were made. In
S
its revised form it was distributed in July 1977 to the Student Society, to
Chairmen of Departments, and to Deans for comments and suggested revisions.
Those responses were discussed at a number of meetings of SCUS in the late
Spring of 1978. The earlier months of Spring 1978 were devoted to the
"Report on Grading," which was paralleling in part the "Recommendations on
Grading Practices." Lengthy documents had been received from some areas on
each of these documents (notably from Science). The "Report on Grading" was
submitted to Senate last year and approved with some revisions. Discussion
continued at SCUS and elsewhere on the "Recommendations on Grading Practices."
iii)
A procedure had been adopted by SCUS for considering the "Report on Grading"
and a similar procedure was adopted for the "Recommendations on Grading
Practices."
The responses to the July 1977 enquiry were summarized and tabulated and a
series of motions (with alternatives) were listed to focus discussion at SCUS.
The material provided to SCUS included (1) copy of the SCUS repnrt distributed
broadly in 1977, (2) copy of' responses received, (3) a summary tabulation of
responses by items, (4) a suggested procedure for dealing with the topics with
motions and alternatives.
At a series of meetings commencing May 2, 1978, SCUS considered and revised
the original report. Meetings were held May 2, May 23, May 30, June 6, June
20, 1978. The last action taken by SCUS on June 20, 1978 was to approve motion
as follows:
"That the revised paper be forwarded to the Student Society for comment and
. to Deans of Faculty for any further Faculty comments, for return to SCUS for
final consideration before transmittal to Senate. Any comments are required
by the Chairman and by the Secretary of SCUS not later than July 31, 1978."
The action of forwarding was undertaken with covering memorandum dated
June 21, 1978, entitled "Recommendations - Policy Guidelines for Grading
Practices," with copies to the President of the Student Society, to Deans
of Faculties and to Chairmen of Faculty Undergraduate Curriculum Commit-
tees. The paper then attached, "Policy Guidelines for Grading Practices,"
incorporated all changes made by SCUS up to June 20, 1978 inclusive and
represented the position at that time.
iv)
In its earlier communications to the various bodies SCUS emphasized that
its intention was to clarify the role of Department Chairman as a collegial
one emphasizing the Chairman's responsibility in upholding what is expected
to be a common departmental concern for the maintenance of academic stan-
dards. In outlining specifically the procedures for reconsideration of a
grade SCUS did not wish to nullify practices which were currently working
effectively but to ensure that the parties involved were cognizant of
general expectations and responsibilities. Departments with explicit
procedures were invited to submit copies with responses to the proposed
policy guidelines.
v)
All responses received to that 1978 enquiry were distributed to SCUS
members, were summarized and tabulated and a series of alternative motions
were presented in a procedure similar to that previously followed. Final
discussion was held at the SCUS meeting of September 11, 1979 resulting
in the attached paper - Policy Guidelines on Grading Practices now recom-
mended to Senate by the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies for
approval.
(I
0
(1)
Policy Guidelines for Grading Practices
I. ?
OBJECTIVES
1. To set forth the basis of grading practices at SFU and, specifically,
to clarify:
a)
the basis on which grades will be assigned,
b)
the responsibilities of the instructor and the Department Chairman
with respect to grading, and
c)
the responsibilities of the student, the instructor, the Department
Chairman, and the Dean with respect to reconsideration of a grade,
and the place of Senate in such reconsideration.
2. On the basis of 1. above, to ensure continued maintenance of high
academic standards, reasonably consistent and equitable evaluation practices within
and across courses, and appropriate procedures on grade reconsiderations.
II. THE BASIS ON WHICH GRADES WILL BE ASSIGNED
This paper is not designed to restrict unduly the basis on which final grades
for a course are assigned, but to stress that students, the instructor and the
• ?
Chairman should know in advance the general basis for awarding of grades. This
may include in various combinations such items as results on a mid-term examination,
a final examination, frequent tests throughout the term, classroom attendance/
participation, projects, term papers, essays, laboratory work, evidence of exten-
sive
.
reading and so forth. There should be clear indication of the general
procedures to be followed in arriving at the final grade. Grades will reflect
demonstrated achievement in course objectives.
• In addition, students should know the general manner in which a grade will
be assigned for any specific work required throughout the term. For example, if
an essay is to be graded for style or format documentation the student should be
informed of that.
III. GRADING
A. Responsibilities of the instructor
1. To provide the Department Chairman (normally six weeks in advance
of the start of the semester), with a course outline and a statement of the course
requirements and how these will be related to course grades. If circumstances
require a. change in requirements, to provide such statement of such changes to
students within the first week of classes. Course outlines usually should advise
students of allocation of marks as between final exams, mid-term exams, tests,
term papers, tutorial participation, projects, laboratory work and any other re-
quirements.
.1
(2)
2.
To grade and return as promptly as possible mid-term, essays, and
other course requirements. (See III. A. 4.; IV. 5., 6.)
3.
To provide the Chairman, upon request, with a clear rationale for
whatever grading approach is proposed. (See III. B. 2., 3.)
If a Department Chairman is unwilling to accept a proposed grading
approach the instructor would have recourse to the Faculty Dean whose resolution
of the matter would be considered final.
4.
To maintain clear records of the marks given and to weighting of
those marks to establish a final grade and to ensure that those records and any
student work retained (exams, essays, etc.,) are kept for at least one semester
following the end of the semester (and after that until any outstanding request
for reconsideration of a grade is resolved). Such records and material will be
available to the Department Chairman on request, and should be filed with the
Department for the subsequent semester if the instructor will be absent.
5.
To attempt to resolve each request from a student for reconsideration
of a grade and to cooperate with the Department Chairman in the resolution of any
request the instructor is unable to resolve directly. (See IV. 2., 3., 4.)
B. Responsibilities of the Department Chairman
1.
To obtain from instructors and make available to students (normally
six weeks in advance of the start of the semester), course outlines including
statements of course requirements and how these will be related to course grades.
(See III. A. 1.)
2.
To consider requests from instructors to assign letter grades on some
basis other than that stated in II. above and to approve those requests in which
the evidence suggests the alternative approach is warranted. (See III. A. 3.)
In special cases - after the first week of classes to consider, and
than approve or disapprove, requests from instructors with class approval to assign
letter grades on some basis other than that stated in III. A. 1.
3.
To review with the instructor the grades assigned in each course in
order to ascertain that grading has been done with reference to academic achieve-
ment (unless some other basis has been approved in advance), and that it is con-
sistent with the course requirements and basis stated in advance, and to countersign
the grade sheet for a course when he/she is satisfied that students in the course
have been graded appropriately.. (See III. A. 1., 3.)
If a Department Chairman has refused to sign an instructor's grade sh
it is expected that the faculty member concerned and the Chairman will do every-
thing pbssible to resolve the difference and, failing that, the faculty member
(3)
.
??
would have recourse to the Faculty Dean whose resolution of the matter would be?
considered final.
4.
To review grading practices from time to time in consultation with
all faculty members of the department, to encourage the department to consider
issues related to grading, and to encourage consistency in grading practices
within the department.
5.
To assist an instructor and a student in achieving fair reconsidera-
tion of a grade in the event the instructor and student are unable to achieve
such reconsideration without assistance. (See III. A. 5.)
IV. RECONSIDERATION OF A GRADE
1.
A student who is unclear about course requirements or the basis for
grading, or who is concerned about the marking of a particular assignment, is
expected to seek clarification or to express his concern to the instructor in a
timely manner.
2.
The student who is seeking reconsideration of his/her final grade in
a course is expected to raise his/her concern with the course instructor without
delay. (See III. A. 5.)
.
?
?
A grade reconsideration may raise the grade, or lower the grade, or
?
leave the grade unchanged.
3.
The student who is unable to contact the course instructor, or who
receives no reply from the course instructor after a reasonable period of time, or
who wishes-to pursue a request for reconsideration of a grade after receiving a
response from the instructor, may present his/her request together with the
reasons- for it in writing to the Chairman of the Department in which the course
is offered - normally within sixty days of the release of grades.
4.
The Chairman shall first seek to resolve the concern by dealing with
the student and the instructor. If it cannot be resolved at that level it is the
responsibility of the Chairman, aftnr consultation with the student and the
instructor, to arrange for a re-evaluation of the work on which the grade was based
by an appropriately qualified person(s) and the establishing of a grade based on
that re-evaluation, or to take such other steps as are necessary. Should the student
request anonymity in such. a re-evaluation reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure
it.
5.
In the eventof a request for reconsideration of a grade, it is the
student's responsibility to provide all the relevant wok which has been returned
to him or her and it is the instructor's responsibility to provide all relevant
work which has been retained. (See III. A., 2., 4.)
(4)
6.
In a course which includes a final examination the marked examina-
tions shall be retained by the instructor or, if the instructor is to be away
from the campus, all pertinent papers and items are to be filed with the
department to be retained for at least one semester following the semester in
which they were written. (Should a request for reconsideration still be pending
longer, than one semester later, the marked examinations for that course will be
retained as long as it is pending.) (See III. A. 4.)
7.
The student who is concerned that his/her request for reconsidera-
tion has been dealt with inappropriately at the departmental level may convey
his/her concern to the Dean of the Faculty. The Dean will review the events and
a)
confirm the grade awarded at the departmental level if he/she is
satisfied there is no new evidence and that judicious and proper
procedures have been followed in the reconsideration at that level.
b)
if there appears to be significant evidence not considered at the
departmental level, the Dean may refer the reconsideration back to
the Department Chairman with instructions.
c)
initiate reconsideration (by alternative means where necessary) if,
in his/her judgment, the matter cannot be resolved at the departme
level.
The decision of the Dean shall be final, subject only to an appeal
to Senate. Such appeal may go forward only with the permission of the Chairman
of Senate on clear evidence satisfactory to her/him that there have been improper
procedures in reconsideration as undertaken. The Chairman of Senate periodically
will report to Senate on the disposition and nature of such requests to appeal to
Senate which have not gone forward to that body.
