BOARD OF UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES

Date: Wednesday, August 14, 1996 :·:;:;i::~:~~~f:::·:···

AGENDA

,~.tii~~li~@ 41.2.0

41.3.0

41.4.0

4.1

41.5.0

5.1

5.2

41.6.0

Distribution: M. Rozanski

CALL TO ORDER

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES of July 17, 1996 (attached)

Business Arising

1. Implementation of the Credit System (Revised document attached. Comments from Program Committees will be distributed prior to the meeting).

NEW BUSINESS

Letter to Program Committees on Group Work (for information).

Proposal on Credit Implementation Issues (for preliminary discussion. Some of the text may need to change pending action on item 4.1.).

ADJOURNMENT -'''-y S-~ '5" ()j''k \ ,-je?"l".-s.

fi.~J"uJ& Brenda Whiteside, Secretary

./ P. 0 'Cleirigh j L. Halfpenny J B. D. Sullivan' j N. Clendenning' T lI.T r<!LL! __ • /

L. J. McCutcheon J. Mottin~., C. Rooke 1~ V. Gray) D. Knight

K.P. Pauls .~ .' R. Barham "1 I. Donaldson A. Wilson . R. G. Sheath'/

J. Phillips T. Hanlon E. Welch J. Atkinson J E. GoddarctV

T _'L4.JIi %: • auo1. 4- ..... _

'-'Vl'IJ.J.l"'UiU.J.UJ~ UJ1 ~TU1Jl:' MUDEL USING GRADE POINT AVERAGES PREAMBLE

At the November, 1995 meeting of the Senate, the University of Guelph approved the adoption of the credit system to be implemented Spring, 1998. Under the credit system, courses can have the following credit weights: 0.0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75, or 2.0 where the weight of 0.5 is equivalent to a current one semester course. The Policies and Procedures Sub-committee was charged with resolving implementation issues resulting from this decision.

Under the credit model, students will face a wide range of credits options in anyone semester. For instance, a full-time student could take five 0.5 credits; four 0.5 credits and two 0.25 credits; three 0.5 credits, and one 1.0 credit; or one 2.0 credit and one 0.5 credit.

Policies and Procedures identified a number of issues that need to be resolved as a consequence of this wide range of possible credit options including:

(i) the definition of full and part-time status; (ii) the calculation of semester and cumulative averages; (iii) continuation of study requirements; (iv) dean's honours lists;.-(v) changes to the transcript to reflect differing credit weights; and (vi) implementation issues.

Note: the University has determined that a new SIS package needs to be purchased. Potential packages are being reviewed based on their ability to accommodate the credit system.

(i) FULL AND PART-TIME STATUS

Students at the University are registered each semester either as full-time or part-time students. The admission standards are the same for both classifications. Double-weighted courses count as two course registrations in the calculation of full-time or part-time status. The present definition of full-time and part-time follows:

Full-time

A student who is registered in at least four courses for a semester is considered to be full-time.

Part-time

A student who is registered in not more than three courses in a semester is considered to be part-time.

It is proposed that under the credit system, the full-time regulations be consistent with those presently in place. Therefore, the classification would be as follows:

Full-time

Any combination of credits totalling two or more will constitute full-time enrollment, and students will be required to pay the full-time semester fee.

J1 or Instance, II me tmuon lee per course (WmCh translates into a U.5 credit) is presently $25U.UU than the tuition fee for a course weighted at 0.5 would be $250.00, and for a course weighted at 0.25 would be $125.00.

(ii) AVERAGES

The Semester Average

The semester average will be calculated for each semester by dividing the weighted course total by the total credit attempts for each semester where: the weighted course total is the sum of the credit weights x the grade received in each course attempted during the semester. For example, suppose a student received the following grades in a semester. The credit weight is indicated in the bracket.

course A (0.5): 80% course D (0.25): 74%

Course B (0.5): 75 % Course E (0.25): 68%

The Semester Average would be:

Course C (1.0): 64%

[(0.5xO.8) + (0.5xO.75) + (lxO.64) + (0.25xO.74) + (0.25xO.68)]/2.5 = 70.8%

The Cumulative Average

The cumulative average will be calculated by dividing the weighted course total by the total credit attempts over all semesters.

(iii) CONTINUATION OF STUDY REQUIREMENTS

The University of Guelph's continuation of study requirements are presently based on the number of C's a student obtains in a given number of course attempts. The general principle is that students must maintain at least 60% of their courses at a C grade or better in order to continue. The University has two continuation of study schedules. Most students are required to adhere to schedule "B" which is designed to provide some leniency for students in their first few semesters of study. For instance, in their first five course attempts, students must achieve at least one C (only 20%). However, by the time students reach their twentieth course attempt, 12 of their courses must be C or better (60%). Students who are admitted from other universities, or who are readmitted after having been required to withdraw, are placed on schedule "C". Like schedule "B", schedule "C" monitors the number of C's achieved; however, under schedule "C", students are required to maintain 60% of their courses at C or better from the point of admission. The continuation of study requirements are listed on pages 69 and 70 of the 1996-97 Undergraduate Calendar.

Under the credit system this approach to monitoring student continuation becomes very complex. Given the wide range of options that will be possible in anyone semester, a continuation of study table that covers all possibilities would be too complicated. For instance, how would one deal with the following scenario: A student takes 3 courses: course x (0.25 credits) and receives an A; course y (0.5 credits) and receives a B; and course z (1.75 credits) and receives aD. While 2 of the 3 courses are graded C or better, the weight of the third course should result in the student being required to withdraw.

\ }

uaw - a CumUlauve average can oe greauy QIsrorrea oy a very lOW 1"<. unaer our present contmuatIon ot stuay model a student is deemed to have failed a course if an F is received, be it a 49 or a 0, and both the 49 and the 0 have an identical impact on the continuation of study. Under a cumulative average model, the 0 would have a significantly greater impact on continuation of study, particularly if the number of courses taken is quite low. For instance, take a student in Semester 1 who completes~redits, achieving 70% in four and zero in the other. The student's overall average would be 56% and could pote ially result in the student being required to withdraw. Yet, except for the anomalous zero, he/she is a B stude . ,/,' .

For the above reasons, Policies and Procedures recomme~~ ~hat the University of Guelph adopt option (iii) and base its continuation of study regulations on a grade point average. Continuation of study would be dependent upon the student achieving a given grade point average (GPA). The advantage of the GPA is that the gradations are much tighter; thus, minimizing the problem of gross distortions based on extremely low (or high) grades. One other advantage of the GP A model is that almost all of the available student information systems packages use GPA's.

Proposal

It is proposed that the University of Guelph averages, both for admission and graduation, be transferred to a grade point average. The continuation of study requirements would be based on the grade point average rather than on the number of C's the student has achieved. The model for transposing grades into grade point averages follows:

Mark Grade Grade Point 85 - 100% A+,A 4.00 80 - 84 A- 3.70 77 - 79 B+ 3.30 73 - 76 B 3.00 70 -72 B- 2.70 67 - 69 C+ 2.30 63 - 66 C 2.00 60 - 62 C- 1.70 57 - 59 D+ 1.30 53 - 56 D 1.00 50 - 52 D- 0.70 00 - 49 F, WF 0.00

Semester Grade Point Average (GPA)

The grade point average for the semester will be calculated by dividing the weighted grade point total by the total credit attempts for the semester where: the weighted grade point total is the sum of the credit weight x the grade point for each course attempted during the semester. Using the student example on page 1:

Course A (0.5): 80% Course B (0.5): 75% Course C (1.0): 64% Course D (0.25): 74%; Course E (0.25): 68%

, IVUli vll £.£., 1 ),),U

attempts where: the weighted grade point total is the sum of the credit weight x the grade point for each course ) attempted at the University of Guelph.

Note: As is presently the case, grades that students receive for courses taken external to the University will not be transposed into the University average, nor into the grade point average.

Continuation of Study Requirements

All students at the University of Guelph are expected to maintain acceptable standards of scholarship. Students who do not maintain a minimum CGPA will be considered to be performing unsatisfactorily in their studies.

Continuation of study will be based on the student's grade point average rather than the number of C's taken. There will continue to be two continuation of study regulations: Schedule "B" and Schedule "C". All students admitted directly from high school will be placed on Schedule "B". Students who are re-admitted, or who are transferring from other universities will be placed on Schedule "C". Schedule "B" is still designed to provide some leniency to students in their first year and a half of study to accommodate transitional difficulties. Schedule "C", on the other hand, will require students to maintain a GP A of 1. 70 from the point of admission.

Schedule B

Good Standing: To be in good standing, students must maintain a minimum CGPA as follows:

Number of Minimum Cumulative GPA

Credits 0-5 1.00 6-10 1.30

11-20 1.70 (or more)

Academic Probation: Students who have completed at least 1.5 University of Guelph credits will be placed on academic probation if their CGPA is lower than the requirement specified above. Students previously on probation who subsequently achieve the required minimum CGP A specified above will be removed from academic I probation and returned to good standing. Students who are on academic probation, and do not achieve a minimumj7fft,1J li.. CGP A of 1.70 in the current semester, but obtain a 1.70 GP A or higher in the current semester, will be allowed I

to continue on probation for one additional semester. ",,-,

Required to Withdraw: Students who are on academic probation and do not achieve a minimum GPA of 1.70 will be required to withdraw for a minimum of two semesters. They may apply for readmission after their period of rustication has been completed.

Schedule C

Good Standing: To be in good standing, students must maintain a minimum CGPA of 1.70 regardless of the 1-_~ _c __ .. ~ ___ L_1 __ _

allowed to continue on probation for one additional semester.

Required to Withdraw: Students who are on academic probation and do not achieve a minimum GP A of 1.70 will be required to withdraw for a minimum of two semesters. They may apply for readmission after their period of rustication has been completed.

Alternative Grading

Currently, students who take courses on exchange are given an alternative grade of fail (F), pass (P) or outstanding pass (OP) rather than an numeric grade. In unique circumstances, a student may be granted credit standing (CRD) in a course rather than a grade. These alternative grades will not be easy to accommodate in the continuation of study model. Under our present continuation of study model, these courses count as a C for continuation of study but are not included in the semester or cumulative average. In the GPA model, these students could be given a GPA (e.g., 2.0 for P and 3.7 for OP); however, the GPA would be an estimate at best and may distort the student's overall average. Therefore, it is recommended that alternative grades not be incorporated into the student's GPA or CGPA, nor be a factor in the continuation of study requirements. Student negativ.ely affected ~y this decision, either in terms. of co~tinuation ~f study or standi~g at gradu~tion, will have I,Q the optIOn of appealIng the outcome to the AcademIc RevIew CommIttee and have theIr case revIewed on ane. l v . individual basis. (/ //. ~ .

As is indicated in Appendix I, the move to the GPA model will have a minimal impact on the numbe who are required to withdraw.

(iv) DEAN'S HONOURS LIST AND STANDING AT GRADUATION

, 1'\ .,

fstudent~

A random sample was analysed to determine if using the GP A of 3.70 for distinction would have an impact on the number of students graduating with distinction or achieving the Dean's Honour List .. The review concluded that a number of students would be disadvantaged if these decisions were based on a GPA of 3.70. Students with an average just around the margin of 80% and who tend to have low A's can be severely disadvantaged by the GPA model in terms of distinction. For this reason, it is proposed that both the Dean's Honour List and the standing at graduation continue to be based on the semester average. Any student who has achieved a GPA of 3.70 and has a cumulative average of less than 80% can appeal to the dean to be placed on the Dean's Honour List and/or graduate with distinction.

(v) THE TRANSCRIPT

Presently the official transcript does not include cumulative averages, although it does include semester averages. It is proposed that the transcript continue to list both the grades the student receives in each course and the semester average. In addition, the GP"for each course and the semester GPA will be included in Bid.at. Internal reports that include cumulative averages can still be generated for awards committees, upon request.

(vi) IMPLEMENTATION

It is orooosed that the Universitv move to the GPA svstem concurrent with the move to the credit svstem in

lVtaTl;n L.L., 1 YYO

allowed to continue on probation. Students who do not meet the 1.70 GPA will be reviewed on an individual basis. In this way, all students will move to the new GP A model and continuation of study requirements on the implementation date, but will not be penalized as a result of the translation.

The model presented will have the University adopting two systems, one with grades and the other with the grade point average. As more and more universities adopt a GPA model, the University may, in the future, want to reconsider this model, with the aim to moving to a straight GPA system for recording grades, continuation of study and averages. In the interim, the model that includes both averages will benefit our students.

CONCLUSION

The move to the new credit system makes it necessary for the University to adopt new continuation of study regulations. The model presented is the preferred option for a number of reasons:

1) It accommodates transition difficulties in the first year of studies;

2) It is simple to implement;

3) It is more equitable to the student who receives a very low failure than a model based on cumulative averages; and

4) Most American universities are already on a GP A system, as are several Ontario institutions. Our students will benefit from having both the grades and GPA's recorded on the transcript.

MOTION:

MOTION:

MOTION:

that for tuition purposes students will be defined as studying full-time students if they are registered in 2.0 credits or more in a semester, and part-time if registered in less than 2.0 credits in a semester.

that the Board of Undergraduate Studies adopt the continuation of study model based on a GPA, as 'presented, to be effective Spring 1998 (the date for the implementation of the new credit system).

that the official transcript record both course grades and GPA's, and a cumulative average and grade point average for each semester.

lVHlll,;U L.L., 1:1:;10

APPENDIX I

GP A Continuation of Study Proposals

Proposed University of Guelph Continuation Rules:

Eligible to continue: 0-5 credits: CGPA > = 1.00 (minimum 53 % average) (minimum 57% average) (minimum 60% average)

6-10 credits: CGPA > = 1.30 11-20 credits: CGPA > =1.70

Probation: 0-5 credits: CGPA < 1.00 (minimum 53 % average)

Credit

0-5

6-10

11-15

16-20

Total

NOTE:

6-10 credits: CGPA < 1.30 (minimum 57% average) 11-20 credits: CGPA < 1.70 (minimum 60% average)

Students on probation with a semester GP A > = 1.70 will be allowed to continue on probation for one semester.

RTW: Students on probation with a semester GPA < 1.70 are required to withdraw.

Current Continuation Rules Proposed GPA Continuation Rules

Okay Probation Total Okay Probation Total

3046 20 3066 2987 79 3066

2826 78 2904 2873 31 2904

2488 48 2536 2458 78 2536

2146 17 2163 2145 18 2163

10506 163 10669 10463 206 10669

The GP As used in this report were calculated using actual student data where A=4.00, B=3.00, C=2.00, D=1.00

To:

From:

Date:

Subject:

Ul~lVI.:J~lll

P/GUELPH

Chairs, Program Committees Deans of Colleges

L. N. Gibbins, Chair, Board of Undergraduate Studies Ext 4907

July 17, 1996

Implementation of the Credit System

The Board of Undergraduate Studies is in the process of developing a proposal for the implementation of the credit system. This re}Tesents the next stage in the revised time-table for completion of the process, as approved by Senate in June, 1996. This time-table requires that he Board report to Senate with the proposal at the 9 September 1996 meeting. Before submitting the proposal to Senate, the Board is concerned that program committees, departments, and student representatives have participated in drafting the document, and that there is general consensus that its provisims are acceptable, and that all the potential difficulties have been identified and addressed.

A copy of the draft document is enclosed. Five issues are raised: (i) the nature of the credit; (ii) the number of credits required for the baccalaureate cbgree; (iii) the sub-division of the credit unit; (iv) variable credit offerings; and (v) the scheduling of courses in the new system. Of particular concern is the question of the sub-division of the credit unit. Two op:ions for the accommodation of partial credits are discussed in the document, and the Board will appreciate learning your views and preferences in this regard, and with respect to all the other issues.

We will be grateful if you will arrange for this material to be reviewed by your program committee and other colleagues as soon as possible. Please send your comments and suggestions, either in writing or bye-mail, to Brenda Whiteside, Secretary of Senate, University Secretariat (bwhitesi@exec.admin.uoguelph.ca).

The deadline for the receipt of your input is Wednesday, 7 August 1996. I am sorry that the time­line is so short, but in order for the Senate deadline to be met, and for the provisions to be in place intime for the next (1998-1999) Undergraduate Calendar preparation cycle, there is little alternative. Your understanding and assistance with this project will be very much appreciated. Thank you.

L. N. Gibbins.

cc President Provost Associate Vice-President, Academic

BOARD OF UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CREDIT SYSTEM

DRAFT DISCUSSION DOCUMENT ONLY

BACKGROUND: At the June 1996 meeting of the Senate, a proposal from the Board of Undergraduate Studies to defer the date of implementation of the credit system until the Spring 1998 was approved. Included in the document was a detailed time-table for the completion of the various phases of the implementation process. The first item on the time-table was the resolution of issues relating to (i) the nature of the credit, and (ii) the number of credits required for completion of the baccalaureate degree. Recommendations on these matters are to be brought forward at the September 1996 meeting of Senate. With the decisions of Senate in hand, departments and programs will then be able to proceed with program changes and modifications for the 1997-1998 Undergraduate Calendar cycle.

This draft report from the Board summarizes progress made with respect to the following issues: (1) the nature ofthe credit; (2) the number of credits required for a baccalaureate degree; (3) the sub-division of the credit unit; (4) variable credit offerings, and (5) the scheduling of courses in the new system. Items 3 through 5 relate to matters that have arisen in BUGS and elsewhere which require resolution at or before the September, 1996 meeting of Senate.

1. The Nature of the Credit

Credit-weightings are intended to reflect student workload. They are guidelines for faculty and students, and cannot be taken as establishing precise limits for course involvement for all students in all courses. It is understood that a number of student variables will apply -including the student's level of preparation, desire for success, and other commitments. Nevertheless, the goal is to design courses such that those of equivalent credit weighting, irrespective of format, or mode of presentation, will have' work 0 s e University. "Workload" is understood to include all time in class, out-of-class assignments, and independent study. It is expressed in terms of an anticipated number of hours per week over a twelve week semester; note that it does not include any provision for final examinations. Two assumptions are built into the allocation of workload hours per credit: (i) that students will be appropriately focused on their work and will work effectively during these hours, and (ii) that the " " student can achieve an average grade (approximately 70 across the University) within the h s given. These workload guidelines are intended to assist faculty members in the design, devel ment, and delivery of their courses and programs, to ensure that student work­loads are appr priate, find to help students plan their work.

, . I.

\~~ C(b~5'~'\

is not seen as a complication, as application of the tenns of the credit to the total workload for ) such extended courses will provide the Departments concerned with the means of assigning the

appropriate credit weighting to these courses.

RECOMMENDATION: In the design and presentation of a 0.5 credit twelve week undergraduate course, faculty members should expect that, 9-Q ',!"eEftgc; students will need to devote between 10 and 12 hours per week of good quality time to the tasks of the cour!e. These tasks will include contact time in class, out-of-class assignments, and/or independert study. Appropriate pro-rated adjustments will apply to courses of greater and lesser credj weightings, and to courses offered in other formats. ~)'

6Qf~/ 2. The Number of Credits Required for a Baccalaureate Degree

A straight conversion from the traditional 40-course degree pro 0 the credit system -¥\ would suggest that under the new credit system the baccalaurea egree should be comprised (} of 20 credits. This, however, assumes that each existing se within the 40 course degree v" would translate to 0.5 credits. If we take seriously the ationship between credit weightings \~ and student workload, it becomes apparent that it III not be possible (at least initial..!YllQ ___ \.\~ achieve consistency at the level of 20 credits for all . alizati (~marDe'1ielpful here: a course which includes a lab now counts as a "course" and is equivalent to a course without a lab that may require significantly less work; the new credit system will allow us to correct such inequities, but to do so (in the absence of other, compensatory changes to the curriculum) may mean that courses in the specialization no longer add up to 20 credits. With some specializations and programs, especially those involving professional accreditation, a 20 credit degree may never be appropriate or possible. Over time, however, it should be our goal to have designed as many as possible of our specializations at 20 credits. The reasons for this include appropriate student workloads, facilitation of timely graduation, and alignment with other universities. There is also a fear that if some specializations (or programs generally) require a higher number of credits, others will wish to follow suit in order to avoid the perception of offering an easier degree.

An element of flexibility is necessary, especially in the short tenn and for certain specializations. Flexibility without limitations could lead to widely divergent credit requirements, additional semesters of study, and increased cost to students; it is, therefore, necessary to decide to what extent flexibility among specializations is appropriate. It is also necessary that the University define the minimum number of credits required for any baccalaureate degree.

r f, ': ,'- v "\ \ v }' ,,\:\J' '. )\

RECOMMENDATION: ~ill honours baccalaureate degree progra~s will ~equire th~ .. '~ ~Z' successful completion of 20 credits. Where this imposes too severe a libIitation upon the .,~. \. '\ , design of a specialization, this minimum number may be exceeded) However, any )(, ~~ \) f additional credits reqgired will be kept to a minimum and will mt It6'PIIIally exceed two in 1 number for a total 0" r,' 22 credits 'for the degree. f

~.

RECOMMENDATION: All general baccalaureate degree programs will require the successful completion of 15 credits. Where this imposes too severe a limitation upon the design of the program, this minimum number may be exceeded. However, any additional credits required will be kept to a minimum and will not normally exceed one in number for a total of 16 credits for the degree.

RECOMMENDATION: Degree programs that are subject to external professional accreditation may exceed 20 credits, by the amount necessary to accommodate tbe academic requirements of both the University land the accrediting agency. However, every effort will be made by to ensure that such additional credit requirements are kept to a minimum.

3. The Sub-Division of the Credit Unit

It has been suggested that the gradations of 0.25, 0.5, and 0.75 etc. as approved by Senate do not provide for maximum flexibility, and that smaller units (multiples of 0.1, with no need to go to the second decimal point) may be preferable. Discussion of this issue has been focussed on a proposal for a single decimal model (proposed by the B.Sc. Program Committee) which is described below, and would be applicable to all programs. Please note that there is full agreement in BUGS that we should EITHER stay with the model approved by Senate, OR move at once to the single decimal model. It is felt that the two systems cannot be integrated, for two reasons: (i) the incorporation of the 0.25 and 0.75 options within the single decimal system would be functionally indistinguishable from the 0.3 and 0.8 options, respectively, and would imply that all other second place decimal options (e.g. 0.57) were available in the system; and (ii) the resulting merged system would be unnecessarily complex in operation. Student information systems can accommodate either system. The proposal for the single decimal system reflects thinking around the conversion of existing BSc courses to a credit system~ but it is intended primarily to facilitate future developments.

NOTE: In descriptions offered below, seminars, practicums, studio components etc. can be substituted for the "lab" component, as appropriate. The original proposal included contact hours, but these have been removed for ease of applicability to all programs; in any case, it is understood that student workload rather than contact hours will determine credit.

} A Single Decimal Credit Model. based on course types:

1. Standard lecture format: 10-12 hrs workload. 0.5 credits

2. Lecture format: 6 - 6.5 hrs workload. 0.3 credits

3. Lecture + lab: 10-12 hrs workload. 0.5 credits [NOTE: This is lecture is as in #2 above, with lab etc. added.]

4. Extended lecture + lab: 16-18.5 hrs workload. 0.8 credits . [NOTE: This lecture is as in #1 above with lab etc. added]

5. Extended lab + lecture: 16-18.5 hrs workload. 0.8 credits

6. All lab: 16-18.5 hrs workload. 0.8 credits

7. Modular course (flexible) 0.1 - 0.4 credits

8. Extended course (flexible) 0.6 - 2.0 credits

NOTE: Initially, the BSc program envisions using primarily 0.3, 0.5, and 0.8, which are fairly close to 0.25, 0.5, and 0.75 options. A similar situation would probably apply across the University.

Perceived advantages of the single decimal model:

(a) The BSc program committee believes that 0.3,0.5, and 0.8 options better reflect the actual workload distribution that will result from the decoupling of laboratory components than do the 0.25, 0.5, and 0.75 options.

(b) The primary advantage of this model is greater flexibility. It positions programs well for the future, when more extensive use of "modular" courses (particularly, perhaps, in Open Learning) requiring low credit weightings. The likely future need for gradations other than 0.25,0.5,0.75 etc. was referred to in the credit system document that went before Senate. This "single decimal system" installs that possibility from the beginning. Modifications of the approved system to accommodate this need would necessitate a mix of single and double decimals; it would be less "clean" overall than the single decimal system. (See previous comment in the introductory paragraph of Section 3.)

Perceived disadvantages of the single decimal model:

(a) Senate has already approved the other model.

(b) Several Program Committees have been working on the transition to the credit system using the gradations approved by Senate. Some have presented proposals using these gradations. It may be argued that these programs could switch from 0.25 to 0.3 and from 0.75 to 0.8. The flip side of this argument is that the BSc program committee could move from its proposed 0.3 to the approved 0.25 and from its proposed 0.8 to the approved 0.75. In either direction, the Board believes the adjustment would be relatively minor. The BSc program committee acknowledges this; other program committees may wish to offer their assessments of the matter in responding to the present document.

(c) Most other universities that currently use fractional credits have chosen the 0.25, 0.5,0.75 model. (Some recent movement is in the other direction, however.)

(d) It has been suggested that the "single decimal model" would be more likely to result in "dangling" or fractional credits for students at the end oftheir programs. (For example, 0.3 + 0.8 = 1.1, whereas 0.25 + 0.75 = 1.0.) It should be acknowledged, however, that either system may result in dangling credits; much will depend on how carefully the individual specialization is designed, on the range of credit weightings employed with what frequency, and on the student's use of courses from other areas of the curriculum.

NOTE: The issue of dangling credits, like the issue of more than 20 credits for the degree, will be of interest to students in relation to tuition fees. A promise has been made to students that the credit system per se will not result in increased fees. So long as additional credits (or fractions thereof) do not result in additional semesters of study, the issue of increased fees should not arise for full-time students. In order to honour our commitment with respect to part-time students, it will be necessary to make available combinations of courses such that no student is required to take or pay for credits in excess of the number required by his or her chosen sp~.

It should also be noted that for a variety of reasons many students already have "dangling" courses; in some cases these additional courses result in additional costs to students. As is presently the case, students may find it necessary to take more than the required number of credits to accommodate a change of specialization or to obtain entry to a particular course that was previously unavailable to them for reasons of scheduling or limited enrolment. They may also simply choose to take more than the required number of courses or credits. The essential point is that students must not be obliged to incur additional costs as a result of the University's move to the credit system.

QUERY: Program committees are asked to state their preference for either the approved model or the single decimal model, to indicate the strength of that preference, and to provide the Board with further advice on this matter.

4. Variable Credit Offerings

Variable credit means that a course can be taken for differing amounts of credit by different students. For example, a department or program committee might propose that course XX-YYY can be taken for 0.5 credits or for 1.0 credits. The Board considers that there may be significant advantages to this provision, particularly within the context of a reduced number of courses overall. If a department cannot afford to offer two semesters' worth of courses in a particular area, students with a strong interest in that area may press for an additional "directed reading" course; if such additional study can be attached to an existing course, overall workload for faculty may be less. Another example of the possible use of variable credit might be a language course which is taken for 0.5 credits by students working in English, and, for example, for 0.75 credits by students working in the other language. Departments might choose to make the higher credit weighting available only under certain circumstances (e.g., a prerequisite of a particular grade requirement, or Honours program status in the discipline). Alternatively, such courses could be designated Limited Enrolment Courses, with the usual constraints upon enrolment in such courses. Departments t1J.e.y might also choose to make variable credit availabEJe only in certain 300 and 400 level courses. Policies will have to be developed to avoid excessive complication in implementing this provision (e.g., students should not be able to change credit weightings in mid-semester). Variable credit offerings would, of course, have to go through t usual approval process.

RECOMMENDATION: Departments and program committees should have the ability to propose variable credit options for particular courses.

5. The Scheduling of Courses in the New System

The traditional (0.5 credit) course is normally scheduled over the 12 weeks of the semester. There are exceptions; the Summer Session six-week format, for example, has been in place for many years. The credit system provides for other options. Modular courses of 0.25 credits in the six week format in the Fall and Winter semesters have been proposed to the Board, and three-week intensive formats have been mooted. While there is no a priori reason why such formats should not be used, evaluation of their use should include consideration of the following Issues:

(b) Examinations and assignments in the courses should be arranged with due consideration of the timetables of the other cognate courses offered in the same semester. Policies may have to be developed to minimize conflict between the requirements of the various course formats.

(c) Arrangements for drop and add procedures must be in place, as must a system for reporting emolment to the Ministry of Education and Training.

QUERY: Program committees are asked to advise the Board on the amount of latitude desired with respect to courses offered in formats other than 12 weeks. Under what circumstances should alternate formats be permitted? Which formats should be permitted in which semesters? Is it reasonable to be somewhat restrictive in the early years of the credit system?

DEADLINE: The Board will appreciate receiving your written comments on each of the five issues discussed in this document by Friday, AU2ust 9. Thank you for your assistance.

'-' - - y ~- ~-- -

~GUELPH

SENATE OFFICE

Inter-departmental Memorandum

TO: Program Committees

FROM: Brenda Whiteside, Secretary of Senate

SUBJECT: Group Work

DATE: June 12, 1996 EXTENSION: 6760/6758

The Policies and Procedures Sub-Committee of the Board of Undergraduate Studies has over the past few meetings reflected on the issue of group work, and the evaluation of this work. It appears that in some programs group work is becoming increasingly popular. There are a number of reasons why a faculty member may wish to encourage students to work in groups: (i) to provide students with an opportunity to learn "team building" skills; (ii) to provide students with an opportunity to work on a large task within a twelve week semester; and (iii) to deal with some of the problems arising out of grading in large courses.

Policies and Procedures is excited about the opportunities group work presents, both to the student and to the faculty member. However, a number of issues regarding group work have been brought to the attention of Policies and Procedures including: (i) does the requirement for participation in groups increase the workload of the course? (ii) how is the student evaluated and is it fair? (iii) should students be aware of the requirement for group work in advance of selecting the course or even in advance of selecting a specialization/program? (iv) what percentage of a program's core requires group work and is this level appropriate? and (v) is the requirement for group-work coordinated between courses?

In considering this issue, Policies and Procedures invited a number of faculty members to a meeting at which the evaluation of group work was discussed. The following points arose out of this discussion:

1. It is impossible to ascertain the "best" group size. The group size will depend upon the task given to the students.

2. Problems are minimized if the evaluation of the group work includes an opportunity for peer evaluation.

3. Problems are minimized if the group work does not count for more than 30% of the grade.

Tk ..... C ............ 1 ... ___ L _______ .... L ____ ~11~ ___ .... _ ~ __ .L _____ _

•• ~~.~ ~~,,~"L .. VA .. LU"'" U"'U'5 ",",L a",u~ III \..1=::' LU Ult::t::L WILD LIlt:lr group. AllowIng tIme In class will provide students the opportunity to iron out scheduling conflicts and assign tasks. In addition, if the group work requirement is in an introductory level course, providing students with guidance on how to work effectively with groups would be very helpful.

Policies and Procedures does not want to inhibit the amount of group work that is occurring, nor implement policies for its evaluation. However, given the significant number of issues that arose out of its discussion, and the apparent increase in its use, Program Committees might want to spend some time discussing its value in a particular specialization, and whether there needs to be some coordination between courses.

Finally, if a particular specialization requires group work in a number of its core courses, a statement outlining these requirements should be inserted in the calendar and liaison materials. In addition, it is important that all course outlines clearly indicate if group work will be required, and the method of evaluation.

Policies and Procedures has learned that T.S.S. has prepared a handbook on the value of group work and its evaluation. Faculty members who assign tasks to groups may want to access a copy.

BW/mmw cc: C. Rooke

N. Gibbins R. Stoltz I. Campbell M. Rozanski

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

DATE:

Members of BUGS

UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH SENATE

MEMORANDUM

Brenda Whiteside, Secretary of Senate

Resp~8 ~

A~st .. '

J

EXT. 6758/6760

I have attached copies of the responses we have received thus far on the implementation of the credit system. If additional responses are received before our meeting on Wednesday, I will have them emailed to you, and also have hard copies at the meeting.

RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT DOCUMENT ON THE CREDIT SYSTEM

FROM L. CHRISTOFIDES, ECONOMICS

I am writing to you regarding the Draft Discussion Document on the credit system but I am copying this to David Knight (I am filling in for him while he is on holidays) and to Donna Mokren (so that my comments will find their way to the BComm program committee which has also asked for a response).

Because I have been away for a semester, I have missed some of the background discussions but reading this document and mindful of a number of possible problems I would want to apply two principles: First, I would assume that the degree structure as we currently know it is configured correctly so that the BASc degree (say) is equivalent in terms of student workload to the Bsc (Agr) one. Given this, there should be a requirement (minimum and maximum) of 20 credits on most four-year degree programs and of 15 credits on most three-year programs. Deviations from the maxima should almost never be allowed and deviations from the minima should not be allowed.

Second, course credits should be variable but the first principle commits units to proposing a structure of credits that adds up to 20 and 15 units for most of their four-year and three-year degree programs respectively. Where credits deviate from 0.5, student workload and not the method of instruction should determine the exact credits: A lecture course may well be more demanding than a course based on the lecture plus lab format. In deviating from the 0.5 standard it is important to have a limited choice of settings. Departments specifying one required course as carrying 0.75 units will know that they must also offer a menu of courses with 0.25 credits, or other 0.75 unit courses, if they are not to exceed the maxima in the first principle. If fractions other than 0.25 are allowed, ambiguity will creep in and demands for deviating from the maxima will emerge (the draft document already concedes this).

Turning specifically to the choice of models discussed in the draft document, the discussion above and in the document itself suggests that we should stick with the system already approved by Senate.

FROM LAMBERT OTTEN, ENGINEERING

The memo sent by Norm dated July 17th request a reply from the program committee by August 7th.

I am afraid that the SOE program committee will not be meeting for the next six weeks because most people are away on holidays or at conferences. This is my last day for five weeks as well.

Sincerely, Lambert

FROM MURRAY STINSON , ANALYSIS AND PLANNING

become a bit of a headache from a reporting perspective because official MET regulations say we should count enrolment at the midpoint of the course.

2) If, like section 4 suggests, we allowed variable credit weights for the same course number, we would have to keep track of credit weights at the level of the individual student enrolled in the course rather than at just the overall course level. Every time we calculate FTE enrolment stats (for reporting to MET, for RAM, for numerous other internal stats), we would have to go that extra level deeper to find the answer.

FROM DAVID KNIGHT. B.A. PROGRAM COMMITTEE

The B.A. Program Committee met for three hours this afternoon and, among other things, discussed the 17 July 1996 draft document on the Implementation of the Credit System. Unfortunately the discussion had to be short, for we had a very full schedule and a department's restructuring proposals took longer to consider than had been anticipated.

Reactions varied, with the expression of both support for some parts of the proposed material and some important reservations.

1. The BAPC fully supports credit-weighting as a reflection of student workload. There is a dislike for the use of the word "average" in the proposed text, as in

"average' student" (p. 1) "average grade" (p.1)--keep in mind that B.A. Hons students must get 70 per cent or better to graduate. "on average" (p.2) etc.

2. Number of credits required for graduation: as previously noted, the BAPC unanimously supports the notion that all students in the University (with only minor exceptions) will graduate with the same number of credits.

On pages 2 and 5 there seems to be the assumption of a highly structured approach to learning. In the B.A. Program, no specialization identifies all courses to be taken. One of the important elements in all B.A. programs, here and elsewhere, is each student's option to explore and combine courses into a meaningful package, i.e., within the specializations' guidelines. The BAPC would like to have this issue clarified in the text.

3. Sub-division of the credit unit: the BAPC is on record as favouring the gradations (0.25, 0.5, 1.0, etc.) that have already been approved by Senate. Any variation from this will provide potential problems for:

(a) record keeping; (b) students whose credits total something less that a required total (such as 19.3 or 19.8)

just prior to graduation, for this would raise the issue of waivers (potentially

departments, Program Counselling Offices, and the Registrar's Office) if a wider range of possibilities than those already approved are to be considered?

4. Variable credit offerings: there is some support for this but also some marked concern! The BAPC requests that further discussion take place of this issue before the document is finalized. If a vote had been taken today it is likely the BAPC would have voted against supporting this section of the draft document. In no special order:

The issue of different course formats should be addressed in the draft document before it is finalized. One person thought variable credits would assist small faculty departments handle certain student program needs. There is considerable concern about the negative impact on counselling at both Program and departmental levels. How will variable credit for the same course be recorded by the Registrar's Office? This will be a major headache! Separate courses seems to be the favoured alternative. Who is to monitor and approve variable credit weightings within one course? A Chair, or a department or Program Committee? There seemed to be unanimous support (without a vote) for insisting that the document must declare that it will not be up to individual professors to decide what a student's credit weighting will be. Can this issue be explicitly addressed in the document? The University reportedly already has a policy whereby students cannot be in one course for different weightings. It was thus asked, why would we justify something that is currently not acceptable? What will differentiate student a from student b in the same course? How would this be managed in large enrolment courses? How would student a be sure she/he is getting a square deal when student b is getting double the credit? Who will monitor whether or not faculty are being fair in the way they assign varied workloads within the one course? This promises to be a major make-work project!

5. Scheduling of Courses in the New System: there was no support expressed for other than twelve-week courses being scheduled in the fall and winter semesters, however, there was little time to fully explore the implications of this section of the draft document.

It was identified by two members that there are existing registration headaches caused now in summer (for small numbers of students) which would become mountainous if they were transferred to the fall and winter semesters. Program Counselling and Registrarial staff would be overwhelmed. There are also problems in summer when exams are scheduled in shorter courses at the same time as papers are due in the longer courses. The implications of variable-length courses in fall and winter semesters need to be explored and spelled out by BUGS before further consideration of this item can be more thoroughly considered at the Program Committee level.

Cheers, on behalf of the B.A. Program Committee. David Knight

UNIV ER.SITY gj'GUELPH

Dean's Office COLLEGE OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE X3343

interoffice M E M 0 RAN DUM

--------------------------------------------

to: Brenda Whiteside, Secretary of Senate

from: Robert G. Sheath, BSc Program Committee

subject: Latest Draft of Implementation of Credit System Document

date: August 7, 1996

We sent the latest draft of the implementation of the credit system document to the BSc Program Committee members and to departmental Chairs within CPES and CBS for their comment. From the feedback that we received, the following points can be made:

1. Generally, the academic community represented by the BSc program has not been strongly convinced 0f the need to move to a credit system. However, if we do move in this direction, a flexible system should be established.

2. pp.2 & 3 - number of credits - the first two recommendations (p.3) should read "a minimum of" and "most of our specializations" should be added to p.2, section 2, line 13. The response was universal that we should not be locked into an exact number of credits.

3. pp.3 & 4 - sub-division of the credit unit - most of the responses were in favour of the single decimal system, for flexibility and minimal sensitivity of credit assignment. However, some people noted the same issues raised at BUGS - the problem of attaining a specific number of credits and timetable issues with variable credit weights.

4. Specific suggestions for modifying the BSc credit model include:

_\. _..1...1 ___ L _____ ,, ______ 1_1 ___ 1 ~_ __1'"

To:

From:

Re:

Date:

grGUELPH

FACUL1Y OF GRADUATE STUDIES Office of the Dean

Dr. L.N. Gibbons, Chair of the Board of Undergraduate Studies

AJS Sutntnerlee, Dean Graduate Studies

Implementation of the Credit System

21st July 1996

I write in response to your memorandum of 17th inst. concerning implementation of a credit system at the University.

As you may be aware, there is a credit system in operation at the graduate level. The Board reviewed that proposal to implement a new credit system at the undergraduate level and made two decisions: (1) that the proposed new system would be implemented at the graduate level, although it was recognized that there were some challenges with the proposed new system, and (2) that the new system would be implemented at the same time as any changes were implemented at the undergraduate level.

The latest proposal would, in my opinion, make it easier to implement a new credit system at the graduate level. The extended time-scale for implementation would also make it a smoother, albeit slower, process for implementation.

The Chair of the Board of Graduate Studies will not be back until after the deadline for response to your memorandum but I anticipate that Alun Joseph would respond in a similar manner.

Regards

interoffice MEMORANDUM

,---------------------------------------------

to: Norman Gibbins, Chair, BUGS

from: Carole Stewart, Dean, College of Arts

subject: Credit System

date: August 2, 1996

Since I have been part of the BUGS discussion, I have very little to add to this issue.

I can say that members ofthis College are strongly in favour of a consistent University standard of number of credits required for the baccalaureate degrees. We concur with the 10-12 hour per week standard for the 0.5 credits.

We are also strongly in favour of the "variable credit" option. It will be particularly useful in the adaptations we are making to the language programs.

And we would like to express a mild preference for the original course credit subdivision rather than the newly proposed decimal version. One reason is the 12 week semester, which itself is more easily divisible into halves and quarters than fifths and tenths. Another is some concern about the unfettered proliferation of credit values moving to the decimal system could encourage. Not that we don't think students can add, but working their way through the degree requirements already seems to tax some of them; more unnecessary complication does not seem really desirable. All that said, we can work with either system; we would just like to get it in place so that we can start doing some of the things we want to do with it.

UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH Date: August 7, 1996

Inter-Department Memorandum Ext.: 6720

To: L.N. Gibbins, Chair, BUGS #dJ---From: Alun Joseph, Chair, Department of Geography C.J -, ,-

Robin Davidson-Amott, Chair, Undergraduate Curriculum comJ~ee,

Department of Geography f( ~ Subject: Implementation of the Credit System

1. Nature of the Credit

The recommendation seems to be very sensible on the surface, although there is a danger that formal requirements on students' time (in lectures and labs.) will be given more precedence in credit calculation than will more discretionary, individual activities like reading.

2. The Number of Credits for a Baccalaureate Degree

While the three recommendations do not pose any problems for us, we must register a concern with certain assumptions that permeate the supporting discussion on page 2 of the Discussion Document.

(a) In this discussion (and elsewhere in the document for that matter), courses are distinguished into two types - those with and those without labs. I am surprised that the role of tutorials, seminars and other forms of very active engagement with epistemology and ontology are not included in the discussion of what makes up a course. I thought that in embracing leamer-centredness as a primary strategic direction, the University had moved away from the contact-based currency of hours in lectures and labs.

(b) While it might be legitimate to argue for the 'with labs' version of a course being worth more credits than the 'without labs' version of the same course, I do not believe that this reasoning should be extended to comparisons across different courses. For example, a lecture-only course in History with extensive expectations as to independent, self-directed reading on the part of the student might well be more demanding in total work hours than a Chemistry course with lectures and a full suite of labs. Yet other courses may have, as they often do in Geography, extensive field research expectations.

Surely the best way to proceed is to decide on what credits within the context of a whole - .

- 2 -

3. The Sub-division of the Credit Unit

We should stick to the Senate-approved model for sub-divisions of the credit unit; i.e., there should be subdivisions of 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, etc. of the basic unit. We believe that this is sufficient to ensure flexibility in the type and manner of course offerings while avoiding the kind of chaos that could potentially develop if a much finer gradation were used. Moreover, as noted above, we feel strongly that it is better to define the kind of work load required for the credit unit and the approved sub-divisions and to have course contents and requirements tailored to fit these, rather than to produce a course and then to attempt to define a credit weight for it. The approved system also makes it much simpler for both students and counsellors in programs that are interdisciplinary. We also believe that in this era of growing collaboration, compatibility with other post-secondary institutions is, in itself, a strong argument for the '0.25, 0.5, 0.75', etc. system.

4. Variable Credit Offering

The variable credit offering seems to be open to a whole host of abuses and differences of interpretation, and it is not clear what the advantages of this are. It is hard to see very many circumstances where two undergraduates would take the same course but end up with differing credits for it. In the few instances where this kind of situation might arise it would be better to have two different course numbers so that the differences in the requirements are clearly spelled out.

5. The Scheduling of Courses in the New System

There appears to be some room to experiment with alternate format offerings of some courses - offering of courses with a weighting of 0.25 credit in a six week format seems logical, particularly if complemented by a similar course in the following six weeks. Other formats are possible, but it may be best to see them as additional to regular 12 week offerings, rather than instead of them.