SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
'1
0
IV
?
From ?
innon
Syte
?
Dea.n ... of-Education
..........................................
Dare
.................
The following motion received majority support from the Faculty
of Education at its meeting on October 27, 1969:
that the pass /withdraw grading system for PF 401, 402
and
405
be approved, to begin in the Spring semester 1970.
A supporting paper on this proposal as presented to Faculty is attached.
I would now request that this item move to Senate at th.e earliest
opportunity, particularly in light of the implementation date agreed to.
/
7•7
/r
22At/
/
/
is
Att.
/
Professional Foundations Department
Proposal for Two--Catego:y GrarTirL System in
?
Education 401, 402
?
405
it is proposed that effective in the ,irthg, 1970 Seirster, a two
category grading system (Pass /ithdraw'l be implemented in Education 401,
402 and 405 within the
P
rofessional Development Program. These phases of
the program cia not car credit in
Arts
or Science but are required for
teacher certification.
This proposal arises from motions of August 13, 1968
and September 29, 1969 and reflects the reconunenda-
tions of t
h
e departmental. colJulütte.e on Grading Evalua-
tion.
•
A grade of P (Pass) would be used to indicate
that a
student has suc
cessfully fulfilled the requirements of the course and demonstrated
comnpe't-
ency with respect to the specified evaluative criteria. This grade would
only be used in the
event
that there is no reservation about a student's corn-
petence.
A grade of W (Withdraw) would be used in any of the. following instan-
ces:
a. the
student wishes to withdraw
,
from the program.
- ?
b. the student is requested to withdraw because it is
clear that he has not demonstrated competence with
respect to specific eya.uative criteria.
C.
the student is requested to withdraw because there
is doubt about his competence.
-2-
•
a.
Requests to withdraw will
not be made
unilaterally
but rather in. consultation with
informed parties
(e.g.,
Associate in Education, Associate of the Centre,
program co-ordinators, other faculty, student).
b.
Requests to withdraw will be made on the basis of
ecif1cbehav].ourai evidence.
c.
Students who withdraw (either by request or by the
'
ir
own choice) may re-apply at a later date to the
Professional Development Program.
d. A
withdrawal will mean that no credit
.
is given for
• ?
that portion of the program during which the student
withdraws.
e. Lveiy
student is insured the right to appeal
after
request to withdraw.
f.
if the appeal is rejected, withdrawal is automatic
and
the student receives no credit for that portion
of the program.
Rationale:
a. In a professional program, the most important assess-
• ?
ment is the determination of a candidate's fitness to
enter the profession not the assessment of precise
•
levels-of competence in teaching. In
the
PDP profes-
sional competence is stressed and academic competence
6 ?
-3-
has been demonstrated
p
rior to entry.
b.
The difficulty of sampling within a colex composite
criterion renders it impossible to achieve the valid
and reliable measures of
teaching performance required
for the assignment of multi-category grades. This
problem is compounded by the diversity and distribution
of evaluators.
c.
Evaluation must be continuous and central to the learn-
ing process. When grading takes place it tends to be-
come associated with all
evaluative
procedures and to
detract from the value
of those procedures
for
learning.
The emphasis in the PDP is on
the greatest possible
development
within each stage of the
program and the
diagnostic assessment of specific strengths and weak-
nesses is essential
to that end. Preoccupation with
grading is inimical to the goals of
the program.
Comment:
A joint faculty-student committee
has made specific recorrmendati.on.s for
all aspects of implementation from appeals to identification of scholarship
candidates. Other coLnittees are
engaged in the identification of specific
criteria for each phase of the PDP and in the preparation of means of as-
sessing the effects of the proposed change. The foregoing represents a brief
summary of the proposal.
Department of Prof essional_Foundations
.
?
Implementation Procedures for Pass_Withdra.cr
1. When a student lacks competency, or when his competency is in doubt, the
following procedures would begin:
401-405 (a) The Associate in Education would consult with the Associate
of the Centre on
the initiative
of either and the student would
be informed.
(b)
Specific examples of inadequate teaching performance would
be provided.
(c)
The Co-ordinators, Assistant Co-ordinators and other
informed parties
fe.
g. other teachers, principal, professorial
faculty) would be called upon for additional evaluative evidence.
(d)
A decision would be made in consultation with al]. informed
parties.
(e)
The student would be assured of the right to appeal to the
Department Head, the Dean of the Faculty and the Senate'
that order, if he so chooses.
402 ?
(f) The Asociate of the Centre would inform the student and
specific examples of inadequate performance would be provided.
Either the Associate or a permanent faculty member would
take tI initiative.
(g)
The Co-ordinator and Assistant Co-ordinator would be called
upon for consultation and additional evaluative evidence would
be sought.
(h)
The decision would be made in consultation with all informed
parties.
(i)
The student would be assured of the right to appeal to the
Department Head, the Dean of the Faculty and the Senate,in
that order, if he so chooses.
2. Scholarships \i.1.1 be determined by the following procedures:
(a)
The Associate of the Centre would submit names of those
who qualify in terms of the evaluative criteria for each stage
of the program.
(b)
The names would he submitted to a Scholarship Committee,
W ?
consisting of 3 faculty members from the department who
would make the decisions regarding the scholarship awards.
