AORN educafion

Unknown verdict

Although there are many advantages to the A-B-l grading system, there are some serious limitations in relation to implement- ing the system within the framework of a professional nursing curriculum. The pur- pose of this article is to present some of the issues and problems encountered when applying the educational philosophy under- lying the A-B-I grading system.

Perhaps the major source of contention revolves around the tenet which suggests that an instructor does not have the right to fail students; only the right to inform them that course requirements have not been fulfilled at the B level. Ideally, the students would fai l themselves upon recognition of inability to complete objectives at the desig- nated level.

In actuality, many students do not as- sume the responsibility of failing themselves. Instead, they continue to request time ex- tensions which require tremendous adapta- tive maneuvers on the part of faculty and administrative personnel. For example, more faculty are required to teach on an individual or tutorial basis; this demands extensive economical support by adminis- tration. A vast amount of individual energy must be exerted by each faculty member in relation to instructing, supervising, and

This i s the third article in a series of three on the A-8-1 grading system.

evaluating students who are learning and performing according to their own individ- ualized program.

Despite the endeavors of faculty to as- sist the non B students to succeed, some re- main unsafe practitioners. The following questions then arise: If the student i s an un- safe practitioner, can instructors allow her to repeat course content until she ultimately performs at a B level? Does this practice jeopardize the patient? Should faculty be allowed to fai l this student?

There is a second major problem area which i s very elusive and yet pertains to the instructor’s right to counsel a student to withdraw from the curriculum rather than allowing the student to make such a de- cision. The realm I am referring to concerns the student who is demonstrating behaviors indicative of psychological pathology. As- suming that the instructor has supportive data to justify her assumptions and has ap- propriately discussed her observations with the student, that i s her right when the stu- dent denies the problem and refuses to acknowledge that her “personal” life style has an impact on her nursing intervention? Can the instructor legitimately not inter- vene?

What are the consequences of perpetu- ally giving this student an incomplete or

December 1971 21

allowing her to try to pass course content without setting limits as to the necessity for behavioral change? Do we reinforce pathological behavior by not counseling a student to receive professional assistance and demanding certain expectations char- acteristic of "mental health" such as con- sistency, logical cognitive processes, the ability to develop meaningful interpersonal relationships, etc? In reality, such expecta- tions often necessitate the instructor requir- ing the student to withdraw from the cur- riculum until she can receive professional help and demonstrate a behavioral change. Occasionally, the student can simultaneously continue her nursing program and receive therapy. However, there are times when the instructor does need the right to ac- tively counsel a student to withdraw.

Within any grading structure, there is the problem of the faculty member who also does not assume her responsibility for evaluating a student's "real" performance. Within the A-B-l grading system, there i s a tendency to pass every student a t the B level. It is easier to give a B, assuming that the student will eventually master her weak- nesses, than i t i s to give an incomplete.

The main motive for compromising i s that one's work load becomes unbearable if too many incompletes are given. Faculty mem- bers not only supervise new students, but students repeating course content as well. There is the pressure to test and re-test ob- jectives numerous times. Suddenly, the A-B-l grading system becomes a burden of constant testing and grading.

Subtly, faculty often teach answers in order to get students to pass. At this point, the A-B-I system i s being undermined.

With the A-B-I grading framework, it often seems that the majority of time spent with students is in relation to assisting them to achieve the B level. Greater time i s spent with the "average" student than with the

"above average" student. If faculty mem- bers must primarily concentrate their teach- ing endeavors on assisting students to be- come safe practitioners, what is the sacri- fice to the advanced student in terms of her learning?

The student who performs at the B level is often abandoned under the guise of "she is self-directing." She contracts for an A project which often i s not thoroughly super- vised or evaluated due to the realistic vari- able of limited faculty time. Faculty are often so busy defining B level objectives that they fail to take the time to assess A level objectives. The quality of learning is en- hanced by requiring al l students to perform at the B level. However, one must question the potential restriction of the superior stu- dent when there i s not enough time to pro- vide effective guidance to the student who i s basically an independent learner.

The A project i s an aspect of the A-B-l grading system, which i s subject to much criticism. First, does the A project really measure excellence? Is there any uniformity of expectations in terms of acceptable proj- ects or does any project warrant an A? Should there be an A in terms of clinical competency? Should al l B students be able to contract for an A? Again, if most stu- dents are given B's, do we really motivate the advanced student to do an exceptional A project? Such students know that any B student can contract for an A. How do you effectively reinforce superior learning when ultimately the transcripts of all students are identical in terms of grade point average? Can all reinforcement for the advanced stu- dent be of an internal nature only? Cer- tainly some external acknowledgment i s necessary.

Another major problem associated with the implementation of the A-B-I grading system i s the delineation of behavioral ob- jectives at the B level. Often ths k! criterion are too difficult. The dittermtiation be-

& 22 AORN Journal

tween A and B criterion i s almost negligi- ble.

Faculty establish numerous B objectives in their endeavor to be thorough and com- prehensive. The number of objectives re- quired to fulfill course requirements over- whelm students on many occasions. When faculty are able to delineate B objectives, the objectives usually evaluate factual knowledge rather than the application of knowledge.

Other areas of performance which are difficult to include within the context of be- havioral objectives are consistency, profes- sional attitudes, personal stability and men- tal health. The above areas are critical in terms of a safe practitioner, however.

Finally, it is hard to delineate objectives which do not just reflect the instructor’s value or bias.

The A-8-1 system i s such a radical de- parture from pervious educational experi- ences that students often experience a great deal of initial stress in relation to assuming responsibility for their learning. The hostility and resistance is high. Many students prefer the traditional method of being “spoon-fed.” Faculty, too, may pre- fer the traditional method; for ultimately it is much easier. Many faculty are unprepared to assist the student to thoroughly under- stand the pros of the system and to con- structively handle the hostility and resistance as an initial phase which will change into acceptance.

Some students do not trust the defined ob- jectives. They cannot believe that an in- structor will actually tell them what i s es- sential to learn. In some instances, students convert behavioral objectives into a proc- ess of role memory rather than using the objectives as a framework to expand their parameters through creative application. There are students who cram at the last minute in order to complete terminal be- haviors. When they do not pass at the B

level, they project the blame on the in- structor. For example, “You didn‘t give me enough individualized attention.”

Again, faculty must be adept at inter- preting the purpose of the A-B-l system to students if the system i s to be successfully implemented.

Many other problems impede the imple- mentation process. The fact that many fac- ulty are needed for teaching an individual- ized program is often a barrier in terms of recruitment of qualified faculty and the inherent expense. Faculty who can cre- atively teach within the A-B-l system are often a threat to faculty who prefer tradi- tional methods. They are frequently re- quired to defend their decision to tell the student overtly what i s important to learn, thus giving A and B grades. Finally, the question arises as to how graduate schools will evaluate students who graduate from an undergraduate A-B-I system, since the overall grade point average will not be that important.

The ultimate variable affecting imple- mentation i s the commitment of individual faculty members and students.

Is it realistic for the A-B-l system to work in its pure form? My pessimistic reply is “No” - most instructors and students do not support the total concept. We can im- plement modification of the basic philos- ophy, however, which stresses accountabil- ity for teaching and learning and which utilizes behavioral objectives that define what is critical to learn.

In conclusion, have you made a verdict - a decision based upon the logical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the A-B-I grading system? The final judg- ment as to the worthiness of such a con- cept must be made by you, the individual educator. You must evaluate the prophetic meaning of such a system in terms of the relevance for the educational process. 0

-Carol Alexander, RN, MS

24 AORN Journal