TESTING MEMO 9: GRADES FOR ASSIGNMENTS NOT DONE AND TESTS NOT TAKEN by Robert B. Frary Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University DEAR ANN: I was a graduating senior in business administration with a B average and seven job offers at a prestigious eastern university. I didn't gradu- ate, the job offers were withdrawn, my parents kicked me out, and now I have to work in McDonalds. All this is because of one zero in a crummy liberal arts elec- tive. Any passing grade would have permitted me to graduate. I got Bs on the first two of three tests and decided to just skip the final, since two Bs and an F average out to a C: (3+3+0)/3=2. Right? Not according to Prof. S.! He averaged (84+81+0)/3=55. Since 60 was the lowest. D, he gave me an. F. His excuse was that he had said he'd average in a zero for anyone who skipped the final. What kind of zero should he have averaged? FRANTIC IN PHILLY. DEAR FRAN: Two kinds of zeroes? I thought there was only one. Maybe you should have written to Marilyn Vos Savant. But, still, I don't think any faculty member at a "prestigious eastern university" would do anything like what you describe. Maybe at a vocational school or a teachers' college, but then I should have noticed the New Haven postmark. _________________________________________________________ What's going on here? There is a lot of missing information. Did Prof. S. ever tell the class how he would actually average the grades? Why didn't Fran let Prof. S. know of his/her inten- tion to skip the final and confirm how the grades would be aver- aged? Did the final exam cover all new material? Did Fran at- tend and participate in class during the latter part of the semester? However, the really fundamental question is how well the grade of F can be defended as a portrayl of Fran's achieve- ment in the course. It is widely accepted that, barring academic dishonesty, a grade should reflect student achievement. Disregarding Fran's flagrant attitude, it is certainly within the realm of plausi- bility that his/her overall achievement was not at the F level and that Prof. S. knew this. If that is true, then the F was effectively a punishment. The question of a faculty member's right to punish a student is complex and emotionally charged. At some schools, it should be noted, faculty members are not permitted to discipline students for acts of academic dis- honesty; instead, judicial systems have been set up to impose disciplinary actions under conditions designed to ensure due process. Violations of university rules and regulations are also handled similarly by other university judicial systems. Punishment for undesirable academic behavior other than that under the jurisdiction of a judicial system is usually not form- ally controlled, though various channels through which a stu- dent may appeal the decision of a faculty member often exist. Of course, most faculty members would like to avoid such controversies and surely would prefer that confrontations with students over matters such as Fran's complaint not lead to the expansion of university judicial systems. But, nevertheless, students do skip tests and fail to turn in assignments. In such cases, the instructor is certainly justified in assuming (conservatively) that work was not done or that material was not learned. More important, the instructor should respond in a way that does not reward delinquency. Consideration of the "two kinds of zeroes" can lead to some workable and justifi- able grading policies for tests not taken or assignments not done. What makes the two kinds of zeroes different is how far each zero is away from whatever number represents the lowest D rela- tive to the total scale range. In the case of averaging let- ter grades, the range of numbers to be averaged is usually 0=F through 4=A. A D is represented by the number 1. Thus, an F is one-fourth or 25% of the scale range (0 to 4) below a D. |_________|_________|_________|_________| F=0 D=1 C=2 B=3 D=4 Contrast this with a score of zero on a 100 point scale where the lowest D is 60. Then the F is 60% of the total scale range below the lowest D. |____|____|____|____|____|____|____|____|____|____| 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Obviously the two zeroes do not evaluate achievement in the same way. What should the instructor do? Some instructors assign letter grades for each test or assignment and average these on a 4-point scale to determine the letter grade for the course. This is what Fran expected Prof. S. to do. Under this system, it is reasonable simply to assign an F for missing work or a skipped test. The achieve- ment for that assignment or test is certainly unsatisfactory and should be averaged with other grades to determine the stu- dent's semester grade. This approach can hardly be consid- ered punitive. Many other instructors record scores for each test or as- signment and average these to determine the final grade. In this case, it is necessary to consider the range of scores actu- ally attained by students who are truly worthy of grades of F. If the test is multiple-choice, say, with four options per question, a completely ignorant person is likely to get a score close to 25%. Somewhat lower scores are, of course, pos- sible but can only result from very bad luck or extensive mis- information. Regardless of the testing mode, superficial fa- miliarity with course vocabulary and topics may permit even the weakest or most negligent student to score somewhat above the effective minimum possible score. A reasonable assumption that the instructor can make under these circumstances is that a student who skipped the test would have done slightly less well than the person actually making the lowest F. Assigning this score for missing work also has the advantage of not rewarding a negligent student with a score higher than that of someone who actually did the work. Some readers may feel uncomfortable with the idea of giving a score of, say, 40% for a test that was not taken. This dis- comfort probably arises from interpreting test scores in a sort of economic sense: no credit for work not done. In this mode, the test is thought of as representing a set of standards, and the grades the students "earn" are awarded largely independent of any decision making by the instructor, often on a preestab- lished percentage scale. The idea that a score on a scale of 0%-100% represents the percentage of the knowledge covered by the test that the student learned adds fuel to this inter- pretation: absence at the time of a test is equated with total ignorance or turning in a blank paper (however improbable that might be). More plausible and psychometrically justifiable is an ap- proach that views the score on a test as related to but not a direct expression of knowledge. A student with a score of 100% probably does not know everything there is to know about the topic tested, and even a score of 0% does not necessarily imply total ignorance. Given this interpretation, it makes sense, in the case of an unexcused absence, to award the lowest score that any legitimate student who actually took the test could plausibly have made. The goal is to make a conserv- ative estimate of the missing score, not to assign some arbi- trary minimum. Whatever method the instructor adopts for dealing with unex- cused absences from tests or failure to turn in assigned work should yield final grades that are realisitic, given the missing information. Granted, the assumption of a low score for missing work may result in a final grade that understates the actual level of a student's achievement. Occasional cases of this outcome are probably unavoidable, given the absence of information and the need to make a conservative assump- tion concerning the missing achievement information. However, final grades that clearly represent punishment for negligence may well be subject to challenge. Postscript: Sometimes students are under the impression that a university-wide grading scale based on percentage ranges exists, e.g., 90%-100% = A, 80%-89% = B, etc. Actually, the existence of such "standards" is extremely rare in post-secondary institutions in the United States. For more information, contact Bob Frary at Robert B. Frary, Director of Measurement and Research Services Office of Measurement and Research Services 2096 Derring Hall Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg, VA 24060 703/231-5413 (voice) frary#064;vtvm1.cc.vt.edu ###