Literature Cited
DactorateRem&File,Commisrionon
HumanRamuaa.NstionalR48earchCounci1,
Washindon. DC.
1982.
A
Noncoercive, Menu-Driven Grading Scheme
Kenneth
S.
Suslick
University of Illinois, Urbana,
IL
61801
An unpleasant aspect of the traditional lecture course and
grading scheme is the coercion created by mandatory, rigidly
scheduled homework and examinations. The consequent lack
of control engenders anxiety and avoidance behavior in stu-
dents, which interferes with an effective learning process
(1-4). One response to this situation is the Keller
Plan
(5-13),
which provides a self-paced, individualized program without
deadlines or one-shot evaluations. Such aw~roaches have not,
approach to reducing the coercive aspects of the grading
proeess developed for
use
in both undergraduate and graduate
courses is described in this paper.
I have used a versatile point system for grade assignments
that allows students to choose the type of performance to he
evaluated. Table
1
presents the typical menu presented to the
students at the start of classes; this specific one has been used
in ow iunior-senior undermaduate inoreanic chemistrv course
however, significantly displacrd the traditional lecture-exam (enroliment
-50).
obvious variations oi'the menu rh'ires ran
structure (1.1,. Thr reasons ior this include inherent aradt: milk? this srhrmr avplicable tu both more and less xivanred
mflation (I1
J,
deteriorarion of sturlrnt-faculty inter&tim
(121,diminutionof student curiosity (12),and lnrkof i~hlertive
improvement in student performance (11). Another attempt
to remove evaluation traumas is creditlno-credit grading.
Multiple problems, however, preclude its widespread use: the
difficulties of outside transcript evaluation, loss of motivation,
and lack of teacher-to-student feedback (15).
A
different
Table
1.
Point System
Menu
Maximum
DBscrlolion Earnable Points'
1) Weekly Homework 15 each
2)
Critical Review
of
Literature Article lrecem
30
each
(limit
of
31
relevant article chosen
by
instructor):
500-1000
words
3) Term Paper (possible topics chosen
by
150
instructor); >2500 words. >20 references.
4) Mock
Research Prooosa
(hl
S
F
format.
150
POSS
ble toptcs
oy
negotlatnon,.
2000
2500
words
Bibliographic Projects
5) Citation
Search
of
assigned article
10
each
(limit
of
2)
6)
Author Search
of
assigned author
10
each
(limit
of
2)
71
Term Paper Bibliography
(full
citation including 30
(limit
of
1)
title
and
library call number; no patents or
theses: all papers
within
past 3 y): >30
citations
halPres~nfati0ns
8)
Class Presentation
on
Text
Material
(20
mi")
50
(limit
of
1)
9)
Anendance
of
Depammai Inorganic Seminar
5
each
(1-p. write-up on
why,
what, and how)
Examinations
10) Three
I-h
exams (each covering 113
of
100
each
(limn
of
3)
lectured material)
NO
hble
Wb.
Term
papets.
crnical
reviews.
etr..
must
be
on
separate
mpics.
To
receive
an
A.
~1
lead
120
pmts
mud
be
earned
before
me
second
exam.
All
work
must
be
received
rm
later
than
the
last
dsy
d
class.
level courses (it ha; been repeatedly used, for example, in a
graduate special topics course). The versatility of this
menu-driven grading scheme is clear. The student retains the
control of choice, timing, and level of effort, while the in-
structor controls the quality evaluation.
There are no specific options required from the menu and,
within a broad ranee. no snecific noint distribution mandated.
Students are initi& incredulo~~at this, since even the exams
themselves are optional. The beauty of menu-driven grading,
however, is that the vast majority of students still opt
to
take
exams and still studv to nerform well on them
of
their own
. .
choice as part of their coursework strategy. Similarly, exam
~erformance becomes onlv one
c or ti on
of the overall evalua-
tion of achievement. In one semester of the undergraduate
inorganic chemistry course, the observed distribution of effort
was'7.46 homework sets/&udent out of
11
(i.e.,
68%),
1.50
critical reviewslstudent, 0.33 term papers or research pro-
posalslstudent, 2.94 citation or author searcheslstudent, 0.94
bibliographieslstudent, 0.23 class presentationslstudent, 1.23
departmental seminar attendanceslstudent, and 2.90 hour
examslstudent.
With the menu-driven srhrmr, the instructor may mnintnin
very hixh standards without adversely nlfrcting class morale.
The followinr nolirv statrment. for exainolr. has hrrn usrd
to good effect:
'
-
The level of sophistication of presentation, term papers, etc., is
expected to increase as the semester progresses; grading criteria
will
also
become more sophisticated. Thus, early submission is
strongly encouraged. The criteria applied
to
any
one
piece
of
work
may well be tougher than you have previously encountered. This
is intentional and will be applied evenly to all.
The grading criteria can be quite stringent; on the average,
submitted material received only half of the maximum pos-
sible points allotted in the Table
1
menu. The distribution of
final grades is set by the instructor based on the total point
distributions. It is helpful, however, to set a point total that
willguarantee an A, while noting that totals below that level
may also receive A's dependingbn the class's performance.
With the point scheme shown in Table 1,400 points in a se-
mester is a verv hieh hut attainable eoal. In one semester of
.
..
a
juniorlienior undcrgraduatc inurganic course, for example,
19";
received
2
100
ouints. and in fact the lowest A had onlv
366 points; the
B
rkge w& 351-261; the
C
range was 242-208;
408
Journal of Chemical Education
