Joint forum of the council on academic affairs and the council on graduate studies
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 31

Joint Forum of the Council on Academic Affairs and the Council on Graduate Studies PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 79 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Joint Forum of the Council on Academic Affairs and the Council on Graduate Studies. Internal Governing Policy 45 Review of Alleged Capricious Grades. Introduction. Ms. Chelsea Frederick 2005-2006 Student Member of CAA & Member of the Grade Appeals Subcommittee. EIU Student Concerns.

Download Presentation

Joint Forum of the Council on Academic Affairs and the Council on Graduate Studies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Joint forum of the council on academic affairs and the council on graduate studies

Joint Forum of the Council on Academic Affairs and the Council on Graduate Studies

Internal Governing Policy 45

Review of Alleged Capricious Grades


Introduction

Introduction

Ms. Chelsea Frederick

2005-2006 Student Member of CAA & Member of the Grade Appeals Subcommittee


Eiu student concerns

EIU Student Concerns

  • No process to protect student’s right to earned grade

  • No process to protect instructor’s rights when appeal is not supported

  • Lack of knowledge and familiarity with department grade appeal processes


Eiu faculty concerns

EIU Faculty Concerns

  • No appeal process for the instructor in the current policy

  • The DGAC (Department Grade Appeal Committee) has no real power and their decisions may be ignored


Eiu administration concerns

EIU Administration Concerns

  • Processes not clearly specified

  • Timelines not clearly specified

  • Outcome not clearly required

  • Academic councils not informed


2006 joint committee caa and cgs members

CAA

Dr. Kathlene Bower

Ms. Chelsea Frederick

Dr. Christie Roszkowski

CGS

Dr. Eric Hake

Dr. Linda Morford

Ms. Lenee Moseley

2006 Joint Committee CAA and CGS Members


Guiding principles

Guiding Principles

  • Define bases for grade appeal

  • Allow student and faculty appeals

  • Specify processes & timelines

  • Retain effective elements: faculty/chair roles

  • Improve ineffective elements: committee & administrative roles

  • Ensure all steps have a functional purpose

  • Inform academic councils


Illinois institution consultations

Illinois Institution Consultations

  • Governors State University

    • Academic Regulations: Grade Appeals

  • Illinois State University

    • Student Grievance Process

  • Northern Illinois University

    • Procedures for Appealing Alleged Capricious Course Grades

  • University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

    • Academic Policies & Regulation: Procedures for Review of Alleged Capricious Grading

  • Western Illinois University

    • Undergraduate and Graduate Grade Appeal Procedures


Other institution consultations

Other Institution Consultations

  • California State University

    • Student Handbook: Grade Appeal Procedures

  • East Tennessee State University

    • Grade Appeal Process

  • Texas A & M

    • Student Rights: Grade Appeals

  • University of Michigan

    • Assignment of Course Grades and Student Appeals


Faculty chair and college committee roles

Faculty, Chair and College Committee Roles

Dr. Christie Roszkowski

Member CAA & Member of the Grade Appeals Subcommittee


Current igp 45

Current IGP 45

  • Defines Bases for an Appeal

  • Defines Steps in Procedure

    • Faculty Member

    • Chair

    • Department Grade Appeal Committee

    • Dean of the College, Graduate School, School of Continuing Education

  • Attempts to Establish Deadlines


Comparison current to proposed policy

Current Policy

Faculty Member

Chair

Department GAC

Dean

Proposed Policy

SAME: Faculty Member

SAME: Chair

NEW: College GAC

NEW: University GRB

Comparison: Current to Proposed Policy


Bases for an appeal

Bases for an Appeal

  • Retain 4 Current Bases

  • Clarify Basis 1

    • Mathematical or clerical error

  • Adopt NIU & U of I Language

    • Only for review of allegedcapricious grades

  • Retain

    • Not for review of the judgment of a faculty member’s assessment of the quality of student work


Retain faculty member role

Retain Faculty Member Role

  • FIRST STEP

    • Informal resolution with faculty member

    • Cannot proceed without this step

  • If successful

    • Resolved

  • If unsuccessful

    • Chair assistance


Retain chair role

Retain Chair Role

  • Current & Proposed Role

    • Attempt to assist the student and faculty member reach a resolution of the issue


Chair 5 steps

Chair: 5 Steps

  • Notification & Verification of Informal Conference

  • Chair Review Meeting

  • Summary of Chair Review Meeting

  • Acknowledgement of Receipt of Summary

  • Timely Request for Review at College Level


Provide chair with timelines and guidance

Provide Chair with Timelines and Guidance

  • Specify timeline

    • Must initiate by 10th day

    • 5 days to complete summary

    • 5 days to return request for a review

  • Provide forms & guidelines to assist chair

    • Form 1: Request for Formal Review

    • Form 2: Receipt of Summary & Decision on College Level Review


Chair outcomes

Chair Outcomes

  • Successful Resolution

    • No request for further review: process terminates

  • Unsuccessful Resolution

    • Student may make timely request for review by College Grade Appeal Committee


Modify committee structure

Modify Committee Structure

  • Rationale for Department Committee Modification

    • Service intense: 33 committees, numerous faculty

    • Lack of faculty familiarity with process and bases for grade appeal

    • Lack standard procedures to insure objectivity and procedural consistency

    • Burden to Student VPAA & Student Dean of Graduate School

    • No reports/consultations with academic councils


College grade appeal committee benefits

College Grade Appeal Committee Benefits

  • Retain faculty focus

    • Reduce commitment: 24 faculty required

  • Orientation and procedural reviews

    • Ensure members are fully informed and prepared

  • Standardized procedures

    • Ensure objectivity and fairness

  • Retain student members

  • Provide annual reports to academic councils


College gac 5 steps

College GAC: 5 steps

  • Notification and Scheduling

  • Fact Finding Meeting

  • Summary of Fact Finding

  • Acknowledgement of Receipt of Summary

  • Timely Request for Review by University Grade Review Board


Provide college gac with timelines guidance

Provide College GAC with Timelines & Guidance

  • Timelines

    • 10 working days to complete report

    • 5 working days to request a review

  • Guidance

    • Form 3: Summary of Fact Finding

    • Form 4: Timely Request for University Level Review

    • Review opportunity for student or faculty member


College gac outcomes

College GAC Outcomes

  • Successful Resolution

    • No timely request from student or faculty member

    • Process terminates

  • Unsuccessful Resolution

    • Timely request: review by University Grade Review Board limited to procedural issues


University grade review board role presentation conclusion

University Grade Review Board Role & Presentation Conclusion

Dr. Eric Hake

2005-2006 Member of CGS & Member of the Grade Appeals Subcommittee


Elimination of dean role

Elimination of Dean Role

  • Rationale for Elimination of Dean Role

    • Critical importance of faculty voice in grading and grade changes

    • Lack of clarity regarding dean role

    • No standards for review


University grade review board benefits

University Grade Review Board Benefits

  • Retains faculty role in grading/grade changes

  • Review limited to procedures

    • Not re-examination of merits

  • One Board with orientation and guidelines

    • Ensures objectivity & fairness

  • Student representatives

  • Able to enforce college decision

  • Reports to academic councils


University grb 5 steps

University GRB: 5 Steps

  • Notification & Scheduling

  • University GRB Meeting

  • Summary of Meeting

  • Receipt of Summary of Meeting

  • Require Second Review by College GAC if Indicated


Provide university grb with timelines guidance

Provide University GRB with Timelines & Guidance

  • Timelines

    • 10 working days to complete review

  • Guidance

    • Role 1: Change grades if appropriate

    • Role 2: Review procedures if requested


University grb outcomes

University GRB Outcomes

  • Successful Resolution

    • No College GAC procedural errors

    • College GAC findings implemented & process terminates

  • Unsuccessful Resolution

    • Procedural errors by College GAC

    • College GAC required to repeat review


Review current to proposed policy

Current Policy

Faculty Member

Chair

Department GAC

Dean

Proposed Policy

SAME: Faculty Member

SAME: Chair

NEW: College GAC

NEW: University GRB

Review:Current to Proposed Policy


Discussion

Discussion

IGP 45

Review of Alleged Capricious Grades


  • Login