Grading in the Undergraduate Chemistry Laboratory A recent article' discusses grading in the undergraduate chemistry laboratory. I would like to present an approach, together with the rationale, which we have used successfully for many years, particularly since it differs drastically from the one advanced. In the previous article,' product yield and sample purity appear t o he the principal criteria (75%). In contrast, our apportionment is as follows: 1)Technique (35%),including 10 points for product; 2) Knowledge of chemistry and procedures (30%);3) Notebook (25%);4) Miscellaneous (10%). Our emphasis on product yield and purity is indirect, thereby eliminating a number of nagging problems: scaleup, falsification of data, submitting products obtained outside the laboratory, and time involved in verification of data by the instructors. By placing an appreciable weight on "knowledge", the common misconception is likely to he avoided that the laboratory is primarily a "hand9'or "cookbook" operation. This portion of the grade is based not only on quiz data, but also an performance resulting from discussions with the instructor. Concerning the notebook, I view it as the neglected waif of the laboratory scene, too often treated in a perfunctory manner. Advance preparation covers title, objective, equation, and constants. Keeping a complete, detailed account of procedure and observations is stressed. The students are encouraeed to make mod use of their senses. The imoortance of both the qualitative and r l ~ ~ . ~ n t ~ t .nms ~v )r e ( . t ~ i i ~ ~ r ~ ~ p hThe a i i l vxpwimmr ed. i: wr:qqwd ilp 11). a i m d u w , n . \\'ithit> rhti c.,mmt.n srnw frnm~work. 4udrnt latitude :- mcournqrd. Another po.nt ~Iilev~nt.un rhrn is the aduitw , in rhr orher nppnnrh, of the nurehook and erilmin.ition grades unlv nr the end 111the spmr~tcr,w h h~ furlher wrves t o d ~ ~ u n g r arhrw d r nspwti ~~
~
In addition, time is spent a t the beginning of the semester in a discussion of the pedagogical approach, objectives, keeping a notebook, as well as other features, including safety. Teaching assistants keep a detailed record and hence are able to provide, a t anv time,. an aooraisal of student oerformanee. Also, the faculty holds weekly meetings with the teaching as.. . supervisor . sistaits. With a laboratarv involvine increased emnhasis on knowledee and notebook. the student obtains a more accurate oicture uf rhe way sclmcr artwall) upcrate. I t ir rea.;~muh.e11131 il degree (11 t l ~ u h i h t ynnd erperlm~ntalitmIre a d q ~ t c dronrermng xrodiny. Hurv one crpcratp. i i influenced hy a variely t l i factor,. .All three portwi invchtd have generally Iwtn quite .aridwd w l h thli methud ot':radtng. 'Rondini. J. A., and Feighan, J. A,, J. CHEM. EDUC., 55, 182, (1978). University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Milwaukee, 53201
Peter Kovaeic
Volume 55, Number 12, December 1978 1 791
