IN FO R M A TIO N TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part o f the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections w ith a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The m ajority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE received. N O TE : Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeob Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 I I I I 75-14,855 VTVTO, Frank Michael, Jr., 1945AN INVESTIGATION OF THE CREDIT-NO CREDIT GRADING OPTION USED BY UNDERGRADUATES AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1974 Education, higher Xerox University Microfilms, Ann A rbor, M ichig an 48106 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE CREDIT-NO CREDIT GRADING OPTION USED BY UNDERGRADUATES AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY By Frank M. V i v i o , J r . A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f the requirements f o r the degree o f DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department o f Higher Education AN INVESTIGATION OF THE CREDIT-NO CREDIT GRADING OPTION USED BY UNDERGRADUATES AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY By Frank M. V iv lo , J r. The purpose o f t h is study was to In v e s tig a te the use o f the Credit-No C red it grading option o ffered to undergraduates a t Michigan S tate U n iv e rs ity . The examination consisted o f two phases. In the f i r s t phase, the e n t ir e undergraduate population o f Cred1t-No C red it Users during F a ll Terms, 1968 to 1973 were c la s s ifie d according to c la s s , sex, m a rital status and grade point average. Ten undergraduate classes were selected and majors o f students w ith in these classes were c la s s if ie d according to frequency of Credit-No C re d it enrollm ent. The second phase of the study included a survey o f C r e d itNo C re d it Users and a re p res en tative sample o f undergraduates who did not choose the option. In an a n c il l a r y p a rt o f the study, teaching f a c u lt y members a t Michigan State were interviewed and responses were compared to the student responses. In the student survey, Users and Non-Users o f the option were compared on e ig h t common questionnaire items. The s t a t i s t i c a l analysis o f the questionnaire was conducted using Chi-Square A nalysis, M u lt iv a r ia t e Analysis o f Variance and Scheffe' Post-Hoc Contrasts. Frank M. V iv io , J r. Findings The re s u lts o f the i n i t i a l phase o f the examination r e ­ vealed th a t the percentage o f Credit-No C re d it Users varied between 1.3 and 3 .6 percent o f the undergraduate population. Seniors were the predominant users o f the o p tio n , followed by Ju n io rs, Sophomores, and Freshmen, The mean grade p o in t average among Credit-No C re d it Users was c o n s is te n tly higher than the mean average f o r Non-Users in each c la s s , except f o r Freshmen. Grade p o in t average le v e ls f o r Jun­ io rs and Seniors who used the option were c o n s is te n tly above a 3 .0 0 , on a fo u r p o in t scale. In the ten classes selected f o r examination, majors o f stu ­ dents taking the class on a Credit-No C re d it basis were categorized according to "Within College" and "Outside College" o f declared major. The re s u lts showed t h a t only small percentages o f students take courses on th is ba^is w ith in the College o f t h e i r m ajor, although many students used the option to s a t is f y "Outside College" requirements. S ig n if ic a n t d iffe re n c e s between Credit-No C re d it Users and Non-Users were found on s ix o f the e ig h t common questionnaire items. Credit-No C r e d it Users as compared to Non-Users expressed: 1. less agreement w ith the statement t h a t grades stim u late students to study; 2. more agreement w ith the statement o f planning to attend a graduate or professional school; 3. more agreement w ith the statement t h a t i f U n iv e rs ity College courses could be taken on a Credit-N o C re d it b as is , they would have been; 4. more agreement w ith the statement extending the decision to take a class on e i t h e r a graded or Credit-No C re d it basis; Frank M. V iv io , J r . 5. less disagreement w ith the statement o f being able to take as many courses as desired on a Credit-No C re d it basis; 6. less disagreement w ith the statement o f lowering the minimum requirements f o r c r e d it from a 2 .0 to a 1 .0 . The reasons f o r s ig n if ic a n t d iffe re n c e s may not have been due to the f a c t th a t courses were or were not taken on a Credit-No C re d it basis, but because the population o f Users d if f e r e d from the general popula­ tio n o f undergraduates as defined in the i n i t i a l phase o f the study. In order to in v e s tig a te the sources o f d iffe re n c e s between the groups, M u lt iv a r ia t e and U n iv a ria te F te s ts were used with Scheffe' Post-Hoc Contrasts. S ig n if ic a n t d iffe re n c e s were found be­ tween Freshmen and Seniors and Freshmen and Sophomores on the item concerning grades providing a stimulus to study. S ig n ific a n t d i f f e r ­ ences were found between Freshmen and Seniors on the item measuring plans f o r graduate school attendance and between Freshmen and Juniors on the item concerned w ith graduate school admissions o f f i c e r s ' a t t i ­ tudes toward Credit-No C re d it Users. Grade p o in t average categories were compared according to responses on the eig h t common questionnaire items. S ig n if ic a n t d i f ­ ferences were found between the middle and high groups on the item concerning plans to attend a graduate or professional school a f t e r graduation. On the item s ta tin g th a t students should be able to take as many courses as they wish using the o p tio n , s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe re n c e s were found between the lowest and highest and the middle and highest ca teg o ries . S ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s were found between middle and high grade p oint categories on the item concerned w ith s a t is fa c tio n w ith grading p ra c tic e s . Frank M. V iv io , J r . F ac u lty a t Michigan S ta te expressed a more p o s it iv e a t t i ­ tude toward the use o f grades as a s tim u la tio n to study than Users and Non-Users o f the o p tio n . A more negative a t t i t u d e was expressed by f a c u l t y as compared to students toward extending the number o f courses th a t could be taken on a C red it-N o C r e d it basi$. Conclusions The C red it-N o C r e d it system seems a v ia b le o ption f o r under­ graduates. The fo llo w in g a l t e r a t i o n s are suggested: 1. The option should be o ffe re d p r im a r ily to Juniors and Seniors; 2. A redu ctio n o f the maximum number o f c r e d its t h a t can be taken on the grading option basis should be considered; 3. Undergraduate advisors should be made aware o f re servatlonp expressed by graduate school admittance personnel concerning th is issue. They should r e la y t h is inform a­ tio n to advisees; 4. Students should have the option o f repeatin g a course on a re g u la r basis a f t e r taking the course on a C redit-N o C r e d it b as is ; 5. I f a student d e s ir e s , he should be able to re c e iv e the grade he earned in th e C red it-N o C re d it cla ss ; 6. P re re q u is ite s f o r courses taken on a CR-NC basis should be waived i f agreement can be reached between the i n d i ­ vid ual student and the department o f fe r in g the course. The C red it-N o C r e d it grading option is not w id e ly used. I f s lig h t changes were made in th e tw o -p o in t grading system, the Credit-N o C r e d it option may be a more a t t r a c t i v e grading a l t e r n a t i v e . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would l i k e to express my ap p reciation to the f a c u lty mem­ bers who served on my doctoral Committee. I express my ap preciation to Dr. W illiam Sweetland, Chairman o f the Committee, who guided my program and assisted me in numerous ways from the onset o f my doc­ to ra l study. I would l i k e to thank Dr. Arvo Juola, D is s e rta tio n Di­ r e c t o r , who provided the opportunity to work w ith him and other mem­ bers o f the O ffic e o f Evaluation Services, and who provided d ir e c tio n and appreciated assistance throughout the w r itin g of th is d is s e rta ­ t io n . Appreciation is expressed to Dr. Richard Featherstone, Dr. George F erree, and Dr. A lla n Grimes, who helped me throughout the program. Appreciation is expressed to Dr. Charles E b erly, Dr. Leroy Olson, and Dr. I r v i n Lehmann, from the O ffic e o f Evaluation Services, f o r assistance and suggestions f o r t h is d is s e r ta tio n . I would l i k e to thank Mr. Ward Haskins fo r the technical assistance provided. The O ffic e o f Research Consultation was helpfu l in the design o f the an­ a ly s is . I express my deep ap p reciation to my w if e , P a tty , whose sup­ p o rt was provided to me throughout the program. Without her constant encouragement, doctoral study would not have been possible. ii I would l i k e to thank niy Father and Mother, who, from the onset o f my academic ca re e r, encouraged and helped me in every way possible. * 4 1 ill TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................... vi LIST OF F IG U R E S ................................................................................................... x Chapter I. II. III. IV . STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM, LIMITATIONS, DEFINITION OF TERMS, OVERVIEW ............................................................................. 1 In trod uctio n ...................................................................................... Statement o f the Problem ............................................................ H y p o t h e s e s ...................................................................................... Importance o f the S t u d y ............................................................. L i m i t a t i o n s ................................................................ The Michigan S tate U n iv e rs ity Credit-No C redit Grading Option ......................................................................... D e f in it io n o f T e rm s ..................................................................... Organization o f the D is s e rta tio n ....................................... 17 19 20 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE................................................................. 21 Introd uctio n ...................................................................................... Student Achievement Using The Innovative Option . . . . E ffec ts o f Taking Courses on a Pass-Fail Basis . . . . Summary................................................................................................... 21 22 28 30 DESIGN OF THE STUDY 1 2 10 13 15 ......................................................................... 32 P art I ................................................................................................... P art I I ................................................................................................... D e fin it io n o f T e r m s ..................................................................... Sampling Design .............................................................................. 33 37 39 39 PRESENTATION OF F IN D IN G S ................................................................. 46 P art I ................................................................................................... Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 2 .................................................................................. Hypothesis 3 .................................................................................. Hypothesis 4 .................................................................................. 46 46 50 51 56 iv Chapter Page P a rt I I ................................................................................................... 72 72 Questionnaire Percent Frequency Counts .......................... Hypothesis 5 .................................................................................. 78 Hypothesis 6 . .............................................................................. 92 Hypothesis 7 ....................................................................................... 102 Hypothesis 8 ....................................................................................... 107 Hypothesis 9 ....................................................................................... 108 V. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 109 O v e r v i e w .................................................................................................... 109 Discussion o f Findings ................................................................. 110 Summary, Im plications and Recommendations .......................... 120 Summary.................................................................................................... 120 .................................................................................. 123 Im plications Recommendations .............................................................................. 124 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................... 127 APPENDICES..................................................................................................................... 132 APPENDIX A. Student Questionnaires ........................... APPENDIX B. Cover L e tte rs APPENDIX C. Cover L e t te r fo r Follow U p ............................... 137 APPENDIX D. Faculty Questionnaire ......................................................... 138 APPENDIX E. Faculty Comments .................................................................. 139 APPENDIX F. Student Comments .................................................................. 141 ...................................................................... v 132 135 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Page Mean grade submitted f o r c o lle g e freshmen taking a l l courses on a p a s s -fa il basis ........................................................ 23 Mean grade submitted f o r students taking one course on a p a s s - fa il basis vs. students taking a l l course work ....................................................................................... tra d itio n a lly 24 Grade p o in t average in p a s s - fa il courses and 1n whole class by c l a s s ...................................................................................... 25 Percentage o f CR-NC users in t o ta l undergraduate p o p u l a t i o n ............................................................................................... 49 5. Number and percentage o f CR-NC users by class by ye ar . . 50 6. Percentage o f CR-NC users in grade point average ca te­ g o rie s , mean grade p o in t average o f CR-NC users, a l l - u n i v e r s i t y grade p o in t average . . . . . ...................... 52 Percentage of CR-NC users in grade point average c a te ­ g o rie s , mean grade p o in t average o f CR-NC users, class grade p o in t average: Freshmen ........................................ 52 Percentage of CR-NC users in grade p o in t average c a te ­ g o rie s , mean grade point average o f CR-NC users, class grade p o in t average: Sophomores .................................... 53 Percentage of CR-NC users in grade point average c a te ­ g o rie s , mean grade point average o f CR-NC users, class grade p o in t average: Juniors ........................................ 54 Percentage o f CR-NC users 1n grade point average c a te ­ g o rie s , mean grade p o in t average o f CR-NC users, class grade point average: Seniors ........................................ 54 Declared majors o f undergraduates taking course on a CR-NC basis in s ix f a l l terms: In tro d u c to ry Physics . . 57 Percentage o f students taking course w ith in and outside co lle g e o f declared major: Introd uctory Physics . . . . 57 2. 3. 4. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 11a. vi Table 12. 12a. 13. 13a. 14. 14a. 15. 15a. Page Declared majors o f undergraduates taking course on a CR-NC basis 1n s ix f a l l terms: In tro d u c tio n to Econom ics......................................................................... 58 Percentage of students taking course w ith in and outside college o f declared major: In tro d u c tio n to Economics............................................................................................... 59 Declared majors o f undergraduates taking course on a CR-NC basis in six f a l l terms: H isto ry o f Western A r t ............................................................................................................ 60 Percentage o f students taking course w ith in and outside c o lle g e o f declared major: H isto ry o f Western A rt . . 61 Declared majors o f undergraduates taking course on a CR-NC basis in six f a l l terms: Psychology o f P e r s o n a l i t y ........................................................................................... 62 Percentage o f students taking course w ith in and outside college o f declared major: Psychology o f ................................................... P e rso n ality 62 Declared majors o f undergraduates taking course on a CR-NC basis in six f a l l terms: In d iv id u a l Sports . . . 64 Percentage o f students taking course w ith in and outside co lleg e o f declared major: In d iv id u a l Sports .................. 65 16. Declared majors o f undergraduates taking course on a CR-NC basis in s ix f a l l terms: Survey o f Accounting T e c h n i q u e s ................................................................................ 66 16a. Percentage o f students taking course w ith in and outside co lleg e o f declared major: Survey o f Accounting 66 T e c h n i q u e s ................................................................................ 17. Declared majors o f undergraduates taking course on a CR-NC basis in s ix f a l l terms: General Anatomy. . . . 67 Percentage o f students taking course w ith in and outside co lleg e o f declared major: General Anatomy ...................... 67 Declared majors o f undergraduates taking course on a CR-NC basis in six f a l l terms: College Algebra and Trigonometry ...................................................................................... 68 17a. 18. v ii Table 18a. 19. 19a. 20. 20a. Page Percentage o f students taking course w ith in and outside c o lle g e o f declared major: College Algebra and Trigonometry .......................................................................................... 68 Declared majors o f undergraduates taking course on a CR-NC basis in s ix f a l l terms: Elementary Russian . . . 69 Percentage o f students taking course w ith in and outside c o lle g e of declared major: Elementary Russian ................. 69 Declared majors o f undergraduates taking course on a CR-NC basis in s ix f a l l terms: Second Year French 70 . . . Percentage o f students taking course w ith in and outside co lleg e o f declared major: Second Year French .................. 71 Questionnaire response percent frequency count f o r a s t r a t i f i e d sample of undergraduates who chose to use the c r e d it-n o c r e d it grading option ....................................... 73 Questionnaire response percent frequency count f o r a random sample o f undergraduates who did not choose to use the Credit-No C re d it option ................................................ 76 23. Chi-square analysis re s u lts o f item 1 78 24. Chi-square analysis re s u lts o f item 2 ............................................. 79 25. Chi-square an alysis re s u lts o f item 3 ............................................. 80 26. Chi-square an alysis re s u lts o f item 4 ............................................. 81 27. Chi-square analysis re s u lts o f item 5 ............................................. 82 28. Chi-square analysis re s u lts o f item 6 ............................................. 83 29. Chi-square analysis re s u lts o f item 7 ............................................. 83 30. Chi-square analysis re s u lts o f item 8 .............................................84 31. M u lt iv a r ia t e Analysis I - MAN0VA on a fo u r by two way design on e ig h t v a ria b les ............................................................. 86 31a. Design and means f o r M u lt iv a r ia te Analysis I ........................... 88 31b. M u lt iv a r ia t e Analysis I : CR-NC user by non-user .................. 91 31c. M u lt iv a r ia t e Analysis I : In te ra c tio n 91 21. 22. v ii i ....................................... Table Page 31d. M u lt iv a r ia t e Analysis I : Error term fo r analysis of v a r i a n c e ........................................................................................................ 92 31e. Post-Hoc contrasts f o r M u lt iv a r ia te Analysis I : Item 1 , 93 3 1 f. Post-Hoc contrasts f o r M u lt iv a r ia t e Analysis I : Item 2 , 94 31g. Post-Hoc contrasts f o r M u lt iv a r ia te Analysis I : Item 4 . 95 32. M u lt iv a r ia t e Analysis I I - MANOVA on a three by two way design on e ig h t v a ria b le s ............................................................ 96 ....................... 98 32a. Design and means f o r M u lt iv a r ia t e Analysis I I 32b. M u lt iv a r ia t e Analysis I I : CR-NC user by non-user 32c. M u lt iv a r ia t e Analysis I I : In te ra c tio n ........................................ 32d. M u lt iv a r ia t e Analysis I I : E rror term f o r analysis o f v a r i a n c e ...................................................................................................... 102 32e. Post-Hoc contrasts fo r M u lt iv a r ia t e Analysis I I : Item 2 . 103 32 f. Post-Hoc contrasts f o r M u lt iv a r ia t e Analysis I I : Item 3 . 104 32g. Post-Hoc contrasts f o r M u ltiv a r ia t e Analysis I I : Item 7 . 104 33. Percent frequency count o f in te rv ie w responses expressed by teaching f a c u lt y ......................................................................... . . . . 101 101 106 34. Percentage favorable responses expressed by f a c u l t y , CR-NC users and non-users: Item 4 .............................................. 107 35. Percentage favorable responses expressed by f a c u l t y , CR-NC users and non-users: Item 3 .............................................. 108 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Page Total number o f undergraduates who had used the CR-NC o p t i o n ....................................................................................................... 34 Percentage o f undergraduates who had used the CR-NC option by sex and m a rita l s t a t u s ............................................... 34 Number and percentage o f CR-NC users in comparison w ith the t o t a l number o f undergraduates ........................................... 35 4. Percentage of CR-NC users by class by year .............................. 35 5. Percentages o f CR-NC users in grade p o in t average cate­ g o rie s , mean grade point average o f CR-NC users, a l l u n iv e rs ity grade p o in t average .......................... 36 Percentages o f CR-NC users by class in grade point average ca teg o ries, mean grade point average o f CRNC users, class grade point average, Freshmen through S e n i o r s ................................................................................................... 36 Declared majors of undergraduates taking course on a CR-NC basis in s ix f a l l t e r m s .................................................... 38 Percentage o f students taking course w ith in and outside o f declared m a j o r ............................................................................. 38 8. Questionnaire response percent frequency counts ................. 42 9. Chi-square an alysis o f eig h t questionnaire items ................. 42 10. U n iv a ria te and m u lt iv a r ia t e analysis o f variance, class by CR-NC user and non-user ....................................... 44 U n iv a ria te and m u ltiv a r ia te analysis o f variance, grade p o in t average category by CR-NC users and non-users , . 44 Total numbers o f undergraduate CR-NC users in s ix f a l l t e r m s ....................................................................................................... 47 2. 3. 6. 7. 7a. 11. 12. 13. CR-NC users by sex and m a rita l status in s ix f a l l terms x . 48 CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM, LIMITATIONS, DEFINITION OF TERMS, OVERVIEW Introd uctio n In an e f f o r t to provide e q u ita b le judgments o f performance o f undergraduates, i n s t it u t io n s of higher education have amended t r a ­ d it io n a l grading p o lic ie s . Coupled w ith changes in the l e t t e r or nu­ merical grading systems has been the ad d itio n of a two p o in t scale o f grading, loosely grouped under the designations: p a s s - f a i l , pass-no c r e d i t , s a tis fa c to r y -u n s a tis fa c to ry and c re d it-n o c r e d i t . The c r e d i t - no c r e d it is s im ila r to the p a s s -fa il except th a t f a i l u r e to achieve an adequate le v e l o f performance in a course does not r e s u lt in a pen­ a l t y to the s tu d e n tJ Since the p a s s -f a il and the c re d it-n o c r e d it options were introduced fo r s im ila r reasons, they have o ften been equated. The analysis o f innovative grading options has been almost e n t i r e l y concerned w ith the most w idely used in n o v atio n , the p a s s - f a i l . Although there may not be an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t context when comparing the use o f each respective system, there may be advantages o f using the c re d it-n o c r e d it option as compared to the p a s s -fa il option. c r e d it-n o c r e d it grading option was i n i t i a l l y o ffe re d a t Michigan Overview. ^Johnathan R. Warren, College Grading P ractices: (Washington, D .C ., 197Y), p. 5. 1 An The 2 State U n iv e rs ity in the F a ll Term, 1968, and has become f ir m ly estab­ lished as an option a v a ila b le to both undergraduate and graduate stu­ dents. The present study is an in v e s tig a tio n o f the undergraduate use o f the Credit-No C re d it grading option o ffe re d a t Michigan State Uni­ v e r s ity . Involved in th is in v e s tig a tio n is an appraisal o f the pur­ poses of evaluation through issuing grades, the cu rren t p ra c tic e o f higher education in s t it u t io n s . Statement o f the Problem Although grading p ractices vary among in s t it u t io n s of higher education, a common assumption is th a t achievement can be exem plified through a l e t t e r or numerical in d ic a to r . Grades are the symbols th a t fo rm ally in d ic a te a student's general lev el o f academic achievement. Evaluation consists of a v a r ie ty of processes— reading papers, giving quizzes, lab o rato ry exercises, and exams, asking questions, lis te n in g to discussions, observing the q u a lit y o f student questions— by which fa c u lty members a r r iv e a t judgments about student accomplishments.^ The t r a d i t i o n a l process o f grading students a t the undergraduate lev el has both p o s itiv e and negative featu res as a summative evalu atio n . According to Paul L. D res se l, grades: 1. d is tin g u is h between students who receive c r e d it fo r a course and those who do not. ^Warren, op. c i t . , p. 3. o Paul L. Dressel, Evaluation in the Basic C o lleg e. York, 1958), pp. 136-37. (New 3 2. d is tin g u is h le v e l o f performance among those who re c e iv e c re d it. 3. summarize fo r the o f f i c i a l record the students' e n r o l l ­ ment and achievement in a course. 4. inform the student o f his achievement in a course. 5. maintain sc h o lastic standards by e lim in a tio n o f the la z y or in e p t. 6. motivate students through concern about low grades and s a t is fa c t io n w ith high ones. 7. serve to d is c ip lin e students. D ressel's p o s itio n , as stated in 1958, is the t r a d i t i o n a l view with respect to the b e n e fic ia l aspects o f grades a t the undergraduate l e v e l . Colleges and u n iv e r s itie s have emphasized a philosophy fe a tu rin g cog­ n itiv e ra tio n a lity . The s u p e r io r it y o f communicating knowledge by a r a tio n a l process has long been assumed by academiaJ Given t h is gen­ eral assumption, the grading process fu n c tio n s , defined by Dressel, are r e a l i s t i c to insure t h a t students act responsibly in a tt a in in g academic competencies. H i s t o r i c a l l y , grading was resorted to in an e f f o r t to make judgments o f student performance on the basis o f m e r it , not s ta tu s ; " th a t in doing so attempts were made to advance the demo­ c r a t i c p rin c ip le s o f e q u a lity o f opportunity and l i m i t the influen ce 2 of fa m ily connections." T r a d i t i o n a l l y , one o f the ce n tra l functions o f higher educa­ tio n has been to insure competency in academic areas. Although th is ^Warren Bryan M a r tin , Conformity: Standards and Change in Higher Education. (San Francisco, 1969), p. 217. 2 Lawrence W. Hyman, "Grades and Academic Standards," C ity U n iv e rs ity o f New York, 1969, p. 2. 4 p o sitio n is not negated a t the present tim e, in s t it u t io n s have taken on new r e s p o n s ib i li t i e s . In 1933, a recommendation o f the American Association of U n iv e rs ity Professors stated th a t the "American educa­ tio n a l system should draw a l in e between secondary schools and i n s t i ­ tu tio n s o f higher education c le a r ly so as to exclude from admission to the higher i n s t it u t io n s a l l persons not q u a lif ie d f o r independent i n ­ te lle c tu a l a c tiv ity ." ^ This statement does not r e f l e c t the p o sitio n o f most in s t it u t io n s in the 1970's. In an attempt to a l l e v i a t e in e q u a lit ie s based on "class" or fin a n c ia l background, colleges and u n iv e r s it ie s o f the 1960's and 1970's have expanded admissions. Since high school education has be­ come nearly u n iv e rs a l, education beyond th is le v e l has also been ex­ tended. In the f u tu r e , higher education may become as universal as high school. I f higher education were to admit only those who were q u a lif ie d f o r "independent i n t e ll e c t u a l a c t i v i t y " and educate these people in s p e c ific academic areas, grading would present no serious drawbacks. Attendance in the academic community o ffe rs b en efits to students beyond classroom le a rn in g , and w ith admissions being expanded, students w ithout s p e c ific occupational goals can b e n e fit from th is ex­ perience. Living on a campus o ffe rs the student ric h experiences o f acquaintance and fr ie n d s h ip , p ra c tic e in human r e l a t i o n s , natural s i t ­ uations f o r developing mutual in te re s ts and p ra c tic in g conversational s k i l l s w ithout the s t r a in o f classroom competition o r the t h r e a t o f ^William Gray, Needed Readjustments in Higher Education. (Chicago, 1933), p. 95. fa llu re J Less academically oriented students have been admitted to i n s t it u t io n s o f higher education so th a t they can p a r t ic ip a t e in the t o t a l college environment. Rigid standards o f academic performance are being replaced, in a number of c u r r ic u la r o f fe r in g s , with evalua­ tio n o f the " t o t a l" person. Q u a n tita tiv e grading procedures have been problematic in th is type o f ev alu atio n . Students are evaluated, but there is d i f f i c u l t y in assigning a grade th a t i s compatible w ith th a t which was "learned" in courses th a t stress self-development and s e l f awareness. Evaluation o f students has been, and w i l l remain, a c r i t i c a l function o f higher education. The grading procedures th a t are used to f a c i l i t a t e th is process can be changed to s a t is f y the new re s p o n s ib il­ i t i e s of higher education. T ra d itio n a l grading p ractices have been fa u lte d f o r :^ 1. t h e i r emphasis on information ra th e r than understanding. 2. t h e i r emphasis on competition ra th e r than a p p re ciatio n . 3. t h e i r inconsistency, i . e . , d i f f e r e n t in s tru c to rs use d i f f e r e n t grading standards. 4. t h e i r emphasis on q u a n tity ra th e r than q u a lit y . 5. deciding the f a t e o f a student 1n the classroom. 6. encouraging students to stay w ith in the s e c u rity o f t h e i r major area and discouraging them from exploring the aca­ dem ically u n fa m ilia r. ^ a t e H. M u e lle r, Student Personnel Work in Higher Education. (Boston, 1961), p. 176. p Ronnie C. P e d rin i, "Pass-Fa1l Grading: Summary and Tenta­ t i v e Conclusions," ERIC No. ED 080 073, 1971, p. 2. 6 7. t h e i r uselessness, i . e . , grades, except as predictors o f fu tu re academic work, cannot be meaningfully co rrela te d w ith success in l i f e . 8. being used to reg u late p a r tic ip a t io n in non-academic ac­ t i v i t i e s , i . e . , f r a t e r n i t i e s , s o r o r it ie s . 9. r e f le c t in g the simple s k i l l s o f conformity or memory ra th e r than c r e a t i v i t y . The ty p ic a l c r itic is m s o f grades, stated above, provide l i t t l e process o f a l l e v ia t i n g shortcomings. in the Even i f e r r o r s , inconsistencies, and a fa ls e sense o f accuracy are conceded, the f a c t remains th a t the wide use o f one basic system, in which there is long experience, has b en efits f o r students, f a c u l t y , adm inistrators and society in general.^ The f i n a l grade point average can be used as a re fe r e n t f o r employment and graduate or professional school and as an in d ic a to r o f in t e lle c t u a l a b ility . Grades provide information th a t can be evaluated on the basis o f the i n s t i t u t i o n providing the grades. I f an i n s t i t u t i o n is viewed as having high academic standards, grades are considered w ith more r e ­ spect than grades received from a less fo rtu n a te i n s t i t u t i o n . Every co lleg e or u n iv e rs ity has character in the sense t h a t i t has c h a rac ter­ i s t i c programs or a c t i v i t i e s by which 1 t can be i d e n t i f i e d . Given the unique character o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , higher education evaluation proce­ dures and the grading systems are unique to each i n s t i t u t i o n . I t is u n lik e ly th a t in s tru c to rs w i l l want to give up some way o f determining competence and excellence in t h e i r d is c ip lin e s . Since the use o f ^Wesley 0, Dale, "Concerning Grading and Other Forms o f Stu­ dent Evaluatio n ," Council of Graduate Schools in the United S ta te s , Dec. 5, 1969, p. 3. 2 Hyman, op. c l t . , p. 2. 7 grades in higher education is viewed as having v a lu e , i t does not seem t h a t th e re w i l l be dram atic changes 1n the fu t u r e . Grading p o lic y is assumed to be an In te g r a l p a rt o f the t o t a l ev alu atio n c o n te x t. W alter Moberly stated t h a t : The question is not whether educational i n s t i t u t i o n s w i l l have assumptions or basic v a lu e s , but whether those things which mo­ t i v a t e and d i r e c t p ra c tic e s w i l l remain as unexamined presupposi­ tio n s and unacknowledged commitments o r w i l l be consciously and p e r s is t e n t ly reviewed, then r e a ffir m e d , or when necessary, changed."l The grading assumption, placed in t h is c o n te x t, was re a ffirm e d in the lDGO’ s and 1970's and a lt e r e d by many i n s t i t u t i o n s through the a d d i­ t io n o f an in n o v a tiv e grading o p tio n . Students have been extended the o p p o rtu n ity to take some o f t h e i r courses on a p a s s - f a i l , c r e d i t no c r e d i t , pass-no re co rd , or o th e r s i m i l a r o p tio n s. An im portant f a c t o r in academic achievement has been the ca­ p a c ity o f students to fu n c tio n in stress s it u a t io n s . The c o lle g e s tu ­ dent is placed in an atmosphere o f com petition in the classroom and stress w ith respect to occupational p o s s i b i l i t i e s and acceptance in graduate or p rofessional school. With higher education becoming acces­ s i b l e , graduate school and good jobs have made the attain m en t o f "good" grades more Im portant than ever. The p a s s - f a i l type grading option has been i n s t it u t e d to a l l e v i a t e some o f the f a u l t s o f the t r a d i t i o n a l grading system such as the stress on com petition f o r grades which d i s ­ courages students from exp lo rin g the academ ically u n fa m ilia r . ^M artin, op. c i t . , p. 224. 2 D a le , op. c i t . , p. 3. 8 Advocates o f the p a s s -fa il type grading option claim th a t the system:^ 1. allows students to become more involved because they are re lie v e d o f pressure and competition. 2. allows students to take courses f o r the value o f the c u l­ tu ra l exposure and i n t e l l e c t u a l c u r i o s i t y , w ithout the fe a r o f grade p o in t average reduction, 3. re lie v e s the enforcing aspects o f t r a d i t i o n a l grading, allow ing the student to mature, and demands th a t schools develop cognitively-consonant and academically motivating programs. 4. allows students to de-emphasize, w ithout p en alty, aspects o f a course. 5. elim inates the necessity o f having to "learn" how to do w ell on te s ts o f in d iv id u a l professors. 6. removes the penalty o f evaluation from the c re a tiv e stu­ dent who may be penalized by t r a d it io n a l "A" through "F" p o lic ie s . Although n o n -tra d itio n a l grading procedures have been used a t p riv a te and experimental colleges f o r a long period o f tim e, the use of the supplemental grading option has become established only since the 1960’ s as an option used by undergraduates a t a large number o f c o l­ leges and u n iv e r s it ie s . Michigan State U n iv e rs ity introduced a lim ite d Credit-No C re d it Grading Option in an e f f o r t to reduce emphasis on grades. The 2 Educational P o lic ie s Committee a t Michigan S tate U n iv e rs ity s ta te d , when a lt e r a tio n s were made w ith respect to the grading p o lic ie s a t the U n iv e rs ity , th a t the Credit-No C re d it Option would: ^ P e d rln i, op. c i t . , p. 3. 2 The Revised Grading System a t Michigan S tate U n iv e rs ity ," (East Lansing, Michigan, 1968), p. 11. 9 . . . encourage i n t r i n s i c m o tiva tio n . In a d d itio n , i t is in ­ tended to broaden t h e i r (students) course coverage by pursuing areas which they might not attempt i f the danger o f sustaining a reduction in grade point average p re v a ile d . This system is not intended to f o s te r reduced e f f o r t . A d i f f e r e n t environment f o r learning is sought, not lessening o f le a rn in g . Indeed, i f more en th u s ia stic learning does not r e s u lt then the system has f a i l e d . While th is option is a p a rt o f the undergraduate program, i t is ques­ tio n a b le , according to evaluations done a t a number o f i n s t i t u t i o n s , whether th is type o f option is accomplishing the purposes f o r which i t was intended. Michigan S tate U n iv e rs ity has o ffe re d the Credit-N o C re d it grading option to undergraduates and graduates since F all Term, 1968. The option was a p a rt o f the revised grading p o lic y t h a t in s t it u t e d a ten p o in t numerical system, replacing the le t t e r - g r a d e marking p o lic y . The aim o f th is research is to t e s t c e rta in hypotheses con­ cerned with the undergraduate use o f the grading option . A s ix term d es crip tio n o f the use of the Credit-No C re d it system has as i t s main emphasis the number and type o f undergraduates who have used the option. Undergraduates who have used the Credit-No C re d it option during Winter Term, 1974, were surveyed and compared to a re p re s e n ta tiv e sample o f undergraduates who did not use the option in t h e i r academic careers. This research is an in v e s tig a tio n o f the use o f the grading option a t Michigan State U n iv e rs ity and an extension o f knowledge o f the Credit-No C re d it option which had not been examined as a separate e n tity . The purpose o f the research is concerned with the h is t o r ic a l use o f the system and w ith cu rren t a ttitu d e s toward grading p o lic ie s held by undergraduates and by the teaching f a c u l t y . The intended r e ­ s u lts o f changes made by the Educational P o lic ie s Committee are 10 examined to fin d i f stated o b jec tiv es o f the Credit-N o C re d it aspect o f the revised p o lic y were being accomplished. Hypotheses The e n t i r e undergraduate population o f C redit-N o C re d it Users during F a ll Terms, 1968 to 1973 were c l a s s if i e d according to c la s s , sex, m a rita l s ta tu s , curriculum and Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity cumulative grade p o in t average. Since P a rt I of the study was des­ c r i p t i v e in n atu re, the " s c ie n t if ic " ^ forms o f hypotheses were used. I t was hypothesized th a t: 1. The number o f undergraduates who use the C redit-N o C re d it Option w i l l be c o n s is te n tly less than f i v e percent o f the t o t a l undergraduate population 1n F a ll Terms, 1968-1973. (F ive percent is an a r b i t r a r y fig u r e to s ig n if y a "small proportion" o f undergraduates. Because o f the r e s t r i c ­ tio n s in v o lv ed , i t is hypothesized t h a t the percentage o f CR-NC users is m in im a l.) 2. In each o f the F a ll Terms described, use o f the C r e d it No C re d it option w i l l be d i r e c t l y re la te d to ones le v e l in c o lle g e , e . g . , more seniors w i l l have chosen to use the Credit-No C re d it Option than ju n io r s , more ju n io rs than sophomores, and more sophomores than freshmen. 3. The undergraduate Michigan S tate U n iv e rs ity cumulative grade p o in t average among Cred1t-No C r e d it users w i l l be a t le a s t 0.1 0 lower than the grade p o in t averages of each re sp ec tive t o t a l c la s s . 4. Undergraduates who have used the Cred1t-No C re d it Option w i l l not have chosen to take courses on t h is basis t h a t are in a d i f f e r e n t "College" than the one o f t h e i r desig­ nated major. ^Gene V, Glass and J u lia n C. S ta n le y , S t a t i s t i c a l Methods in Education and Psychology. (Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey, 1970), p. 273. 11 For each o f the above hypotheses, tab les were prepared to d is p la y num­ bers and types o f students ap p ro priate to each o f the above proposi­ tio n s . For P a rt I I o f the study, 855 subjects were surveyed from the t o t a l population o f 1974 W inter Term undergraduates. The major o b je c tiv e o f the survey was to measure a t tit u d e s toward the Credit-No C re d it Option and grading p o lic ie s expressed by Michigan S tate Univer­ s i t y users and non-users o f the CR-NC option . Users were defined as undergraduates who had chosen to take a t le a s t one course on th is basis, non-users as those who had not used the option. These a ttitu d e s were re la te d to o ther academic v a r ia b le s , e . g . , Michigan S ta te Univer­ s i t y cumulative grade p o in t average and c la s s . A major question i n ­ volved in t h is survey was whether the a t t itu d e s o f the CR-NC option users d i f f e r w ith regard to the above c h a ra c te r is tic s from the re ­ mainder of the undergraduate population a t Michigan S ta te . Samples were taken from the two populations defined in the follow ing manner: Population 1: The f u l l - t i m e Michigan S tate U n iv e rs ity under­ graduate students who used the Credit-No C re d it grading option during Winter Term, 1974. T o ta l: 1,132 students. Population 2: The f u l l - t i m e Michigan S tate U n iv e rs ity under­ graduate students who did not use the C r e d itNo C r e d it option during Winter Term, 1974, and who had not taken courses on a CR-NC basis during t h e i r academic careers. T o ta l: 30,176 students. A p a r a l le l sample design was used to compare a tt itu d e s o f Credit-No C re d it users w ith non-users. For both samples, student^ were c l a s s i ­ f ie d according to the fo llo w in g categ o ries: fo u r classes, and th ree 12 ranges o f cumulative grade point average, namely 0 .0 0 - 1 .0 0 , 2 .0 0 - 2 .9 9 , 3.0 0 and above. Questionnaires were sent to a t o t a l o f 855 undergrad­ uates a t Michigan S tate U n iv e rs ity . The fo llo w in g hypotheses were tested in the s t a t i s t i c a l analysis o f the questionnaire: 5. There are s ig n if ic a n t d iffe ren c es between Users and NonUsers o f the Credit-No C re d it option as measured by the e ig h t common L ik e r t-ty p e questionnaire items. 6. There are s ig n if ic a n t d iffe re n c e s among Freshmen, Soph­ omores, Juniors and Seniors as measured by the e ig h t common L ik e r t-t y p e questionnaire items. 7. There are s ig n if ic a n t d iffe re n c e s among low, middle and high grade p oint average categories as measured by e ig h t common L ik e r t-ty p e questionnaire items. Common Questionnaire Items a. Grades tend to stim u late me to study harder. b. I plan to attend a graduate or professional school a f t e r I graduate. c. I am g e n e ra lly s a t i s f i e d w ith the present grading system a t M.S.U. d. Admissions o f fic e r s a t graduate schools do not weigh as h e a v ily the grade p o in t average i f a student has used the CR-NC option. e. I f the CR-NC option were a v a ila b le f o r U n iv e rs ity College courses, I would have taken these courses on t h is basis. f . A student should be able to decide a t any time during the term whether to receive a grade o r CR-NC. g. A student should be able to take as many CR-NC courses as he wishes. h. C re d it in a CR-NC class should be given f o r a 1 .0 ra th e r than the present 2.0 minimum. Students responded to the above items on a fo u r p o in t scale; strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree. 13 In a d d itio n to the undergraduate q u e s tio n n a ire s , a sample o f teaching fa c u lty members a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity were adm inistered s tru c tu re d in te rv ie w s concerned w ith aspects o f the C red it-N o C re d it grading o p tio n . Items used in th e in te rv ie w were concerned w ith f a c ­ u lt y member experience w ith students who had used th e C re d it-N o C re d it o p tio n . The fo llo w in g " s c ie n t if ic " hypotheses were used to compare f a c u lty and student a ttitu d e s : 8. F a c u lty members w il l express a more fa v o ra b le a t t it u d e than students who have and have not used th e C red it-N o C r e d it option on th e item measuring whether grades stim u­ l a t e students to study. 9. F a c u lty members w i l l express a less fa v o ra b le a t t it u d e than students who have and have not used th e C red it-N o C re d it option as measured on a scale measuring whether students should be ab le to decide a t any tim e during the term whether to re c e iv e a grade o r C red it-N o C r e d it. The instrum ent also was concerned w ith issues such as whether the grad­ ing o p tio n should be continued and whether professors should be to ld which students are ta k in g t h e i r courses on a Cred1t-No C r e d it b a s is . Importance o f the Study The in n o v a tiv e grading o ption has become f ir m ly e s ta b lis h e d in undergraduate ed u catio n. The P a ss -F a il and C red it-N o C re d it options have been equated due to s im ila r p h ilo so p h ic ra tio n a le s f o r t h e i r i n i ­ tia tio n . The fo llo w in g types o f in n o v a tiv e grading options were r e ­ ported by an American A sso ciatio n o f C o llege R e g is tra rs and Admissions O ffic e rs survey. Percentages in d ic a te th e frequency o f type o f o p tion o ffe re d among a l l in s t it u t io n s th a t rep o rted use o f an o p tio n al grading 14 optionJ P a s s - F a i l .....................................................54% Pass-No P a s s .................................................15% S a tis fa c to ry ........................................... U n sa tis fac to ry .......................................... 10% C redit-N o C re d it ................................... 6% 2% Honors-Pass-Fail ................................... P a s s -D -F .................................................... 2% O t h e r ..............................................................11% The p a s s -fa il type grading options have gained n ea rly universal accep­ tance in higher education in s t it u t io n s . Over n in e ty percent o f a l l in s titu tio n s re p o rt the use o f the grading o p tio n ; most o f these o f f e r o ing the option on a lim ite d basis. There may be d iffe re n c e s w ith r e ­ spect to types o f students and student a ttitu d e s between the type o f system th a t has a r e s t r ic t iv e p enalty fo r the undergraduate— the pos­ s i b i l i t y o f re ce ivin g a f a i l in g grade--and the system th a t does not p en alize the student grade p o in t average i f minimal performance le v e ls are not met. Student awareness o f graduate school personnel a ttitu d e s toward the inn o vative grading p o lic ie s has not been adequately mea­ sured. The process o f e le c tin g to take courses on an inn o vative grad­ ing option basis is one o f s e lf s e le c tio n . With admissions p o lic ie s a v a ria b le in th is process, student knowledge o f th is v a ria b le could be a fa c to r in choice making. There is reason to b e lie v e th a t a ttitu d e s ^"The AACRAO Survey o f Grading P o lic ie s in Member I n s t it u ­ t i o n s , 1' ERIC No. ED 055 546, 1971, p. 1. ^Arvo Ju o la , "Grade In f la t io n (1960-1973): A P relim in ary R epo rt," O ffic e o f Evaluation S ervices, Michigan S tate U n iv e rs ity , 1974, p. 5. 15 o f admissions o ffic e r s are influenced n e g a tiv e ly by academic creden­ t i a l s w ith p a s s -fa il or c re d it-n o c r e d it grades. The context o f the 1 9 60 's, when the in n o vative grading op­ tio n s were adopted by most in s t it u t io n s , may have changed so th a t the p a s s -fa il type o f grading option may not be as useful an a lte r n a tiv e to grading a t the present tim e, though i t may have been useful in the 1960's. The Michigan S tate U n iv e rs ity Educational P o lic ie s Committee stated:^ I f the various o p in io n s, statements and assertio ns regarding grades and grading systems are transposed In to questions, i t is found th a t very few can be answered. For example: Are grades v a lid p re d ic to rs o f fu tu re academic work? Do grades accomplish d e s ira b le forms o f m otivation? There are many o ther s im ila r questions w ith ou t s u ff ic ie n t data to answer them . . . the r e la ­ tio n sh ip s between the learn in g process and grades should be stud­ ied and fa c tu a l inform ation obtained to a id the fa c u lty in fu tu re decisions on changing the grading system. The present study is a d e s c rip tio n and an alysis o f aspects o f the Cred1t~No C re d it grading option a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity . The r a tio n a le involved in i t s in tro d u c tio n is in v e s tig a te d and judgments are made w ith referen ce to it s r e la t iv e usefulness as an a lte r n a tiv e to t r a d it io n a l, m u ltip o in t grades in undergraduate programs. L im ita tio n s The fo llo w in g is a l i s t o f lim ita tio n s th a t a ffe c te d th is study: ^"The Revised Grading System a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity ," (East Lansing, M ichigan, 1968), p. 32. 16 1. The use o f the Cred1t-No C re d it option is d i f f i c u l t to is o la te as a v a ria b le a ffe c tin g a ttitu d e s toward grading p o lic ie s . There may be o th er v a ria b le s a ffe c tin g student a ttitu d e s th a t were not examined in th is study. 2 . The small number o f students sampled 1n the "low" grade p o in t average categ o ries ( N = ll, N=10), presented d i f f i c u l t i e s in draw­ ing inferences when comparing th is group to groups 1n higher grade p o in t average categ o ries (N=135, N -1 34 ). 3. Although grade p o in t average 1s a convenient tool in de­ term in atio n o f academic achievement (as used in th is study) i t is in ­ adequate as a comprehensive statement o f academic achievement and s tu ­ dent le a rn in g . 4 . There is d i f f i c u l t y in g e n e ra lizin g re s u lts o f a study done a t one u n iv e rs ity to in s titu tio n s o f higher education. The in ­ te n tio n o f th is study was to examine the use o f a s p e c ific type o f grading system, the C redit-N o C r e d it, a t Michigan S tate U n iv e rs ity and to provide a procedure fo r e v alu atio n o f s im ila r grading o ption s. 5. Since the process o f choosing to take courses on a C re d itNo C re d it basis is one o f s e lf s e le c tio n , random assignment o f sub­ je c ts to experim ental and control groups (Users and Non-Users o f the C redit-N o C re d it o p tio n ) could not be considered in l i g h t o f p ossibly a ffe c tin g the academic careers o f students. 6. Only undergraduates were used in th is In v e s tig a tio n . The C redit-N o C re d it option is o ffe re d to graduate students but i t was not the In te n t o f th is research to examine graduate use o f the Cred1t-No C re d it grading o p tio n . 17 7. In s p e c ific courses approved by th e U n iv e rs ity Curriculum Committee, a P (pass) o r N (no grade) is used e x c lu s iv e ly to evalu ate student performance. I t was considered beyond the scope o f th is r e ­ search to inclu d e an in v e s tig a tio n o f these courses. The Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity C r e d itNo C re d it Grading System Michigan S tate U n iv e rs ity employs two systems o f grading: a numerical system and a supplemental c re d it-n o c r e d it system. To take a course under the p rovisions o f the c re d it-n o c r e d it system, the student must exercise th is option in accordance w ith the lim ita tio n o f the system as described below a t the tim e o f enrollm ent fo r the term . In the c re d it-n o c r e d it system the fo llo w in g symbols are used: CR-Credit--means th a t c r e d it is granted and represents a le v e l o f performance e q u iv a le n t to or above the grade p o in t average requ ired fo r g rad u ation . Thus, undergraduates must perform a t or above the 2 .0 le v e l before c r e d it is granted; graduate students must perform a t or above the 3 .0 le v e l. NC-No Credit--m eans th a t performance was below the grade p o in t average req u ired fo r graduation; i . e . , below 2 .0 fo r undergraduates; below 3 .0 fo r grad­ uate students. No c r e d it is granted. A d m in is tra tiv e Procedure o f the CR-NC System 1. Grades on the CR-NC system are not included 1n computing the term or cum ulative grade p o in t average. 2. Enrollm ent on a CR-NC basis is recorded w ith the academic ad v is er and w ith the R e g is tra r. The in s tr u c to r 's class l i s t does not in d ic a te which students are e n ro lle d on CR-NC basis. 18 3. When the course is completed, a l l students are graded by the in s tru c to r numerical system. 4 . The R e g is tra r then converts the numerical grades to the CR-NC basis in accord w ith the d e fin itio n s o f CR-NC stated above, but re ta in s the numerical grades in the stu d en t's records. 5. When a student changes m ajors, the R e g is tra r s h a ll con­ v e rt those l e t t e r grades to numerical grades in courses th a t must be graded on the numerical system in the given major. Enrollment in the CR-NC System Enrollment on a CR-NC basis is o p tio n al f o r a l l undergraduate students, su b ject to the fo llo w in g co n dition s: 1. Course p re re q u is ite s and o ther c r i t e r i a fo r enrollm ent in any course s h a ll be determined by the department or c o l­ lege o ffe rin g the course and apply eq u ally to both the numerical and the CR-NC systems. 2. The choice o f numerical or CR-NC system does not a f f e c t admission to the course. 3. A ll courses in every department o r co lleg e are a v a ila b le on a CR-NC basis unless these courses are: a. used to s a tis fy the general education requirem ents, or b. s p e c ific a lly excluded from CR-NC enrollm ent by the de­ partment o r co lle g e o f the stu d en t's major o r major p refe re n c e, or the u n it recommending the student fo r c e r t if ic a t io n . 4. L im ita tio n : a. No undergraduate student may e n ro ll in more than one course in a s in g le term on the CR-NC system and may not e n ro ll I n more than a to ta l o f 30 c re d its in a l l terms. b. The lim ita tio n s on the number o f c re d its a graduate student may take in a given term on the CR-NC basis and the t o ta l number o f c re d its th a t may be taken in a given degree program on a CR-NC b as is , s h a ll be 19 estab lished by the c o lle g e , department, or degree c e r­ t if y in g u n it in which the student is a major. 5. Each department, c o lle g e , or c e r tify in g u n it s h a ll desig­ nate those courses th a t i t s majors or candidates fo r c e r t if ic a t io n cannot take on th e CR-NC system. 6. Choice o f th e CR-NC system must be made during enrollm ent and may not be changed fo llo w in g r e g is tr a tio n except dur­ ing the s p e c ifie d period fo r adding courses. Changes must be in accord w ith th e stated procedures fo r change in en ro llm en t. 7. Any course taken more than once must be repeated on the same grading system under which the course was completed the f i r s t tim e , except where standard requirements to the c o n trary must be s a tis fie d in order to meet graduation requirem ents. D e fin itio n o f Terms CR-NC User. — A user o f the C redit-N o C re d it system fo r a t le a s t one course a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity . CR-NC Non-User. — An undergraduate a t Michigan S tate Univer­ s it y who had not used the C redit-N o C re d it option through W inter Term, 1974. Grade P oin t Average.--T h e grade p oint accumulated by each student a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity . The cum ulative grade p o in t average is the r a t io o f to ta l points earned fo r a l l terms divided by the to ta l c re d its c a rrie d f o r a l l terms. o f the fo llo w in g scale: The numerical system consists 4 .0 - 3 .5 - 3 .0 - 2 .5 - 2 .0 - 1 .5 - 1 .0 - 0 .0 (from 1968 to 1972, a 4 .5 and a .5 grades were used in a d d itio n to the e ig h t points on the above s c a le ). F u ll Time Student. — A student who attempts 12 o r more MSU c re d its in the term. 20 Freshmen. — 0-40 c r e d its . Sophomore. — 41-84 c r e d its . J u n io r. —85-130 c r e d its . S e n io r.— 131-180 c r e d its . O rganization o f the D is s e rta tio n In Chapter I I o f th is study, re la te d l it e r a t u r e p e rta in in g to p a s s -fa il systems is presented, follow ed by a b r ie f summary. In the th ir d c h a p te r, the design o f the study is presented fo r P art I and P art 2 o f the d is s e rta tio n . The fo u rth chapter contains the d e s c rip tio n o f types of students who use the C redit-N o C re d it option and the s t a t is t ic a l a n a ly ­ ses o f q u estion n aires. Chapter V contains discussions o f the fin d in g s and re le v a n t recommendations and a b r ie f summary o f the study. CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE In tro d u c tio n One o f the reasons fo r the i n i t i a t i o n o f an Inn ovative grad­ ing system 1n the 1960's was student re a c tio n ag ain st the tr a d itio n a l grading p o lic y , one o f the issues involved in the students rig h ts movement.^ C olleges, re ac tin g to pressure, began to adopt systems considered more e q u ita b le by students and fa c u lty ; the c e n tra l purpose being p rovision o f o p p o rtu n itie s to students fo r e x p lo ra tio n beyond major areas o f concentration. Grading options th a t th e o r e tic a lly allow students the opportunity to explore is p res en tly fir m ly estab lished in undergraduate education. U n iv e rs itie s th a t have an undergraduate enrollm ent th a t tends to go to graduate o r professional schools have a lim ite d number o f c re d its th a t may be taken on a p a s s -fa il basis (w ith few exceptions) Although the trend is to o ffe r the p a s s -fa il type grading o p tio n , in most u n iv e rs itie s and colleges th e re are s t r i c t lim ita tio n s in terms o f academic background o f students and number o f c re d its th a t may be 1"Education a t Berkeley: A Report o f the S e le c t Committee on Education," Regents o f th e U n iv e rs ity o f C a lif o r n ia , 1966, p. 3. 2Charles J . Quann, "Survey Shows V a ria tio n in Grading Trends, College and U n iv e rs ity Business, (September, 1970), 79. 22 taken on th is basis. The use o f a system o f evalu atio n w ith the pass- f a i l option has increased s te a d ily a t In s titu tio n s th a t o f fe r an asso­ c ia te degree program.^ Since major u n iv e rs itie s provided the lead In the i n i t i a t i o n o f in n o vative grading o p tio n s, and since student opin­ ion tends to favo r such changes, sm aller and less academ ically o r i ­ ented in s titu tio n s have changed grading p o lic ie s . The p a s s -fa il type grading option had not been in s titu te d u n til re c e n tly --w ith 1 n th e past decade-- and has not been examined in depth a t most in s t itu t io n s . For the purposes o f th is review o f l i t e r a t u r e , a l l p a s s -fa il types o f grad­ ing Innovations were considered s im ila r . The fin d in g s in th e innova­ t iv e grading option area in d ic a te th a t the philosophic goals associated w ith i n i t i a t i o n o f th is type o f option are not being met. The review was concerned w ith student achievement using the p a s s -fa il type option and th e ra m ific a tio n s o f takin g courses on th is basis upon student ad­ mission to graduate studies and to areas o f employment. Student Achievement Using The Innovative Option The two p o in t grading option could have a negative e ff e c t upon student lea rn in g and lower grades could be the r e s u lt o f taking courses on a p a s s -fa il basis. Gold, e t a l . , selected Freshmen and Juniors w ith h ig h, medium and low S cho lastic A ptitude Test scores and gave an experim ental group o f Freshmen the option o f using the passf a i l evalu atio n in t h e ir courses. In s tru c to rs were not given ^'The AACRAO Survey o f Grading P o lic ie s in Member In s t it u ­ tio n s ," ERIC No. ED 055 546. 1971. 23 info rm ation as to which students were ta k in g classes on th is b as is . The mean grade p o in t average fo r th e experim ental group o f Freshmen 1n th e semester fo llo w in g p a s s -fa il use was 2 .2 8 , s ig n if ic a n t ly lower than the 2.72 average f o r th e control group Freshmen th a t were in 1 t l a l l y given conventional grades. Table 1 d isp lays the re s u lts o f th is fo llo w -u p w ith conventional grades. Table 2 represents re s u lts p fo r the Ju n io r group. Although the authors contend th a t a f t e r Table 1. SAT Verbal Score Mean grade submitted f o r co lle g e freshmen taking a l l courses on a p a s s -fa il basis. Experimental GPA* N Control GPA N 580-785 1.55 9 2.53 8 511-579 1.36 7 2.14 13 379-499 1.91 13 2.15 6 A ll Ss 1.67 29 2.26 27 FIRST FOLLOW UP SEMESTER WITH CONVENTIONAL GRADES A ll Ss 2 .2 8 22 2 .7 2 24 2 .8 5 20 SECOND FOLLOW UP - FALL SEMESTER OF JUNIOR YEAR A ll Ss 2 .6 8 18 *GPA's fo r the Experimental group were grades submitted p r io r to conversion to p a s s - f a il. ^Richard M. Gold, e t a l . , "Academic Achievement Declines Under P ass-Fail G rading," Journal o f Experimental Education. (S p rin g , 1 9 7 1 ), 19. 2 Gold, e t a l . , op. c i t . , p. 19. 24 Table 2. Mean grade submitted fo r students taking one course on a p a s s -fa il basis vs. students takin g a l l course work tr a d itio n a lly . Experimental GPA* N Control GPA N 580-785 1.85 25 2.22 20 511-559 1.69 24 1.85 24 379-499 1.47 22 1.48 21 A ll Ss 1.67 71 1.83 65 SAT Verbal Score * GPA's fo r the Experimental group were grades submitted p r io r to conversion to p a s s - f a il. re tu rn in g to the conventional system o f g rad ing , former p a s s -fa il s tu ­ dents continue to rece ive lower grades (Table 1 ) , the small sample used was inadequate to g e n e ra lize re s u lts to a l l In n o v ativ e grading o ption s. In a long range ev alu atio n o f a p a s s -fa il system a t the Uni­ v e r s ity o f I l l i n o i s , a ttitu d e s concerned w ith the use o f the grading option expressed by a sample o f 463 undergraduates in biology and geog­ raphy classes were assessed. Data from the q u estion n aire showed th a t students spent less time w ith p a s s -fa il courses than w ith the r e ­ mainder o f the courses in which they were e n ro lle d . I f the p a s s -fa il students had been c re d ite d w ith the grade assigned before conversion to a pass o r a f a i l , they would have averaged approxim ately .70 o f a l e t t e r grade below the grade o f t h e ir classmates graded w ith the t r a ­ d itio n a l system. The author concludes th a t students do not work as hard in t h e ir p a s s -fa il courses and th a t a grade systetji seems 25 necessary fo r academic achievement. S ta llin g s p ro je cts th a t some stu­ dents are not mature enough to be concerned w ith le a rn in g f o r I t s own sake and not f o r the sake o f a grade p o in t average.^ Vernon sta tes th a t the e x tr in s ic m otivation provided by a course grade appears to have a powerful e f f e c t on the e f f o r t put fo rth 2 and thereby upon the le v e l o f achievement. In a study a t Brandeis U n iv e rs ity , s ix ty students from each undergraduate class who had used the p a s s -fa il option were chosen and grade p o in t averages o f these students in these courses were compared w ith the grade p o in t averages o f each c la s s . d iffe re n c e s in grade p o in t average by c la s s . Table 3. Table 3 d isplays the 3 Grade p o in t average in p a s s -fa il courses and in whole class by class. Class GPA-Pass-Fail GPA o f Class Senior Junior Sophomore Freshmen 3.28 2.63 2.64 2.34 3.26 3 .1 6 * 3 .1 2 * 2 .9 0 * ^ S ig n ific a n t a t .01 le v e l. W illiam M. S ta llin g s , "The P ass-F ail Grading Option a t a S ta te U n iv e rs ity : A Five Semester E v a lu a tio n ," Journal o f Educational Measurement. ( F a l l , 1971), 153. 2 W alter M. Vernon, "Evaluated and Non-Evaluated 1n Higher Education," ERIC Reports. I l l i n o i s S ta te U n iv e rs ity , A p r il, 1972, p. 6. 3 Sgan, op . c i t . . p. 640. 26 I t appears th a t th ere may be few students a t the freshman or sophomore le v e l who d is p la y academic m a tu rity and r e s p o n s ib ility . Students who d is p la y such c h a ra c te ris tic s u s u a lly do w ell w ith in a t r a d itio n a l grading system. Students g e n e ra lly fa v o r a p a s s -fa il system o f grading and th is a ttitu d e was found 1n a l l studies done o f students who had taken courses on th is basis. In an assessment o f student a ttitu d e s toward grading p ra c tic e s , S ta llin g s found a g e n e ra lly negative a tt it u d e to ­ ward conventional grading systems. There was homogeneity o f responses across in s t it u t io n s , across classes w ith in In s titu tio n s and across colleges o f one in s titu tio n .^ Student a n x ie ty concerning grades may be the major reason fo r the fa v o ra b le a ttitu d e toward the o p tio n . 2 in d ic a te th a t: S ta llin g s and L e s lie The undergraduate perceives grades as th a t p ro ve rb ia l sword hang­ ing over his head which forces him to study content he otherwise might not study. The power o f th e 'grade' 1s strong enough to r e s t r ic t his studying to m a teria l which he a n tic ip a te s w il l be on te s ts . In most cases th is m a te ria l 1s fa c t u a l, regardless o f the le v e l o f the in s tr u c to r ’ s o b je c tiv e s . I f he should happen to s tra y from fa c tu a l m a teria l and become somewhat im a g in a tive, the student expects his e ffo r ts to go unrewarded. Once a grade 1s re ce ived , 1 t 1s not perceived as feedback. Pressure amounts and can lead to cheating. Students reported th a t th e relaxed atmosphere 1n the classroom 1n which the p a s s -fa il option was used was one o f the major reasons why ^W illiam M. S ta llin g s , "P ass-Fail Grading O ption," School and S o c ie ty . (March, 19 68 ), 179. 2W1ll1am M. S ta llin g s and Elwood K. L e s lie , "Student A t t i ­ tudes Towards Grades and Grading," Improving College and U n iv e rs ity Teaching, V ol. 18, p. 67. 27 they took courses on t h is b a s is .** Students In d ic a te , however, th a t 2 grades provide e x t r in s ic m o tiv a tio n to do assigned coursework. Since grades have been an o v e rrid in g concern to th e In d iv id u a l student since his I n i t i a l e f f o r t s in an academic s it u a t io n , the p a s s -fa il type o f option can be viewed as an escape from the a n x ie ty associated w ith grades th a t had been experienced 1n the p a s t. A t Washington U n iver­ s it y students opted f o r p a s s -fa il grading because o f grading pressures and lac k o f time w h ile d isco un ting the concepts o f p a s s -fa il use be­ cause o f course d i f f i c u l t y , la c k o f p re re q u is ite s o r to accommodate an o verload. Since a s tu d e n t's fu tu r e is p a r t ly determined according to the grades he had received 1n th e p a s t, an escape from these pressures is seen as b e n e fic ia l. A t th e U n iv e rs ity o f C a lifo r n ia a t Berkeley th e p a s s -fa il o ption was used by students w ith above average academic scores who were fe a r fu l o f earning a "C" grade.^ With pressures mounting f o r admission to graduate or p ro fe s s io n a l schools, students have attempted to a t t a in the h ig h e st grade p o in t p o s s ib le , and th e re ­ fo re use th e p a s s -fa il type o ption to take courses in which they may re ce ive a low grade. ^A. J . Magoon and R. Barker B a u s e ll, "Comparing Pass-Fa1l Options A gainst T ra d itio n a l C o llege G rading," C ollege Student J o u rn a l, (F e b ., 1 0 9 2 ), 72. 2W1ll1am M. S ta llin g s and Richard M. Smock, "Pass-Fa11 Grad­ ing O p tio n ," School and S o c ie ty , (March, 1 9 6 8 ), 180. 3 Charles J . Quann, "The P a ss -F a ll O ption: A nalysis o f an Experiment in G rading," American A sso ciatio n o f C o llege R e g is tra rs and Admissions O f f ic e r s , A p ril 27, 1971. ^Sidney Suslow, "P as s-F all Grading a t B erkeley: Facts and O pin io ns," ERIC R epo rts, O ffic e o f In s t it u t io n a l Research, (C a lif o r n ia U n iv e r s ity , February, 1 9 7 3 ), p. 73. 28 E ffe c ts o f Taking Courses on a P ass-F all Basis There are ra m ific a tio n s o f takin g courses using the grading option upon the tra n s fe r process to graduate and p rofessional schools. Graduate school admissions personnel in d ic a te th a t the use o f the passf a i l option presents a dilemma in graduate student s e le c tio n and th a t emphasis upon the standardized te s ts fo r a c r i t e r i a o f judgment is predominant in cases where students have elected to take a larg e num­ ber (over 10 percent) o f courses on a p a s s -fa il type b a s i s . T h e passf a i l system may present a problem to the p o te n tia l graduate student th a t may outweigh i t s advantages. The serious student as an under­ graduate is l i k e l y to be concerned w ith his fu tu re in graduate school. The American A ssociation o f College R eg istrars and Admissions O ffic e rs Report in 1971, to determine the nature and e x ten t o f changes from the tr a d itio n a l grading systems, found th a t 44 percent o f in s titu tio n s re ­ ported th a t they disregard the p a s s -fa il grades o f tra n s fe r students. The more tr a d itio n a l colleges in the area o f grading were the small in s titu tio n s w ith an enrollm ent o f less than 1,000. In in s titu tio n s o f 20,000 or more, the ra te o f use o f a p a s s -fa il type system was 96 percent. A t o ta l o f 26 percent o f the graduate schools th a t responded in d icated th a t admission to t h e ir programs 1s e ith e r jeopardized o r delayed by the presence o f a su b sta n tial number o f p a s s -fa il c r e d its . 2 l"Law School Admissions Test Council Statement on Pass-Fail Grading Systems as Endorsed by the Council o f the Section o f Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar o f th e American Bar A sso ciatio n ," ERIC Reports, (O ct. 27, 1970), p. 4. 2 "The American A ssociation o f College R egistrars and Admis­ sions O ffic e rs Survey o f Grading P o lic ie s in Member In s t it u t io n s ," op. ci t . , p. 5. 29 A Council o f Graduate Schools Q uestionnaire reported th a t 93 percent o f graduate deans p re fe rre d to evaluate student ap p lican ts on the basis o f grades w h ile only th ree percent p re fe rre d to evalu ate on the basis o f p a s s -fa il grading. E ig h ty -e ig h t percent o f the deans In d i­ cated th a t the Graduate Record Examination would be more h e a v ily con­ sidered 1 f a student had a "number" o f p a s s -fa il reports on his re c ­ o rd .1 There may be d i f f i c u l t y in gaining employment o f a student who had used the in n o vative grading p o lic ie s during his undergraduate ca re er. Robert L. B ailey presents the fo llo w in g summary w ith regard to a number o f surveys completed by employers and rep res en tative s o f government agencies.^ 1. Business had not f u l l y accepted the in n o vative concept o f n o n -tra d 1 tio n a l grading. 2. P rio r business experience remains the p rin c ip a l c r i t e r i a in the h irin g o f ap p lic an ts by in d u s tria l firm s . Under­ graduate grades and the re p u tatio n o f the u n iv e rs ity are Im portant in the h irin g o f the undergraduate d ir e c t ly from the u n iv e rs ity . 3. Government agencies r e ly c h ie fly upon C iv il S ervice exam­ in a tio n s 1n the h irin g o f personnel. Where examinations or te s t scores are not the sole c r i t e r i a in the s e le c tio n process* previous experience and undergraduate grades are im portant c r i t e r i a in s e le c tin g employees. W illia m W. H assler, "Results o f a P ass-Fail Questionnaire Sent to Graduate Deans," ERIC Reports, (Indiana U n iv e rs ity o f Pennsyl­ v a n ia , 19 69 ), p. 3. 2Robert L. B a ile y , "A Report o f the Sub-Committee to Survey the Acceptance o f N o n -T rad itio n al Grading P atterns by Government, In ­ dustry and/or Graduate In s t it u t io n s ," ERIC No. ED 062 916, p. 22. 30 The process o f e le c tin g to take courses on a cred1t-no c r e d it basis 1s one o f s e lf-s e le c tio n w ith admissions p o lic ie s a v a ria b le 1n th is process. choice making. Student knowledge o f th is v a ria b le could be a fa c to r 1n Students may r e a liz e th a t admission to graduate schools is a s e le c tiv e process* but they may not r e a liz e the negative ra m ific a tio n s o f taking courses using the In n o v a tiv e grading o p tio n . Although grades are not th e only c r i t e r i a fo r admission to graduate and pro fession al schools o r fo r employment, they are an In te g ra l p a rt o f th e s e le c tio n process. I f students had a high grade p o in t average and had taken some courses using the grading o p tio n , the grade p o in t averages would not be considered as r e lia b le statements o f student c a p a b ilit ie s . little The grade p o in t average appears to be seen as having r e l i a b i l i t y i f a student took his hardest courses on a pass- f a i l b as is . ** Although undergraduates tend to fa v o r a less q u a n tita tiv e grading system, th e re may be negative ra m ific a tio n s o f using the inno­ v a tiv e grading option th a t may not be b e n e fic ia l to the students. Summary The in n o v a tiv e , p a s s -fa il type grading option has a number o f shortcomings th a t may outweigh i t s p ro jected advantages. Although th e re have been a number o f studies te s tin g the assumptions o f th is grading p o lic y , a long range study o f the v a ria tio n o f the p a s s -fa il ^Sidney J . Clauch, "E ffe c ts o f P ass-Fail Grading on Q u a lity Grade Point Averages," College and U n iv e rs ity , (W in te r, 19 72 ), 104. o p tio n , the c re d it-n o c r e d it system, is needed to fin d whether th ere are s u b s ta n tia l d iffe re n c e s between the types o f o p tio n s. The status of the in n o v ativ e grading options can be considered in l ig h t o f the fo llo w in g conclusions derived from a review o f recen t lit e r a t u r e : 1. Fundamental premises fo r i n i t i a t i o n o f the p a s s -fa il type option are not being r e a liz e d . Students e le c t to take courses on th is basis not to explore outside t h e ir major area but to r e lie v e themselves o f the burden o f concen­ tra te d e f f o r t . 2. The p a s s -fa il type o f grading option may be ap p ro priate a t the upper le v e ls o f undergraduate education. The mature in d iv id u a l can take advantage o f th is system fo r le g itim a te reasons w h ile th e less serious student appears to use the system fo r less c o n s tru c tiv e purposes. 3 . Students favo r the in n o v a tiv e grading options but not to th e e x ten t th a t grades should be abolished com pletely. 4 . Students who have been exposed to tr a d itio n a l classroom in s tru c tio n w ith conventional grading fin d d i f f i c u l t y in the tr a n s itio n to a p a s s -fa il type grading procedure. Without e x tr in s ic m o tivatio n to a t t a in high grades, many students do not concentrate on le a rn in g course m a te ria ls to the same degree as i f they were being graded. 5. Graduate school admission p o lic ie s a re s lig h t ly d is crim ­ in a to ry ag ain st students who have taken courses using the in n o v ativ e grading o p tio n . I t 1s questionable whether students are f u l l y aware o f the negative ra m ific a tio n s o f th e p a s s -fa il grades. The review o f l it e r a t u r e in d icated need fo r an examination o f the cred1t-no c r e d it type system th a t has o fte n been equated w ith the p a s s -fa il system. The C redit-N o C re d it option as a separate en­ t i t y has not been examined in depth. CHAPTER I I I DESIGN OF THE STUDY Two independent studies were conducted to In v e s tig a te the Cred1t-No C re d it grading o p tio n . The f i r s t phase o f the research was d e s c rip tiv e in nature d ealin g w ith numbers and type o f students who had used th is type o f grading o ption . The second phase o f the study was in f e r e n tia l and included s t a t is t i c a l an alysis o f questionnaires adm inistered to undergraduates a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity . For P art I , students were categorized according to class le v e l, sex, major and Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity grade p o in t average. A ll undergraduates who had used the grading system during F a ll Terms, 1968 to 1973 were included in th is co m p ila tio n , a l l graduate students being d e le te d . P a rt I I o f the design included questionnaires designed to sample student opinions concerning the Cred1t-No C re d it grading issue and the grading process in g en eral. An a n c illa r y fa c e t o f the study Included a stru c tu red in te rv ie w adm inistered to a sample o f teaching fa c u lty members a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity . Past studies had shown th a t the use o f a p a s s -fa il system by undergraduates had re su lted in lower grade p o in t averages among users as compared to non-users. p arts o f th is study. Users and non-users are compared in both Present a ttitu d e s toward grading p rac tice s 32 33 expressed by undergraduates were assessed and re la tio n s h ip s among users and non-users o f the Cred1t-No C re d it option were analyzed. P art I A ll undergraduates a t Michigan S tate U n iv e rs ity who had used the Cred1t~No C re d it o ption during F a ll Terms, 1968 to 1973, were c a te ­ gorized according to class le v e l, sex, m a rita l s ta tu s , major and cumu­ la t iv e grade p o in t average. Each F a ll Term was tre a te d as a separate e n tity since some students could have taken a Cred1t-No C re d it class in more than one F a ll Term. The concern was w ith the actual number o f students who had used the option in each o f the re sp ec tive terms. Total numbers o f students who had used the Cred1t-No C re d it option during F a ll Terms and numbers o f students by sex and m a rita l status were compiled. Figures 1 and 2 are schematic represen tatio ns of the design fo r th is aspect o f the study. Figure 3 represents the percent o f the t o ta l population o f undergraduate students a t Michigan S tate who have used the Cred1t-No C re d it option in each o f th e F a ll Terms. Figure 4 is a schematic rep resen tatio n o f the c a te g o riza tio n o f CR-NC Users by class fo r each o f the F a ll Terms. Class percentages o f Users are fo r each o f the F a ll Terms s e p a ra te ly . Figure 5 represents the c a te g o riz a tio n o f CR-NC Users by grade p o in t average f o r each o f the F a ll Terms, The CR-NC Users grade p o in t average 1s compared to the A ll-U n iv e r s ity grade p o in t average. Figure 6 1s a schematic represen­ ta tio n fo r fo u r ta b le s in which CR-NC Users are categorized by grade p o in t average and cla ss . The CR-NC Users grade p o in t average is com­ pared to resp ective class grade p o in t average. 34 1600 1400 - 1200 - Number of 1000 - Students 8 0 0 -- 600 - 400 - 200 - - 1968 F ig ure 1. 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 T o ta l number o f undergraduates who had used the CR-NC option, 100 - - 90 - Percentage of Students by Sex and M a rita l S tatus 80 - 70 - 6 0 -50 -4 0 -30 - 20 - - 10 - - 1968 F ig u re 2. 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 Percentage o f undergraduates who had used the CR-NC o p tion by sex and m a rita l s ta tu s . 35 ■\ F all Term Total Number o f Undergraduates Total Number o f CR-NC Users ' Percentage o f CR-NC Users 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 Figui F a ll Term Number and percentage o f CR-NC users in comparison with the to ta l number o f undergraduates. Freshmen Sophomore Junior 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 Percentage o f CR-NC users by class by y e a r. Senior 36 F all CR-NC U n iv e rs ity Term 0 .0 0 -1 .9 9 2 .0 0 -2 .4 9 2 .5 0 -2 .9 9 3 .0 0 -3 .4 9 3 .5 above GPA GPA 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 Figure 5. Percentages o f CR-NC users In grade p o in t average ca teg o ries * mean grade p o in t average o f CR-NC users* a l1 -u n iv e r s ity grade p o in t average. F a ll Term 0 .0 0 -1 .9 9 2 .0 0 -2 .4 9 2 .5 0 -2 .9 9 3 .0 0 -3 .4 9 3 .5 above CR-NC Class GPA GPA 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 Figure 6. Percentages o f CR-NC users by class in grade p o in t average c a te g o rie s * mean grade p o in t average o f CR-NC users* class grade p o in t average* Freshmen through S eniors. 37 A common assumption among advocates o f an in n o vative grading option is th a t i t w il l encourage undergraduate students an o p p o rtu n ity to explore courses outside t h e i r major areas o f concentration.^ Fig ­ ure 7 represents ten ta b le s th a t present numbers and type o f students according to declared majors in ten selected cla ss es . These s p e c ific classes vyere chosen f o r d e s c rip tio n due to t h e ir d iv e r s it y and the r e l a t i v e ly la rg e number o f students who had chosen to take these classes on a C redit-N o C re d it b asis. These ta b le s represent the to ta l number o f students in a l l o f the F a ll Terms, 1968 to 1973, and t h e ir declared m ajors. Figure 7a represents ten ta b le s containing percent­ ages o f w ith in c o lle g e majors and outside c o lle g e majors fo r each course. The courses examined were: In tro d u c to ry Physics In tro d u c tio n to Economics H is to ry o f Western A rt Psychology o f P e rs o n a lity In d iv id u a l Sports Survey o f Accounting Concepts General Anatomy College Algebra and Trigonometry Elementary Russian Second Year French P a rt I I Two question n aires were prepared to sample student opinions concerning areas o f grading and the use o f the Cred1t-No C re d it grad­ ing o p tio n .* The o b je c tiv e s o f th is survey were to measure a ttitu d e s V e d r i n i , op. c i t . , p. 3. Both questionnaires are presented in Appendix A. 38 Declared M ajor Figure 7. Declared majors o f undergraduates taking course on a CR-NC basis in s ix f a l l terms. Course T i t l e Figure 7a. Number o f Students 1n Six Terms Percentage o f W ithin Major Students Percentage o f Outside Major Students Percentage o f students tak in g course w ith in and outside o f declared m ajor. 39 o f Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity undergraduates who had chosen to take one course o r more on a CR-NC basis and to measure a ttitu d e s o f those s tu ­ dents who had not taken a course using th is option. D e fin itio n o f Terms Element. — The in d iv id u a l undergraduate student P o pu lation . - - a ) The f u ll - t im e Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity undergraduate students who used the CR-NC grading option during W inter Term, 1974; b) The f u ll - t im e Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity undergraduate students who did not use the CR-NC grading option w h ile a t Michigan S ta te . Survey P opu lation . — a) The 1,132 CR-NC Users during W inter Term; b) The 30,176 undergraduates who did not use the CR-NC o p tio n . Sampling Frame. — The magnetic tape containing lis t in g o f undergraduate students who have and who have not taken courses using the CR-NC grading option during W inter Term, 1974. V a ria b le s . — a) Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity cum ulative grade p o in t averages in the fo llo w in g ca teg o ries : 3 .0 0 and above; b) Class: 0 .0 0 -1 .9 9 , 2 .0 0 -2 .9 9 , Freshmen, Sophomore, J u n io r, Senior. Sampling Design A p a r a lle l sample design was used to generate samples o f CRNC Users and Non-Users. For the Non-User sample, a system atic sample o f students was taken through generating a l i s t using the student re c ­ ords magnetic tape. Every one-hundreth student was chosen, beginning a t a random p o in t, and those students who had a CR-NC course on t h e ir 40 records were d e le te d . From the re s u ltin g l i s t o f 451 students, a l l graduate students were d e le te d . graduates. The f in a l sample contained 401 under­ This re p re s e n ta tiv e sample o f undergraduates was post­ s t r a t i f ie d according to the th re e grade p o in t average categ o ries . Wide ranges w ith in categ o ries were used so th a t student respondents would not be forced to ca teg o rize themselves according to very spe­ c i f i c grade p o in t le v e ls . Class le v e l o f each subject 1n the sample was discerned from the o rig in a l l i s t o f undergraduates. For th e Cred1t-No C re d it Users sample, the to ta l population was s t r a t i f i e d and sampled in the fo llo w in g manner: Number in Sample 17 Percentage o f Sample/Population 100% 45 45 100% 42 42 100% 0 .0 0 -1 .9 9 2 2 100% Sophomore: 2 .0 0 -2 .9 9 49 49 100% Sophomore: 3 .0 0 above 98 49 50% Ju n io r: 0 .0 0 -1 .9 9 1 1 100% Ju n io r: 2 .0 0 -2 .9 9 116 58 50% Ju n io r: 3.0 0 above 218 55 25% Senior: 2 .0 0 -2 .9 9 172 43 25% Senior: 3 .0 0 above 372 93 25% 1,132 454 40% Class Freshmen: GPA 0 .0 0 -1 .9 9 Freshmen: 2 .0 0 -2 .9 9 Freshmen: 3 .0 0 above Sophomore: TOTALS: Number in Population 17 41 The questionnaires and cover l e t t e r s * were sent to a to ta l o f 855 students as defined 1n the above sampling procedures. F ifte e n days fo llo w in g the m a ilin g , a second copy o f the q uestionnaire and cover l e t t e r * * were sent to the non-respondents. naires were returned unopened. Sixteen question­ T w enty-five days a f t e r the fo llow -u p l e t t e r was s e n t, 1 t was assumed th a t more responses would not be fo r t h ­ coming. The to ta l number o f respondents was 627, a response ra te o f 75 percent. The response ra te f o r the C redlt-N o C re d it User question­ n a ire was 77 percent; the response ra te fo r the system atic sample o f Non-Users was 72 percent. For the s t a t is t i c a l an alysis a to ta l o f 622 returned questionnaires were used due to the Incompleteness o f f iv e o f the t o t a l . The to ta l number (627) o f respondents was used 1n the percent frequency counts fo r both q u estio n n aires, the I n i t i a l a n a ly s is . Figure 8 represents two tab les presenting percent frequency counts fo r both samples. There were e ig h t Items th a t were id e n tic a l 1n both question­ n aires so th a t comparisons could be made between CR-NC Users and NonUsers. To t e s t whether th ere were s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s between Users and Non-Users o f the CR-NC o p tio n , a Ch1-Square analysis^ was used. Figure 9 1s a schematic rep resen tatio n o f the Chi-Square Anal­ y s is . The alpha le v e l fo r a l l te s ts o f s ig n ific a n c e was .0 5 . *Both cover le t t e r s are presented 1n Appendix B. The second cover l e t t e r is presented 1n Appendix C. fo rn ia : ^Earl R. Babble, Survey Research Methods (Belmont, C a li­ Wadsworth Publishing Company, 19 73 ), pp. 308-314. 42 (N -2 8 1 ) (N=346) No Response S tro n g ly Agree With The Statement Agree With The Statement Disagree With The Statement S tro n g ly Disagree With The Statement Item 1 Item n F igure 8 . Q uestion n aire response p ercen t frequency counts. Items 1 - 8 USER NON-USER S tro n g ly Agree Agree Disagree S tro n g ly Disagree T o ta l Chi-Square Value Figure 9. C hi-square a n a ly s is o f e ig h t q u e s tio n n a ire item s. D o n 't Know 43 To te s t whether th ere were s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s by class and by grade p o in t average categ o ries on each o f the e ig h t item s, the U n iv a ria te and M u ltiv a r ia te Analysis o f Variance^ was employed. Two separate m u ltiv a r ia te analyses were used, a fo u r by two way design w ith e ig h t dependent measures, the independent v a ria b le s being c la s s , freshmen through s e n io r, and CR-NC Users and Non-Users; a th ree by two design w ith e ig h t dependent measures, the independent v a ria b le s being the grade p o in t average categories and Cred1t-No C re d it Users and Non-Users. The Schematic represen tatio ns o f the M u ltiv a r ia te De- signs are presented in Figures 10 and 11. S c h e ffe 1 Post-Hoc compar­ isons were used to determine which combination o f means co n trib u ted to s ig n ific a n c e o f the U n iv a ria te F t e s t. An a n c illa r y p a rt o f th is research was a q u e stio n n aire * ad­ m inistered to teaching fa c u lty members through a telephone in te rv ie w . Two fa c u lty members were chosen from each department th a t o ffe re d undergraduate classes. fa c u lty and s t a f f . members. The sampling frame was the l is t in g of The i n i t i a l sample contained s ix ty -n in e fa c u lty Nine o f the to ta l were found to be non-teaching fa c u lty . Out o f the remaining s ix ty teaching fa c u lty members, f i f t y were con­ tacted and th is number completed the telephone in te rv ie w . Since the Jeremy D. F in n 's M u ltiv a ria n c e , M odified f o r use on the CDC 6500, by O ffic e o f Research C o n su lta tio n , Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity . 2 Gene V. Glass and J u lia n C. S ta n le y , S t a t is t ic a l Methods in Education and Psychology (Englewood C l i f f s , N .J .! P r e n tic e -H a ll, 1970), pp. 388-93. The fa c u lty q u estion n aire is presented in Appendix D. 44 CR-NC USER Freshmen Sophomore Junio r NON-USER Senio r Freshmen Sophomore Junlo r Senio r Item 1 Item 8 Figure 10. U n iv a ria te and m u ltiv a r ia te an alysis o f v a ria n c e , class by CR-NC user and non-user. CR-NC USER 0 .0 0 -1 .9 9 2 .0 0 -2 .9 9 3 .0 0 above NON-USER 0 .0 0 -1 .9 9 2 .0 0 -2 .9 9 3 .0 0 above Item 1 Item 8 Figure 11. U n iv a ria te and m u ltiv a r ia te an alysis o f v a ria n c e , grade p o in t average category by CR-NC users and non-users. 45 format o f the q uestionnaire was d if f e r e n t than the instruments given to students, i t was tre a te d as a separate e n t it y . Some o f the Items in the telephone in te rv ie w were s im ila r to the mailed student question­ naires and a discussion o f these responses included a n o n -s ta tis tic a l comparison. In d iv id u a l fa c u lty responses were included to present an in d ic a tio n o f fa c u lty a ttitu d e s toward the in n o v ativ e grading o ption . Percent frequency counts were c a lc u la te d f o r the in d iv id u a l in te rv ie w i terns. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS Chapter IV contains a p resen tatio n o f the re s u lts o f the study. The f i r s t p a rt o f the chapter is a presen tatio n o f the d es crip ­ tio n o f the s ix term use o f the CR-NC grading o p tio n . Hypotheses 1 through 4 are presented, ta b le s were prepared, and each hypotheses is discussed. Following the i n i t i a l d e s c rip tiv e p a rt o f the study, hy­ potheses 5a through 7h were tested and inferences drawn. Throughout th is chapter a d e s c rip tio n o f the types o f students who used the CR-NC o p tio n , and a d e s c rip tio n o f the q uestionnaire respondents are in ­ cluded. The fin d in g s concerning hypotheses 8 and 9 are presented, follow ed by a b r ie f summary. P a rt I Four hypotheses were presented w ith referen ce to the de­ s c r ip tiv e aspect o f the study. Hypothesis 1 The number o f undergraduates who use the C redit-N o C re d it option w i l l be c o n s is te n tly less than f iv e percent o f the to ta l under­ graduate population in F a ll Terms, 1968 to 1973. Total numbers o f C redit-N o C re d it Users in F a ll Terms, 1968 to 1973 are presented in Figure 12. Figure 13 is a presen tatio n o f CR-NC Users in the F a ll Terms, according to sex and m a rita l s ta tu s . 46 47 2000 19001800170016001500140013001200 - 1110 - 1100 1140 1098 - 1014 1000900800700600500400300- 900 200 100 - 1968 Figure 12. 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 Total numbers o f undergraduate CR-NC users in six f a l l terms. 48 Ms! 6 5 5 .3 • • • • * 5 3 .0 *• »»* 47.7 F em a le........................ 3 7 .4 --------- 4 1 .8 --- 41.1 M arried M a le ------— • 5 ,4 — — — 2.1 —•—*—• 6 .2 Married F em a le 1 . 8 ------- 3 . 2 -- 4 .9 47*5 • • * • » 4 2 .3 • • * . * 3 9 .3 4 2 .0 4 7 .3 51.1 6 .9 6.1 5 .4 3 . 6 ---------- 4 . 2 ----------- 4.1 100 90 - 80 70 60 50 - 1968 Figure 13. 1969 1970 1971 CR-NC users by sex and m a rita l sta tu s in s ix f a l l 1972 terms. 1973 49 Table 4 1s a presentation o f the percentage o f undergrad­ uates who have used the CR-NC option 1n each o f the F a ll Terms. For the to ta l number o f undergraduates, A g ric u ltu ra l Technology and Eng­ lis h Language Center students were d e le te d . Table 4. Percentage o f CR-NC users in to ta l undergraduate population. F a ll Term T otal Number o f Undergraduates Total Number o f CR-NC Users Percentage o f CR-NC Users 1968 31,761 441 1.3% 1969 32,205 1,110 3.4% 1970 31,613 1,140 3.6% 1971 33,025 1,098 3.4% 1972 32,803 1,014 3.1% 1973 32,777 900 2.7% 194,184 5,703 2.9% TOTAL The percentage o f Credit-N o C re d it Users 1n each o f the s ix terms ranged from 1.3 percent to 3 .6 percent, c o n s is te n tly less than the 5 percent hypothesized. Following F a ll Term, 1968, the f i r s t term the option was o ffe re d , the r e la t iv e ly co n sisten t percentage o f CR-NC Users was approxim ately 3 .0 percent. The trend lin e presented in Table 4 displays th a t the use o f the option has been slowly decreasing from the high p o in t o f 1970. Figure 13 displays consistency by m ari­ t a l status w ith referen ce to CR-NC use, however, the percentage o f males using the option has f a lle n below the percentage o f females fo r the past two F a ll Terms. The number o f female Users has remained r e l ­ a tiv e ly co n siste n t throughout th e s ix terms. 50 Hypothesis 2 In each o f the F a ll Terms described, use o f the C redit-N o C re d it option w il l be d ir e c t ly re la te d to ones le v e l in c o lle g e , e . g . , more seniors w il l have chosen to use the C redit-N o C re d it-o p tio n than ju n io r s , more ju n io rs than sophomores, and more sophomores than freshmen. Number o f students and percentage o f each class th a t used the option in each annual F a ll Term are presented in Table 5. ages by class are fo r each F a ll Term s e p a ra te ly . Percent­ Total numbers and percentages fo r a l l terms are presented. Table 5. Number and percentage o f CR-NC users by class by y e a r. F a ll Term Freshmen No. 2 Sophomore No. 2 Junior No. 2 Senior No. 2 1968 12 2.72 96 21.82 133 30.22 20 0 45.42 1969 43 3.92 198 17.82 380 34.22 489 44.12 1970 21 1.82 156 13.72 336 29.52 627 55.02 1971 38 3.52 166 15.12 379 34.52 515 46.92 1972 35 3 .5 2 166 16.42 325 32.12 488 48.12 1973 32 3.62 133 14.82 295 32.82 440 48.9% 181 3.22 915 16.02 1848 32.42 2759 48.42 TOTAL: The percentage o f seniors who used th e CR-NC option were con­ s is te n tly higher than the percentage o f ju n io r s , follow ed by sopho­ mores and freshmen. were sen io rs. Nearly h a lf o f the to ta l number o f CR-NC users The ta b le shows th a t the la rg e s t percentage o f seniors 51 to use th e option was 1970, the la s t ye ar males (F ig u re 13) were pre­ dominant users o f the grading o p tio n . The la r g e s t v a r ia tio n w ith in classes was among s e n io rs , ju n io rs showing the most consistency fo r the F a ll Terms among th e th re e upper classes. NC use by seniors was 1970. The high p o in t o f CR- This F a ll Term had the lowest percentage o f sophomore users o f the o p tio n . Other F a ll Terms showed r e la t iv e consistency by c la s s . Hypothesis 3 The undergraduate Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity cum ulative grade p o in t average among C red it-N o C re d it Users w il l be a t le a s t 0 . 1 0 lower than th e grade p o in t averages o f each resp ec tive c la s s . Table 6 d isp lays the c a te g o riz a tio n o f CR-NC Users by grade p o in t average fo r each o f th e F a ll Terms. The mean CR-NC grade p o in t average was compiled f o r Users and compared to the A ll-U n iv e r s ity grade p o in t average f o r each re s p e c tiv e term . For the t o t a l , the grade p o in t average f o r Users was compiled and compared to the mean o f the A11-U n iv e rs ity average fo r th e s ix term s. The percentages fo r each grade p o in t average category are separated by term. As in d ic a te d by Table 6 , th e to ta l grade p o in t average o f CR-NC Users has been c o n s is te n tly higher than the A ll-U n iv e r s ity av er­ age. The la rg e s t percentage o f CR-NC Users lie s in the 3 .0 0 -3 .4 9 c a t- egpry, follow ed by the 3 .5 0 above category except f o r 1969 when the second h ig hest was 2 .5 0 -2 .9 9 . Hypothesis 3 was concerned w ith the comparisons by grade p o in t average by c la s s . Tables 7 through 10 present percentages o f 52 Table 6 . Percentage o f CR-NC users in grade p o in t average c a te g o rie s ) mean grade p o in t average o f CR-NC users* a ll- u n iv e r s it y grade p o in t average. A ll-U n 1 F a ll CR-NC v e r s lty Term 0 .0 0 -1 .9 9 2 .0 0 -2 .4 9 2 .5 0 -2 .9 9 3 .0 0 -3 .4 9 3 .5 0 above GPA GPA 1968 3.4% 15.4% 25.2% 30.0% 26.1% 2 .9 9 2.49 1969 2 . 1% 16.1% 25.0% 33.2% 23.6% 3.01 2.55 1970 1 . 1% 1 1 . 8% 26.1% 34.1% 27.0% 3.08 2.62 1971 3.6% 1 0 . 2% 23.1% 36.9% 26.0% 3 .0 2 2.72 1972 3.7% 9.3% 2 2 . 1% 34.3% 30.6% 3 .0 5 2.72 1973 5.0% 7.8% 23.7% 38.8% 24.8% 2 .9 9 2.75 GPA TOTALS 3.03 2.63 CR-NC Users in grade p o in t average categ o ries by Term. The mean grade p o in t averages were compared to the mean grade p o in t averages f o r each class f o r each F a ll Term. Table 7. Percentage o f CR-NC users 1n grade p o in t average c a te g o rie s , mean grade p o in t average o f CR-NC users, class grade p o in t average: Freshmen. (N = 180) CR-NC Freshmen F a ll GPA Term 0 .0 0 -1 .9 9 2 .0 0 -2 .4 9 2 .5 0 -2 .9 9 3 .0 0 -3 .4 9 3 .5 0 above GPA 1968 41.7% 25.0% 25.0% 8.3% 0 . 0% 2.13 2.36 1969 1 2 . 0% 19.0% 31.0% 31.0% 7.1% 2.69 2.32 1970 14.3% 19.0% 28.6% 14.3% 24.0% 2.66 2.51 1971 65.8% 13.2% 5.3% 10.5 5.3% 1.09 2.5 4 1972 60.0% 5.7% 17.1% 11.4% 5.7% 1.41 2.57 1973 72.0% 3.1% 9.4% 12.5% 3.1% 0.83 2.59 1.75 2 .4 8 GPA TOTALS 53 Table 7 In d ica te s th a t the grade p o in t average fo r CR-NC Users was higher than th e Freshmen class average 1n Two Terms, 1969 and 1970. The to ta l number o f freshmen in the th re e lowest grade p o in t average term s, 1971, 1972, and 1973 was 38 , 35, and 32 respec­ t iv e ly (Table 5 ). The la rg e s t percentage o f these students were in the lowest grade p o in t average c a te g o rie s . The grade p o in t average o f CR-NC Users proved to be lower by more than the 0 .1 0 hypothesized. Table 8 . Percentage o f CR-NC users in grade p o in t average ca te g o rie s , mean grade p o in t average o f CR-NC users, class grade p o in t average: Sophomores. (N - 90 2)* F a ll CR-NC Sophomore Term 0 .0 0 -1 .9 9 2 .0 0 -2 .4 9 2 .5 0 -2 .9 9 3 .0 0 -3 .4 9 3. 50 above GPA GPA 1968 8 . 35! 17.7% 2 0 . 8% 25.0% 28.1% 2.94 2.48 1969 3.1% 19.2% 2 0 . 2% 30.1% 27.5% 3.01 2.43 1970 3.3% 13.9% 22.5% 30.5% 29.8% 3.06 2.50 1971 3.7% 9.1% 25.6% 34.1% 27.4% 3.05 2.50 1972 3.0% 9.1% 2 1 . 8% 36.4% 30.0% 3.04 2.64 1973 6 . 8% 27.1% 27.1% 28.6% 2.95 2.68 3.03 2.54 10.5% GPA TOTALS The to ta l number o f sophomores who used the option was 915. T h irteen o f th is to ta l were deleted in Table 8 due to lack o f grade p o in t average d ata. The sophomore CR-NC User grade p o in t average was c o n s is te n tly higher than the class average fo r a l l F a ll Terms. The 1973 percentage o f sophomores in the lowest grade p o in t average category was highest since th e incep tio n o f the option in 1968. The highest CR-NC User 54 grade p o in t average fo r sophomores was 1n 1970, the term the lowest percentage o f sophomores used the option (Table 5 ), Table 9. Percentage o f CR-NC users in grade p o in t average c a te g o rie s , mean grade p o in t average o f CR-NC users, class grade p oint average: Juniors. (N = 1848) F a ll CR-NC Junior Term 0 .0 0 -1 .9 9 2 .0 0 -2 .4 9 2 .5 0 -2 .9 9 3 .0 0 -3 .4 9 3 .5 0 above GPA GPA 1968 1.0% 15.8% 24.8% 36.8% 21 .8% 3.01 2.48 1969 1.6% 14.9% 24.4% 32.1% 26.5% 3.03 2.52 1970 1.0% 9.9% 27.2% 34.1% 28.1% 3.10 2.56 1971 2 . 1% 12.8% 2 1 . 1% 37.9% 26.1% 3 .0 5 2.5 8 1972 2.5% 11.3% 23.1% 33.1% 30.0% 3.06 2.70 1973 4.1% 8.5% 26.2% 25.9% 25.0% 3.03 2.72 GPA TOTALS 3,06 2.59 Table 10. Percentage o f CR-NC users 1n grade p o in t average c a te g o rie s , mean grade p o in t average o f CR-NC users, class grade p o in t average: Seniors. (N = 2759) F a ll CR-NC Senior GPA Term 0 .0 0 -1 .9 9 2 .0 0 -2 .4 9 2 .5 0 -2 .9 9 3 .0 0 -3 .4 9 3.5 0 above GPA 1968 0.5% 13.5% 27.5% 29.0% 29.5% 3.06 2.68 1969 0 .8% 16.0% 27.4% 36.0% 19.8% 3.0 0 2.78 1970 0.3% 12.4% 26.8% 36.5% 24.0% 3.06 2 .8 0 1971 0 . 2% 8 . 6% 25.7% 40.0% 25.5% 3.11 2.86 1972 0 . 8% 8.5% 22.4% 36.9% 31.4% 3.14 2.87 1973 0 . 2% 6 . 6% 2 2 . 1% 45.8% 25.3% 3.14 2.89 3.09 2.81 GPA TOTALS 55 The grade p o in t averages fo r CR-NC Users were In v a ria b ly higher than the class averages fo r ju n io rs and se n io rs . While grade p o in t averages fo r both classes have ris e n c o n s is te n tly fo r the s ix terms s tu d ie d , CR-NC grade p o in t averages are amazingly co n sistent over th e s ix terms. Students a t the upper le v e ls o f t h e ir academic careers who use the grading option appear to be in the upper le v e ls o f academic achievement. Over twenty percent o f sophomores, ju n io rs and seniors who use the option was in the 3 .5 0 o r above grade category (w ith one excep tio n , seniors in 1969, Table 1 0 .) The decreasing num­ ber o f students a t the lowest grade p o in t le v e l was understandable because o f the 2 .0 0 cut o f f le v e l requ ired fo r graduation. Less than twenty percent o f the CR-NC Users, sophomores through seniors was in the 2 .0 0 -2 .4 9 category. The re s u lts o f th is examination in d ic a te th a t the students a t the higher grade p o in t le v e ls choose to take courses using the CRNC o p tio n . These re s u lts d is p la y a s im ila r it y to the use o f the pass- f a l l option a t the U n iv e rs ity o f C a lifo r n ia a t Berkeley where the op­ tio n was used by students w ith above academic a b i l i t i e s who use the option to avoid average or lower grades.^ Except fo r the freshmen CR- NC Users, grade p o in t averages were higher fo r CR-NC Users as compared to Class averages. The re s u lts o f th is exam ination do not support the hypothesis th a t grade p o in t averages among CR-NC Users were a t le a s t 0.10 lower than the grade p o in t average o f each re s p e c tiv e class aver­ age except f o r freshmen. ^Sidney Suslow, op. c i t . , p. 7. 56 Hypothesis 4 Undergraduates who have used the C red it-N o C re d it Option w ill not have chosen to take courses on th is basis th a t are in a d if f e r e n t "College" than the one o f t h e ir designated m ajor. Tables 11 through 20 d is p la y numbers and types o f students according to declared majors in ten selected classes. The students considered in the tab les were a to ta l number o f students who had taken the re s p e c tiv e class on a CR-NC basis in the s ix F a ll Terms studied. Majors were grouped according to stu d en t's c o lle g e . Percentages were compiled w ith reference to the percent o f the to ta l number o f students who took the class on a CR-NC basis w ith in each C ollege. Percentage o f "Outside College" students was c a lc u la te d fo r each class and com­ pared to the W ithin College percentage. Tables 11a through 20a pre­ sent these comparisons. A b r i e f course d e s c rip tio n * was s ta ted p r io r to each ta b le . *"D escript1on o f Courses L is t ," Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity , Volume 6 8 , No. 3 , November, 1973. 57 Table 11. Declared majors o f undergraduates tak in g course on a CR-NC basis in s ix f a l l terms. Course T i t l e : In tro d u c to ry Physics College: N atural Science Course D e sc rip tio n : Mechanics and Heat (N = 39) Declared Major Number o f Students Audlology and Speech Sciences .................. ...................... Psychology 14 ......................................................... A g ric u ltu re and N atural Resources . . . B io lo g ic a l Sciences ....................................... H is to ry Human EcoTogy Sociology Physical Sciences A d ve rtisin g Biology Anthropology Ju s tin M o r r ill College Preprofessional U n iv e rs ity College Table 11a. . . . ..................... 1 (in each m ajor) Percentage o f students taking course w ith in and outside c o lle g e o f declared m ajor. Course T i t l e In tro d u c to ry Physics Percentage o f W ithin Major Students 1 0 . 2% Percentage o f Outside Major Students 89.8% 58 Table 12. Declared majors o f undergraduates tak in g course on a CR-NC basis in s ix f a l l terms. Course T i t l e : In tro d u c tio n to Economics College: Business Course D e sc rip tio n : (N « 183) Problems o f unemployment; meaning and determ ination o f n a tio n a l income; the m u lt ip lie r ; the a c c e le ra to r; fis c a l p o lic y ; d e f i c i t spending; monetary p o lic y ; banks c re a tio n o f money; in te rn a tio n a l aspects o f employment problems. Declared Ma.ior Number o f Students A d v e r t is in g .......................................................................................... 26 U n iv e rs ity College ......................................................................... 17 Human E c o lo g y ...................................................................................... 14 Physical Sciences ............................................................................... 9 A g ric u ltu re and N atural Resources ............................................... 9 Mathematics and S t a tis tic s 9 Social Science ......................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Psychology ..................................................................................... 7 T e le v is io n and Radio 7 ....................................... . .............................................................. 7 B io lo g ic a l Sciences .......................................................................... 6 Mechanical Engineering Social W o rk .................................................................................. 5 P o lit ic a l Science ............................................................................... 4 H is to ry .................................................................................................... 4 Communication ....................................................................................... 4 J u s tin M o r r ill C ollege .............................................................. 4 ........................................................................................... 3 Journalism Elementary and Special Education Engineering Sciences ............................................ .......................... , A r t .................................................................................................... 3 3 3 Nursing .................................................................................................... S o c io lo g y ....................................................................................... English .................................................................................................... 2 2 2 59 Table 12. Continued. Declared Major Number o f Students C iv il Engineering ............................................................ . . 2 J u s tic e , M o ra lity and C o n s titu tio n a l Democracy . . 2 Biology .................................................................................. . . 2 ............................................................ . . 2 Urban Planning and Landscape A rc h ite c tu re . . . . . 2 Crim inal J u s tic e Business Law and F in an cial A dm in istratio n H o te l, Restaurant and In s titu tio n a l Management Music Accounting and F in an cial A dm inistration Communication A rts , Mass Media H e alth , Physical Education and Recreation M etallu rg y Chemical Engineering Romance Languages .............................. 1 Anthropology (in each major) Mathematics Ethnic and R eligious Intergroup R elations P o licy Problems Audiology and Speech Sciences Arts and L e tte rs Preprofessional Table 12a. Percentage o f students taking course w ith in and outside co lle g e o f declared major. Course T i t l e In tro d u c tio n to Economics Percentage o f W ithin Major Students 1 Percentage o f Outside Major Students 98.4% 60 Table 13. Declared majors o f undergraduates takin g course on a CR-NC basis in s ix f a l l terms. Course T i t l e : H is to ry o f Western A rt College: A rts and L e tte rs Course D escriptio n: (N - 48) P a in tin g , s c u lp tu re , a rc h ite c tu re from the time o f the Greeks to the present. In d iv id u a l works o f a r t examined In te n s iv e ly , as regards both t h e ir formal q u a litie s and the manner in which they exem plify the s h iftin g p attern s o f Western c u ltu re . Declared Major Number o f Students P sych o lo g y.................................................................................. 9 Human E c o l o g y ......................................................................... 7 English ...................................................................................... 6 T e le v is io n and Radio ............................................................ 3 Elementary and Special Education ................................... 2 Physical Sciences ................................................................. 2 Romance Languages ................................................................. 2 H ealth , Physical Education and Recreation . . . . 2 Arts and L e t t e r s ..................................................................... 2 Theatre 2 ...................................................................................... P o lit ic a l Science Economics H isto ry Journalism H o te l, Restaurant and In s t itu tio n a l Management Anthropology Biochemistry Crim inal Ju stice Engineering Sciences Computer Science U n iv e rs ity College 1 (in each m ajor) 61 Table 13a. Course T i t l e H isto ry o f Western A rt Percentage o f students taking course w ith in and outside co lleg e o f declared major. Percentage o f W ithin Major Students 27. n Percentage o f Outside Major Students 7 2 .9 % 62 Table 14. Declared majors o f undergraduates takin g course on a CR-NC basis in s ix f a l l terms. Course T i t l e : Psychology o f P e rs o n a lity College: Social Science Course D escrip tio n : (N - 51) A p p lic a tio n o f psychological p rin c ip le s to an In t r o ­ ductory understanding o f p e rs o n a lity and In te rp e r­ sonal adjustments; so cial m o tiv a tio n , f r u s t r a tio n , c o n flic ts and adjustment mechanisms; th eo ries o f ad­ ju s tm e n t, the assessment o f p e rs o n a lity problems, mental hygiene and some th eo ries o f psychotherapy. Declared M ajor Number o f Students Human E c o lo g y .............................................................................. 5 Mathematics and S ta tis tic s ................................................ 4 ............................................................. 4 Physical Sciences ..................................................................... 3 B io lo g ic al Sciences ................................................................. 3 Crim inal J u s tic e ..................................................................... 3 Business Law and F in an cial A d m in istratio n .................. 2 Social Science ......................................................................... 2 M u s ic ............................................................................................... 2 Chemical Engineering ............................................................. 2 A r t .................................................................................................... 2 Mechanical Engineering ........................................................ 2 ............................................................. , 2 T e le v is io n and Radio U n iv e rs ity College Lyman Briggs College Preprofessional Socioeconomic Regulatory and W elfare P o lic y Problems Audlology and Speech Sciences Ethnic and R eligious Intergroup R elation s P o licy Problems Engineering Sciences Mathematics Biochemistry 1 J u s tin M o r r ill (in each m ajor) J u s tic e , M o ra lity and C o n s titu tio n a l Democracy 63 Table 14. Continued. Declared Major Number o f Students Human Medicine C iv il Engineering Economics P o lit ic a l Science A g ric u ltu re and N atural Resources Table 14a. 1 * ’ Percentage o f students taking course w ith in and outside c o lle g e o f declared m ajor. Course T i t l e Psychology of P e rso n ality Percentage o f W ithin M ajor Students 11.7% Percentage o f Outside Major Students 88.3% Table 15. Declared majors o f undergraduates tak in g course on a CR-NC basis in s ix f a l l terms. Course T i t l e : College: Course D escrip tio n : In d iv id u a l Sports (N = 8 6 ) Education Provides o p p o rtu n itie s f o r th e student to become adept 1 n one or more a c t i v i t ie s w ith high c a rry -o v e r v a lu e , and acquire s k i l l s which w il l be a source o f h e a lth fu l re c re a tio n a l e x e rc is e . Declared Major Number o f Students Elementary and Special Education ............................... . . 7 J u s tin M o r r ill College ............................................................. 7 Human E c o l o g y .............................................................................. 6 Social Science .............................................................................. 5 A g ric u ltu re and Natural Resources ................................... 4 Mathematics and S t a t is tic s .................................................... 4 Accounting and F in an cia l A d m in istratio n ...................... 3 A rts and L e t t e r s .......................................................................... 3 P o lit ic a l Science Business Law and F in an cia l A d m in istratio n Journalism H o te l, Restaurant and In s t itu t io n a l Management B io lo g ic a l Sciences Romance Languages J u s tic e , M o ra lity and C o n s titu tio n a l Democracy Biology Mathematics Preprofessional Lyman Briggs College Psychology Nursing Sociology E le c tr ic a l Engineering English M u s i c ............................................................................................... M arketing and T ran sp o rtatio n A d m in istratio n A d vertisin g 2 (1 n each major) 1 (in each major) 65 Table 15. Continued. Declared Major Number o f Students H e a lth , Physical Education and Recreation M eta llu rg y Chemical Engineering Crim inal Ju stice Engineering Sciences . . . German and Russian Urban Planning and Landscape A rc h ite c tu re James Madison College Medical Technology Table 15a. 1 Percentage o f students takin g course w ith in and outside c o lle g e o f declared m ajor. Course T i t l e In d iv id u a l Sports Percentage o f W ithin Major Students 9.3% Percentage o f Outside Major Students 90.7% 66 Table 16. Declared majors o f undergraduates taking course on a CR-NC basis in s ix f a l l terms. Course T i t l e : Survey o f Accounting Concepts College: Business Course D e sc rip tio n : (N = 44) Non-technical approach to accounting concepts under­ ly in g income determ ination and asset v a lu a tio n . P reparation and in te r p r e ta tio n o f fin a n c ia l s ta te ­ ments, the evalu atio n o f costs and performance, and accounting co n tro ls o f business are among the topics covered. Declared Major Number o f Students Crim inal Ju s tic e ..................................................................... 7 A d vertisin g .............................................................................. 5 Human E c o l o g y .......................................................................... 5 Social Science .......................................................................... 5 Economics 5 .................................................................................. C iv il E n g in e e r in g ...................................................................... 3 A g ric u ltu ra l and N atural Resources .............................. 2 H is to ry 2 ...................................................................................... Physical Sciences ................................................................. P o lit ic a l Science Psychology Journal ism T e le v is io n and Radi H e alth , Physical Education and Recreation Engineering Sciences Mechanical Engineering Table 16a. 2 1 ( in each m ajor) Percentage o f students tak in g course w ith in and outside c o lle g e o f declared m ajor. Course T i t l e Survey o f Account­ ing Concepts Percentage o f W ithin M ajor Students 11.3% Percentage o f Outside Major Students 88.7% 67 Table 17. Declared majors o f undergraduates ta k in g course on a CR-NC basis in s ix f a l l term s. Course T i t l e : General Anatomy C o llege: Human Medicine Course D e s c rip tio n : (N = 40) Designed to im part the b asic concepts o f the broad f i e l d o f anatomy. Special requirem ents o f the v a r i ­ ous d is c ip lin e s w i l l be met in t h e i r re s p e c tiv e la b o ­ r a to r ie s . Declared Major Number o f Students Audiology and Speech Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Psychology ........................................................................................ 8 S ocial W o r k .................................................................................... 7 U n iv e rs ity C ollege ...................................................................... 3 A r t ..................................................................................................... 2 ............................................................................................ 2 English A g ric u ltu r a l and N atural Resources Economics Mathematics and S t a t is t ic s Human Ecology Physical Sciences 1 Communications (in each m ajor) B io lo g ic a l Sciences Biochem istry E thnic and R e lig io u s Interg ro u p R elatio n s P o lic y Problems Table 17a. Percentage o f students ta k in g course w ith in and o u ts id e c o lle g e o f declared m ajor. Course T i t l e General Anatomy Percentage o f W ithin Major Students 0 . 0% Percentage o f Outside M ajor Students 100. 0% 68 Table 18. Declared major o f undergraduates takin g course on a CR-NC basis 1 n s ix f a l l terms. Course T i t l e : College Algebra and Trigonometry College: Natural Science Course D e sc rip tio n : (N = 67) Number systems; v a ria b le s ; functions and r e la tio n s ; mathematical in d u ctio n ; exponents and ra d ic a ls ; e le ­ mentary theory o f equations; binomial theorem, d e te r­ m inants, m atrices and systems equations. Declared Major Number o f Students Psychology ............................................................................. 12 Sociology ............................................................................. 10 U n iv e rs ity College ............................................................ 7 P o lit ic a l Science 6 ............................................................ Audiology and Speech Sciences ................................... 6 A g ric u ltu ra l and Natural Resources . . . . . . . 4 Elementary and Special Education .............................. 3 Preprofessional ................................................................ 2 A r t .......................................................................................... 2 H isto ry Human Ecology Accounting and Financial A d m inistration B io lo g ical Sciences Romance Languages J u s tic e , M o ra lity and C o n s titu tio n a l Democracy H e alth , Physical Education and Recreation . . Arts and L e tte rs Urban Planning and Landscape A rc h ite c tu re Philosophy College o f Natural Science Table 18a. 1 (in each m ajor) Percentage o f students takin g course w ith in and outside co lleg e o f declared m ajor. Course T i t l e College Algebra and Trigonometry Percentage o f W ithin Major Students 2.9% Percentage o f Outside Major Students 97.1% 69 Table 19. Declared major o f undergraduates taking course on a CR-NC basis in s ix f a l l terms. Course T i t l e : Elementary Russian College: A rts and L e tte rs Course D escriptio n: (17) Fundamentals o f grammar, graded readings. Declared Major syn tax, pronunciation w ith Number o f Students Physical Sciences ............................................... 4 P o lit ic a l Science ................................................ 2 Mathematics and S ta tis tic s .......................... 2 B io lo g ic al Sciences ........................................... 2 Biochemistry 2 ........................................................ Engineering Sciences ....................................... 2 Lyman Briggs College ....................................... 2 U n iv e rs ity College Preprofessional Urban Planning and Landscape A rc h ite c tu re Physical Science Geography . . . E le c tric a l Engineering Human Ecology H isto ry Psychology 1 Table 19a. (in each m ajor) Percentage o f students ta k in g course w ith in and outside c o lle g e o f declared major. Course T i t l e Elementary Russian Percentage o f W ithin Major Students Percentage o f Outside Major Students 4.0% 96.0% 70 Table 20. Declared major o f undergraduates taking course on a CR-NC basis in s ix f a l l terms. Course T i t l e : Second Year French C ollege: A rts and L e tte rs Course D e sc rip tio n : (N = 77) Continuation o f o ral p ra c tic e , in te n s iv e , organized review o f grammar and development o f techniques in reading. Declared Major Number o f Students E n g lis h ...................................................................................... Mathematics and S ta t is tic s 20 ............................................ 8 H isto ry ....................................................................................... 7 Philosophy .............................................................................. 6 ............................................................. 4 ..................................................................... 4 .............................................................................. 4 U n iv e rs ity College Social Science Psychology J u s tin M o r r ill College .................................................... 3 Accounting and F in an cial A d m in istratio n .................. 2 Biology ....................................................................................... 2 Anthropology .......................................................................... 2 James Madison College ......................................................... 2 Lyman Briggs College Arts and L e tte rs Ethnic and R elig io u s Intergroup R elation s P o lic y Problems Engineering Sciences Crim inal J u s tic e 1 Mathematics (in each m ajor) B io lo g ic a l Sciences Physical Sciences Human Ecology Nursing Business Law and F in an cia l A d m in istratio n Economics P o lit ic a l Science 71 Table 20a. Percentage o f students tak in g course w ith in and outside co lle g e o f declared major. Course T i t l e Percentage o f W ithin Major Students Second Year French Percentage o f Outside Major Students 42.8% 57.1% I t appears th a t undergraduates e le c t to take courses on the CR-NC basis outside the College o f t h e ir declared m ajors. There may be in d iv id u a l circumstances where students have to take courses r e ­ quired by t h e ir in d iv id u a l programs th a t are o utsid e the College o f t h e ir major areas. In many cases, these courses can be taken on a CR-NC basis. For the In tro d u c to ry Physics course (Tables 11, 11a) the la rg e s t number o f majors using the option was Audiology and Speech sciences. This course is an outside co lle g e requirem ent f o r f u l f i l l ­ ment o f the degree.^ Although the course is outside the Communica­ tio n A rts C ollege, use o f the option fo r the f u lf i ll m e n t o f a re q u ire ­ ment cannot be considered " e x p lo ra tio n .11 Majors in the Department o f A d ve rtisin g were the most p re­ dominant in use o f the option in the In tro d u c tio n to Economics course. This course was also an outside co lle g e requirem ent. 2 ^"Academic Programs S e c tio n ," Michigan S tate U n iv e rs ity C atalog , Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity P u b lic a tio n , V ol. 6 7 , No. lo , dune, 1973, p. 137. 2 I b i d . , p. 136. 72 In th e H is to ry o f Western A r t , Psychology o f P e rs o n a lity , In d iv id u a l Sports, Survey o f Accounting Concepts, and College Algebra and Trigonometry courses, the la rg e s t number'of majors 1n each course th a t took the class on a CR-NC basis did not have the course as a re ­ quirem ent. The General Anatomy course was taken using the option by Audiology and Speech Sciences majors most o fte n . This course was an outside c o lle g e requirem ent fo r the m ajor. For the Elementary Russian and Second Year French courses the la rg e s t number o f majors in each course had the option o f f u l f i l l ­ ing a language requirement f o r the major.^ The use o f the CR-NC option by undergraduates must be exam­ ined in the context o f the in d iv id u a l s tu d e n t's academic program. C la s s ific a tio n by courses taken on th is basis according to "Within M ajor" and "Outside Major" colleges may not g ive a f u l l in d ic a tio n o f whether courses were taken fo r e x p lo ra tio n purposes. P art I I Q uestionnaire Percent Frequency Counts Two question n aires were used to sample student opinion con­ cerning the areas: use o f the Cred1t-No C re d it Grading option and grading p ra c tic e s . A to ta l o f 454 questionnaires were sent to users o f the CR-NC option and a t o ta l o f 401 were sent to a random sample o f students who had not used the CR-NC o p tio n .* For the CR-NC sample 11b id . , pp. 91, 212. *Student comments on both questionnaires are presented in Appendix F. 73 346 were re tu rn e d , f o r th e random sample, 281, f o r response ra te s o f 77 percent and 72 p e rc e n t, re s p e c tiv e ly . Table 21 Is a p resen tatio n o f the percent-frequency ta b u la tio n o f th e CR-NC survey. Table 21. Key: Q uestionnaire response percen t-frequ en cy count fo r a s t r a t i f i e d sample o f undergraduates who chose to use the C red it-N o C re d it grading o p tio n . NR - No Response SA - S tro n gly Agree With Statement A - Agree With Statement D - Disagree With Statement (N = 346) SD - S trongly Disagree With Statement DK - D o n 't Know NR SA A D_ SD DK Grades tend to s tim u la te me to study. 2.0 2 15.32 45.66 24.57 11.27 1.16 I f e l t more a t ease in the CR-NC course than in o th er courses. 1.45 44.51 40.46 11.56 1.73 .29 8 .3 8 8 .3 8 25.14 47.69 6 .9 4 3 .4 7 I plan to take more courses on a CR-NC basis. 7.23 29.19 44.51 13.01 5 .2 0 .87 I f the CR-NC option was a v a ila b le f o r U n iv e rs ity C ollege courses, I would have taken these courses using the CR-NC o p tio n . 2 .6 0 39.60 33.24 21.97 2.37 .29 A student should be ab le to take as many courses as he wishes using the CR-NC o p tio n . 1.45 30.35 32.37 27.46 8 .3 8 0 .0 0 ITEM Students le a rn more in courses graded on a CR-NC basis than in comparable courses w ith re g u la r grades. 74 Table 21. Continued. t ITEM NR SA A The CR-NC option gives stu ­ dents an o p p o rtu n ity to take courses o utsid e o f h is /h e r major area w ithout fe a r o f low ering the grade p o in t average. 1.45 65.90 31.50 .87 .29 0 .0 0 I am g e n e ra lly s a tis f ie d w ith the present grading system a t M.S.U. 1.45 5 .7 8 46.82 29.48 16.18 .29 C re d it (CR) in a CR-NC course should be given fo r a 1 .0 o r higher .87 ra th e r than the present 2 .0 o r higher minimum. .87 14.45 21.10 41.91 21.68 0 .0 0 Students should be ab le to decide a t any time during the term whether to re c e iv e a grade or c re d it-n o c r e d it. 2 .0 2 23.70 26.59 36.71 10.40 .58 Admissions o ffic e r s a t graduate schools do not weigh as h e a v ily the grade p o in t average i f a student has used the CR-NC o p tio n . 16.18 4 .6 2 33.53 25.72 3.76 16.18 I plan to atten d a grad­ uate o r p ro fession al school a f t e r I graduate. 2 .8 9 32.66 36.99 20.81 3 .1 8 3.47 2.02 6.94 25.14 41.62 23.99 .29 1.73 27.17 43.06 22.25 4.91 .87 I would have studied harder the in CR-NC course I took during W inter Term 1974, had I been graded on a re g u la r basis. Taking the CR-NC option allowed me more tim e to study harder fo r my o th e r courses. D SD DK 75 Table 21. Continued. NR SA A D 1.73 27.17 43.06 I was s a tis fie d w ith n\y decision to take a course on a CR-NC basis. 1.73 48.55 The CR-NC option should be p u b lic iz e d more. 1,45 41.04 ITEM I would not course th a t CR-NC basis Term, 1974, option were have taken the I took on a during W inter i f the grading not a v a ila b le . SD DK 22.25 4.91 .87 37.86 7.51 4.05 .29 46.53 9.25 1.16 .58 76 Table 22 is a presen tatio n o f the percent-frequency ta b u la ✓ tio n o f the random sample o f CR-NC Non-Users. Table 22. Q uestionnaire response percent-frequency count fo r a random sample o f undergraduates who did not chose to use the C redit-N o C re d it o p tio n . (N = 281) A D SD DK 24.20 51.60 18.86 4.27 .36 .36 12.81 38.79 39.50 8 .5 4 0 .0 U I plan to attend a grad­ uate or p rofessional school a f t e r I graduate. 2 .4 9 21.00 36.65 29.89 6.41 3.56 I am g e n e ra lly s a tis fie d w ith the present grading system a t M.S.U. 2 .1 4 6.76 55.52 24.20 11.03 .36 Admissions o ffic e r s a t graduate schools do not weigh as h e a v ily the grade p o in t average i f a student has used the CR-NC grading o p tio n . 9.61 4 .9 8 43.42 27.76 3 .2 0 11.03 1.07 23.13 41.28 25.62 7.12 1.78 .36 18.15 46.26 26.69 8 .5 4 0.00 ITEM NR Grades tend to s tim u la te me to study harder. .71 I am f a m ilia r w ith the requirements o f graduate schools. I f the CR-NC option was a v a ila b le fo r U n iv e rs ity College courses, I would have taken these courses using the CR-NC o ption . A student should be ab le to take as many courses as he wishes using th e CR-NC o ption . SA 77 Table 22. Continued. ITEM CR in a CR-NC course should be given fo r a 1 .0 or higher ra th e r than the present 2 .0 or higher minimum. Students should be ab le to decide a t any tim e during the term whether to re ce ive a grade or c re d it-n o c r e d it. I plan to take a course on a CR-NC basis in the fu tu re . SD DK NR SA A D .36 6.05 23.13 39.15 30.96 .36 0 .0 0 16.73 33.10 31.32 18.86 0 .0 0 5.34 13.52 36.65 31.32 7.83 5.34 78 The n u ll form o f hypotheses 5a through 5h was: Hypothesis 5 There are no s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s between Users and Non-Users o f the C redit-N o C re d it Option as measured by the e ig h t common L ik e r t-ty p e q uestionnaire Item s. A Chi-Square A nalysis was used to te s t whether th ere were s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s between the two groups. d is p la y the re s u lts o f th is a n a ly s is . and D o n 't Know responses were d e le te d . Tables 23 through 30 For each item , the No Response Percentages in each response category are presented 1n paren th esis. Hypothesis 5a There is no s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e between CR-NC Users and NonUsers on the q u estion n aire item: Grades tend to s tim u la te me to study harder. Table 23. Chi-square an alysis re s u lts o f item 1. (N = 608) CR-NC User Non-User 53 (1 5 .9 ) 67 (2 4 .5 ) 157 (4 7 .0 ) 142 (5 1 .8 ) Disagree 85 (2 5 .4 ) 53 (1 9 .3 ) S trongly Disagree 39 (1 1 .7 ) 12 (4 .4 ) Strongly Agree Agree Total N X2 = 1 8 .3 2 , p<.05 334 274 79 Hypothesis 5a was re je c te d and a s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e was found between the groups on th is Item . The Non-Users expressed more agreement w ith th is Item than the CR-NC Users. The re s u lts in d ic a te th a t s tr iv in g f o r higher grades was more o f a predominant t r a i t among Non-Users o f the CR-NC o p tio n . Hypothesis 5b There is no s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e between CR-NC Users and NonUsers on the q u estion n aire Item : 1 plan to attend a graduate or professional school a f t e r I graduate. Table 24. Chi-square an alysis re s u lts o f item 2. (N - 583) CR-NC User Non-User S trongly Agree 113 (3 5 .0 ) 59 (2 2 .7 ) Agree 127 (3 9 .3 ) 100 (3 8 .5 ) Disagree 72 (2 2 .2 ) 83 (3 1 .9 ) S trongly Disagree 11 (3 .4 ) 18 (6 .9 ) Total 323 260 X2 = 1 6 .0 0 , p<.05 Hypothesis 5b was re je c te d and a s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e was found between the groups on th is item . The re s u lts show th a t more CR-NC Users express plans to attend graduate school a f t e r graduation. 80 Hypothesis 5c There is no s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e between CR-NC Users on the q u estio n n aire item : I am g e n e ra lly s a tis fie d w ith the present grading system a t M.S.U. Table 25. Chi-square an a ly sis re s u lts o f item 3. (N = 609) CR-NC User Non-User 20 (5 .9 ) 19 (7 .0 ) Agree 162 (4 7 .8 ) 152 (5 6 .2 ) Disagree 101 (2 9 .8 ) 68 (2 5 .2 ) 56 (1 6 .5 ) 31 (1 1 .5 ) S trongly Agree Strongly Disagree 339 Total 270 X2 = 6 .2 3 8 , not s ig n ific a n t Hypothesis 5c was not re je c te d . p o lic ie s was not re la te d to CR-NC use. S a tis fa c tio n w ith grading Both groups may express a t t i ­ tudes toward th e present grading system f o r d if f e r in g reasons. For both groups, more students express s a tis fa c tio n w ith the system than d is s a tis fa c tio n . CR-NC use does not appear to be a v a ria b le involved in expression o f th is a t t it u d e . Hypothesis 5d There is no s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e between CR-NC Users and NonUsers on the q u estio n n aire item : Admissions o ffic e r s a t graduate schools do not weigh as h e a v ily the grade p o in t average i f a student has used the CR-NC o p tio n . 81 Table 26. Chi-square an alysis r e s u lts o f item 4. (N = 453) CR-NC User Non-User 16 ( 6 ,9 ) 14 (6 .4 ) 115 (4 9 .4 ) 122 (5 5 .4 ) Disagree 89 (3 8 .2 ) 75 (3 4 .1 ) S trongly Disagree 13 ( 5 .6 ) 9 ( 4 .1 ) S trongly Agree Agree Total 233 220 X2 = 1 .8 8 , not s ig n ific a n t Hypothesis 5d was not re je c te d . The larg e percentages o f No Response and D on't Know responses (1 6 .2 percent and 16.2 percent fo r the CR-NC User, 9 .6 percent and 11.0 percent fo r the Non-User, a combined percentage o f 27.1 percent o f the Total sample) in d ic a te a lack o f knowledge concerning admissions personnel a ttitu d e s . This item had the la rg e s t percentage o f these two non-scalable responses. Hypothesis 5e There is no s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e between CR-NC Users and NonUsers on the q u estio n n aire item : I f the CR-NC option was a v a il­ able f o r U n iv e rs ity College courses, I would have taken these courses using the CR-NC o ption . Hypothesis 5e was re je c te d because a s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e was found between the groups on th is item . The f a m i l i a r i t y w ith the CR-NC system among the Users may be a fa c to r in expressing a hig hly favo rab le a ttitu d e toward tak in g the U n iv e rs ity College requirements on th is b asis. The Non-User group also expressed a fav o rab le a ttitu d e 82 toward takin g these requirements on th is b as is . An inference th a t could be drawn is th a t i f the required classes were o ffe re d on a CRNC b a s is , a m a jo rity o f students would take these classes using the o p tio n . Experience w ith U n iv e rs ity College courses can be considered a v a ria b le involved in expression o f th is a ttitu d e . Table 27. Chi-square an a ly sis re s u lts o f item 5. (N = 604} CR-NC User Non-User S trongly Agree 136 (4 0 .6 ) 65 (2 4 .2 ) Agree 115 (3 4 .3 ) 115 (4 2 .8 ) 76 (2 2 .7 ) 70 (2 6 .0 ) 8 ( 2 .4 ) 19 (7 .1 ) Disagree S trongly Disagree Total 335 269 X2 = 2 2 .8 8 , pc.05 Hypothesis 5 f There is no s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e between CR-NC Users and NonUsers on the q u estion n aire Item : Students should be ab le to decide a t any time during the term whether to rece ive a grade or c re d it-n o c r e d it. Hypothesis 5 f was re je c te d , and a s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e was found between the groups on th is item . The re g u la tio n s concerning the time l i m i t fo r a decision on which grading system is used is very spe­ c ific (L im ita tio n s , p. 1 6 ). I t appears th a t CR-NC students d es ire a lo n g e r.p erio d fo r dec1si on-making w ith reference to th is issue. m a jo rity o f Non-Users also expressed th is a t titu d e . A 83 Table 28. Chi-square an alysis re s u lts o f item 6. CR-NC User (N = 616) Non-User S trongly Agree 105 (3 0 .8 ) 51 (1 8 .5 ) Agree 112 (3 2 .9 ) 127 (4 6 .0 ) Disagree 94 (2 7 .6 ) 74 (2 6 .8 ) S trongly Disagree 29 (8 .5 ) 24 (8 .7 ) Total 340 276 X2 = 1 5 .9 8 , p < .05 Hypothesis 5g There is no s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e between CR-NC Users and NonUsers on the q u estion n aire item : A student should be able to take as many courses as he wishes using the CR-NC option. Table 29. Chi-square a n a ly s is re s u lts o f item 7. (N = 617) CR-NC User Non-User S trongly Agree 50 (1 4 .6 ) 17 (6 ,2 ) Agree 73 (2 1 .3 ) 64 (2 3 .2 ) 145 (4 2 .4 ) 109 (3 9 .6 ) 74 (2 1 .6 ) 85 (3 0 .9 ) Disagree Strongly Disagree Total X2 = 1 5 .6 3 , p<.05 342 275 84 Hypothesis 5g was re je c te d and a s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e was found between the groups on th is item . The la rg e number o f students 1n both groups expressing a negative a ttitu d e toward extending the CR-NC option in d ica te s th a t a two p o in t grading system is not favored as a universal grading system. Over 70 percent o f Non-Users expressed disagreement w ith th is statem ent. Hypothesis 5h There 1s no s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e between CR-NC Users and NonUsers on the q u estion n aire Item : C re d it (CR) in a CR-NC course should be given fo r a 1 .0 or higher ra th e r than the present 2 .0 or higher minimum. Table 30. Chi-square an a ly sis re s u lts o f item 8. (N = 613) CR-NC User Non-User Strongly Agree 81 124.1) 47 (1 7 .0 ) Agree 92 (2 7 .4 ) 91 (3 2 .9 ) 127 (3 7 .8 ) 87 (3 1 .4 ) 36 (1 0 .7 ) 52 (1 8 .8 ) Disagree Strongly Disagree Total 336 277 X2 = 1 3 .2 4 , p < ,05 Hypothesis 5h was re je c te d and a s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e was found between the groups on th is item . Agreement and disagreement w ith th is statem ent was n ea rly evenly d ivided fo r both groups, the Non-User group expressing a more fa v o ra b le a ttitu d e toward changing 85 the minimum to a 1 .0 . degree on th is item . The d iffe re n c e between th e groups is one o f The student p erspective w ith regard to th is issue may be in te rp re te d in two ways: 1) the g re a te r degree o f d is ­ agreement among Non-Users may be th e reason fo r the u npopularity o f the o p tio n ; and 2) th e use o f the option by users, who are a t the higher grade p o in t average le v e ls (Table 6 ) , may not be due to the minimum requirement o f 2 .0 o r higher. In order to measure d iffe re n c e s among classes and grade p o in t average le v e ls (Hypotheses 6 and 7 ) , the U n iv a ria te and M u lt i­ v a ria te A nalysis o f Variance was employed w ith an alpha le v e l o f .0 5 . In order to accommodate q uestionnaire responses th a t were in th e "No Response" o r "D on't Know" c a te g o rie s , the fo llo w in g key was devised: KEY: 1 - S tro n gly Agree 2 - Agree 3 - No Response, D o n 't Know 4 - Disagree 5 - Strongly Disagree Through the use o f th is key (w ith the No Response and D on't Know Responses on the sc ale ) means were generated using the to ta l num­ ber o f returned q u estion n aires. The schematic design fo r the i n i t i a l M u ltiv a r ia te A nalysis is Table 31a, fo r the second, Table 32a. Two separate M u ltiv a r ia te Analyses were used, a fo u r by two way design w ith e ig h t dependent measures, the Independent v a ria b le s being c la s s , freshmen through s e n io r, and CR-NC User and Non-User and a th ree by two way design w ith e ig h t dependent measures, the independent v a ria b le s 86 being grade p oint average categories and CR-NC User and Non-User. For each o f the e ig h t dependent measures i t was hypothesized th a t th ere were no s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s among classes and grade p o in t le v e l. The Scheffe* Post-Hoc procedure was used to determine which combina­ tio n o f means co n tribu ted to the s ig n ific a n c e o f the U n iv a ria te F te s ts , where s ig n ific a n c e was found. Table 31. M u ltiv a ria te A nalysis I - MANOVA on a fo u r by two way de­ sign on e ig h t v a ria b le s . F -R atio f o r M u ltiv a r ia te Test o f E q u a lity o f Mean Vectors « 3.0977 Degrees o f Freedom: 24, 1761,0859 P Less Than .0001 Hypothesis V a ria b le Mean Square U n iv a ria te F P Less Than 1. Grades tend to s tim u la te me to study harder. 9.5093 6.3342 .0004* 2. I plan to attend a grad­ uate o r professional school a f t e r I graduate. 9.8939 6.5877 .0003* 3. I am g e n e ra lly s a tis fie d w ith the present grading system a t M.S.U. 2.8835 1.8371 .1392 4. Admissions o ffic e r s a t graduate schools do not weigh as h e a v ily the grade p o in t average i f a student has used the CR-NC option. 6.1288 6.5483 .0003* 5. I f the CR-NC option was a v a ila b le fo r U n iv e rs ity College courses, I would have taken these courses using the CR-NC o p tio n . 1.8736 1.1974 .3100 87 Table 31. Continued. V a ria b le 6 . Students should be able to decide a t any time during the term whether to receive a grade or c re d it-n o c r e d it . 7. A student should be ab le to take as many courses as he wishes using the CR-NC o p tio n . 8 . C re d it (CR) in a CR-NC class should be given fo r a 1 .0 o r higher ra th e r than the present 2 .0 o r higher minimum. Hypothesis Mean Square U n iv a ria te F P Less Than .7765 .4278 .7332 1.2340 .6764 .5668 1.7646 .8708 .4559 ir S ig n ific a n t a t .05 le v e l (th e alpha le v e l was d ivid ed by 8 fo r each o f the item s; the alpha le v e l f o r each item was .0 0 6 2 5 ). NOTE: Degrees o f Freedom f o r Hypothesis: Degrees o f Freedom f o r E rro r: 614 3 Table 31a. Design and means for Multivariate Analysis I. ITEM Freshmen CR-NC Users Sophomore Junior Senior Freshmen Non-Users Sophomore Junior Senior Grades tend to stimulate me to study. 2.29 2.90 2.65 2.92 2.05 2.45 2.31 2.28 I plan to attend a graduate or professional school after I graduate. 2.63 2.20 2.27 1.99 2.73 3.00 2.57 2.58 I am generally satisfied with the present grading system at M.S.U. Admissions officers at grad­ uate schools do not weigh as heavily the grade point average i f a student has used the CR-NC option. I f the CR-NC option was avail­ able for University College courses, I would have taken these courses using the CR-NC option. 00 03 2.92 3.21 3.05 2.96 2.72 2.95 2.90 3.11 0 7n « 7, - 3.03 2.59 2.71 2.81 2.61 « lfi ^ *10 « 19 * nQ **uy 2.19 2.63 2.53 2.24 2.53 Table 31a. Continued. CR-NC Users Sopho­ Junior more ITEM Fresh­ men Students should be able to decide at any time during the term whether to receive a grade or credit-no credit. 2.55 2.51 3.29 A student should be able to take as many courses as he wishes using the CR-NC op­ tion. Credit should higher 2.0 or (CR) in a CR-NC class be given for a 1.0 or rather than the present higher minimum. N for each group Non-Users Sopho­ more Junior Senior Fresh­ men 2.51 2.48 2.72 2.47 2.72 2.53 3.64 3.18 3.33 3.60 3.48 3.66 3.88 2.92 2.87 2.69 2.90 2.99 2.91 2.94 3.26 73 75 95 102 78 66 67 66 Senior 90 The fo llo w in g 1s a b r ie f discussion o f Items 1n which s ig ­ n if ic a n t d iffe re n c e s were found: For item 1 , "Grades tend to s tim u la te me to study h ard er," Freshmen Non-Users displayed the g re a te s t degree o f agreement. This re s u lt tends to support the contention th a t students, when they begin t h e ir academic careers a t the U n iv e rs ity , are m otivated to study to a t t a in high grades. For item 2 , " I plan to attend a graduate or professional school a f t e r I graduate," Senior CR-NC Users expressed the g rea tes t amount o f agreement w ith th is item . Considering th a t th is group has a tta in e d a r e la t iv e ly high grade p o in t average, planning fo r a tte n ­ dance in graduate school is not s u rp ris in g . For item 4 , "Admissions o ffic e r s a t graduate schools do not weigh as h e a v ily the grade p o in t average i f a student has used the CRNC o p tio n ," the highest le v e ls o f disagreement were fo r the Junior and Senior CR-NC Users. The Seniors expressed, in th e previous s i g n i f i ­ cant item , the g re a te s t d e s ire to attend graduate school, and in th is item express disagreement w ith the conditions o f graduate school r e ­ quirements. The higher le v e l students who use the option may not r e ­ a liz e the ra m ific a tio n s o f tak in g a few courses on th is basis. Although th e re were no s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s 1n item 7 , the co n sisten t disagreement among a l l groups on th is item in d icates th a t a l l students, regardless o f c la s s , do not fa v o r an extension o f the CR-NC option to include as many courses as the student wishes. Senior CR-NC Non-Users express the g re a te s t degree o f disagreement w ith th is item . 91 Table 31b. V a ria b le M u ltiv a r ia te Analysis I : Hypothesis Mean Sq. CR-NC user by non-user. U n iv a ria te F P Less Than 1 24.5142 16.3290 .0001* 2 19.3579 12.8892 .0004* 3 9.6006 6.1167 .0137* 4 .9905 1.0583 .3041 5 19.1502 12.2383 6 1.5603 .8597 7 14.5507 7.9758 .0049* 8 5.1532 2.5431 .1113 .0006* .3542 *S 1 g n ific a n t a t .05 le v e l. Table 31c. V a ria b le M u ltiv a r ia te Analysis I : Hypothesis Mean Sq. In te ra c tio n . U n iv a ria te F P Less Than 1 .8167 .5440 .6524 2 2.9191 1.9436 .1214 3 .3890 .2478 .8630 4 .7501 .8015 .4934 5 .8077 .5162 .6713 6 3.6413 1.9959 .1134 7 .8427 .4159 .7417 92 Table 31d. M u ltiv a r ia te Analysis I : variance. E rro r term fo r an alysis o f V a ria b le E rro r Term 1 2 1.50 1.50 3 1.56 4 .93 5 1.56 6 1.81 7 1.82 8 2.03 Hypothesis 6 There are no s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s among Freshmen, Sophomores, Juniors and Seniors as measured by the e ig h t common L ik e rt-ty p e q uestionnaire item s. S ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s by class were found f o r th ree o f the e ig h t item s, and the n u ll hypothesis is re je c te d fo r Items 1, 2, and 4. In te ra c tio n was not s ig n ific a n t (Table 31c) f o r the groups. I f th ere is no in te ra c tio n th ere 1s considerable economy in the de­ s c rip tio n o f the r e s u lts , since only the main e f f e c t need by thought about instead o f the e ffe c ts corresponding to a l l treatm ent combina­ tio n .^ To lo c ate d iffe re n c e s where the s ig n ific a n t F ra tio s were found, S cheffe' Post Hoc Contrasts were employed. (Tables 31e , 31f , 31 g .) ^D. R. Cox, Planning o f Experiments (New York: & Sons, 1958), p. 102. John W iley 93 Table 31e. Post-Hoc co n trasts f o r M u lt iv a r ia te A nalysis I : (Grades tend to s tim u la te me to study h a rd e r.) Item 1. Groups Compared Mean D iffe re n c e Confidence In te rv a l Freshmen vs. Sophomore 2.16 2.69 .5 3 * ± .3 9 Freshmen vs. Ju n io r 2 .1 6 2.51 .35 ± .3 7 Freshmen vs. Senior 2.16 2.67 .5 1 * ±.3 7 Sophomore vs. Junior 2.6 9 2.51 .18 ± .3 9 Sophomore vs. Senior 2 .6 9 2.67 .02 ± .3 9 Ju n io r vs. Senior 2.51 2.6 7 .16 ± .3 7 ^ S ig n ific a n t a t .05 le v e l. The Post-Hoc co n tras ts f o r item 1 were s ig n if ic a n t fo r the comparisons between Freshmen and Sophomores, and Freshmen and S eniors. Freshmen express c o n s is te n tly more agreement w ith th e item . The t h ir d h ig h est degree o f d iffe re n c e between the groups was between Freshmen and J u n io rs . A ll groups d is p la y agreement w ith th is item so the d i f ­ ferences are a m a tte r o f degree. Student responses d is p la y th a t th ere 1s basic agreement w ith th e use o f grades a t the undergraduate le v e l. In th e second ite m , a s ig n if ic a n t d iffe re n c e was found be­ tween Freshmen and S en io rs. The re s u lts d is p la y th a t student progres­ sion 1n c o lle g e 1s d ir e c t ly re la te d to d e s ire f o r graduate school. Upperclassmen express a g re a te r d e s ire to atten d than Freshmen in a l l 94 cases, w ith Sophomores g re a te r than Freshmen, Juniors g re a te r than Sophomores and Seniors g re a te r than Juniors. Table 31f . Post-Hoc contrasts fo r M u ltiv a r ia te Analysis I : Item 2. ( I plan to attend a graduate or professional school a f t e r I g rad u ate .) Groups Compared Mean D ifferen ce Confidence In te rv a l Freshmen vs. Sophomore 2.68 2.57 .11 ±.39 Freshmen vs. Junior 2.68 2.39 .29 ±.37 Freshmen vs. Senior 2.68 2.22 .4 6 * + .37 Sophomore vs. Junior 2.57 2.39 .18 ±.39 Sophomore vs. Senior 2.57 2.22 .35 ±.3 9 Junior vs. Senior 2.39 2.22 .17 ±.37 * S ig n ific a n t a t .05 le v e l. In the fo u rth ite m , a s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e was found be­ tween Freshmen and Juniors. The re s u lts in d ic a te th a t Juniors and Seniors express the le a s t amount o f agreement w ith th is item . This may mean th a t upper co lle g e students tend to be less concerned w ith possible ra m ific a tio n s o f taking CR-NC courses and th e re fo re choose to take classes on th is basis. 95 Table 31g. Post-Hoc contrasts fo r M u ltiv a ria te A nalysis I : Item 4. (Admissions o ffic e r s a t graduate schools do not weigh as h e a v ily the grade p o in t average i f a student has used the CR-NC o p tio n .) Groups Compared Mean D iffe re n c e Confidence In te rv a l Freshmen vs. Sophomore 2.64 2.72 .08 .31 Freshmen vs. Junior 2.64 2.96 .3 2 * .29 Freshmen vs. Senior 2.64 2.87 .23 .29 Sophomore vs. Junior 2.72 2.96 .24 .31 Sophomore vs. Senior 2.72 2.87 .15 .31 Junior vs. Senior 2.96 2.87 .09 .29 * S ig n ific a n t a t .05 le v e l. 96 Table 32. M u ltiv a r ia te Analysis I I - MANOVA on a th re e by two way design on e ig h t v a ria b le s . F -R atio fo r M u ltiv a r ia te Test o f E q u a lity o f Mean Vectors - 5.7499 Degrees o f Freedom: 16, 1218.0 P Less Than .0001 Hypothesis Mean Square U n iv a ria te F 1. Grades tend to s tim u la te me to study harder. 2.6011 1.7095 .1819 2. I plan to attend a grad­ uate or professional school a f t e r I graduate. 25.8515 17.5795 .0001 3. I am g e n e ra lly s a tis fie d w ith the present grading system a t M.S.U. 12.7784 8.3337 .0003* 2.4695 2.5790 .0767 5.0693 3.2936 .0378 5.3933 3.0394 .0486 V a ria b le 4. Admissions o ffic e r s a t graduate schools do not weigh as h e a v ily the grade p o in t average i f a student has used the CR-NC o ption . 5. I f the CR-NC option was a v a ila b le fo r U n iv e rs ity C ollege courses, I would have taken these courses using the CR-NC o p tio n . 6 . Students should be able to decide a t any time .. during the term whether ■ to re ce ive a grade or c re d it-n o c r e d it. P Less Than 97 Table 32. Continued. Hypothesis Mean Square V a ria b le 7. A student should be able to take as many courses as he wishes using the CR-NC o p tio n . 8 . C re d it (CR) 1n a CR-NC class should be given fo r a 1.0 or higher ra th e r than the present 2 .0 or higher minimum. U n iv a ria te F 30.9190 17.9047 9.2823 4.6485 .0001* .0100 S ig n ific a n t a t .05 le v e l. NOTES: Degrees o f Freedom fo r Hypothesis: Degrees o f Freedom f o r E rro r: 616 P Less Than 2 Table 32a. Design and means fo r M ultivariate Analysis I I . Non-Users CR-NC Users ITEM 0.00-1.99 2.00-2.99 3.00 above 0.00-1.99 2.00-2.99 3.00 above Grades tend to stimulate me to study harder. 2.82 2.64 2.75 3.20 2.33 2.17 I plan to attend a grad­ uate or professional school a fte r I graduate. 2.36 2.53 2.06 1.90 2.99 2.35 I am generally satisfied with the present grading system a t M.S.U. Admissions o fficers at graduate schools do not weigh as heavily the grade point average i f a student has used the CR-NC option. I f the CR-NC option was available fo r University College courses, I would have taken these courses using the CR-NC option. ot 3.18 3.30 2.84 3.00 2.98 2.57 2.73 2.81 2.98 2.70 2.72 2.87 1.64 2.08 2.22 2.70 2.26 2.74 Table 32a. Continued. ITEM 0.00-1.99 CR-NC Users 2.00-2.99 3.00 above 0.00-1.99 Non-Users 2.00-2.99 3.00 above Students should be able to decide at any time during the term whether to receive a grade or credit-no cred it. 1.73 2.45 2.59 3.20 2.37 2.81 A student should be able to take as many courses as he wishes using the CR-NC option. 2.73 3.07 3.57 2.60 3.33 4.06 2.55 2.69 2.96 2.30 2.86 3.24 11 135 199 10 134 133 Credit (CR) in a CR-NC class should be given fo r a 1.0 or higher rather than the present 2.0 or higher minimum. N fo r each group 100 The fo llo w in g Is a b r ie f discussion o f items in which s ig n if ­ ic a n t d iffe re n c e s were found. For item 2, " I plan to attend a graduate o r professional school a f t e r I g rad u ate," the lowest grade p o in t average category o f Non-Users expressed the g re a te s t agreement w ith th is item . The small number o f respondents 1n th is category (N = 10) made i t d i f f i c u l t to draw g e n e ra liza tio n s from th is r e s u lt. Students in the highest grade p o in t average who used the option expressed the second highest degree o f agreement w ith th is item , follow ed by the highest grade p o in t aver­ age category o f Non-Users. The re s u lts In d ic a te a consistency among students in the higher grade p o in t average categories w ith reference to plans to attend graduate school. For Item 3 , " I am g e n e ra lly s a tis fie d w ith the present grad­ ing system a t M .S .U .," the highest grade p o in t average categories ex­ pressed the g re a te s t agreement w ith th is item . The most disagreement was among middle category CR-NC Users. For item 7 , "A student should be able to take as many courses as he wishes using the CR-NC o p tio n ," highest grade p o in t average CRNC Non-Users expressed the g re a te s t amount o f disagreement. The only category to express agreement w ith th is item was the lowest grade p o in t average c la s s ific a tio n . The mean fo r the high grade p o in t aver­ age Non-Users was the highest fo r any o f the Item s, in d ic a tin g th a t th is group stro n g ly disagrees wKh the extension o f the CR-NC o p tio n . 101 Table 32b. V a ria b le M u ltiv a ria te A nalysis I I : Hypothesis Mean Sq. CR-NC user by non-user. U n iv a ria te F P Less Than 1 28.3265 18.6164 .0001* 2 17.9117 12.1803 .0006* 3 12.8518 8.3815 .0040* 4 1.4290 1.4924 .2224 5 23.0037 14.9459 .0002* 6 2.7034 1.5235 .2176 7 20.3692 11.7955 .0007* 8 6.9338 3.4724 .0629 S ig n ific a n t a t .05 le v e l. Table 32c. V a ria b le M u ltiv a ria te A nalysis I I : Hypothesis Mean Sq. In te ra c tio n . U n iv a ria te F P Less Than 1 3.2204 2.1165 .1214 2 2.2381 1.5219 .2192 3 .0941 .0614 .9405 4 .0287 .0300 .9705 5 3.3568 2.1810 .1139 6 6.5388 3.6849 .0257 7 1.6929 .9803 .3758 8 .7979 .3996 .6708 102 Table 32d. M u ltiv a r ia te Analysis I I : varian ce. E rror term fo r analysis o f V a ria b le E rro r Term 1 1.52 2 1.47 3 1 .53 4 .96 5 1.54 6 1.77 7 1 .73 8 1.99 Hypothesis 7 There are no s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s among low, middle and high grade p o in t average categories as measured by e ig h t common L ik e rt-ty p e q u estion n aire item s. S ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s were found fo r th ree o f the e ig h t item s, and the n u ll hypothesis is re je c te d fo r items 2 , 3 , and 7 . te ra c tio n was not s ig n ific a n t (Table 32c) fo r the groups. In ­ To lo cate d iffe re n c e s where the s ig n ific a n t F ra tio s were found, Scheffe' PostHoc Contrasts were employed. (Tables 32e, 3 2 f, 32 g .) The Post-Hoc co n tras t fo r item 2 was s ig n ific a n t fo r the comparison between the middle and highest ca teg o ries . The re s u lts i n ­ d ic a te th a t th ere is a d ir e c t r e la tio n between grade p o in t average and plans to attend graduate school. The degree o f agreement w ith th is Item among respondents in the lowest category may in d ic a te unwarranted high a s p ira tio n s . 103 Table 32e. Post-Hoc co n trasts f o r M u ltiv a r ia te A nalysis I I : Item 2. ( I plan to attend a graduate or pro fession al school a f t e r I g ra d u a te .) Groups Compared Mean D iffe re n c e Confidence In te rv a l 0 .0 0 -1 .9 9 vs. 2 .0 0 -2 .9 9 2 .1 4 2 .7 6 .62 ± .6 7 0 .0 0 -1 .9 9 vs. 3 .0 0 above 2.14 2.17 .03 ±.67 2 .0 0 -2 .9 9 vs. 3.00 above 2.76 2.17 .5 9 * ±.24 * S ig n ific a n t a t .05 le v e l. The s ig n ific a n t c o n tra s t fo r item 3 was the comparison be­ tween the middle and highest ca te g o rie s . When respondents were c la s ­ s if ie d according to grade p o in t average le v e ls , only the highest c a te ­ gory respondents expressed a fa v o ra b le a ttitu d e toward the grading system. The re s u lts show th a t th e re is a d ir e c t r e la tio n between grade p o in t average and s a tis fa c tio n w ith grading p o lic ie s . The Post-Hoc co n trasts fo r item 7 were s ig n ific a n t fo r the comparisons between the middle and highest c a te g o rie s , and between the lowest and highest c a teg o ries— th e actual d iffe re n c e being la r g e r in the l a t t e r comparison. The small number o f students in the low grade p o in t average categ o ries re su lted in a g re a te r confidence in te rv a l fo r th is c o n tra s t. The le a s t amount o f agreement on th is item was among the high grade p o in t average respondents. The re s u lts in d ic a te th a t th ere is a d ir e c t r e la tio n between r is e in grade p o in t average and degree o f 104 disagreement w ith extending the CR-NC o p tio n . Although the la rg e s t number o f users are a t the h ighest grade p o in t averages (Table 5 ) , th is group does not agree w ith extending the use o f the o p tio n . Table 3 2 f. Post-Hoc co n trasts f o r M u ltiv a r ia te A nalysis I I : Item 3. ( I am g e n e ra lly s a tis fie d w ith the present grading p o lic y a t M .S .U .) Groups Compared Mean D iffe re n c e Confidence In te rv a l 0 ,0 0 -1 .9 9 vs. 2 .0 0 -2 .9 9 3.09 3.14 .05 ±.69 0 .0 0 -1 .9 9 vs. 3.0 0 above 3.09 2.73 .36 ± .6 8 2 .0 0 -2 .9 9 vs. 3.00 above 3.14 2.73 .4 1 * ± .2 6 *S 1 g n ific a n t a t .05 l e v e l . Table 32g. Post-Hoc co n trasts f o r M u ltiv a r ia te A nalysis I I : Item 7. (A student should be ab le to take as many courses as he wishes using th e CR-NC o p tio n .) Groups Compared Mean D iffe re n c e Confidence In te rv a l 0 .0 0 -1 .9 9 vs. 2 .0 0 -2 .9 9 2.67 3 .2 0 .53 ±.7 3 0 .0 0 -1 .9 9 vs. 3.00 above 2.67 3.76 1 .0 9 * ±.7 2 2 ,0 0 -2 .9 9 vs. 3 .0 0 above 3.20 3.76 .5 6 * ±.28 * S ig n ific a n t a t .05 le v e l. 105 MANOVA I Results: Summary S ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s were found 1n Items 1, 2 , and 4. Post-Hoc co n trasts were used by item to lo c a te d iffe re n c e s , w ith the fo llo w in g re s u lts : Item 1 - Grades tend to s tim u la te me to study harder. S ig n ific a n t Contrasts: Freshmen vs. Sophomore Freshmen vs. Senior Item 2 - I plan to attend a graduate or p rofessional school a f t e r I graduate. S ig n ific a n t C ontrast: Freshmen vs. Senior Item 4 - Admissions o ffic e r s a t graduate schools do not weigh as h e a v ily the grade p o in t average i f a student has used the CR-NC o ption . S ig n ific a n t C ontrast: MANOVA I I Results: Freshmen vs. Junior Summary S ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s were found in items 2 , 3, and 7. Post-Hoc co n trasts were used to lo c ate d iffe re n c e s , w ith the fo llo w ­ ing re s u lts : Item 2 - 1 plan to attend a graduate or pro fession al school a f t e r I graduate. S ig n ific a n t C o n trast: 2 ,0 0 -2 .9 9 vs. 3 .0 0 above Item 3 - I am g e n e ra lly s a tis fie d w ith the present grading p o lic y a t M.S.U. S ig n ific a n t C ontrast: 2 .0 0 -2 .9 9 vs. 3.00 above Item 7 - A student should be ab le to take as many courses as he wishes using the CR-NC o ption . S ig n ific a n t C ontrasts: 0 .0 0 -1 .9 9 vs. 3.00 above 2 .0 0 -2 .9 9 vs. 3.00 above 106 An a n c illa r y fa c e t o f th e study was th e telephone In te rv ie w adm inistered to teaching fa c u lty members a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity . The re s u lts o f the s tru c tu re d in te rv ie w 1s presented 1n Table 33. Table 33. Percent frequency count o f In te rv ie w responses expressed by teaching fa c u lty . Item Do you consider y o u rs e lf f a m ilia r w ith the CR-NC grading option? One o f the m ajor reasons f o r o ffe r in g the CR-NC grading option 1s to o f f e r to students an o p p o rtu n ity to exp lo re o utside t h e i r major a re a . Do you th in k th is is being accomplished? Percent Yes Percent No Percent D o n 't Know 82% 18% 0% 38% 46% 16% Do you th in k th a t grades s tim u la te students to study? nv Do y o u th in k th a t students should be ab le to decide a t any tim e during th e term whether to re c e iv e a grade or c r e d it-n o c re d it? Do you th in k th a t professors should be to ld which students a re ta k in g t h e i r classes using th e CR-NC option? 38% 60% 2% 30% 70% 0% Percent Continued Do you th in k th a t th e present CR-NC grading option should be continued or do you th in k th a t 1 t should be changed? 68% Percent Changed 30% Noncommi t a l 2% 107 In a d d itio n to the previous responses> fa c u lty members ex­ pressed comments concerning the CR-NC option and the Issue o f g ra d in g .* Hypothesis 8 F acu lty members w il l express a more fav o rab le a t tit u d e than s tu ­ dents who have and have not used the Cred1t-No C re d it option on the Item measuring whether grades s tim u la te students to study. For the CR-NC User and Non-User Samples, percentages o f r e ­ sponses in the "Strongly Agree" and "Agree" categories were c a lc u la te d . This percentage was considered a "favo rab le" a ttitu d e . Table 34 pre­ sents the comparative percentages o f the th ree groups. Table 34. Percentage favo rab le responses expressed by fa c u lty , CR-NC Users and Non-Users: Item 4. Item Faculty: Do you th in k th a t grades stim ­ u la te students to study? Students: Grades tend to s tim u la te me to study harder. Faculty CR-NC Users Non-Users 92% 61% 75.8% Although a l l th ree groups express agreement w ith regard to the issue o f grades s tim u la tin g students to study, fa c u lty members ex­ pressed the g re a te s t amount o f agreement w ith th is item . The re s u lts o f th is examination support the hypothesis th a t fa c u lty members view grades as a s tim u la tio n to study moreso than students. *F a c u lty comments are presented in Appendix E. 108 Hypothesis 9 F aculty members w il l express a less favo rab le a ttitu d e than stu ­ dents who have and have not used the C redlt-N o C re d it option as measured on a scale measuring whether students should be able to decide a t any time during the term whether to receive a grade or C redit-N o C re d it. For the student samples, favo rab le responses were calcu la ted through combining th e "Strongly Agree" and "Agree" c a te g o rie s . Table 35 expresses the comparative percentages fo r the th ree groups. Table 35. Percentage fav o rab le responses expressed by fa c u lty , CR-NC Users and Non-Users: Item 3. Item Students should be able to de­ cide a t any time during the term whether to receive a grade or c re d it-n o c r e d it. Faculty 38% CR-NC Users 50.3% Non-Users 49.8% As Table 35 in d ic a te d , fa c u lty members express a less fa v o r­ able a ttitu d e on th is item than both Users and Non-Users. Both Users and Non-Users o f the option are r e l a t i v e ly s im ila r in expressing a t t i ­ tudes toward extending th e decision-making p erio d . Agreement and d is ­ agreement w ith th is item was n ea rly eq u ally d ivided f o r the student groups. A m a jo rity o f fa c u lty members expressed the opinion th a t the grading system decision be made e a rly 1n the term. The re s u lts o f th is comparison support the hypothesis th a t fa c u lty members w i l l express a less favo rab le opinion than students concerning extending the time period fo r grading system d ec is io n ­ making by students. CHAPTER V DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Chapter V contains a b r ie f overview o f the study, discussion and in te rp re ta tio n o f the fin d in g s and recommendations w ith refertence to grading p o lic ie s and suggestions fo r fu tu re research. Overview The purpose o f th is study was to in v e s tig a te the past use o f the C redit-N o C re d it system a t Michigan S tate U n iv e rs ity , and to sur­ vey cu rren t students who have and who have not used the Credit-N o C re d it o ption . The e n tir e population o f CR-NC Users in F a ll Term, 1968 to 1972 was re la te d in the d e s c rip tiv e fa c e t o f the study. For the survey, CR-NC Users and Non-Users during W inter Term, 1974 were sampled. The two groups were compared on e ig h t common q uestionnaire items and on the basis o f class and grade p o in t average le v e ls . In an a n c illa r y p a rt o f the study teaching fa c u lty members a t Michigan S tate were interview ed and responses were compared to the student responses th a t were s im ila r . The s t a t is t ic a l analysis o f the q uestionnaire was conducted using Chi-Square A n aly sis, M u ltiv a r ia te Analysis o f Variance and Scheffe* Post-Hoc Contrasts. In the an alysis an alpha le v e l o f .05 was used to determine s t a t is t ic a l s ig n ific a n c e . 109 110 Discussion o f Findings Nine hypotheses were examined and te s te d . The I n i t i a l fo u r hypotheses were p ro je c tio n s concerning the nature o f the population o f CR-NC students. Hypothesis l .--T h e f i r s t hypothesis was concerned w ith the number o f CR-NC Users in each F a ll Term, 1968 to 1973. I t was hypoth­ esized th a t the number o f Users would not exceed f iv e percent o f the undergraduate p o p ulatio n. Results in d ica te d th a t the percentages o f CR-NC Users varied between 1 .3 percent to 3 .6 percent. This r e s u lt in d icated th a t the use o f the CR-NC option is not widespread and th a t very few undergraduates a c tu a lly use the system. The number o f males using the option has shown a marked de­ crease in 1972 and 1 9 7 3 --th e f i r s t years th a t males were not predom­ in a n t CR-NC Users. Hypothesis 2 . — The second hypothesis was concerned w ith num­ bers o f students by class th a t have used the o p tio n . I t was hypoth­ esized th a t the highest incidence o f use would be by S eniors, follow ed by Ju n io rs , Sophomores and Freshmen. esis was supported. In each Term studied the hypoth­ The reason fo r the small numbers o f Freshmen us­ ing the option can be p a r tly explained by the Freshmen u n fa m ilia r ity w ith the option due to i n i t i a l en ro llm en t. For the survey sample, however, s im ila r percentages o f each class were found. N early h a lf the CR-NC Users were Seniors and over 32 percent were Juniors. CR-NC option is b a s ic a lly an upper c o lle g e grading a lt e r n a t iv e . The Over Ill eig h ty percent o f the CR-NC Users in s ix F a ll Terms were Seniors and Juniors. Hypothesis 3 . — Cumulative grade p o in t averages o f CR-NC Users were compared to Non-Users in the th ir d hypothesis. I t was hy­ pothesized th a t grade p o in t averages among Non-Users would be higher than Users. and Seniors. This hypothesis was not supported fo r Sophomores, Juniors The mean grade p o in t average o f Freshmen CR-NC Users was lower 1n fo u r o f the s ix terms stu d ie d . In the past th ree terms (1971- 1973) a wide m a jo rity (60 to 72 p ercen t) o f CR-NC Users f a l l lowest grade p o in t average category. in to the For Freshmen, the mean grade p o in t average fo r a l l terms was .73 lower than the class average. For the Sophomore CR-NC Users, grade p oint averages were c o n s is te n tly h igher than the class averages f o r a l l terms. Over 50 percent o f the Sophomore Users had grade p o in t averages in the 3.00 and above category. In 1968 and 1973 the mean grade p o in t average was below 3 .0 0 due to the la r g e r percentages in the lowest category. Junior grade p o in t averages among CR-NC Users was consis­ t e n tly above the 3 .0 0 le v e l, and was higher in a l l cases than the to ta l class grade p o in t average. Senior CR-NC Users displayed s im ila r le v e ls . The to ta l grade p o in t average d iffe re n c e between Sophomore CR-NC Users and class average was .4 9 ; f o r Ju n io rs , .4 7 ; and fo r Seniors, .3 8 , w ith the Users having a higher average. For the Fresh­ men, the d iffe re n c e was .7 3 , the t o ta l class average being higher than the Freshmen CR-NC User grade p o in t average. 112 The re s u lts in d icated th a t the students a t the higher grade p o in t average le v e ls choose to take classes using the CR-NC o ption . This g e n e ra liz a tio n is supported except f o r Freshmen. The mean grade p o in t average fo r a l l CR-NC Users regardless o f class was .40 higher than the A ll-U n iv e r s ity grade p o in t average. The population o f CR-NC Users appears to be more academ ically o rien ted than the to ta l under­ graduate population. Hypothesis 4 . — This hypothesis d e a lt w ith the choice o f class taken using the CR-NC option. I t was hypothesized th a t students would not take classes outside the "College" o f t h e ir declared major. Ten classes were chosen fo r d es crip tio n and students were c la s s ifie d according to majors 1n each o f the classes. These classes are b r ie f ly discussed. In tro d u c to ry Physics - This class was p rim a rily taken by Audiology and Speech Sciences majors on a CR-NC b a s is , an "Out­ side College" graduation requirement fo r th is m ajor. The percent­ age o f "Outside Major" students was 89.8 percen t. In tro d u c tio n to Economics - A la rg e number o f students w ith d iv erse majors took th is course on a CR-NC basis. majors used the option most o fte n . College" requirement fo r th is major. A d vertisin g This course is an "Outside The percentage o f "Outside Major" students was 98.4 percent. H isto ry o f Western A rt - W ithin College majors who took th is course on a CR-NC basis was 27.1 p ercen t. Psychology majors were the predominant users o f the option in th is class. 113 Psychology o f P e rs o n a lity - Wide ranges o f majors took th is class using the o p tio n . The percentage o f "Outside M ajor" s tu ­ dents was 8 8 .3 p ercen t. In d iv id u a l Sports - This class was taken basis by a wide d iv e r s it y o f m ajors. on th e grading The percentage o f "Outside Major" students was 90.7 p erc en t. Survey o f Accounting Methods - C rim inal J u s tic e majors were the predominant user o f the o p tion in t h is c la s s . The percentage o f "Outside Major" students was 8 8 .9 p e rc e n t. General Anatomy - This course is o ffe re d Human M edicine. CR-NC b a s is . by the C ollege o f No Human M edicine majors took th is course on th e Audiology and Speech Sciences were th e predominant majors in th is c la s s , which is an "Outside C o lle g e '1 requirem ent f o r th is m ajor. C ollege Algebra and Trigonom etry - The class was p rim a rily taken by Psychology and Sociology majors on a CR-NC b asis. The percentage o f "Outside M ajor" students was 97.1 p erc en t. Elementary Russian - Physical Sciences students took th is class on th e grading basis most o fte n . The percentage o f "Out­ side M ajor" students was 9 6 .0 p ercen t. Second Year French - This course had th e h ighest percentage o f "W ithin Major" students: 4 2 .8 p ercen t. The predominant major o f Users o f the o ption was E n glish . I t appears th a t students who use the CR-NC o p tio n take courses o u ts id e the C ollege o f t h e ir declared m ajors. Hypothesis 4 114 was not supported by the re s u lts o f c a te g o rizin g students according to W ithin and Outside the College o f t h e ir majors. A supposition o f the innovative grading option is th a t i t allow s opportunity to students fo r e x p lo ra tio n outside t h e ir major area. The re s u lts show th a t in many cases th is is being accomplished in the classes described. The use o f the option by students in c e rta in declared m ajors, however, may be to f u l f i l l an "Outside College" requirem ent. The reason f o r using the option in such courses may be due to student lack o f confidence in a class removed from his major area. The in d iv id u a l reasons fo r ta k ­ ing classes on the CR-NC basis vary f o r each in d iv id u a l student. A l­ though the reasons may v a ry , the re s u lts o f th is study show th a t s tu ­ dents may not use the option in the way supported by the Educational P o lic ie s Committee.^ Hypothesis 5 . --T h e f i f t h hypothesis was concerned w ith the d iffe re n c e s between CR-NC Users and Non-Users as measured by responses to e ig h t q u estion n aire item s. The d iffe re n c e s between the two groups on each o f the items is b r ie f ly discussed. Item 1 - Grades tend to s tim u la te me to study harder. The Non-Users o f the option expressed s ig n ific a n tly more agree­ ment w ith th is statem ent than Users. I t appears th a t grades serve as more o f a stimulus to study fo r those who do not use the o p tio n . A m a jo rity o f both groups, however, expressed agree­ ment w ith the statem ent. The re s u lts suggest th a t grades serve the fu n c tio n o f a ffe c tin g student study. ^"The Revised Grading System a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity ," op. c i t . , p . 11. 175 Item 2 - 1 plan to attend graduate or professional school a f t e r I graduate. Users o f th e CR-NC option expressed s ig n if ic a n t ly more agreement than Non-Users on th is item . The nature o f the CR-NC p o p u latio n , as presented in the d e s c rip tiv e p a rt o f th is study, may be a fa c ­ to r in th is response. Students who use the CR-NC option were a t higher grade p o in t le v e ls than the undergraduate p o p ulatio n. The m a jo rity o f both groups expressed agreement w ith th is statem ent. Item 3 - I am g e n e ra lly s a tis fie d w ith the present grading system a t M.S.U. There was no s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e between the groups on th is item . M a jo ritie s o f both groups expressed agreement w ith th is item , in d ic a tin g th a t students are g e n e ra lly s a tis fie d w ith the grading p o lic ie s . Item 4 - Admissions o ffic e r s a t graduate schools do not weigh as h e a v ily the grade p o in t average i f a stu ­ dent has used the CR-NC o p tio n . There was no s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e between the groups on th is item . T h irty -tw o percent o f the CR-NC User respondents expressed a "Don't Know" response or did not respond to the item ; over 20 percent o f the Non-User sample expressed these responses. This in d ic a te s th a t students are la r g e ly unaware o f admissions o f f ic e r s ' a ttitu d e s toward students who use the grading o p tio n . M a jo ritie s o f those responding to the item expressed agreement w ith the s ta te ­ ment. Item 5 - I f the CR-NC option was a v a ila b le fo r U n iv e rs ity College courses, I would have taken these courses using the CR-NC o p tio n . S ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s were found between Users and Non-Users on th is item . Both groups expressed considerable agreement w ith 116 th is statem ent: the Non-Users. 75 percent o f the CR-NC Users and 67 percent o f The re s u lts In d ic a te th a t most undergraduates would take the U n iv e rs ity College requirements on a CR-NC basis i f they had the o p p o rtu n ity. Item 6 - Students should be ab le to decide a t any time dur­ ing the term whether to re ce ive a grade or c r e d lt no c r e d it. There were s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s between th e groups on th is item . The Users expressed a more favo rab le a ttitu d e toward th is statem ent. The re s u lts In d ic a te th a t students d e s ire a lower decision-making period in v o lv in g choice o f a grading system. Item 7 - A student should be able to take as many courses as he wishes using the CR-NC o ption . A s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e was assumed between the groups on th is item . M a jo ritie s o f both groups expressed a negative a ttitu d e toward extending the C redlt-N o C re d it system. There appears to be an apparent s a tis fa c tio n w ith the present numbers o f c re d its th a t may be taken on th is basis. Item 8 - C re d it (CR) in a CR-NC course should be given fo r a 1.00 or higher ra th e r than the present 2 .0 or higher minimum. A s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e was assumed between the groups on th is item . The Non-User group expressed a s lig h t ly more favo rab le a ttitu d e toward th is statem ent. The re s u lts in d ic a te th a t more Non-Users than Users fa v o r lowering the minimum requirement fo r c r e d it. Hypothesis 6 . --T h e s ix th hypothesis d e a lt w ith d iffe re n c e s among classes on the e ig h t q uestionnaire item s. S ig n ific a n t 117 d iffe re n c e s were found in th re e o f the item s. These are discussed below: Item I - Grades tend to s tim u la te me to study harder. S ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s were discovered between Freshmen and Sophomores and Freshmen and Seniors through using the S cheffe' Post-Hoc C ontrasts. Freshmen expressed the most p o s itiv e a t t i ­ tude toward th is statem ent follow ed by Ju n io rs , Seniors and Soph­ omores. There appears to be some support f o r the contention th a t Sophomores d is p la y less than an adequate concern f o r achieving high grades. An in feren ce th a t can be drawn from these re s u lts is th a t grades s tim u la te Freshmen to study but as they become Sophomores, grades do not provide th is type o f s tim u la tio n , and as students become Juniors and S eniors, grades again serve th is fu n c tio n . Item 2 - 1 plan to atten d a graduate or pro fession al school a f t e r I graduate. The s ig n ific a n t c o n tra s t among the classes fo r th is item was be­ tween Freshmen and Seniors. The Freshmen responses show the highest le v e l o f disagreement w ith th is item follow ed by Sopho­ mores, Juniors and Seniors. The re s u lts in d ic a te th a t as s tu ­ dents progress in t h e ir academic c a re e rs , the d e s ire fo r graduate school attendance increases. Item 4 - Admissions o ffic e r s a t graduate schools do not weigh as h e a v ily the grade p o in t average i f a s tu ­ dent has used the CR-NC o p tio n . S ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s were found between Freshmen and Juniors on th is item . Freshmen expressed the highest degree o f agreement 118 w ith th is item fo llo w e d by Sophomores, Seniors and Ju n io rs . Knowledge o f graduate school opinions among Freshmen may be a fa c to r in the decreasing numbers o f students e le c tin g to take th e CR-NC o p tio n . This Item also had the la r g e s t number o f "No Response" and "D o n 't Know" responses. Hypothesis 7 . — This hypothesis was concerned w ith d i f f e r ­ ences among students in low , m id dle, and high grade p o in t average c a t­ egories on e ig h t q u e s tio n n a ire item s. found in th re e o f the item s. Item 2 - 1 S ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s were Each is discussed below: plan to a tte n d a graduate o r p ro fessio n al school a f t e r I graduate. S ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s were found between th e m iddle and high group. The low est grade p o in t average category d is p la y th e most agreement w ith th is ite m , but the small number o f respondents to t h is item (N = 21) 1n th e low category makes 1 t d i f f i c u l t to draw conclusions. The s ig n if ic a n t d iffe re n c e between the m iddle and high groups was found w ith la rg e groups (N = 334, N = 2 6 7 ). The re s u lts in d ic a te th a t students in high grade p o in t c a teg o ries ex­ press plans to a tte n d graduate school moreso than students 1n the m iddle categ o ry. Item 3 - I am g e n e ra lly s a t is f ie d w ith the present grading p o lic y a t M.S.U. The s ig n if ic a n t c o n tra s t among th e groups in th is item was the m iddle and high grade p o in t average categ o ry. The re s u lts In d i­ c a te th a t as grade p o in t average in c re a s e s , s a tis fa c tio n w ith grading p o lic ie s in c re a s e . 119 Item 7 - A student should be able to take as many courses as he wishes using the CR-NC o p tio n . Two s ig n ific a n t contrasts were discovered among the three groups on th is item . S ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s were found between the lowest and highest categories and the middle and highest c a te ­ g o rie s . The lowest category was in most agreement w ith th is statement follow ed by the middle and high. The re s u lts In d ic a te th a t students in the higher grade p o in t average category do not want to extend the CR-NC option to the degree th a t middle and low grade p o in t average categories do. Hypothesis 8 . — This hypothesis considered the comparison o f a ttitu d e s expressed by students and fa c u lty concerning the use o f grades. Three groups, f a c u lt y , CR-NC Users, and Non-Users, were com­ pared on the item whether grades tend to s tim u la te students to study. N inety-tw o percent o f fa c u lty members interview ed expressed agreement w ith th is item . CR-NC Users expressed the lowest degree o f agreement; s ix ty -o n e percent expressed a favo rab le a tt it u d e . The re s u lts o f the comparison showed th a t a higher percentage o f fa c u lty members than students express the a ttitu d e th a t grades serve th e fu nctio n o f stim ­ u la tin g students to study. Hypothesis 9 . — This hypothesis was concerned w ith the com­ parison o f expressed a ttitu d e s by teaching fa c u lty members, students who used the CR-NC option and students who did not use the o ption . The item th a t was used fo r th is comparison was concerned w ith whether students should be ab le to decide a t any time during the term whether to receive a grade or C redit-N o C re d it. The highest percentage o f 120 agreement w ith allow ing students th is option was the CR-NC Users f o l ­ lowed by Non-Users and fa c u lty members. The re s u lts o f th is d escrip ­ tio n show th a t a higher percentage o f students than fa c u lty members express a fav o rab le a ttitu d e toward extending the time period fo r grading system decision-m aking. S ix ty -e ig h t percent o f fa c u lty in t e r ­ viewed expressed the opinion th a t the present CR-NC grading option should be continued. Summary. Im p lic atio n s and Recommendations Summary Only a small percentage o f the to ta l undergraduate popula­ tio n take advantage o f the CR-NC system. In each o f the F a ll Terms, 1968-1973, described in th is study, the percentage o f Users was con­ s is te n tly below fo u r percent. Predominant use was by S eniors, f o l ­ lowed by Ju n io rs , Sophomores and Freshmen. In order to in v e s tig a te the grade p o in t average le v e ls o f Users, students who had used the option were categorized according to grade p o in t average. The mean grade p o in t average among Users was c o n s is te n tly higher than the mean average fo r each re s p e c tiv e c la s s , except fo r Freshmen. Grade p o in t average le v e ls fo r Juniors and Sen­ io rs who used the option were c o n s is te n tly above the 3 .0 0 le v e l. In order to In v e s tig a te whether students who use the option take classes f a r removed from t h e ir m ajor, ten classes were selected and numbers o f students in declared majors were lis t e d . Majors were then categorized according to "W ithin College" o f the declared major or "Outside College" o f the declared m ajor. The re s u lts showed th a t 121 very few students take courses on a CR-NC basis w ith in t h e i r m ajo r's C o lle g e , although many students may use the o p tio n in courses needed to f u l f i l l "Outside C ollege" requirem ents. Two q u e stio n n aire s were used to sample opinions expressed by Users and Non-Users o f the CR-NC o p tio n . The s ig n if ic a n t d i f f e r ­ ences between th e two groups on s ix o f th e e ig h t common q u e stio n n aire items in d ic a te d th a t th e pop ulatio n o f CR-NC Users d if fe r e d w ith r e ­ spect to these items from th e Non-User group. The reason fo r th is d iffe re n c e may not have been due to the f a c t th a t classes were and were not taken on a CR-NC b a s is , but because th e p o p ulatio n o f CR-NC Users d if f e r s from th e general p op u latio n o f undergraduates. Users are in the h igher grade p o in t average c a te g o rie s as described in the d e s c rip tiv e p o rtio n o f the study. CR-NC Users as compared to Non- Users expressed: 1 . less agreement w ith the statem ent t h a t grades s tim u la te students to study; 2 . more agreement w ith the statem ent o f planning to atten d a graduate or p ro fess io n al school; 3. more agreement w ith the statem ent th a t i f U n iv e rs ity College courses could be taken on a CR-NC b a s is , they would have: 4. more agreement w ith the statem ent extending the d ecisio n to take a class on e it h e r a graded o r CR-NC b asis; 5. less disagreem ent w ith the statem ent o f being able to take as many courses as d esired on a CR-NC b as is ; 6 . less disagreem ent w ith the statem ent o f low ering the min­ imum requirem ent f o r c r e d it from a 2 .0 to a 1 .0 . 122 In the Items concerned w ith s a tis fa c tio n w ith present grading prac­ tic e s and knowledge o f admissions o ffic e r s a ttitu d e s toward CR-NC Users, no s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s between the groups were found. In order to in v e s tig a te the sources o f d iffe re n c e s between the groups. M u ltiv a r ia te and U n iv a ria te £ te s ts were used w ith S cheffe' Post-Hoc C ontrasts. S ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s were found between Fresh­ men and Sophomores, and Freshmen and Seniors on the item concerning grades providing a stimulus to study. S ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s were found between Freshmen and Seniors on the item measuring plans fo r graduate school attendance. S ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s were found be­ tween Freshmen and Juniors on the item concerned w ith graduate school admissions o ffic e r s a ttitu d e s toward CR-NC Users. Grade p o in t average categ o ries were compared according to responses on the e ig h t common q uestionnaire item s. S ig n ific a n t d i f ­ ferences were found between the middle and high groups on the item concerning plans to attend a graduate or p rofessional school a f t e r graduation. S ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s were found between middle and high grade p o in t average categories on the item concerned w ith s a tis ­ fa c tio n w ith grading p ra c tic e s . On the item s ta tin g th a t students should be able to take as many courses as they wish using the CR-NC o p tio n , s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s were found between the lowest and high­ es t c a te g o rie s , and the middle and highest c a te g o rie s . F aculty a t Michigan S tate expressed a more negative a ttitu d e toward extending the number o f courses th a t may be taken on a CR-NC basis than both student Users and Non-Users o f the o ption . 123 Im p licatio n s The C redit-N o C re d it grading option is not w id ely used. A l­ though a m a jo rity o f students who had not used the option expressed plans to take a course on th is b as is , i t is u n lik e ly th a t they w i l l . The r e l a t i v e ly co n sisten t percentage o f Users does not show a ris in g p attern o f use; ra th e r , a s lig h t d ec lin e was shown. I f the U n iv e rs ity College requirements were to be o ffe re d on th is b a s is , usage would un­ doubtedly increase. Since students express r e la t iv e agreement w ith the present grading system, the process o f grading seems an accepted p a rt o f aca­ demic l i f e . An extension o f the tw o -p o in t grading system seems un­ warranted in lig h t o f student opinion concerning th is issue. The ra tio n a le f o r use o f the CR-NC option was th a t 1 t would s tim u la te students to explore outside t h e ir major areas. When courses taken on th is basis were examined, re s u lts in d ica te d th a t students used the option fo r classes outside the c o lle g e o f t h e ir m ajor. Closer examination showed, however, th a t in many Instances courses were taken to f u l f i l l an "Outside College" requirement o f the m ajor. Since th e same p re re q u is ite s are required in order to take a class on a CR-NC basis or a re g u la r b as is , many students may be in ­ c lin e d to use the option fo r reasons o ther than those fo r which i t was intended. I f c r i t e r i a f o r course admittance were a lte re d to accomo­ date the o p tio n , students would be more l i k e l y to use the option fo r e x p lo ra tio n . I f a student could take a course on a CR-NC basis and have the option o f re ce ivin g the grade assigned p r io r to CR-NC conver­ sio n , intended reasons f o r use could be r e a liz e d . The grading option 124 could be used in i n i t i a l enrollm ent in a course and then repeated, i f d es ired , on the re g u la r graded basis. This would encourage students to use th e option in courses in which they are academ ically unfam il­ ia r . The use o f the system by students in the higher grade p o in t av­ erage ranges fo r outside co lleg e requirements seems to ty p ify CR-NC use. Although over 80 percent o f Users express th a t they f e l t more a t ''ease" in CR-NC graded courses, less than 35 percent o f the Users in d ica te d th a t students " le a rn 11 more in these courses. Present student use o f the option does not seem to increase student m otivation in classes. I f s lig h t changes were made in the tw o -p o in t grading system, incidence o f use o f the option does not seem l i k e l y to in c re a s e , but the reasons fo r use could be aligned w ith the ra tio n a le purported fo r the i n i t i a t i o n o f the o p tio n . Recommendations 1. The CR-NC option seems ap p ro p riate fo r upperclassmen on a lim ite d basis. Freshmen who p res en tly use the option have grade p o in t averages th a t are lower than the class average. 2. Most students support the use o f grading a t the under­ graduate le v e l. Students in d ica te d th a t they did not d e s ire to ex­ tend the CR-NC system to include more classes. Extension o f the op­ tio n seems in a d v is a b le . 3. Although students g e n e ra lly fa v o r an extension o f the CRNC option to include U n iv e rs ity College courses, the lack o f student 125 awareness concerning ra m ific a tio n s o f ta k in g a few courses on a CR-NC basis makes th e extension seem in a d v is a b le . 4. The 2 .0 minimum requirem ent fo r c r e d it in a CR-NC seems a p p ro p ria te . I f th e re is a d e s ire to e n ro ll more students on th is b a s is , the requirem ent could be lowered to a 1 . 0 . 5. Students should be made aware o f neg ative ra m ific a tio n s concerning use o f th e CR-NC system ( i . e . , the Report by the American A sso ciatio n o f College R e g is tra rs and Admissions O ffic e rs s ta ted th a t 44 percent o f in s t it u t io n s reported th a t p a s s -fa il type grades were disregarded f o r students who t r a n s f e r , and 26 percent in d ic a te d th a t admission to t h e i r programs were jeo p a rd ized by a s u b s ta n tia l number o f p a s s -fa il type c r e d its ; the emphasis on th e Graduate Record Exam i f a student takes a "number" o f c r e d its using a grading o p tio n ). 6 . The CR-NC system seems a v ia b le o ption f o r undergraduates. I t should be continued w ith the fo llo w in g a lt e r a tio n s : a. The option should be o ffe re d p r im a r ily to Juniors and S eniors. b. A reduction o f th e maximum number o f c r e d its th a t can be taken on th e CR-NC basis (30 ) should be considered. c. Undergraduate advisors should be made aware o f re s e rv a ­ tio n s expressed by graduate school adm ittance personnel concerning th is iss u e . They could re la y th is inform a­ tio n to advisees. d. Students should have the option o f rep eatin g a course on a re g u la r basis a f t e r ta k in g th e course on a CR-NC b asis. e. I f a student d e s ire s , he should be able to re c e iv e the grade he earned in the CR-NC c la s s . f. P re re q u is ite s f o r courses taken on a CR-NC basis should be waived i f agreement can be reached between the in d i­ vid u a l student and the department o ffe r in g th e course. This may r e s u lt in an in s tr u c to r knowing who the CR-NC 126 students a re , but th is change could induce students to take courses outside t h e ir major requirements. LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES "Academic Programs S e c tio n ." Michigan S tate U n iv e rs ity C atalo g , Michigan S ta te Uni ve rs i ty Publ 1 ca t i o n , 1973. VoY. 6 7 , No. 10, p. 147. B a ile y , Robert L. "A Report o f the Sub-Committee to Survey the Accep­ tance o f N on-T rad ition al Grading Patterns by Government, In d u s try , and/or Graduate In s tit u tio n s ." American Associa­ tio n o f C o lle g ia te R eg istrars and Admissions O ffic e r s ,'P a rk F o res t, I l l i n o i s , 1971. Bain, P h ilip T. "An Analysis o f Some Aspects o f the Ohio U n iv e rs ity P ass-Fail Grading O ption." Unpublished Doctoral D is s e rta ­ t io n , Department o f Education, Ohio U n iv e rs ity , 1970. Bain, P h ilip T. "An In v e s tig a tio n o f Some Assumptions and Character­ is t ic s o f the Pass-Fail Grading System." The Journal o f Educational Research, V o l. 67 (November, 1973), 134-136. Bain, P h ilip T. "Does Pass-Fail Encourage E x p lo ra tio n ." U n iv e rs ity . V ol. 47 ( F a l l , 1971), 17-18. College and Chase, C linto n I . "P a s s -F a il: How Is I t Working?" Bureau o f Educa­ tio n a l Studies and T e s tin g , Indiana U n iv e rs ity in Blooming­ to n , 1973. Claunch, Sidney J . "E ffe c ts o f Pass-Fa1l Grading on Q u a lity Grade P oin t Averages." College and U n iv e rs ity . V o l. 47 (W in ter, 1972), 93-105. Cox, D. R. Planning o f Experiments. New York: John W iley and Sons, 19M : D ale, Wesley J. "Concerning Grading and Other Forms o f Student Evalua­ t io n ." Council o f Graduate Schools in the United S ta te s . Washington D .C .: Government P rin tin g O ffic e , 1969. Davidovicz, H. M. "Pass-Fail Grading-A Review." Center f o r the Study o f Higher Education. H ofstra U n iv e rs ity , 1972. Delohery, P a t, and McLaughlin, G e ra l. "Pass-Fail G rading." V irg in ia Polytechnic In s t it u t e and S tate U n iv e rs ity (September, 19 7 T ). 127 128 D re s s e l, Paul I . E valuatio n in the Basic College a t Michigan S ta te U n ive rsity ^ New York: Harper and B ro th e rs , 1958. "Education a t B erkeley: A Report o f the S e le c t Committee on Education." Regents o f the U n iv e rs ity o f C a lifo r n ia (1 9 6 6 ), 93-103. Faust, M argaret S. "In O pposition to Conventional Grades." Paper presented to the American Educational Research A s s o c ia tio n , New York, 1971. G lass, Gene V. and S ta n le y , J u lia n C. S t a t i s t i c a l Methods in Educa­ tio n and Psychology. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: P re n tlc e -H a 11 In c . , 1970. Gold, Richard M .; R e il l y , Ann; Lehr, R obert; and Silberm an, Robert. "Academic Achievement D eclines Under P a ss -F a il G rading." Journal o f Experimental Education, V o l. 39 (S p rin g , 1 9 7 1 ), 17-21. G o ld stein , Kenneth M. and T i l k e r , Harvey A. "A Review o f Grading Sys­ tem P ra c tic e s in th e Higher Education In s t it u t io n s o f New York S ta te ." New York S ta te Education Departm ent, June, 1969. G o ld stein , Kenneth M. and T i l k e r , Harvey A. " A ttitu d e s Toward A-B-C-D-F and Honors Pass-Fa1l Grading Systems." Journal o f Educational Research. V o l. 65 (November, 1 9 7 1 ), 99-100. Gray, W illia m . Needed Readjustments in Higher Education. U n iv e rs ity o f Chicago Press, 1933. Chicago: H assler, W illia m W. "Results o f a P ass-F ail Q uestionnaire Sent to Graduate Deans." Indiana U n iv e rs ity o f Pennsylvania, 1969. H e w itt, Raymond G. "The Status o f P ass-F ail Options a t 22 Colleges and U n iv e r s itie s : A R e p o rt." Massachusetts U n iv e rs ity O ffic e o f In s t it u t io n a l S tu d ie s , November, 1967. H o fe lle r , M argaret A. "A Survey o f Graduate School A ttitu d e s Toward N o n -T ra d itio n a l Grading Systems: P re lim in a ry R e p o rt." New College R e p o rt, O ctober, 1971. Hoyt, Donald P. "College Grades and A d u lt Accomplishment." tio n a l Record, V o l. 51 (W in te r, 1 9 6 6 ), 305-309, Hyman, Lawrence W. "Grades and Academic S tandards." o f New York, New York, 1969. Educa­ C ity U n iv e rs ity Johnson, Jack T. "Evaluate Program, Not G rading." C ollege and Uni­ v e r s ity Business. V o l. 49 (September, 1 9 7 0 ), 77-78. 129 Ju o la, Arvo E. "Grade In f la t io n (19 60 -19 73 ): A P re lim in ary R eport." O ffic e o f Evaluation S ervic es , Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity , 1974. Ju o la, Arvo E. " I l l u s t r a t i v e Problems in College Level G rading." Presented a t the N ational Council o f Measurement in Educa­ tio n , New York, February, 1967. K a rlin s , M arvin; Kaplan, M a rtin ; and S tu a r t, W illia m . "Academic A t t i ­ tudes and Performance As a Function o f D if f e r e n t ia l Grading Systems: An E valuation o f P rin c e to n 's P ass-Fall System." Journal o f Expreimental Education, V o l. 37 (1 9 6 9 ). "Law School Admission Test Council Statement on P ass-Fail Grading Sys­ tems As Endorsed by the Council o f the Section o f Legal Ed­ ucation and Admissions to the Bar o f the American Bar Asso­ c ia tio n ," October 27, 1970. Magoon, A. J. and B a u s e ll, R. Barker. "Comparing P ass-F ail Option Against T ra d itio n a l College G rading." College Student Jour­ nal . V ol. 6 (F e b ., March, 19 7 2 ), 32-37. M a rtin , Warren Bryan. Conform ity, Standards and Change in Higher Edu­ c a tio n . San Francisco, C a l. : Jossey-Bass, I n c ., 1969. M e lv ille , George L. and Stamm, Eleanor. "The P ass-F ail System and the Change in the Accounting o f Grades on Comprehensive Examina­ tio n s a t Knox C o lle g e ." Knox C o lle g e , Galesburg, 1 1 1 ., August, 1967. Merryman, Mary F. and Kerwin, Leo. "A Three Semester Study o f the Cred1t-No C re d it Option in th e College o f A rts and Sciences." U n iv e rs ity o f M is s o u ri, Kansas C ity , 1971. Metzner, Seymour and Sharp, Richard M. "Preference Patterns o f Educa­ tio n Students in P ass-F ail E le c tiv e s ." Presented to Ameri­ can Educational Research A s s o c ia tio n , New York, 1971. M i ll e r , S tu a rt. "Measure, Number and Weight: A Polemical Statement o f the College Grading Problem." U n iv e rs ity o f Michigan Center fo r Research, Learning and Teaching, Ann A rbor, Michigan, 1967. M ille r , S tu a rt. "Report on Methods o f E valuatin g Students a t the Uni­ v e rs ity o f C a lifo r n ia a t B e rk eley ." U n iv e rs ity o f C a lif o r n ia , 1965. M u e lle r, Kate H. Student Personnel Work in Higher Education. Edited by G ilb e r t Wrenn. Boston: H o u g h to n -M ifflin C o ., 1961. 130 O tto , David. "A Study o f the P ass-Fail Grading System.” O ffic e o f In s t it u t io n a l Planning, A lb e rta U n iv e rs ity , Edmonton, A l­ b e rta , Canada, 1972. Pascal, Charles E. "Methods o f Grading and Models o f Teaching 1n Hlqher Education." Educational Technoloqy. V o l. 11 (O ctober, 19 71 ), 59-60. "Pass-Fa1l E valuatio n : Phase I I Q uestionnaire A n a ly s is ." U n iv e rs ity , A p ril 27 , 1970. Washington "P ass-Fail G rading." Memo to the F a c u lty . U n iv e rs ity o f Michigan Center f o r Research, Learning and Teaching, Ann A rbo r, M ich i­ gan, A p r i l , 1972. P e d rln i, Ronnie C. and P e d r ln i, D. T. "P ass-F ail Grading: Summary and T e n ta tiv e Conclusions." ERIC Reports. Washington, D .C ., 1971. Pemberton, W. A. " A b ilit y , Values and College Achievement . 11 s it y o f Delaware, Newark, Delaware, 1963. U n iver­ Quann, Charles J . "P ass-Fail Grading: What are the Trends?" American A ssociation o f College R e g is tra rs and Admissions O ffic e rs ', A p ril 2 3 , 1970. Quann, Charles J . "Survey Shows V a ria tio n s in Grading Trends." Col­ lege and U n iv e rs ity Business. V o l. 49 (September, 1970) , 7 8 79. Quann, Charles J . "The P ass-F ail Option: A nalysis o f an Experiemtn in G rading." American A ssociation o f C o lle g ia te R eg istrars and Admissions O f f ic e r s . A p ril 27. 1971. Rossmon, Jack E. "Graduate School A ttitu d e s To S-U Grades." tio n a l Record, V o l. 51 (1 9 7 0 ), 310-313. Educa­ S criven , M ich ael. "The Methodology o f E v a lu a tio n ." Perspectives o f Curriculum E v a lu a tio n . Edited by Robert Stake. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1967 Sgan, Mathew R. " L e tte r Grade Achievement in P ass -F a il Courses." Journal o f Hiqher Education. V o l. 41 (November, 19 7 0 ), 638Smith, Lawrence G. "Study M a te ria ls R e la tin g to Grades and Grading Systems." Grossmont C o lleg e, 1969. Sparks, David S. "Grading and Student E v a lu a tio n ." Presented a t the Council o f Graduate Schools in the United S ta te s , Washington, D .C ., December 5 , 1969. 131 S ta llin g s , W illia m M .; W o lff, Joseph L .; and Maehr, M artin L. "Fear o f F a ilu re and the Pass-Fa1l Grading O p tion ." Journal o f Experimental Education, V o l. 38 (W in te r, 19 69 ), 87 -91 . S ta llin g s , W illia m M .; Smock, Richard H .; and L e s lie , Elwood K. "PassF a il Gradlnq O ption." School and S o c ie ty , V o l. 96 (March, 19 68 ), 179-180. S ta llin g s , W illia m M. "Student A ttitu d e s Toward Grades and G rading." Improving College and U n iv e rs ity Teaching, V o l. 18, 6 6 - 6 8 . S ta llin g s , W illia m M. and Smock, Richard H. "The P ass-Fail Grading Option a t a S ta te U n iv e rs ity : A Five Semester E v a lu a tio n ." Journal o f Educational Measurement. V o l. 8 ( F a l l , 1 9 7 1 ), 153-160. Suslow, Sidney. "Pass F a il Grading a t Berkeley: Facts and O pinions." ERIC R eports, O ffic e o f In s t it u t io n a l Research, C a lifo rn ia U n iv e rs ity , February, 1973. Thayer, Robert E, "Do Low Grades Cause College Students to Give Up?" ERIC R eports, No. ED 054 725, A p r i l , 1971. "The American A ssociation o f C o lle g ia te R eg is trars and Admissions O ffic e rs Survey o f Grading P o lic ie s in Member In s t it u t io n s ." ERIC Reports, No. ED 055 546, 1971. "The Grading System a t UCSC: A C r itiq u e ." U n iv e rs ity , January 26, 1970. ERIC Reports, C a lifo rn ia "The Revised Grading System a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity ." S ecretary o f the F a c u ltie s , Michigan S tate U n iv e rs ity , 1968. T ro yer, Lewis. "New P attern For E valuation o f Student Progress." Campus. (S p rin g , 19 7 0 ), 20 -21 . New Vernon, W alter M. "Evaluated and Non-Evaluated in Higher Education." ERIC R eports, No. ED 065 039, A p ril 7 , 1972. Warren, Johnathan R. "College Grading P ra c tic e s : An O verview." O ffic e o f Education, ERIC R eports, No. ED 047 164, March, 1971. APPENDICES APPENDIX A STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRES Student # QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO CR-NC USERS For each Ite m , respond by c ir c lin g the l e t t e r ( s ) o f the a p p ro p ria te category o f the key: KEY: SA A D SD - if if if if you you you you s tro n g ly agree w ith the statem ent agree w ith the statem ent disagree w ith the statem ent s tro n g ly d isag ree w ith th e statem ent Grades tend to s tim u la te me to study h ard er. SA A D SD I f e l t more a t ease in the CR-NC (c re d 1 t-n o c r e d it ) course than in o th e r courses. SA A D SD Students le a rn more in courses graded on a CR-NC SA basis than in comparable courses w ith re g u la r grades. A D SD I plan to take more courses on a CR-NC basis. SA A 0 SD I f th e CR-NC o p tion was a v a ila b le fo r U n iv e rs ity C o llege courses, I would have taken these courses using th e CR-NC o p tio n . SA A D SD A student should be a b le to take as many courses as he wishes using th e CR-NC o p tio n . SA A D SD The CR-NC o ption gives students an o p p o rtu n ity to take courses o u tsid e o f h is /h e r major area w ith o u t fe a r o f low ering the grade p o in t average. SA A D SD I am g e n e ra lly s a t is f ie d w ith th e present grading system a t M .S.U. SA A D SD SA A D SD SA A D SD Admissions o f fic e r s a t graduate schools do not weigh as h e a v ily the grade p o in t average i f a student has used th e CR-NC o p tio n . SA A D SD I plan to a tte n d a graduate or p ro fe s s io n a l school a f t e r I graduate. SA A D SD I would have studied harder in th e CR-NC course I took during W in ter Term, 1974, had I been grade on a re g u la r b a s is . SA A D SD C re d it (CR) 1n a CR-NC course should be given f o r a 1 . 0 o r h ig h er ra th e r than the present 2 . 0 or h ig her minimum. Students should be a b le to decide a t any tim e d urin g the term whether to re c e iv e a grade o r c re d it-n o c r e d it . 132 133 QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO CR-NC USERS Continued. Taking the CR-NC option allowed me more time to study harder fo r my o th e r courses. SA A D SD I would not have taken the course th a t I took on a CR-NC basis during W inter Term, 1974, i f the grading option were not a v a ila b le . SA A D SD I was s a tis fie d w ith my decision to take a course on a CR-NC b asis. SA A 0 SD The CR-NC option should be p u b lic ize d more. SA A D SD COMMENTS: 134 Student # For each ite m , respond by c ir c lin g the l e t t e r ( s ) o f the ap p ro p ria te category o f th e KEY: KEY: SA - i f you s tro n g ly agree w ith the statem ent A - i f you agree w ith the s ta te ­ ment D - i f you disagree w ith the statem ent SD - i f you stro n g ly disagree w ith the statem ent Current grade p o in t average: (check one categ o ry) ___ 3 .0 0 and above 2 .0 0 to 2.99 1.99 and below SA A D SD I am f a m ilia r w ith the requirements o f graduate schools. SA A D SD I plan to atten d a graduate o r p ro fession al school a f t e r I graduate. SA A D SD I am g e n e ra lly s a t is fie d w ith the present grading sys­ tem a t M.S.U. SA A D SD Admissions o f fic e r s a t graduate schools do not weigh as h e a v ily the grade p o in t average i f a student has used the CR-NC (c r e d it-n o c r e d it ) grading o p tio n . SA A D SD I f the CR-NC option was a v a ila b le fo r U n iv e rs ity Col­ lege courses, I would have taken these courses using the CR-NC o p tio n . SA A D SD A D SD Grades tend to s tim u la te me to study harder. A student should be ab le to take as many courses as SA he wishes using th e ’ CR-NC o p tio n . C re d it (CR) in a CR-NC course should be given f o r a 1 .0 o r higher ra th e r than the present 2 .0 o r higher SA minimum. ' ; Students should be ab le to decide a t any tim e during the term whether to re c e iv e a grade or cred 1 t-n o c r e d it. SA A D SD A D SD SA A D SD I plan to take a course on a CR-NC basis in the fu tu re . COMMENTS: APPENDIX B COVER LETTERS MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY U niversity College O ffice o f E valuation Services South Kedzle H all East Lansing Michigan 48824 A p ril 29, 1974 Dear Student: The CR-NC (cred 1t-n o c r e d it ) grading system o ffe re d a t Michigan S tate 1 s being evaluated so th a t we may understand how w id ely and e ffe c ­ t i v e l y i t is being used. As a user o f the option during W inter Term, 1974, you are obviously in the p o s itio n to provide the most meaningful in p u t. We would ap p reciate your responses to the enclosed q u e stio n n aire . Please complete the q u e stio n n aire and mall 1 t using the enclosed en­ velope. Under no circumstances w i l l your responses be released to anyone. Thank you fo r your cooperation. S in c e re ly , Frank V iv io Dr. Arvo Juola Acting D ire c to r Enclosures 135 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing Michigan 48823 University College O ffic e o f Evaluation Services 202 South Kedzie H all A p ril 29 , 1974 Dear Student: The CR-NC (c re d it-n o c r e d it) grading system o ffe re d a t Michigan S tate is being evaluated so th a t we may understand how w id ely and e ffe c ­ t i v e ly i t is being used. To adequately evalu ate th is grading o p tio n , we need in p u t from stu ­ dents who have used and those who have not used the CR-NC system. You have been randomly selected as a student who did not use the op­ tio n during W inter Term o f the 1973-1974 academic y e a r. We would a p p re ciate your responses to the enclosed q u e stio n n aire . Please complete the q u estion n aire and m all i t using the enclosed en­ velope. Under no circumstances w il l your responses be released to anyone. Thank you f o r your cooperation. S in c e re ly , Frank V iv io Dr. Arvo Juola Acting D ire c to r Enclosures 136 APPENDIX C COVER LETTER FOR FOLLOW-UP MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY COLLEGE - OFFICE OF EVALUATION SERVICES SOUTH KEOZIE HALL EAST LANDING, MICHIGAN 48824 May 13, 1974 Dear Student: Approximately two weeks ago you should have received a q uestionnaire concerning the CR-NC (c re d it-n o c r e d it ) grading op­ tio n a t Michigan S ta te . This l e t t e r 1s being w ritte n to encourage you to complete th e q u e stio n n aire . Enclosed is another copy o f the q u e s tio n n a ire . I urge you to complete and send 1 t as soon as possible so th a t you may have an impact in the grading option e v a lu a tio n . Thank you fo r your cooperation. S in c e re ly , Frank V iv io 137 APPENDIX D FACULTY QUESTIONNAIRE FACULTY QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS: Do you consider y o u rs e lf f a m ilia r w ith the CR-NC grading option? One o f the major reasons fo r o ffe r in g the CR-NC grading option 1s to o ffe r to students an o p p o rtu n ity to explore o utsid e t h e ir major area. Do you th in k th a t th is is being accomplished? Why? Can you give me more in fo rm atio n on th e use o f the option in your department? Do you th in k th a t grades s tim u la te students to study? Do you th in k th a t students should be able to decide a t any time dur­ ing the term whether to re ce ive a grade o r c re d it-n o c re d it? Do you th in k th a t professors should be to ld which students are takin g t h e ir courses using the CR-NC option? Why do you th in k students take courses on a CR-NC basis? Do you th in k th a t the present CR-NC option should be continued or do you th in k 1 t should be changed? Can you suggest how you th in k i t should be changed? 138 APPENDIX E FACULTY COMMENTS Faculty Comments: Item - One o f the major reasons f o r o ffe r in g the CR-NC grading option 1 s to o f f e r to students an o p p ortun ity to explore o utsid e t h e ir major a re a . Do you th in k th a t th is 1s being accomplished? Can you g iv e me more In fo rm atio n on th e use o f the option in your department: "CR-NC courses are taken when students take a heavy lo a d ." "In th is departm ent, 1 t 1s used to g ive students an opp ortun ity to ex­ p lo re . " " I encourage students to use i t . " " I t i s n 't used here any more than o th e r departm ents." Item - Do you th in k th a t grades s tim u la te students to study? "With the system the way i t is - y e s ." "Some students want s tru c tu re and need to be required to do some­ thing . . . grades can a lie n a te , however, and s tres s com petition ra th e r than c o o p e ra tio n ." "They are one o f the things th a t m otivate s tu d en ts." " D e fin ite ly y e s ." "To a degree . . . grades are becoming more o f a trend w ith pressure mounting fo r graduate school, am bitions could be cu t o f f . " "For some stu d en ts, th is is the only way they stu d y." Item - Do you th in k th a t students should be able to decide a t any time during the term whether to re ce ive a grade or c re d it-n o c re d it? "Students should be ab le to change a t any tim e , th is way students would drop less courses." "This 1s a degree o f freedom the students should have." "No, students are m otivated by fe a r o f f a i l u r e . " "This would d e fe a t the purpose o f th e course." "Students should make a commitment a t the beginning o f a course." "This depends on the In s tru c to r and the type o f course." " I t would cost the U n iv e rs ity a l o t o f money . . . cause a l o t o f a d m in is tra tiv e w ork." "The decisio n should be made before the f i r s t exam." 139 140 Faculty Comments Continued. Item - Do you th in k th a t professors should be to ld which students are taking t h e ir classes using the CR-NC option? " I t d o esn 't make much d iffe re n c e ." "Yes, a professor could g ive a 2 .0 instead o f a 1 .5 i f a student was on the b o rd e rlin e ." "No, to avoid bias by the p ro fess o r." "P erso nally, I would l ik e to know." Item - Why do you th in k students take courses on a CR-NC basis? "To broaden the student 1n areas where he 1s a fr a id to ve n tu re ." "They want to explore w ith ou t lowering GPA." " R e lie f from th e pressure o f com p etition , students do not wish to per­ form a t a high le v e l." "To avoid GPA r u in ." "Students use 1 t th in kin g th a t i t 1s e a s ie r to g et c r e d it hours to complete t h e i r programs." "H alf la z in e s s , h a lf not wanting to make a f u l l commitment." "To g et content w ithout g e ttin g a 2 .0 ." "They th in k i t w i l l be a way o f studying w ithout pressure . . . illu s io n ." an "Students hope to lig h te n lo a d ." Item - Do you th in k th a t the present CR-NC option should be continued or do you th in k i t should be changed? "Students should be allowed to take a ye ar o f CR-NC." "A ll classes should be on a CR-NC b a s is ." " I f people want i t they should be ab le to take i t . " "There is no tro u b le w ith 1 t . . . we should minimize grades." "Should reduce the number o f c re d its to f i f t e e n . " "Continue 1 t the way i t is now." " I would not want to see i t overused." APPENDIX F STUDENT COMMENTS Credit-No Credit Users Comments: "The course was very h elp fu l to me and I have re tain ed what I have le a rn e d ." "CR-NC puts less stress on a student and they can get more out o f a class than they may w ith pressure o f grades." "A student should be able to drop the CR-NC option up to fiv e weeks in to a term ." " I use the CR-NC option fo r most o f my required classes th a t are in a subject area I do not have a good background In . . . I am a so cial work major and I take my science classes on a CR-NC b a s is ." " I enjoyed my CR-NC class Immensely, and was much more a t ease 1n 1 t than 1 n my graded cla s s e s ." "Fear o f not knowing whether I would get a CR fo r the course made me study s lig h t ly more than I would f o r a re g u la r c la s s ." "CR-NC 1s a good th in g on a lim ite d b as is . I f a student takes too many courses CR-NC, his GPA may be viewed w ith s k ep ticism ." " I t 1s good f o r courses th a t a student 1s unsure o f , bad on record fo r graduate schools." " I t gave me a chance to evalu ate my p ro fic ie n c y In an area unrelated to my major w ith ou t a ffe c tin g my GPA." "CR-NC gives me more confidence to take courses w ell outside th e scope o f my major to explore o ther areas . . . I have enjoyed those classes th a t I took CR-NC and might not have ventured to do so w ith ou t the op­ tio n ." " I d o n 't th in k I study less using th e CR-NC option but ra th e r th a t some o f the pressure 1 s removed." "A CR-NC class allows a more relaxed atmosphere and I fe e l a b e tte r learn in g experience occurs." " I t 1s up to the in d iv id u a l to take advantage o f th is o p tio n . I t a l­ lows you to vary your study schedule, to g ive more tim e fo r d i f f i c u l t courses." " I enjoy tak in g classes th a t are not required in my major . . . makes a more w ell rounded person." It " I r e a lly wish th a t I could have changed to a graded basis a f t e r the m id -te rm ." 141 142 "Taking a CR-NC course gives the student an o p p o rtu n ity to study the things th a t he th in ks are Im portant 1 n a c la s s ." "The CR-NC option 1s o f g re a t v a lu e ." 143 Non-User Comments: "I stro n g ly agree w ith the CR-NC option but since we were taught from age ? onward to work f o r a reward, by th e tim e we get to c o lle g e , we are Incapable o f using the CR-NC as 1 t was meant to be . 11 "A student should be a b le to fin d out h a lf way through the q u a rte r what his grade is and then be ab le to sw itch to CR-NC 1 f 1 t is to his advantage . 11 "A CR-NC option would be good in U n iv e rs ity College courses . . . . My grades 1n these courses were lower than those in my m ajo r.'' "Most o f my classes 1n my la s t two years were required f o r my m ajor— or ones th a t would help my GPA . . . . I f I would have known about the CR-NC option in my Freshmen and Sophomore y e a rs , I would have made use o f i t . " " I d o n 't b e lie v e th a t a change in the grading system w i l l help as much as a d ra s tic change in the way le a rn in g is presented." "The CR-NC Idea is good, but the p o lic ie s governing i t s use vary too much from one c o lle g e to an o th e r." " I r e a liz e th a t grades are necessary, but I know due to many circum­ stances only the professor decides upon the grade w ith o u t th e student being ab le to discuss I t before i t 1 s Issued . . . th is is the only argument I have about issuin g grades." "My disagreement w ith th e CR-NC option is my own personal b e lie f . . . I do agree w ith the system as being o ffe re d as a choice f o r o th er p e o p le ." " I would have taken th e U n iv e rs ity College requirements CR-NC i f I could have." " I t would be worth considering having the classes 1n one's area o f concentration on a CR-NC system . . . . I have found th a t I worked hardest when I wanted to know the In fo rm atio n regardless o f the grad­ ing system." "As i t is now, the pressure o f keeping grades up 1s a bigger r e a l i t y to most students than is le a rn in g the actual content o f a course . . . . Maybe w ith the pressure o f grades taken o f f , you could devote more tim e and energy to le a rn in g ." "CR-NC should be used only fo r U n iv e rs ity College requirem ents." "Too o fte n th e Ck-No option gives a student an excuse not to e x e rt h im self in a course." 144 " I t g e n e ra lly seems to be a 'c o p -o u t' fo r m inim izing e f f o r t . . . . never used i t but can see how 1 t may take pressure o f f stu d en ts." I "There should be a presen tatio n o f the CR-NC system a t o r ie n ta tio n ." " I r e a lly d o n 't know enough about 1 t to say . . . . grades are b e tte r , and b e n e fit you more." But seems l ik e " I fe e l the CR-NC option does not g ive the 3 .5 or b e tte r students the c r e d it they deserve."