Physics students fight back against grade normalization
The "Instructions and Advice for TA's" document from the 1st year physics laboratory course at the University of Ottawa states that "...'teaching' is a two way street. The students must want to learn the material - and your only purpose must be to put no obstacle in their way." [Document]
Meanwhile, the University of Ottawa Senate, the highest authority on academic matters at the university, has resolved that grades, once communicated to students, must never be lowered in any way. The regulation also states that "... the use of [a statistical distribution] with a view to determining the assignment of marks is contrary to the principles of evaluation endorsed by Senate." [Senate resolution on grade normalization]
However, the reality in the first year Physics laboratory classroom is that Teaching Assistants (TAs) are instructed to keep their marks between 75% and 80%, and must mark according to this distribution or their students' grades will be normalized down or up to match it. [Rules and Procedures for TAs document]. Halfway through the winter 2010 semester, TA Joseph Hickey was informed that the marks in his sections were "much too high" and that he would have to mark harder to avoid normalization:
From: Helene Lacasse
Date: 2010/2/23
Subject: RE: Marks...marks...
To: Joseph Hickey
Merci pour tes notes.
Tes moyennes sont beaucoup trop hautes, je voudrais éviter de normaliser à la fin de la session.
Garde les aux alentours de 7.5 à 8.0
Je te retourne tes listes avec des notes du lab d’intro additionnelles.
Hélène Lacasse
First Year Lab Supervisor
Physics Department MCD205
University of Ottawa
These students risked having their grades normalized down and their scholarships put in jeopardy to stand for the evaluation they believed they deserved and were ultimately successful in pressuring the lab coordinator and the Dean of Science to ensure that a downward grade normalization did not occur. The following sequence of letters between students in the first year physics lab, their TA, the lab supervisor Hélène Lacasse, and the Dean of Science André E. Lalonde illustrates how the dispute played out.
- Joseph Hickey to Hélène Lacasse, March 13, 2010
- Student #1 to Hélène Lacasse, March 18, 2010
- Student #2 to Hélène Lacasse, March 18, 2010
- Joseph Hickey to Hélène Lacasse, March 22, 2010
- Student #3 to Hélène Lacasse, March 25, 2010
- Joseph Hickey to Dean Lalonde March 27, 2010
- Student #2 to Dean Lalonde, March 31, 2010
- Student #4 to Dean Lalonde, April 2, 2010
- Joseph Hickey to Dean Lalonde, April 5, 2010
- Dean Lalonde to Joseph Hickey, April 6, 2010
- Joseph Hickey to Dean Lalonde, April 6, 2010
- Student #5 to Dean Lalonde, April 7, 2010
- Joseph Hickey to Hélène Lacasse, April 21, 2010
- Hélène Lacasse to Joseph Hickey, April 22, 2010
- Joseph Hickey to Dean Lalonde, May 8, 2010
From: Joseph Hickey
Date: Sat, Mar 13, 2010
Subject: Marking
To: Helene Lacasse
Cc: Students
Hi Hélène,
I spoke with the students in one of my lab sections about your instructions for me to mark harder so that the averages of the lab reports fall into the 75% to 80% range. I told them that if I do not change the marking style, then you will normalize the grades at the end of the semester. The students were upset about this, and did not want me to change my marking style. They also told me that they do not think it is fair for them to have their marks normalized.
I also think it is unfair to change my marking style after half of the lab reports have already been marked and returned. I do not want to diminish the quality of learning in my lab sections by making the students unlearn what they have already learned with respect to performing experiments and writing their reports. I fear that the additional stress the students will experience in adapting to a new marking style at this time will detract from their learning in the remaining experiments that we have together. Such a change would be an unnecessary obstacle, while the "Instructions and advice for T.A.'s" document that you gave the teaching assistants at the beginning of the semester says that "your only purpose must be to put no obstacle in [the students'] way".
I have looked at the uOttawa Senate policy on grade normalization (attached), and it seems to me that it is against university policy to normalize grades after they have already been given back to the students (point 3). The regulation also says that "the use of distributions with a view to determining the assignment of marks is contrary to the principles endorsed by Senate" (point 2). As I understand it, this means that specifying an a priori average of 75% to 80% for lab report marks is not allowed by the Senate.
Could you please let me know if my interpretation of this policy is wrong?
I hope that we can resolve this situation in the best interest of the students.
I've put the students in cc to this e-mail because I let them know that I would inform you of their concerns.
Sincerely,
Joseph
From: Student #1 Date: March 18, 2010
To: Physics lab supervisor Helene Lacasse
Cc: Students
Hi Helene,
I am writing to you with regards to the news of potential normalization of marks at the end of the semester due to the unusually high average within my lab group (G6-E3). Although I understand the purpose behind normalizing marks between lab groups, I do not believe that this difference in average is due to the marking of our TA, Joseph Hickey.
My lab marks for this semester have been very much the same as my lab marks from last semester in PHY 1321, despite the group average being significantly lower last semester than in my current group. My lab marks in both courses have been over 90% and I do put a lot of work to earn those grades. I don`t believe that this difference could solely be attributed to difference in marking between my current TA (Joseph Hickey) and my TA from last semester (Guylain Greer).
Also, I have noticed an unusual make-up of students with my lab group: more than half of the students in the group are students 2nd year and over. Many of them, myself included, are taking this course as a prerequisite for medical school, and as such, we are inclined to exert all effort in order to earn an A+ mark. I do not feel that the high average within my group is due to the marking of the TA, but in fact is indicative of the effort we put forth.
I ask you not to normalize the lab marks as arbitrarily lowering our lab average will negate much of the effort we have put into our lab work in the previous lab experiments.
Sincerely,
Student #1
From: Student #2
Date: March 18, 2010
To: Physics lab supervisor Helene Lacasse
Cc: Students
Hello Helen,
My name is [ ], I hold a Master's degree in computer science and I am enrolled in PHY 1322 as it is one of a few prerequisite courses that I need completed before beginning dental school in the fall of 2010. I am in the lab group G6E-3 and my TA Joseph Hickey informed us yesterday of the decision to lower our marks to be in line with another groups average of 75-80%. I am writing this email to contest this decision.
As a former graduate student, I have been frustrated with the way the labs have been managed since last semester. All of the students are racing to finish the measurments and calculations (to the correct significance!) and there is absolutely no room to sit back and digest the experiment, what it means and what the concepts learned were. I have been in different lab groups and I find this common with all TAs. When time runs out the students are stressed and seek the TAs help for answers to the lab questions that need to be answered. To top all of my disatisfaction came the decision yesterday that was an absolute shock. Here are a few reasons why I believe this decision should be reversed:
1) I have TAed myself 3 courses at various undergraduate levels and was part of the society for graduate students. The idea that the average mark should fit a certain standard is absolutely appauling, unethical and unprofessional. The TA should follow an accurate marking scheme that would allow for consistency within groups. If this marking scheme is not detailed enough (which I have seen for this lab) and provides room for the subjective experience of the TA then the marking scheme itself should be altered and NOT the student marks.
2) From my understanding of what Dr Czajkowski has been mentioning since last semester, the Labs are there as easy marks for students who are struggling with the course. When Joseph informed us of the decision, I saw frustration in the eyes of all my colleagues in the lab.
3) Last semester in PHY 1321, our TA Serge LeBlanc gave very similar marks to Jospeh and the lab average was very similar (about 85%).
I personally need to maintain passing grades for all the courses I am enrolled in, but I am still frustrated as I think that changing the student marks to meet a certain average (rather than reflect quality of feedback) is an unethical and unprofessional decision.
Thank you,
Student #2
From: Joseph Hickey
Date: Mon, Mar 22, 2010
Subject: Re: Marking
To: Helene Lacasse
Cc: Students
Hi Hélène,
We spoke briefly on Friday about the lab report marks in the first-year lab groups that I T.A. You mentioned that you had told the students who had contacted you to keep their marked lab reports that had been returned to them by me until the end of the course, because you might look at them again and change the marks. You also mentioned that since the averages to date are below 90%, the marks probably will not need to be normalized. I think it would be important for the students to have a clear picture of what will happen before the semester ends and many of them have to leave for the summer.
I asked you before about the Senate policy on normalization (e-mail below). As far as I can tell, the marks should not be normalized down, according to Senate. Can you please let me know if this interpretation of the policy is incorrect?
The students in all of the lab groups have asked me to continue with my current marking method, and have expressed dissatisfaction with the prospect of having their grades normalized. Can you please confirm that the students' grades will not be normalized at the end of the semester?
Sincerely,
Joseph
From: Student #3
Date: March 25, 2010
To: Physics lab supervisor Helene Lacasse
Cc: Students
Hi Helene:
My name is [ ], a student currently enrolled in G6-E3 lab section for PHY1322.I heard from our TA, Joseph Hickey, that the
section averages are going to be normalized to a final average betwe en75%-80%. I would like to take a minute a talk to you about that.
I fully understand that there are discrepancies in terms of lab section averages. It is indeed not fair if one section has a higher final average than another section. Equality and consistancy of marking, however, should not be achieved in my opinion by normalization. Rather, I think it should be done by raising the averages of other sections if necessary. It is not fair to the students in our section that they will achieve a lower grade simply because other sections have lower averages. I do not believe that, had I been in a different section, my mark currently would be lower.
I wish you take this email into consideration regarding the grading of PHY1322 lab.
Best regards,
Student #3
B.Sc Honours in Biomedical Sciences'12, University of Ottawa
A.R.C.T Piano Performer With Distinction, Royal Conservatory of Music
From: Joseph Hickey
Date: Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 2:26 PM
Subject: Marking, 1st year Physics Lab
To: Andre E. Lalonde ( Dean, Science )
Cc: Students, Physics lab supervisor Helene Lacasse
I am currently working as a Teaching Assistant in the 1st year physics laboratory in MacDonald Hall. As a part of this job, I assist the students of three lab groups with their experiments and mark their lab reports. Half way through the semester, my supervisor, Hélène Lacasse, told me to begin marking harder so that the averages of each group's lab report marks fell to within the 75% to 80% range, or if I did not mark in this way, the students' marks would be normalized at the end of the semester. The students in each of my lab groups were upset with the idea of having a significant change made in the marking method that they had become accustomed to over the semester, and asked me to continue with the current method. They also expressed dissatisfaction with the prospect of having their marks normalized down after they had already received them.
According to Resolution E-82-83.64 of the Executive Committee of the University of Ottawa Senate, Appendix I: Normalization of Grades, the Senate has resolved:
2) that although Senate acknowledges that the mark distribution in a course might fortuitously correspond to a particular statistical distribution (e.g. a normal distribution), Senate instructs faculties that the use of such distributions with a view to determining the assignment of marks is contrary to the principles of evaluation endorsed by Senate;
3) that, when a faculty deems that the assignment of marks in one or several courses is not in accordance with the official grading system of the University or with the faculty guidelines for its implementation, the faculty be allowed to make appropriate corrections - including the use of a particular statistical distribution - it being understood, however, that no correction will result in the lowering of a mark previously communicated to a student.
To me, this means that the average mark in a group of lab reports can not be determined beforehand. It also means that once the marked reports have been communicated to the students, it would be against Senate policy to normalize the marks down. I have asked my supervisor to correct any misinterpretation of this policy that I may have, but I have not yet received a reply. (My communications to my supervisor are attached at the end of this e-mail).
A student in one of my lab groups has told me that her father has contacted Jean-Yves Leduc, who is in charge of labour relations at the University. Mr. Leduc has since relayed back the message that he has spoken with you and that you have confirmed that normalizing the marks down would be incorrect, and that you will fix this situation by ensuring that the students' marks do not get normalized.
Please let the students and I know what you are doing to resolve this problem in the best interest of the students. I trust that you will act promptly to ensure that the principles of Senate are upheld in the 1st year physics lab, for lab groups G7-F1, G5-F2, and G6-E3.
All the individuals and associations concerned with this matter of altering students' grades are in cc.
Sincerely,
Joseph Hickey
Teaching Assistant, 1st year Physics Laboratory Course
Graduate student representative-elect to Senate, Science & Engineering section
From: Student #2
Date: March 31, 2010
To: Dean of Science André E. Lalonde
Cc: Physics laboratory supervisor Helene Lacasse, Students
Dear Dean Lalonde,
I am a student in Joseph Hickey's lab with a Master's degree in Computer Science from Queen's University. I am writing this email to affirm our extreme dissatisfaction with the decision to normalize our grades so that it may fit a specific range. At Queen's University, I was active in the graduate student society as well as the School of Computing. From my own TA experience, it was very well known to me as well as other graduate students that the process of normalizing marks usually takes place due to a large TA pool and a poor marking scheme and marking structure. From my experience, the process of normalizing was not tolerated in our department and most course instructors focused on trying to reduce variability in TA marking through rigorous training and a detailed marking scheme that leaves little room for variance.
Indeed in our labs i have noticed a poor marking scheme, for example section of the results or a table or graph are assigned a certain mark out of the total mark, however, I do not believe the TAs are given enough specific instructions on exactly what to award or deduct marks for (table format, labels..etc). The decision taken by Helene Lacasse not only goes against the senate policy as Joseph has mentioned earlier, but it also gives students an indication that the lab organizers are willing to compromise on student grades inorder to solve this problem (which i believe is common) quickly.
Once again, I restate my opinion that there are definitely other ways to not compromise the student grades as well as solving the problem of variability permanently. The marking scheme is definitely a start and infact for a physics lab where students need to follow an appropriate scientific method (as opposed to an essay lets say), I believe this problem can be easily dealt with.
Thank you for your concern and I hope that the efforts of Joseph as well as myself and my lab mates could help in solving this for our lab as well as future labs,
Student #2
MSc Computer Science 07,
BcmpH Biomedical Computing 05,
Queen's University
From: Student #4
Date: April 2, 2010
Subject: Marking, 1st year physics lab - additional comment
To: Dean of Science, Andre E. Lalonde
Cc: Physics laboratory supervisor Helene Lacasse, Students
Dear Dean Lalonde,
My name is [ ] and I am a second year student in Joseph Hickey's Physics lab group. This email is in regards to the university's possible normalization of the marks in our lab section. I received the Undergraduate Research Scholarship in 2008-2009, the maximum entrance scholarship, and I am heavily involved with iGEM uOttawa, a synthetic biology club which competes at MIT every year.
I strongly believe that the mark 'problem' in our lab group is a fabricated discussion. I conducted an impromptu survey last lab, and more than half the students in our section are from second year or above, as opposed to first year. Second year students will, on average, obtain better marks, due to the extra year of practicing writing lab reports, receiving feedback, and honing their efficiency and study skills. They do not deserve first-year marks. Furthermore, I know that our lab group is filled with many exceptionally high-achieving students, who are in this lab group because the Thursday evening time slot is the only one which fits with their rigorous program's course list.
The university's blind policy of mark normalization is unfair and fails to create an intellectually honest atmosphere. If the university really believes that Joseph's lab section has obtained unfairly high marks, it should conduct a scientific investigation which takes into account the following: a) the number of first years in our lab section versus all others, b) the caliber of students in our lab section, which I believe to be above average, and c) whether the marking scheme has been followed correctly. A blind normalization fails to take into consideration any of these factors. For a university who claims to be scientifically reputable, this is shameful.
As Joseph and the other students mentioned, mark normalization will violate the senate policy and only serves to highlight the poor marking scheme for first-year physics labs; it is a non-solution. However, I strongly believe that the real focus of this discussion should be whether mark normalization is an honest undertaking which befits a strong research university. I believe that the mark normalization would not be intellectually honest, as it would neglect the medley of individual factors in our lab group which are likely responsible for the abnormally high marks. If the university really believes the marks in Joseph's lab section are a problem, then as I have stated before, it should conduct a scientific and rigorous investigation into these factors. Only then will it be able to reach a decision.
Regards,
Student #4
BSc Biology
uOttawa
From: Joseph Hickey
Date: April 5, 2010
Subject: Marking, 1st year Physics Lab
To: Dean of Science Andre E. Lalonde
Cc: Physics laboratory supervisor Helene Lacasse, Students
Dear Dean Lalonde,
I wrote to you on March 27, requesting that you inform myself and the students in my TA lab groups of what you are doing to resolve the problem of mark normalization in our lab groups.
Several students have also expressed their concerns to you, including the following e-mail letters from two students (attached at the end of this e-mail). I think it is important that the students receive a response. The Dean's Office's administrative silence in this matter is not helpful.
Please let us know what you are doing to ensure that the Senate policy on normalization is upheld and the intellectual honesty of the physics lab is maintained. The last laboratory sessions are now over, and exams are beginning next week. It is important for the students to know that their marks will not be altered before going into the stresses of the exam period.
Would it be more convenient for you if we meet quickly in person about this matter? Should I come by your office this week?
Sincerely,
Joseph Hickey
Teaching Assistant, 1st year Physics Laboratory Course
Graduate student representative-elect to Senate, Science & Engineering section
[Letters from Student #3 and Student #4 attached]
From: Andre E. Lalonde (Dean, Science)
Date: Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: Marking, 1st year Physics Lab
To: Joseph Hickey
Dear Mr Hickey,
I thank you for bringing this situation to my attention. I am looking into the matter now.
Sincerely,
André E. Lalonde
Dean
Faculty of Science
University of Ottawa
From: Joseph Hickey
Date: Tue, Apr 6, 2010
Subject: Re: Marking, 1st year Physics Lab
To: Andre E. Lalonde ( Dean, Science )
Cc: Students, Physics laboratory supervisor Helene Lacasse, Graduate Student Association Executive, Teaching Assistant Union, Student Appeals Centre, Student Federation Executive
Dear Dr. Lalonde,
Thank you for your commitment to give this important matter your personal attention.
Please indicate to the students and I when we can expect to receive an answer from your office about the threat of grade renormalization.
Can we meet quickly this week to discuss the time frame? I would come by with my union and/or association representatives. Please respond to the request for a meeting by Wednesday at noon to allow scheduling.
Thank you,
Joseph Hickey
Teaching Assistant, 1st year Physics Laboratory Course
Graduate student representative-elect to Senate, Science & Engineering section
From: Student #5
Date: April 7, 2010
Subject: Normalisation des notes dans les laboratoires de physique
To: Dean of Science Andre E. Lalonde
Cc: Physics laboratory supervisor Helene Lacasse, Students
Bonjour monsieur Lalonde,
Je suis un étudiant de première année, et j'ai écrit mes rapports de laboratoire du cours PHY1522 de la présente session dans le groupe de Joseph Hickey. Lors du cinquième laboratoire, nous avons été informés que nos notes pourraient être normalisées, car notre groupe a obtenu des notes supérieures à la moyenne de tous les groupes. Cette nouvelle m'a étonné, pour plusieurs raisons.
Tout d'abord, nos rapports ont été strictement corrigés selon le barème établi sur les feuilles de laboratoire. Nous avons donc rédigé nos rapports en fonction de cette correction. Je pense mériter les points obtenus, car les informations manquantes sur mes rapports ont été clairement indiquées par des commentaires, tout comme j'ai obtenu des points uniquement pour ce qui était demandé, sans plus. Ensuite, les politiques de l'université permettent modifier à la hausse les notes si le professeur le juge nécessaire, mais en aucun cas les résultats ne peuvent être baissés. La normalisation vers le bas de nos notes serait donc une violation claire à cette politique du sénat. Les professeurs ont-ils un pouvoir discrétionnaire permettant de casser les décisions du plus haut organe décisionnel de l'université? De plus, baisser les notes envoie un message ambigu aux étudiants. Cela signifie que peu importe la qualité du travail, si la moyenne d'autres groupes est plus basse, la valeur du travail sera moindre. Comment est-ce possible? Finalement, je questionne la méthode utilisée pour <<normaliser>>. Déplacer la moyenne d'un groupe vers la moyenne des autres groupes, ou toute autre note arbitraire, est très discutable mathématiquement. Il n'y a aucune base théorique à la méthode qui nous a été communiquée, qui est de multiplier notre note par une fraction arbitraire. La courbe normale ne serait pas respectée dans notre groupe, et la courbe normale de la distribution des moyennes des groupes non plus.
Bref, monsieur Lalonde, je souhaite que vous examiniez ce dossier attentivement pour que moi et mes collègues sachions ce qui adviendra de la valeur de nos travaux, et ce à quoi nous devons nous attendre dans le futur. Je vous prie d'agréer, Monsieur, l'expression de mes sentiments distingués.
Student #5,
Étudiant de première année en génie mécanique
Représentant des étudiants de première année en génie auprès de AÉG/ESS
From: Joseph Hickey
Sent: April 21, 2010
To: Helene Lacasse
Subject: Re: Marks...marks
Hi Hélène,
I just want to make sure that the marks from my sections were not normalized. Can you confirm that?
Then I can let the students know.
thanks,
Joseph
From: Helene Lacasse
Date: Thu, Apr 22, 2010
Subject: RE: Marks...marks
To: Joseph Hickey
The marks from your section were not normalized; by the way you have the highest average.
Hélène Lacasse,
First Year Lab Supervisor
Physics Department MCD205
University of Ottawa
From: Joseph Hickey
Date: Sat, May 8, 2010
Subject: Re: Marking, 1st year Physics Lab
To: Andre E. Lalonde ( Dean, Science )
Dear Dean Lalonde,
On April 6, you wrote to me informing me that you were looking into the matter of mark normalization in the 1st-Year Physics Lab groups that I TA'd.
I want to thank you for making sure that the Senate policy on normalization was upheld, and that the students' marks, averaging above 85%, were not normalized down to match the pre-determined average of 75-80% !
I also want to take this opportunity to propose that we make a joint presentation to the Senate next year regarding the implementation of the Senate policy on normalization in the first year science labs. I understand, from conversations with students in my lab groups, that there have also been some problems with downward normalization of marks in the lab courses in departments other than physics.
Our presentation could be used, for example, to initiate a campus-wide investigation into the effective and just application of the Senate policy on normalization (Resolution E-82-83.64, part 3), the outcomes of which could lead to a more harmonious student experience, where the stress and worry over arbitrary lowering of marks and loss of scholarship income are replaced by the healthy peace of mind necessary for authentic creative learning.
Thank you once again for ensuring that these first-year physics students did not have their marks lowered after already having received them. I enjoy and look forward to continuing my work under these positive and pro-student-education conditions.
Sincerely,
Joseph Hickey
Graduate student Senator-elect, Sciences & Engineering section
