Student and Faculty Attitudes toward Laboratory Grading Alain Dumon Groupe de Recherche en Didactique de la Chimie, Universite de Pau et des Pays de I'Adour. 64000 Pau, France Miles pickeringl Princeton University. Princeton. NJ 08544 From time to time naners on novel madine methods for the lahoratory have appeared in this a i d 0th; educational iournals (1-10). Sporadirallv, research has been reported on jaboratory grading, studying its effectiveness, reprbducibility, and motivational consequences (11-15). However, there is a major gap in the literature, and that is the apparent absence of any studies on student and faculty attitudes toward laboratory grading. Grading is of very great importance to students, and it may very much color their ~ e r c e ~ t i oof n stheir laboratorv exneriences. Most facultv do . a very conscientious job of grading and would be most interested in ~romisinenew ideas if thev could be sure that such new metbods would not upset the rntangible but important factors that make a course "work". The data herein reported are part of a much larger study of laboratorv work undertaken in France. While there is always some-danger in extrapolation of data about attitudes from one culture to another, some knowledge is probably better than the mere hearsay that exists at
. .
.
Experimental A poll was conducted of 58 teachers of introductory science (of which 41 were directly concerned with science laboratory), and of 285 first- and second-year students at the Universities of Pau, Poitiers, Toulouse, Orsay, and Morocco. Of this group, 122 were first-year students, and 114 were second.year students. There were 71 .Moroccan students; the remainder of the sample was from French universities. Themost basicquestion that can be asked about laboratory education is whether or nor tograde at all. In our sample 86% of the teachers and 67O$ of the students saw grading as necessary. First-year students accepted this necessity significantly more than second-year students (7300vs. 60%). This difference gives a x' value of 5.281, significant at the p < 0.025 level. A menu of possible purposes of grading was presented to the respondents, and they were asked to choose the most i m ~ o r t a n tThe . resnonses are summarized in Table 1. modes of grading was presented to menu of 15 the resuondents. who were asked to rate them on a sevenstep scale (1 = ieast favorable; 7 = most favorable). The
results for the faculty are shown in Table 2 and those for the students in Tahle 3. Since divergent student groups are involved in this educational experiment, an important test of method is the correlation of responses between different populations. The correlation coefficient between French and Moroccan students' responses in Tahle 3 is 0.61, between first- and second-year students, 0.95. For the purposes of this study, the groups will be lumped together. Table 1. Student and Faculty Percepllonr oi Laboratory Gradlng % of
Possible Purposes
student
1. Stvdent self~vaiuation 2. Motivation, gives value to lab work 3. Faculty evaluation 4. Traditional, fatallsrn 5. "Gatekeeplng"to qualify for future study 6. NOpurpose, actually ~ounterproductive
34.1 22 19.1 10.6 5.1 3.5 5.7
7.
Mlsceliane~u~
citation teacher 16.3 24.5 22.5 14.3 8.2 10.2 4.1
Table 2. FacuHv Prelerences In Laboratow Gradlna Average Ratinga and variance 1. Grading ail experiments 2. Separation of testing from learning phase 3. Use of a new experiment as a final test 4. Heaviest weightingolexperimentai resuns 5. Oral testing during lab sesslon 6. Grading of lab repom 7. Wrilten test at end of lab session 8. Final practical exam 9. Systematicobservationattechniques with 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
an evaluation form Laboratory notebwk Project or other wiginai work Written prelab quiz Observation of student techniques with no formal plan Prelab oral auiz
5.51 i 2.01 5.30 i 2.57 5.06 i 3.89 4.64 i 3.19 4.57 3.57 4.51 i 2.62 4.51 i 3.10 4.28 i 4.27 4.25 i 3.86 4.22 i 2.17 4.14 i 3.58 4.0 i 3.17 3.4 i 3.62 3.34
i 3.60
' Author to whom correspondenceshould be sent.
Volume 67 Number 11 November 1990
969
Table 3. Student's Prelerence In Gradlng Methods Differencesham Faeulv Average Rating Uncorrected Correctedd Qadingall experiments Qading of lab reports Separation of testing hom learning phase 4. Final practical exam 5. Project or other original work 6. Heaviest weigMing of experimental resulls 7. Use of a new experiment as a final test 8. Observation by teacher wim out preeslablished plan 9. Final written exam 10. Written test at end of lab session 11. Lab notebook 12. Oral test during lab session 13. Systematic observation with and evaluation form 14. Written preiab quiz 15. Oral rel lab ouiz 1. 2. 3.
4.96 i 3.83. 4.34 i 2.24 4.28 i 2.92
-0.53 -0.17 -1.02C
+0.25 +O.6lC -0.24
3.65 i 4.79 3.65 f 3.16
-0.44 -0.29
+0.34 +0.49
3.70 i 2.61
-0.96S
-0.18
3.70 i 4.20
-1.37=
-0.59
+0.07
+0.W
3.40 f 4.29 3.40 4.25
+
+0.SC -l.llC
+1.5SC
3.26 f 2.57 3.06 f 1.91 2.63 f 2.44
-0.96' -1.4g5 -1.62'
-0.18 -0.7Ir -0.84'
2.60 i 2.46 2.16 i 1.91
-1.405 -1.165
-0.6ZC -0.40
3.47
+ 3.47
-0.33
It is clear that teachers see the grading process as a way to motivate 124.5%) and evaluate (22.5%)students. Sianificantly, students also agree on these purposes hut rank them behind self-evaluation. One rather surprising result was that an important minority of both students and teachers sees laboratory grading as counterproductive and that teachers are more likely to view grading in a fatalistic or counterproductive way than students are. The data in Table 2 show the very wide range of faculty attitude todifferent methods. The averagevalue on the scale is 4. so numbers hieher than this reoresent eenerallv favorable opinions. he reader should h s o be cautioned that many of the proposals are essentially "tied"-small differences in rating should not be considered important. A detailed statistical analysis based on the t test ( p < 0.05) shows that a difference of about 0.6 or more is needed before one can conclude that the ratings are really different. Thus the middleof the table contains items tbat are all about the same in faculty preferences, hut there is a real difference between the middle items and the top items, and the middle items and the bottom items. There are also interestine internal contradictions that may represent ambiguities in the questionnaire or simply internal inconsistencies of thinkine bv the oarticioants. For example, faculty agreed that ther;shbuld be a cl'ar demarcation between teaching experience and testing periods, yet they also wanted continuous evaluation during the learning phase (grading every experiment). The variances are important because they give an objective measurement of the degree of agreement within the sample. Traditional ideas like grading notebooks, lab reports, and grading all experiments tend to have very low variance. imnlvine . " eeneral aereement amone the facultv sampled: Large variations are &sociated with I& ideas that are not as traditional (oractical exams. use of a final exneriment a s a test, systema;icobservation ofstudent technique). Some faculty agree with these idpas, but some do not.
--
060
Journal of Chemical Education
The student data summarized in Tahle 3 show some interesting differences from faculty. The students are generally unenthusiastic about eradine. eivine.. onlv- three . orooosals . even moderately goud rating;.'~he average student rating of all rhe orooosals is 0.78 lower than that by facultv. -.a statistically significant difference ( t = 2.91, p
