Grading Practices Policy

Purpose
The purpose of the University Grading Practices Policy is to ensure:

• that grading practices throughout the university reflect appropriate academic standards;
  
• that the evaluation of student performance is made in a fair and objective manner against these academic standards;
  
• that the academic standing of every student can be accurately assessed even when courses have been taken in different divisions of the university and evaluated according to different grade scales

Application of Policy
The policy applies to all individuals and committees taking part in the evaluation of student performance in degree, diploma, and certificate credit courses (hereafter referred to as courses).

Amendment to Policy
Amendments to the policy shall be recommended to the Academic Board. Changes to the divisional regulations on grading practices shall be forwarded to the Committee on Academic Policy and Programs.

Distribution of Policy
A copy of the Grading Practices Policy as well as the description of the grade scales and the substance of divisional regulations indicated in Part II of this policy shall be published in the Calendar of the division. Similarly a copy shall be given to all students upon initial registration and to all instructors and others, including teaching assistants, involved in the evaluation of student performance.

The policy is in three parts: Part I deals with grades, Part II outlines grading procedures to be adhered to in divisional regulations adopted as part of this policy, and Part III is an administrative appendix available upon request from the Office of the Vice President and Provost.

Part 1: Grades

Meaning of Grades
Grades are a measure of the performance of a student in individual courses. Each student shall be judged on the basis of how well he or she has command of the course materials.

I.1 A grade assigned in a course is not an assessment of standing within a program of studies. To determine the requirements for credit and standing in a program of studies, the academic regulations of the division in which the program is offered should be consulted.

I.2 Grades for each course shall be assigned with reference to the following meanings: Excellent, Good, Adequate, Marginal, Inadequate (Please see conversion table).
For academic courses (designated by PHE, ANA, NEW, NFS, PHL, PSY, SOC, UNI,…) these meanings are applied to student performance on the following criteria:

• grasp of the subject matter and the relevant literature;
  
• capacity to organize the course information;
  
• evidence of original thinking;
  
• capacity to analyze and synthesize;
  
• ability to evaluate the issues under examination.

For physical activity core courses (designated by PAC) the grade meanings are applied to student performance on the following criteria:

• ability to excite interest in physical activity, and to meet the learning needs of a varied population of participants;
  
• extent of knowledge of the health implications of the activity, including the means by which benefits can be enhanced and risks minimized;
  
• extent of knowledge of the theoretical bases of training performance, tactics, strategy, and rules;
  
• critical and analytic ability and ability to communicate on the subject;
  
• performance of physical skills and ability to utilize them in the competitive or performance format pertinent to the level of the course;
  
• ability to transfer theoretical knowledge into a wide variety of practical settings;
  
• contribution to the learning environment.

Grade Scales
I.3 Once a judgement on the performance of the student has been made, the following grade scales are to be used:

• the refined letter grade scale A+, A, A-, B+, B, B-, C+, C, C-, D+, D, D-, F;
  
• the numerical scale of marks, consisting of all integers from 0 to 100;
  
• the scales Honours/Pass/Fail and Credit/No Credit.

These grades are assigned for courses in which only very broad evaluative distinctions in assessing the quality of student performance are judged appropriate. Outdoor Project (ODP) grades are reported on a Credit (CR)/Non-credit (NCR) basis. The key criteria for assessment include active participation, application of the­o­ret­i­cal knowledge, and contribution to the learning environment.

Grades vs. Scores
I.4 Grades should always be based on the approved grade scales. However, students may find that on any one evaluation they may receive a numerical or letter mark that reflects the score achieved on the test or essay. The cumulative scores may not be directly identified with the final grade. Grades are final only after review by the divisional review committee described below.

Grade Reporting
I.5 Grades will be assigned according to the numerical scale of marks referred to in I.3 above, and converted to the refined letter grade scale of I.3 above. The H/P/FL and CR/NCR scales of I.3 above may also be used. However, the grades assigned in a course must all be from the same scale.

I.6 All non-grade designators used in reporting course results must correspond to the University-wide standard.

I.7 The information in grade reports and transcripts must be communicated to the user, whether within or outside the University, in a clear and meaningful way. To that end, transcripts must include:

1. an enrollment history, which traces chronologically the student’s entire participation at the university,
2. a “grade point average” based on a 4-point scale for all undergraduate divisions (Note: grade point average values will be assigned as follows: A+/A = 4.0, A- = 3.7, B+ = 3.3, B = 3.0, B- =2.7, C+ = 2.3, C = 2.0, C- = 1.7, D+ = 1.3, D = 1.0, D- = 0.7, F = 0.0),
   
3. an average grade for each course expressed using the refined letter grade scale (Note: these calculations should be restricted to courses of a specific size),
   
4. both the numeric mark and its letter grade equivalent, where possible, for all courses,
   
5. course weight values, expressed using a uniform system of values allowing for the relative values needed by each division,
   
6. transfer credits granted,
   
7. academic honours, scholarships and awards sanctioned by the University,
   
8. a comprehensive guide explaining all grades and symbols used on the transcript.

The following conversion table will be used in the reporting of students’ grades

Conversion Table and Method for Calculating GPAs

Grade Meanings	Letter	GPA	%
Excellent	A+	4.0	90 - 100%
	A	4.0	85 - 89%
	A-	3.7	80 - 84 %
Good	B+	3.3	77 - 79%
	B	3.0	73 - 76%
	B	- 2.7	70 - 72%
Adequate	C+	2.3	67 - 69%
	C	2.0	63 - 66 %
	C-	1.7	60 - 62%
Marginal	D+	1.3	57 - 59%
	D	1.0	53 - 56%
	D-	0.7	50 - 52%
Inadequate	F	0.0	0 - 49%

A GPA is determined by assigning a Grade Point Value to each course mark and then averaging these values according to the following weights:

• a full academic course weight is 1.0,
  
• a half academic course weight is 0.5,
  
• a two term (24 week) physical activity core course weight
  is 0.66.

Part II: Grading

Divisional councils shall forward to the Committee on Academic Policy and Programs changes to their grading procedures. Grading procedures may be adapted to divisional circumstances on the recommendation of the Committee on Academic Policy and Programs, but such procedures must be consistent with the principles in this policy.

Grades shall be recommended by the instructor to the chair or division head. The grades shall then be reviewed and approved following the divisional review procedure. Grades shall not be reported or released to students as official until the divisional review procedure has been carried out. The divisional review constitutes final approval of grades except when grades are changed on appeal.

II.1 Divisional Review Committee
The Examinations Committee is the divisional review committee in the Faculty. It shall:

1. administer the implementation of the University Grading Practices Policy at the divisional level and oversee the general consistency of grading procedures with the division;
   
2. approve and administer the University’s specific regulations concerning the grade scale or scales to be used, the assignment of non-grade designators for course work, classroom procedures and approved methods of evaluation;
   
3. review, adjust and approve course grades recommended by instructors. The grades recommended for any individual student in the professional faculties may be adjusted according to his or her performance in the course or program as determined by the committee. The divisional committee has the final responsibility for assigning the official course grade.

II.2 Classroom Procedures
To ensure that the method of evaluation in every course reflects appropriate academic standards and fairness to students, divisional regulations governing classroom procedures must be consistent with the practices below.

1. As early as possible in each course (and no later than the division’s last date for course enrollment) the instructor shall make available to the class, and shall file with the division or department, the methods by which student performance shall be evaluated. This should include whether the methods of evaluation shall be essays, tests, examinations, etc., the relative weight of these methods in relation to the overall score, and the timing of each major evaluation.
   
2. After the methods of evaluation have been made known, the instructor may not change them or their relative weight without the consent of two thirds of the students enrolled in the course. Any changes shall be reported to the B.P.H.E. Program Office.
   
3. Student performance in a course shall be assessed on more than one occasion. For any course under the jurisdiction of this Faculty, the following regulations apply: No one essay, test, examination, etc. should have a value of more than 75% of the grade1. No term test worth more than 25% of the final mark can be set within two weeks of the last class or end of term.
   
4. In courses that meet regularly as a class there shall be an examination (or examinations) conducted formally under divisional auspices and worth (alone or in the aggregate) at least 35% of the final grade1. The relative value of each part of an examination shall be indicated to the student. In the case of a written examination, the value shall be indicated on the examination paper.
   
5. Commentary on assessed term work and time for discussion of it shall be made available to students.
   
6. At least one piece of term work which is a part of the evaluation of a student per­form­ance, whether essay, lab report, review, etc., and is worth at least 5% of the final mark, shall be returned to the student prior to the last date for withdrawal from the course without academic penalty.
   
7. Grades shall be recommended by the instructor in reference to the approved grade scales on the basis of each student’s overall performance.
   
8. Failing examination papers must be reread by the examiner before the final marks are reported.
   
9. All final examinations are to be retained by the instructor or the B.P.H.E. Program Office for a minimum of six months.

Note: I. Exemption of courses from these regulations must be approved by the examinations committee which will apply criteria determined by the Curriculum Committee.

II.3 Procedures in the Event of Disruptions Principles
The following principles shall apply in the event of disruption of the academic program:

• The academic integrity of academic programs must be honoured; and
  
• Students must be treated in a fair manner recognizing their freedom of choice to attend class or not without penalty.

Procedures

1. The Vice President and Provost, or the Academic Board, shall declare when a disruption of the academic program has occurred. The Provost shall take steps to inform the university community at large of the changes to be implemented, and will report to the Committee on Academic Policy and Programs regarding the implementation of the procedures and changes to the status of the academic programs.
   
2. Individual instructors or multi section coordinators responsible for courses that are disrupted shall determine, as the disruption proceeds, whether any changes to classroom procedures are needed to complete the course.
   
3. Changes to the classroom procedures should, where possible, first be discussed with students prior to the class in which a vote of the students present on the proposed changes is to be taken. Changes agreed upon by consensus should be forwarded to the department or division with a report on the attendance at the class where the vote was taken.
   
4. Where consensus on changes has not been arrived at, or where a vote is not feasible, the instructor, after the class discussion, will provide the division head or chair of the department in multi-departmental faculties, with his or her recommendation, along with the results of any classroom votes. The chair or division head shall then make a decision.
   
5. Where classes are not able to convene, the instructor, with the prior approval of the chair in multi-departmental faculties or the division head, shall make changes deemed necessary to the classroom procedures. In the absence of the instructor such changes will be made by the divisional head and require the approval of the Provost. Where courses are to be cancelled, approval of the divisional council is required. If the divisional council cannot meet, approval of the division head, or in the absence of the division head, the approval of the Provost, is required.
   
6. Students must be informed of changes to classroom procedures. This may be done by circulating the changes in writing to the class, posting in the departmental and faculty offices, reporting to the divisional council, as well as listing in the campus press. Should classes resume, students must be informed, at class, of any changes made during the disruption.
   
7. Where a declared disruption occurs in a specific course after the last date to drop courses for the academic term or session, students who do not wish to complete the course(s) during that term or session may, prior to the last day of classes, withdraw without academic penalty. Such students shall receive a full refund of the course tuition fee.
   
8. Where students have not attended classes that are meeting, they nonetheless remain responsible for the course work and meeting course requirements. However, where possible, reasonable extension of deadlines for the course requirements, or provision of make up tests shall be made and reasonable alternative access to material covered should be provided.
   
9. A student who considers that a disruption has unreasonably affected his or her grade in a course may appeal the grade. If the petition is approved, the student’s original grade will be replaced by either an assessed grade or by a grade of CR/NCR, or as deemed appropriate in the particular circumstances.

II.4 Assessment in Clinical and Field Settings
Divisions may make reasonable exemptions to the classroom procedures described above in circumstances such as field or clinical courses where adherence to these procedures is not possible. Nevertheless, it is obligatory that the assessment of the performance of students in clinical or field settings should be fair, humane, valid, reliable and in accordance with the principles enunciated in the University Grading Practices Policy. Accordingly, where a student’s performance in a clinical or field setting is to be assessed for credit, the evaluation must encompass as a minimum:

1. a formal statement describing the evaluation process, including the criteria to be used in assessing the performance of students and the appeal mechanisms available. This statement should be available to all students before or at the beginning of the clinical or field experience;
   
2. a midway performance evaluation with feedback to the student;
3. written documentation of the final assessment.
4. In addition, for such clinical and field experiences, divisions must ensure that: clinical and field assessors are fully informed regarding university, divisional and course policies concerning evaluation procedures, including the specific assessment procedures to be applied in any particular field or clinical setting. Any exception from the above would require a divisional request with explanation for approval by the Governing Council.

II.5 Grade Review and Approval Process
The following principles and procedures shall govern the grade review and approval process.

1. The distribution of grades in any course shall not be predetermined by any system of quotas that specifies the number or percentage of grades allowable at any grade level.
   
2. However, a division may provide broad limits to instructors setting out a reasonable distribution of grades in the division or department. Such broad limits shall recognize that considerable variance in class grades is not unusual. The division may request an explanation of any grades for a course that exceed the limits and hence appear not to be based on the approved grade scales or otherwise appear anomalous in reference to the Policy. It is understood that this section shall only be used when the class size is thirty students or greater. Each division shall make known in the divisional Calendar the existence of any such limits.
   
3. The criterion that the Divisional Review Committee shall employ in its evaluation is whether the instructor has followed the University Grading Practices Policy. The Review Committee shall not normally adjust grades unless the consequences of allowing the grades to stand would be injurious to the standards of the university, or the class in general.
   
4. Membership on the Divisional Review Committee may include students but should not include members of the divisional appeals committees.
   
5. Where grades have been adjusted by a divisional committee, the students as well as the instructor shall be informed. On request, the students or the instructor shall be given the reason for the adjustment of grades, a description of the methodology used to adjust the grades, and a description of the divisional appeal process.
   
6. Where the Examinations Committee changes course grades, the B.P.H.E. Program Office shall be so informed. The B.P.H.E. Program Office shall then relay this information, upon request, to the students or the instructor with a description as to the reason for the change and the methodology used.
   
7. Past statistical data, including drop out rates, mean arithmetic average, etc., should be provided to the Divisional Review Committee as background information where available. The Committee will not use this information exclusively to judge whether a specific grades distribution is anomalous. Rather, the information should provide part of the basis for an overall review of grades in a division.
   
8. Where class grades have been changed, or when the Divisional Review Committee had reservations about the grades, the issue will be taken up with the instructor by the division head, with a view to ensuring that the Grading Practices Policy is followed in future.

II.6 Appeal
Every division shall establish divisional appeal procedures. Students may appeal grades according to the procedures established for that purpose in the division. The appeal may be made whether marks have been altered by the review process or not. These procedures are outlined on page 25 of the Calendar, and are also available upon request at the B.P.H.E. Program Office.

II.7 Student Access to Examination Papers

• All divisions should provide access to copies of the previous years’ final examination papers and other years’ papers where feasible. Exemptions may be granted by the Examinations Committee.
  
• All divisions should provide students with the opportunity within a reasonable time to review their examination paper where feasible. A recovery fee should be set to cover administrative costs including photocopying where feasible.
  
• All divisions should provide, in addition to the customary rereading of papers and the rechecking of marks, the opportunity for students to petition for the rereading of their examination where feasible. A cost recovery fee should be set and returned where appropriate.

II.8 Conflict of Interest
Where the instructor or a student has a conflict of interest, or is in a situation where a fair and objective assessment may not be possible, this should be disclosed to the chair or division head who shall take steps to ensure fairness and objectivity.

Designators and other Non-grade Symbols Approved for Reporting Course Results

AEG: Aegrotat standing granted on the basis of term work and medical or similar evidence where an alternative examination is not possible. Where a student petitions with documentation, an alternative examination will normally be arranged (“SDF”). AEG is assigned by a divisional committee upon approval of a student’s petition. Maximum allowance of “AEG” standing is two full courses. It carries credit for the course but is not considered for averaging purposes.

GWR: Grade withheld pending review, GWR, is assigned by the division in cases where a course grade is being reviewed under the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters. It is replaced by a regular grade upon completion of the review. It carries no credit for the course and is not considered for averaging purposes.

IPR: In progress, IPR, is assigned as the report for a course that is continued in a subsequent session. The final grade will appear only once and only for the last enrollment period. It carries no credit for the course and is not considered for averaging purposes.

NGA: No grade available, NGA, is assigned by the division in the extraordinary case that a grade is not available for one of its students enrolled in a course. It must be replaced by a regular grade assigned by the instructor or by another symbol assigned during the divisional review. It carries no credit for the course and is not considered for averaging purposes.

SDF: Standing deferred on the basis of incomplete course work because of medical or similar reasons. SDF is assigned by the Examinations Committee upon approval of a student’s petition or an instructor’s recommendation. It carries no credit for the course and is not considered for averaging purposes. Students must successfully petition for consideration to complete course work beyond the last day of the final examination period of the term in question to receive “SDF” status in a course. Generally accepted petitionable circumstances will apply to petitions regarding late completion of course work. Such petitions must be submitted by the last day of the Final Examination period for the course(s) in question. “SDF” may be replaced by the earned grade if the student completes the course work before the expiry of a specific extension period decided by the Examinations Committee at the time of assignment of the designator. Failure to complete the required material within established deadlines will result in the assignment of a course grade based on the work completed to that point. Students with SDF(s) may not be permitted to register in September until the pertinent courses have been satisfactorily completed and students’ academic eligibility to continue has been confirmed. Courses with SDF standing do not satisfy prerequisite requirements.

WDR: Withdrawn without academic penalty, WDR, is assigned by the Examinations Committee upon approval of a student’ s petition for late withdrawal from a course. It carries no credit for the course and is not considered for averaging purposes. WDR is relevant only if a division wishes to show the course on the transcript.

XMP: Exemption granted on the basis of credit for work done elsewhere. “XMP” is assigned by the Admissions Committee to students entering with Advanced Standing or by the Examinations Committee to continuing students who wish to receive credit for summer or evening courses done at another university. It carries credit for the course but is not considered for averaging purposes.