Grade Distribution Analysis
In response to a faculty concerns about potential grade inflation, the Institutional Assessment Office conducted a brief study of grade distribution throughout the college. The findings are accessible to all administrators, faculty and staff, via the shared X drive and the Intranet. Data are available by instructional division, as well as in comparison to the University of Washington, our major transfer partner.
As analyzed and discussed at the Faculty Senate Council during the 2001-02 academic year, and again in the Fall quarter of 2002, the data show a bimodal curve, with a majority of students receiving A or B grades, few receiving C grades, and less than ten percent receiving grades of D or F. As might be expected, the Science and IAStu (Intra-American Studies and Social Sciences) divisions, serving many traditional lower-division transfer students, show a lower percentage of A grades in comparison to the Automotive/Manufacturing and Health Occupations divisions, which serve primarily professional technical students. Since the Automotive/Manufacturing and Health Occupations divisions include competitive admission programs, with an admissions process requiring the successful completion of substantial prerequisite study, it is reasonable to expect them to show a higher percentage of grades in the A and B ranges. Council members from the social sciences areas noted that the college’s overall grade distribution patterns differed significantly from those in their own courses, which show more grades in the middle of the scale and fewer at the high end.
Comparison of Shoreline with University of Washington data shows that both institutions have a bimodal distribution. Shoreline’s curve is more pronounced, with greater amplitude at either end of the curve. The Senate Council determined that no immediate action was required based on their review of the data, and agreed to monitor the compared curves over time to check for grade inflation or other patterns of concern.
The Faculty Senate Council requested that similar grade distribution data be provided to them on an annual basis for continuous review. In addition to the University of Washington comparison and reports by division, the Council will also review the following each year in the fall quarter:
1)comparison data with selected benchmark community colleges within the Washington system;
2)comparison data between transfer and non-transfer courses;
3)a separate listing for selective admissions programs.
In addition, the Council would like to see the data broken out by quartiles, rather than by smaller increments of decimal grades, in order to more readily see patterns of change over time.