University of ArkansasFaculty Senate Task Force on Grades
Preliminary Report
April 19, 2005
Mandates for the Task Force
Does grade inflation at the U of A exist and is it a significant issue of faculty concern that may require policy change?
Are grades and any perceived or real grade inflation with time, or uneven grade distribution linked to uniform faculty evaluations (Purdue System)?
If there IS a relationship between Teaching Evaluations and Grading, … is it a significant problem that should be addressed?
What are Task Force Recommendations related to grades, grade definitions, etc., … that should be a faculty matter.
U of A not Unique!
Academe Interested in Grades and Grading Practices
Duke University Harvard Dartmouth Southwest Missouri State University University of North Carolina Princeton
Assignment of Grades
Philosophical Discussion (Faculty)– Why do we assign grades?– What does a grade represent?– Types
Criterion or Norm Referenced
Pragmatic Examination (Task Force)– What grades were assigned?– Are there patterns in the assignment of these grades that
may represent a greater systemic problem?
Student Evaluation of Instruction
Philosophical Issues (Faculty)– Purpose of student evaluations?– Does the Purdue System provide the necessary information
to evaluate instruction?– Differentiating a high rating from effective instruction and
possible “inflation” of grades Pragmatic Issues (Task Force)
– Are There Patterns in Student Evaluations Associated with Overall Grades Assigned Type of Course Faculty Rank
Increasing Grades?
Since mid-60s universities have seen undergraduate GPAs steadily increase
College Remedial Courses– Annual rate approaches 60% in Arkansas– 34% of Students in Arkansas Identified as
“college ready”
Numerous theories exist and the issue is commonly referred to as “grade inflation”
Grade Inflation
Economic Description– Grades Increasing Over
Time (Dow Jones) Grade Inconsistent with
Demonstrated Achievement– Student Assigned Grade of
“A” with Limited Achievement
– Does not Accurately Reflect Performance
– Covering 9 versus 17 Chapters
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
1985 1995 2005
DowJones
The “Gold” Standard
The goal is to create a common standard to compare students and grades assigned
Use of standardized test information– ACT– CAAP “Rising Junior” Exams– GRE
Requested Information for Study
Grades Assigned and Student Evaluations (1992-2004)– Year– College– Department– Program– Section
Example of Demographic Variables – First Year Enrolled
Status (Transfer/Freshman)– High School GPA– Degree and Year Completed
Note: 1992 – 2004 Represents the Time Frame Computerized Data Available
Federal Education Rights and Privacy ACT (FERPA)
Institutional Review Board – Provided Approval
Anonymous student and faculty identification numbers used
Additional Protection: If sample size was less than 10 observations an any analysis level, information was not reported.
Methodology
Checking the Data! Initial Calculations
– Computing student GPAs independently– Correlated 1.0 with University reported GPAs
Note: Computed with only fall and spring grades
Modifications for Analysis Purposes– Conversion of grades to whole values for specific analyses
Faculty Evaluations
– Use of means in analysis of faculty evaluations
Research Design
Exploratory Data Analytic Techniques– Tukey (1978)
Graphing Descriptive Statistics Confidence Intervals Trend Analysis
Layered Overview of Results– University
-- College -- Department
-- Program -- Course -- Section
Preliminary Results: UndergraduateU of A Grades from 1992 - 2004
Mean GPAs increased from 2.76 to 2.95 during 12 year period
2.76
2.95
College Undergraduate GPA Trends with U of A GPA Trends for 1993 - 2004
2004 GPAs
EDUC= 3.52
AFLS= 3.14
ENGR= 3.06
ARSC= 2.82
ARCH= 2.82
WCOB= 2.77
University and College GPA Trends 1992 – 2004: Rescaled
Rescaling on 0.0 to 4.0 grade scale may create a different impression
Rosenthal (1973), studies on interpreting graphs
3.52
2.77
Student Evaluations and Grades Assigned: Is there a pattern?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
A B C D F
Percent of Responses
ExpectedGrade
0
1
2
3
4
5
A B C D F
University Core Average
ExpectedGrade
The correlation between expected grade and university core average was .29, suggesting only a moderate association
86% of students expect grade of A or B
Steady decline, then levels
Based on the six Teaching Evaluation items all instructors must ask students!
What Represents an Example of Effective versus Ineffective Grading
High or Low Grades?– Indicators of success?– Indicators of ineffective instruction?– Grade inflation?
Patterns!– Identify patterns in the data that demonstrate
cause for concern or discussion
Demonstrate a Process for Assessing the Assignment of Grades
College of Education and Health Professions– Department of Educational Leadership,
Counseling and Foundations Educational Foundations Program Graduate Degree Program
Goal: To provide a method for evaluating the assignment of grades in a program area!
Graduate GPAs at the U of A
2004 GPAs
EDUC= 3.77
ENGR= 3.70
ARSC= 3.66
AFLS= 3.65
WCOB= 3.55
Overall, graduate GPAs higher and have increased.
College of Education and Health Professions: Department Graduate GPAs
Interesting!
The GPAs by Dept. are becoming more variable
Educational Leadership, Counseling and FoundationProgram Area Graduate GPAs 1992 - 2004
Ed. Stat grades declining relative to rest of department
However, not the complete picture!
3.48
3.89
Educational Foundations: Evaluating our Grading Patterns1992 - 2004
Tenure track faculty assign grades much lower than adjuncts in Ed. Stats
Volatility due to one course
Implications of Internal Analysis
We …. We the faculty in Educational Research and Policy Studies need to do a better job of overseeing/selecting our adjuncts.
We …. We need to individualize the issue of grades, expectations, and assignment of grades.
We …. We need to examine the content level and determine if expectations are commensurate with benchmark institutions.
– Multiple Regression Example
Preliminary Conclusions
Grades are increasing!– Is this problematic?
Possible Explanations/Further Research– Higher entrance scores (ACT exams)– Transfer students– Transferring credits from other institutions (Community
Colleges, Universities, etc.)– Academic expectations– Course taking patterns by students– Plus, many others ….
Preliminary Recommendations
Stair-Step Evaluation of Grades Information Data Provided to Each College for Evaluations
– Committees to examine information at each level and report
-- College -- College Reports
-- Department -- Department
-- Program -- Program
-- Course -- Course
Evaluate -- Section -- Section
Ongoing Accountability
Next Steps
Final modifications of requested data received on March 18th .
Preliminary analyses completed, more in-depth study of issues during the next four months to understand the implications.
Comprehensive Report completed and submitted to Faculty Senate fall of 2005.