5vb ss/qIto
I I I I I•
N I.
M /q/6
I V U
M i'k!i
0 cn S
SId• i)q1)
o 0
0 go
go S
Sbi s'Iqk
9h,7 :
'M t. t I qI67

5,? "/9/G

Senate Committee on Examination and gx^a

Report to Senate: 31 July 1967

Orins:

Following upon the publication and distribution of the Spring

semester's

examination results, the

Faculty of Science expressed concern

over

the wide-ranging

disparity of grades awarded

by various faculties

and depart.ments within

the University, noting specifically that the award

of grades may have "important

budgetary implications'

After some pre-

liminary discussion, Senate agreed to postpone further consideration of

this question until a Committee of Senate had been able more thoroughly

to investigate the issues involved, and report back to Senate under terms

of a motion that "a Committee be formed to examine the examination systems

and grading procedures currnt1y in use in the University and to make

recommendations to Senate". As a result of consultations between the

President and his Deans, the Committee was duly established.

Method ofApp9ach:

The Committee held three reasonably lengthy formal sessions

(the 12th, 18th and 26th of May) and a number of informal meetings which

concluded on 28 July. It was agreed at the outset that the implications

arising from the Senate directive were both far-reaching and profound,

and would touch upon the essence of university teaching

activity. It was

further agreed, if only tacitly, that it would-be exceedingly difficult

for the Committee to make recommendations to Senate which could be re-

graded as binding upon the whole University, and at the same time, aca-

demically appropriate to the variety of disciplines taught. The Com-

mittee felt, however--perhaps only instinctively--that there did exist

somewhere between the pole

of anarchy and the pole of regimentation,

a position visavis

grading

and

examining which best reflected the

independence of the individual instructor

and

the responsibility of that

instructor to both his

students and his subject. The Committee thus

sought to discover whether, and in what form, such a position existed at

Simon Fraser.

A questionaire wa drawn up and sent to Department Heads for

distribution among their faculty who had taught courses in either the

Spring

1967

or Fall 1966 semester. Its purpose was to gather information

about the manner in which different courses were taught and examined.

Questions asked of faculty ranged from the amount of time spent in

lectures, tutorials, labs etc., through the percentage of the final

grade made up from examinations, essays, tutorial participation etc.

to the role of TA' in a course.

The information provided by the

questionaire was then tested against actual student performance. Based•

upon the course grade distribution figures for the spring semester and

upon cumulative grade point averages (cui.GPA) of students enrolled in

those courses, graphs were drawn which indicated the relationship between

the level of achievement (cum. GPA), and actual performance in a specific

course. Where noticeable divergencies existed between the cum. GPA of

For the complete statement, see Minutes of Senate, April 1967.

Ibid.

Copies of the original questionaire may be made available to members

of Senate upon request.

5ii

/q4

students enrolled in a course and their subsequent final grade for that

course, the appropriate questionaire could be consulted to see what kind

of grading techniques had been employed by the instructor,

Results:

Response to the questionaire was generally disappointing; 62

were returned completed: 20 from the Faculty of Science; 40 from the

Faculty of Arts; 2 from the Faculty of Education. Three of the

largest/departments within the University--English, Modern Languages,

Economis and Commerce--returned only 6 questionaires among them. With

these exceptions, however, it was felt that there was still a large

enough sample to go ahead with the report, although some of the con-

clusions must necessarily remain tentative. Selected highlights of the

questionaire may be summarized as follows: (figures are on a University-

wide basis)

30.9% of the final grade was based upon final examinations

213%

essays

15.2%

mid-terms

11.0%

tutorial participation

17 courses had no final examinations; 14 had no examinations at all

54.8%

(34 courses) reported TA association with the course

47.0% (16

courses) reported TA as 'responsible for part' of final grade

41.2% (14 courses) reported TA as 'advisor to professor' in determining.,...,,

final grade

2.9%

(1 course) reported TA as having 'sole responsibility' for

final grade

69.0% reported that grades were based upon a combination of relative

and absolute standards of achievement

24.5%

awarded grades according to an absolute standard only

6.5%

ff.

relative

The first of the following graphs represents all courses given in

the Spring semester having 20 or more students enrolled. It shows the

relationship between the anticipated general level of achievement (based

upon cum. GPA) and actual achievement in specific courses. The remaining

graphs--one for each department, with courses from that department--

illustrate essentially the same thing expressed in a different way. The

solid line is the cum. GPA of students; the broken line is their actual

performance in the specific course, with the point on each line indicating

the mean in both cases. The lines are divided into quartiles, that is to

say, 50%

off the line

(25%

on each end of the two middle quartiles). Cases

where the solid line and broken line (including both means) most nearly

correspond are indicative of grading practices

in a

course which correspond

to the students

overall level of achievement as measured by their cum. GPA.

The complete results of the questionaire may be seen by members of

Senate

upon

request.

To illustrate further possible implications of the relationship

between grading practices and course achievement, the Committee chose

four courses which identify some of the problems involved in an investi-

gation of this kind. In view of the low response to the questionaire these

courses are again not necessarily representative.

•

Philosophy 100

and

Physics 211:

course grade very similar to cum. GPA

PSA 101:

course grade higher than cum. GPA

History

222:

course grade lower than cum. GPA

Phi1ophy 100: There were 167 students enrolled at the beginning of the

course;

152

at the end. The method of instruction was

hours

lecturing, 1 hour of tutorial per week. There was no final exam-

ination in the course; the final course grade was based upon:

Essays:

90%

(21.3)

Tut. part.lo% (11.0)

The instructor reported that the final grade was the 'sole res-

ponsibility' of the TA, yet later said that he and the TA marked

the assignments. He rated the ability of his students as 'average'

and described the most important aims or goals of his course as:

'knowledge of principles'; 'reasoning power'; 'critical ability';

with 'knowledge of factual detail' and 'originality, imagination'

as much

less

important. He used a combination of relative

and

absolute standards

(69%)

in determining his grades.

ysics 211: There were 94 students enrolled at the beginning of the

course; 67 at the end. The method of instruction was

hours of

lecturing, 1 hour of tutorial per week. The final course grade

was based upon:

Final exam:

50% (30.9)

Tut. part.

10% (u.o)

Problem sets:

40%

(no statistics)6

The final exam was

hours and students were required to answer

6 out of 9 questions. TA's were responsible for 'part'

(47%)

the final grade. The instructor rated his students as 'considerably

more able' than average, and described 'knowledge of principles,

generalizations' and 'reasoning power' as the major goals of his

course. He used a combination of relative and absolute standards

in assigning his grades.

PSA 101: There were 310 students enrolled at the beginning of the course;

300 at the end. The method of instruction was 1 hour lecturing, 2

hours of tutorial per week. The final course grade was based upon:

Final exam:

50% (30.9)

essays:

50% (21.3)

Figures in parentheses represent the university-wide average.

The Committee felt that for some science courses 'problem sets

may be

regarded as rough equivalents to essays in arts courses, hence

21.3%.

5vb ss/qIto

The final exam was 2 hours and students were required to answer

2 out of 10 essay questions. TA's acted in an 'advisory' capacity

to the instructor.

(41.21a)

The students' level of ability was

not rated; the instructor regarded 'knowledge of principles,

generalizations' and 'originality, imagination' as the most

important goals of his course, with

knowledge-of factual detail'

of much less importance.

History 222: There were 90 students enrolled at the beginning of the

course; 85 at the end. The method of instruction was 2 hours

of lecturing, 1 hour of tutorial per week. The final course

grade was based upon:

final exam:

50% (30.9)

essays:

40%

(21.3)

tut. part.

10% (11.0)

The final exam essay was

hours and students were required to

answer 4 out

11 essay questions. TA's were responsible for

'part' of the final grade (47%). The instructor rated his

students' ability as 'average' to 'lower than

averages.

The

major goals of the course were originality

imaginations,

critical ability', 'knowledge of principles', with 'knowledge

of factual detail' of less importance. A combination of

relative and absolute standards were used in assigning grades.

Recommendations and ConOlusions:

As suggested earlier, .the Committee found it difficult, if not

impossible, to make specific recommendations to Senate which would be

academically relevant to all--or even most--courses. A number of con-

clusions, perhaps very obvious ones, do emerge, however.

Different methods of examining and grading may all produce equally

'reliable' results, i.e. a close correlation between course grades

and the cum. GPA of students. This is shown by the examples of

Philosophy 100 and Physics 211.

It may be said that in general the 'reliability' of the course

grade increases with an increase in the number and diversity of

the measurement, used to establish that grade.

c) There is no obvious and conclusive relationship between the

'reliability' of a result and the role of TA's in determining

the result.

More important, however, than these and other conclusions which

may be drawn from the evidence of the graphs and questionaires is the

general comparability of Simon Fraser grades with those of other

universities. At the best of times, this is a treacherous business, but

it is

the kind of treachery upon which a university's reputation may

ultimately hinge. Within the University the relationship between

individual course grades and the cum. CPA is really not all that bad.

•

But is the cum. GPA itself meaningful? It

is,

after all, made up of

grades awarded in Simon Fraser courses. The Committee felt that this

11.

Williams (Chairman)

L. Kendall7

E. Wells

L. Smith

31 July 1967

3t,

was perhaps the most important question of all, and offers to Senate

as one basis of comparison, some examination statistics from the

•

University of Toronto. It should be unnecessary to remind Senate that

the University of Toronto probably has the highest undergraduate

admission requirements in Canada, and that the minimum as shown in the

calendar is rarely adhered to in view of the large number of applicants.

Clearly then, students at the University of Toronto, are academically

superior to our own. The following table shows percentage distribution

of grades for second year students in the University of Toronto general

Arts and Science programme for the

1965-66

academic year in comparison

with figures for the Spring

1967

semester at Simon Fraser.

Toronto:

7,7

31.5

27.7

168

16.2

Simon Fraser:

U,?

38.8

31.8

9.8

7.7

The Committee felt that this is the kind of question to which

Senate ought to give very serious consideration.

The Committee would like to express its thanks to L. Kendall

of the Department of Psychology for

his

work in preparing the

statistical data in this report.

.o.

j•

102

61.

2'7

202

62.

222

203

63.

261

300

64.

304

305

65.

311

6..

•'

316

66,

220

hi.oi

ierce

421

201

6867

!ith

111

101

102101

70.

213

112

11.

10$

71.

214

116

72.

231

216

73,,

Pi1oicy

100

251

74,

101

256

75,

102

261

76..

103

17.Gv

z ne

323370203

79,77.

78,

I'"

hysics

102

211

101

20.

td 0173

Ax-"S

100

80.

232

21..Ecc

100

81,

Pce1

1ondatjo

401

22.

23."

200

110

82.83.

403

402

205

S4.

450

26,

25..

236

85.

101

301

111

305

87.

121

20.

330

171

: i1is

103.

69.

201

30.

102

90.

211

103

91.

221

32'

111.

92.

244

201

27"

36.

404

94.

341

35.

406

95, Pychol . gy

100

36.

407

96.

101

37.

411

91.

201

38.

451.

230

456-

99.

220

40..

457

lOJ.

230

!..

463.

IOL,

240

42..

100

102.

43,

1.05

103,

360

15'

1.04.

Einsia

101

. 45

201

105.

Sojaj Pi1osopic1 Foundations

202

46.

20 i.

105.

100

20:

1.07.

101

1C I

16)

221

5?.

241

52.

•.

46'

IC'S

•

101

10.

57.

203

2'J4

59.

205

30,.

206

a• \

•\

:. !.

•

\\.

:•

•

:•

•

•.

0 C

• o_

\\\\•,

•

s::.

)

I•

a •

• a -

- • : •

- - -

INIOd 30VUD 3SIflO3

C.)

0VI9

3SIflO3

b.A

l I -

L-1

a-)

C.,

4-)

06)

.-,

I-I

/q/6

U.'

C14

4.'

I V U

C.,

,-1

•i•

'-4

C.,

'.4

l's

-1

\; +

\• =rn

/c(4

1-)

-4

ICS,- 4

C-,

-4

0•

- '

•

C14

•

-j

i-4

c-I

•

.-•

•'

•1

—4

,.IA

C-)

c1-

i'k!i

SId•

i)q1)

•

:TH T.

0 0

0 0

CIO

C)()

1ji

LU LU LULULULU

v-s

1.1

C-

'SM

)'1q1t07

•

'•I

•

1 •

•

Ilk

J(,7

;

•1

1...

)

r-4

C-

1LI

..•

•0

0 -

CIL

LL L LL-

ft.LL

)

-1

'-4

T I

•

j—)

..-4

C.,

C14

g7g7g—)

ci)

I I I I

:fr

ed7

•

••1

ii 1

•

C14

,-I

c•3

•1'

+0'•

C.,

C.)

C.)

'-4

Sbi

s'Iqk

-1

±11

•

—J

—

C\i

-I

–

I -

I,'

•!Y

- -

'I I •

•

1.I

V.)

'-4

.,-

• -I

'-I

'-1

'-I

•

(

4.1

c••J

ç'J

.1•

$14

9h,7 :

•

IIA

C.)

-4

.%H

IA-9 4

I,t#

ik11i

1•

•

•H

..r

'•

•

C,'

'-I

I,'

•1

tIn

v-I

A C4

-4

•k

'-4

H.J

•

A C4

4.'

I:)

•1

)

• .

•

C.)

1.4

C.,

".4

•1

1..

•

I q I

•j.

t. t

I qI67

•

tr)

1•

I,'

C14

•

I I

,-•l