A. G. and Joseph V. West Baylor University W ~ C O .TX 7,703
An Alternative Method of Grading to Letter Grades and Percent Scores: "Relative Order"
In one of his thought-provoking editorials ( I ) entitled "On Abandoning Grading and Reconsidering Standards" puhlished in 1973, Tom Lippincott considered the implications suggested in the title but came to the conclusion that there were good arguments in favor of maintaining a realistic grading system since no alternative offering any real promise had been advanced up to that time. The present paper which proposes an alternative system of grading was essentially in its final form in 1974 hut was set aside a t the time since there was some question in the minds of the authors as to whether the climate of the time would even allow consideration of a new system for rational discussion and evaluation. In viewof the occasion of this special issue of the JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION and the symposium entitled "Prospects and Retrospects in Chemical Education" being held in honor of Tom Lippincott' a t the Spring 1979 A.C.S. meeting in Honolulu, and because "grade inflation" is currently one of the major educational problems under discussion, the present seems to be an appropriate time in which to submit this updated article for publication and to dedicate it with best wishes to Tom. Traditional methods of grading, notably the letter grade (GPA) and the percent score, have been under critical examination (2-20) over the past several years although the systems have also been defended (21.22). During this period of time a numher of educational institutions have experimented with various pass-fail systems or hybrid plans. However, deficiencies in these have become apparent (23-28) after brief periods of trial and some have reverted either partially or wholly back toward the traditional methods (29) as the pass-fail grades came under fire (30) particularly because of the inability of graduate and professional schools (medicine, law, dentistry, etc.) and employers to evaluate such grades (31-36). Honor societies such as Phi Beta Kappa are concerned over the problem of how nominees are to he selected if pass-fail grades are used (25, 37-39). On the other hand, some arguments in favor of pass-fail or a dual system have been presented, (40-43) although the results of some studies are inconclusive (44, 45). Some alternatives to GPA and pass-fail systems have been suggested, (46-57) hut they have not met with general acceptance as yet (58-60). Another recent phenomenon in schools that have continued to use letter grades has been the continuing rise in high grades to a point where dean's lists and lists of honor graduates have become meaningless. This phenomenon has been referred to as "grade inflation" (61-67). Grades in colleges have continued to rise even though college entrance examination scores (ACT and SAT) have been decreasing (68-79). One rationale for high grades has been their reputed correlation with student motivation and achievement (21). There have been suggestions that increases in high grades have paralleled the introduction and use of faculty evaluations by students (80,81). Whatever the reasons for these various developments, the problems remain (8249), and new ideas and solutions are needed. The authors feel that the method proposed here will lead to solutions of many of these problems as will he pointed out in this paper. Although a method of ranking based on performance had been proposed several years ago (901, it was criticized by Carlsson (91). This novel suggestion was undoubtedly ahead of its time since it has not heen used up to the present time. More recently, a system combining absolute grades with relative percentile rank was proposed (92) and a new proposal called the "relative transcript" has been considered for use
a t a number of campuses (93, 94). Under this proposal, the transcript would also indicate the average grade given students in the course and the numher of students enrolled. The system proposed in the present paper was conceived independently of these suggestions and differs from them markedly in detail. It is hoped that publication a t this time will stimulate use of the method on a trial basis along with the current grading system being used if deemed desirable and that this experience will hopefully result in progress toward a system that will be an asset to the educational process and goals. Proposed Method
For convenience in referring to the method, it will be designated "Relative Order." In its essential form, the first step is the placing of students in a class in some order based on whatever criteria of achievement are set up by the person teaching the course. The input for these criteria can he examination results, laboratory work, written or oral reports, projects, length of time taken to complete a computer programmed instruction course, etc. depending on the particular course and the decision of the instructor. The order would be that determined a t the end of the course2-normallv a t the timt: that f ~ n acourse l grades would bedetermi~ied.A number wuuld he assigned toem h ~ t u d t nde~cmdicia t on the itandtne in the class. Thus, considering a class of 40students, for example, No. 1would be the top student in the class, No. 2 the second, etc. Ideally each student would he assigned a different number and such a case would illustrate complete differentiation. In cases where two (or more) students had exactly the same standing, they would he assigned the same numher. Thus, for example, if two students were tied for 20th place, they would both he assigned a 20 and the next in line would be assigned 22. The second step of the proposed method would consist in assigning the complete designation as a douhle numher (andlor quotient if desired)"hich would comprise the total numher of students in the class followed by the order in the class. Thus, for example, 4015 (or 8.0) would signify that the student placed 5th in a class of 40 students. A 5th place standing in a class of 100 students signifies greater achievement by the latter student and this would he clearly revealed in the designation 10015 (or 20.0). In the third step, the quotients would he multiplied by the numher of semester (or auarter) hours analoeous to the usual method of dvtwmininy grade poinf avrragc.;, thwe added fur the various c~nlrsc..;.and thi, rota1 divided IIV thv total numher of semester (or quarter) hours to obtain a number analogous to a grade point average which would he used in assessing relative overall achievement. Discussion
In discussions with colleaeues from varied disciolines. criticisms were solicited so thaiany deficiencies in the method could be detected and rectified if ~ossible.The more sienifi" cant of these are presented here. One ohiection raised was that this would introduce a new grading sEaie that would be unfamiliar to current educators, parents, and students. This ohiection is answered hv the fact One of the authors (A.G.P.) was a fellow graduate student with him at The Ohio State University. Relative orders could be used for each examination,report, etc. during the course, if desired. The former is more desirable for reasons given below. Volume 57, Number 1, January 1980 / 89
that the new scale can be converted into the familiar letter grades if desired. Also as mentioned above, the new method can he intruduced altmg with svhatwer present scheme is used fin grad~ngduring a trial prriad of time of one or more years. In fuct, this wm~ldfurnish \,al~~ahle data ior Inter aisessment and evaluation of the new method. A. r nrohlem that relates to~ the "relative order" scores . -~ ~ ~ themselves is the following. Suppose for example, that one student is 10th in a class of 100 students (100110 = 10) whereas another student is 2nd in a class of 20 (2012 = 10). The quotient in both cases is 10 and the question arises whether these quotients are equivalent. For this reason, it is recommended that the double scores (100110 and 2012) as well as the quotient be listed on the transcript since the latter are more useful in comnutations. This aspect would be one which could be resolved by further stud;. A minor problem is what to do with those who drop the course. Those who drop or withdraw with passing grades should not he counted in the total numher for the class since their grades (and therefore, relative standings) are indeterminate and the same would apply to those with "Incomplete" grades. Those who drop or withdraw with failing grades should be counted as part of the total numher; however, i t may be difficult to place these in a relative order and if so, these would form a group a t the bottom of the order having the same numher. For someone evaluating the class record, this grouping would have informative significance. T h e same can he stated for a class in which a numher of students made perfect scores and were assigned the same relative order number. An evaluation of this circumstance might lead to the conclusion that the examinations (or other ordering procedures) were incapable of differentiating among those in that group. If examinations were too difficult, a significant number of students would he found in a bottom grouping. The numher of students in top and bottom groups would he of significance in an evaluation of the course. Summary A new method of grading, "relative order" is proposed as an alternative to the letter grade, percentage, pass-fail, and other methods currently in use. In this new method, the students in the class are assigned a number based on their achievement in the class, No. 1being the top student, No. 2 second, etc. A double number is then listed as the grade consisting of the total number of students in the class divided by the order in the class. Thus, 4015 would signify the 5th student in the class of 40. In taking account of the number of semester hours for the course the quotient would be multiplied by the numher of semester (or quarter) hours for each course. The products for each course would he added and the total divided by the total numher of semester (or quarter) hours for all of the courses. The final result would then he used in determining the "relative orders" for all of the students. If desired, in an interim neriod. these scores could be recorded in addition
-~
~
in addition to the present grading method in order to obtain data to evaluate this new method and that it have no effect in this interim prriod on the grudesni presently determined. It is huprd that the prrsrntnt;~mof t h t new praq~t,si~l at this timp will irm~ulnieits use, on a trial bi~sisas w 1 1 as the elicitation of ~ l l ~ ~ ~fort imprmement l o n ~ and that eventually a sntisfactor; system can he developed after some experimentation and data accumulation. Acknowledgment The authors acknowledge contributions from critical scrutinizing of the proposed method by colleagues a t Baylor University and other institutions and in particular the checking of literature references by Ms. Karen Ramsey (to 1974) and Ms. Kim A. Kelly (to present date) as well as constructive suggestions from Ms. Kelly. 90 / Journal of Chemical Education
Literature Cited i l l Lippinentt. W.T., J. CHEM. EDUC.,56.499 119731. (2) Seannell, D. P., Uni" K o ~ a R a u l l Educ., 15.442457 119601. (3 Weis% R. M. and Rasmussen. G. R., J. Higher Educ., 31.143-149 11960). 141 Cummins. R. E.,Education, 82.403405 119621. IS1 Fmsch. E. A . Claorhp HIUBO.37.93-95 119621. 161 Stroup, F.,J Higher Edur , 34,1&15(1963).
171 J. Hisher Edue., 35.89-103 (19641. 181 Tesf. H. M.,Jr.. J. H i ~ h aEduc., r 35.87-88 119641. (91 Ek1,R.L.. M m u ~ i n p E d u r o l i oAchiruement. ~i Prentice-Hall. Inr.,EnglPrad Cllffa, New Jersey,Chap. 13 119651. (10) Bloum. G., flus. Educ. W,dd, 14 13-14 (19661. 77,1111 119661. !Ill Melhy.E.O.,Nolion'~S~honb, (121 Trow, W.C.,PhiDdto Kappa". 48.171-17:3 119661. (131 R u ~ ~ e I.i l L., . J. Educ Rexeorch. 62,263-266(1969l. (141 DiSihio,R. A..Edueol8vn,92. 34-36 119711. I151 Gloger.S.,Educoiirm. 92.95 119711. (161 Jager, S. and Duhm. D.,I,incuirrieb Didoktik, 2,165-183 11971). (17) DsPue,P.,ImprouingColl. Unrv Teach.. 22,237-238 119741. (18) Soderkrg. L. 0..lmprouing Coll Univ Teech., 22,244-246 (1974). (191 Leary, J. L..Edudur. Leodrr3hip, 33.2C27 119751. 120) Arriqtun. M..AAUPRull., 63.53119771. 121) Me~rhsll, J. C. and Chriaenxm D.L.. Education. 93,262-265 119731. 122) Feldmesser, R.A.,Educ. Record. 53,6672 (1972). 123) Tiuw. W. C..Edur. Record. 49.83-91 1196Rl. (24) Bain. P.T., Ha1es.L. W..and Hand.L. P.. Cnll. Ilniil.. 17. 17-18 119711. 125) Guld,R.M.,Roilly.A..Silberman,R.,andLehr,R..J.E~perim~ntolEduc.. 39.17-21
1301 Meellenberg. W., CO;I Uniu.. 21. 196-197 119731. (31) Rorsmann. J. E..Educ. Rrrrorch. 51,310-313119701. 1321 Schoemer, .I. R., Thomas, J. E.. and Brsgonier, W. H., Coil. Uniu.. 18.
147-153
, I d Educ.,
38.87-91
