An Unusual Use of Grade Contracts Grade contracts have recently experienced considerable application and discussion. Herein we describe an unusual and perhaps controversial application of grade contracts within a large multisection four-credit first-year chemistry course.' Many beginning students whose first attempts resulted in grades of D or F were encouraged to repeat the course. When they chose to make a second attempt, they were offered options of repeating the laboratory sequence or aceepting their previous numerical laboratory score (25% of course grade). While we felt that repeating the same experiments held little new educational opportunity for students, it also appeared that their acceptance of lab scores in the 60-79% range was prejudicial against grade improvement. Far this reason, a third "contract" option was developed. Students were given an opportunity to perform specified duties in a teacher-like role. Their contract conditions consisted of: being assigned as student assistant in a regular lab section; preparing a weekly quiz for that section based upon published performance objectives for the lab course; meeting weekly with the supervising faculty member before each lab to discuss the quiz and any problems likely to arise; and conducting tasks assigned by the supervisor or graduate instructor such as grading, questioning, supervising data collection, distributing chemicals, etc. The eontract student was rated by both the faculty supervisor and the graduate laboratory instructor. with satisfactory performances receiving two-thirds and outstanding performances receiving five-sixths of the percentage points lost during their first attempt. Each repeating student was advised that about seventy-five hours would be needed to satisfactorily complete the contract option. Because of our preselection of low performance students for the option, participating faculty were advised ta keep in close touch with contractors. The faculty and graduate instructor's initial comments abaut the contracting experiment were mixed. Nevertheless, all supervising faculty agreed to work with contracts, and mast of their attitudes toward the program became positive by semester's end. The peer group interactions between contractors and regular lab students were satisfactory. Because of the university palicy of using the average course grade in computing grade point ratios, repeating students had no grade advantage over first attempt students. Of the 500 students in the course (three lecture sections), 133 were repeaters and 26 signed contracts. Eight of these students' performances were rated outstanding, while only three were unsatisfactory. Contracting students experienced average course grade point improvements of 1.4 gradepoints as compared with 1.1 for other comparable repeaters. We were quite pleased with these results and recommend the system to you as one with potential for helping a slow-starting student recover lost ground within the context of a rather tightly regimented course structure.
'Work done a t Texas A & M University. David W. Brooks University of Nebraska Lincoln, 68508
E. E. Hazen. Jr. Texas A & M University College Station, 77843
Volume 51, Number 3,March 1974
/
151
