Student perceptions of grades: a systems perspective. (The scholarship of teaching and learning).

Abstract

Within the educational enterprise, grading is one of the major areas of tension between students and faculty. The literature on grading is voluminous relative to faculty perceptions, yet sparse on student perceptions. The use of System Theory, specifically the paradigm of Person-Environment Fit, allows one to understand student perceptions of grades within the context of other systems in which the student interacts. Grading, therefore, is conceptualized as being affected by multiple system components. Investigating students' perceptions of grades has the potential to address a gap in the literature and to reduce grading tension by providing insights for creating alternative grading rubrics.

Background

Evaluation of student achievement in courses is one of the major responsibilities of faculty in the educational enterprise (Cizek, 1996; Dornsife, 1997; Goulden & Griffin, 1995; Walhout, 1997; Weimer, 1999b). Theoretically, grades are indicative of students' acquisition of knowledge in a particular content area, or the degree to which the student has learned. Faculty use a variety of rubrics for assigning grades and employ grading practices that may have evolved throughout their teaching careers (Brookhart, 1993).

During the grading process, tension arises when there is a difference between the grade that the teacher assigns and the grade that the student expects (Goulden & Griffin, 1995). Such tension can have important consequences for the student. Some students, upon receipt of a grade lower than expected, may be discouraged from further investment in the learning process, or may be motivated to work harder. Additionally, grades may impact on students' self-esteem, self-worth, and self-efficacy (Edwards & Edwards, 1999; Goulden & Griffin, 1995; House, 2000). One way to clarify this tension of grading is to consider student perceptions of grades.

Viewing student perceptions of grades from a Systems Perspective, specifically the Person-in-Environment (PE) paradigm, allows for a greater understanding of factors that contribute to the tension (Germain & Gitterman, 1996). The PE paradigm suggests that the person, in interaction with his/her environment, creates a personal perception of grades. These environments include not only the classroom and school environments, but also physical, social and psychological environments. The broader context of student environments will affect the actions taken by the student and thus his/her achievement in the classroom. Omitting consideration of these other environments when assessing student achievement can result in a grade that may reflect a biased assessment (Becker, Geer, & Hughes, 1968; Goulden & Griffin, 1995; Krumboltz & Yeh, 1996; Stumpo, 1997). Thus, from the PE paradigm, in order to understand student perceptions of grades, one must look at the student or person factors and the environments in which the student is a part.

In the current higher education environment, students are viewed as consumers and the student body is comprised of a large percentage of adults who are considered non-traditional. Their perception of grades may be unique. Adult students, in particular, may want to take charge of their learning and may be at odds with course assignments and grading protocols. Unless the teacher and the student discuss any differences in expectations, tension will arise when the student is given a grade with which he/she does not agree (Dornsife, 1997). The purpose of this paper is to present a particular conceptualization of grading stress by documenting and reviewing the literature relative to student perceptions of grades.

Literature Review

The literature on grading in higher education is extensive (Basinger, 1997; Becker et al., 1968; Bilimoria, 1995; Blynt, 1992; Burgan, 1997; Cross, Frary & Weber, 1993; Dornsife, 1997; Edwards & Edwards, 1999; Goulden & Griffin, 1995; House, 2000; Hoyt, 1965; Krumboltz & Yeh, 1996; Noble, 2000; O'Connor, 1995; Rogers, 1969; Snare, 1997; Somers, 1970; Walhout, 1997; Weimer, 1999a; Weimer, 1999b; Wiesenfeld, 1996; Zirkel, 1997). However, the overwhelming majority of this literature focuses on faculty perspective of grading, especially grade inflation. Little literature is identified that deals specifically with student perceptions of grades, particularly adult students in a professional school (Becker et al., 1968; Goulden & Griffin, 1995; Kadakia, Michels & Black, 1998). Consistent with the theoretical paradigm that undergirds this paper, the literature will be presented according to person factors, environments, and the meaning of grades.

Person Factors

According to the PE paradigm, students' perceptions of grades may be understood when person factors/characteristics are viewed in relation to the person's multiple environments. These person characteristics include: previous school experiences, student efforts to learn, motivation to learn, expectations regarding grades, and readiness or preparedness for the academic program.

Previous school experiences of the students focus on the grading practices and the extent to which the student ascribed to them. A number of authors found that some students experienced grades as a reward or a punishment (Becker et al., 1968; Kadakia et al., 1998; Tropp, 1970). These experiences relative to grading shape the perceptions and behaviors of the students. Over time, students become conditioned to the extrinsic rewards that grades convey and may continue this focus in graduate school (Edwards & Edwards, 1999). Kadakia et al. (1998) found that although MSW (Master of Social Work) students saw their colleagues as obsessive about grades, they failed to identify this characteristic in themselves. Weiner (2000) makes the point that an outcome (i.e. grade) may be explained in terms of both personal behaviors (the student studied or did not prepare for the test), and actions of an `other' (the teacher recognized the effort expended). Further, Weiner suggests that the Protestant Work Ethic is the value base upon which grades are perceived. And so, it seems that the experiences one has throughout the years may serve as an impetus for the efforts one expends and also for the motivation to engage in the learning process.

According to Becker et al. (1968), efforts expended by students are important when considering their perceptions of the grades that are assigned. The degree of effort legitimizes the validity of the students' meaning of grades. This point is consistent with Brookfield (1986) and Tiberius and Billson (1991) who suggested that students have a responsibility in the learning enterprise and that responsibility contributes to the teacher's evaluation and assignment of the grade. Likewise, House (2000) viewed grading according to systems theory and saw the student inputs (efforts and responsibilities) as being mediated by the school environment to produce the output (grade). These authors concur with Rogers (1969) who suggested that learning results from an interaction of the student with both the course materials and the teacher. Efforts or responsibilities may be seen in the amount of time devoted to reading, seeking resources, consulting with others and in actual writing and reflecting on the course content. Thus, it is important that student effort or student responsibilities are part of the context when looking at student perceptions of grades.

Learning efforts may be uniquely linked to other person factors such as student motivations and grade expectations that may be illustrated by the consumer model. This model views students as consumers of education, and emphasizes satisfaction with their educational experience (Kadakia et al., 1998; Noble, 2000; Snare, 1997; Wiesenfeld, 1996). The basis of student motivation is the monetary contribution, which is made by the student in order to obtain a degree. If, indeed, students perceive grades as a right (according to the consumer model) and faculty take the traditional approach that students earn the grade, then tension surely will arise during the grading periods. The consumer model may inadvertently diminish the values of hard work and persistence which are essential to learning (Snare, 1997). Also, this model projects a cynical viewpoint about students' motivations to learn and fails to recognize the other contexts for which students are responsible. Other motivating factors that have been suggested include the desire for recognition and for knowledge so as to become expert in the field (House, 2000). It is important then to document student motivations and grade expectations when investigating student perceptions of grades.

Environments

Environments refer to the larger system contexts in which persons interact. These larger systems may support or hinder the efforts made by students in their academic endeavors.

One environment of particular importance to learning is the classroom culture or climate. This environment includes transactions among students, and between students and faculty. A classroom environment may stimulate or deter students from engaging in learning experiences. Engagement in learning activities leads to greater student achievement and consequently higher grades. A safe environment results in higher student participation and student performance (Billson & Tiberius, 1991). Student access to the teacher as a means to personalize the student teacher-relationship also is said to impact on grades (Becker et al., 1968; Rogers, 1969; Somers, 1970). As that relationship develops, the teacher may be able to influence the student to engage in productive learning activities which result in higher grades.

Another environment important to understanding student perceptions of grades is the student culture. Student culture includes the knowledge/perception of the educational program and faculty as to strictness of grading requirements, grapevine information about faculty and how to succeed (Becker et al., 1968; Snare, 1997; Walhout, 1997). "Most colleges probably develop a student subculture that identifies tough graders and easy graders and often encourages students to go for the easy ones" (Walhout, 1997, p. 86). The student subculture places a negative spin on student approach to learning. Perhaps learning and grades are viewed as separate (Cizek, 1996), with grades serving as a means to an end that may or may not include knowledge acquisition.

An environment outside of school, yet intensely important to the student perceptions of grades, is what might be called the student's personal environment. The personal environment includes the home situation, employment, culture, health status, finances, life stage, physical proximity/access to the school and faculty, and those social environments that are meaningful to the student. This environment, because it places demands on the student's time, serves to reduce the amount of time available for students to use in academic pursuits (Becker et al., 1968; Tiberius & Billson, 1991). Consequently, although students may believe their completed assignments are well done given the time available, they may be graded unfavorably by the teacher. This discrepancy creates tension about the grade. In studying student perceptions of grades, it is essential for their personal environment to be included.

A broader environment, namely the higher education system, has contributed both to grading protocols and grading practices. While the university establishes policies that mandate a grading system for teachers, there remains a wide variety of grading practices. This lack of a standard grading practice demands that students learn and adapt to variations among teachers. In some cases, students must choose the courses on which to focus their attention (Becker et al., 1966; Weimer, 1999a). Also, easy grading may be part of an entitlement bargain in which universities seek students to fill the classrooms and meet minority and diversity requirements (Noble, 2000; Snare, 1997; Zirkel, 1997). Wiesenfeld (1996) raises question about the consequences of such a situation in terms of passing students who lack the expertise and skills when they graduate and enter professional employment. Thus, documenting the grading protocols that are used in the broader environment is important. They interact with student learning behaviors and lead to a construction of the student perception of grades. Given the literature on environments, any study about student perceptions of grades should necessarily include those contexts. Doing so may identify supports or barriers for student engagement and academic performance.

Meaning of Grades

Three studies were identified that focused specifically on the meaning of grades to students. Two involved undergraduate students and one involved graduate students in a School of Social Work. In their classic work, Becker et al. (1968) conducted a qualitative study of undergraduate students at a Midwestern university in order to understand students' academic work in the context of their other life experiences. The authors indicated that faculty were not usually aware of the demands on the students' time, including those from other classrooms and from their personal environments. Students believed that if they met faculty demands they could achieve the desired grade. Such a perspective implies the external control of grades by faculty, and minimizes student academic efforts in affecting the grade.

Nearly thirty years later, Goulden and Griffin (1995) also conducted their study at a Midwestern university and included undergraduate students. They addressed the different perceptions of teachers and students as one source of grade-conflict. The underlying premise was that the meaning of grades differs between students and faculty and this difference is a source of conflict. Students in their sample were given two prompts from which to respond: What do grades mean to you; and Grades are like.... The results indicated that grades were viewed as a means of feedback in which a measure or judgement about student effort was given. Also, grades were seen as emotional triggers in which the student, as a person, was being judged. Lastly, grades were seen a motivators within the context of a reward and punishment system.

Kadakia et al. (1998) conducted a survey of students in one Northeastern Graduate School of Social Work. Their focus was on grade expectations and locus of control. The results indicated that most students expected to receive high grades and identified colleagues as obsessed with grades. The authors note that "Overestimating academic performance in a profession that holds self-awareness as sacrosanct is paradoxical and unacceptable" (p. 10). While not focusing directly on the meaning of grades, the survey did inquire as to the importance of grades to personal beliefs about self and the importance of receiving an acceptable grade. The reconceptualization of grading, using the PE paradigm, provides direction for understanding student perceptions of grades. Both student viewpoints and the multiple environments in which these students interact are important to assess.

Summary

Grading is an area of tension between students and faculty that may be better understood from a Systems Theory point of view. Utilizing the conceptual paradigm of PE Fit recognizes the importance of environments as impacting on student engagement in the academic enterprise. However, documenting student perceptions of grades will provide faculty with insights that can be used to reconsider rubrics for grading. Such insights can serve to reduce the grading tension between faculty and students. Additionally, this information can have important implications for curriculum development and program planning. In terms of curriculum, the identification of student perceptions of grades (and grading practices) may enhance faculty discussions about the grading systems that should be in place. Also, such discussions may include the importance of consistent expectations for student achievement across courses as well as within different sections of a course. Regarding program planning, documenting student perceptions and being responsive to these in light of the environmental contexts may serve to heighten the reputation of the school/program and thereby have an indirect effect on recruitment of new students. This model also recognizes the importance of the student body profile which includes both traditional and non-traditional students, and who may have unique perceptions about grades. Finally, the authors look forward to extending the ideas presented in this paper by actually conducting research that addresses student perceptions of grades.

References

Basinger, D. (1997). Fighting grade inflation: A misguided effort? College Teaching, 45(3), 88-92.

Becker, H.S., Geer, B., & Hughes, E. (1968). Making the grade. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Bilison, J.M., & Tiberius, R.G. (1991). Effective social arrangements for teaching and learning. In, New directions for teaching and learning, 45 (pp. 87-109). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bilimoria, D. (1995). Modernism, postmodernism, and contemporary grading practices. Journal of Management Education, 19(4), 440-458.

Blynt, R.A. (1992). The sticking place: Another look at grades and grading. English Journal, 81 (6), 66-71.

Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (1992). Qualitative research for education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Brookfield, S.D. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brookhart, S.M. (1993). Teachers' grading practices: Meaning and values. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30(2), 123-142.

Burgan, M. (1997). Grading and teaching. Academe, 83(1), 2.

Cross, L.H., Frary, R.B., & Weber, L.J. (1993). College grading: Achievement, attitudes and effort. College Teaching, 41(4), 143-148.

Cizek, G.J. (1996). Grades: The final frontier in assessment reform. NASSP Bulletin, 80(584), 103-110.

Dornsife, R. (1997). Toward a better grading pedagogy. The Teaching Professor, 11(10), 2.

Edwards, C.H., & Edwards, L. (1999). Let's end the grading game. The Clearing House, 72(5), 260-263.

Germain, C.B., & Gitterman, A. (1996). The life model of social work practice (2nd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.

Goulden, N.R., & Griffin, C.J.G. (1995). The meaning of grades based on faculty and student metaphors. Communication Education, 44(2), 110-126.

House, J.D. (2000). Academic background and self-beliefs as predictors of student grade performance in science, engineering and mathematics. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(2), 207-221.

Hoyt, D.P. (1965). The relationship between college grades and adult achievement: A review of the literature. In ACT Research Reports, 7, Iowa City, IA: Research and Development Division, American College Testing Program.

Kadakia, S., Michels, R., & Black, P. (1998, March). A for ego: Preoccupation with academic grades by social work students. Paper presented at the annual program meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, Orlando, Florida.

Krumboltz, J.D., & Yeh, C.J. (1996). Competitive grading sabotages good teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(4), 324-326.

Noble, J.H. (2000). Cherchez l'argent: A contribution to the debate about class size, student-faculty ratios, and use of adjunct faculty. Journal of Social Work Education, 36(1), 89-102.

O'Connor, K. (1995). Guidelines for grading that support learning and student success. NASSP Bulletin, 79(571), 91-101.

Rogers, C. (1969). Freedom to learn. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.

Snare, C.E. (1997). Implications of considering students as consumers. College Teaching, 45(4), 122.

Somers, M.L. (1970). Contributions of learning and teaching theories to the explication of the role of the teacher in social work education. In M. Pohek (Ed.), Teaching and learning in social work education (pp. 73-87). New York: Council on Social Work Education.

Stumpo, V.M. (1997). 3-tier grading sharpens student assessment. The Education Digest, 63(4), 51-54.

Tiberius, R.G., & Billson, J.M. (1991). The social context of teaching and learning. In New directions for teaching and learning, 45 (pp. 67-86). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tropp, E. (1970). Authenticity in teacher-student communication. In M. Pohek (Ed.), Teaching and learning in social work education (pp. 13-26). New York: Council on social Work Education.

Walhout, D. (1997). Grading across a career. College Teaching, 45(3), 83-88.

Weimer, M. (1999a, April). An experience with contract grading. The Teaching Professor, 13(4), 5.

Weimer, M. (1999b). How we grade: A process always in need of review. The Teaching Professor, 13(4), 4.

Weiner, B. (2000). Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of motivation from an attributional perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 12(1), 1-14.

Wiesenfeld, K. (1996, June 17). Making the grade. Newsweek, p. 6.

Zirkel, P.A. (1997, July 2). Lake Wobegone effect blamed for grade inflation at all levels. Morning Call, p. A15.

Jane Strobino, Marywood University, PA Kimberlee Gravitz, Marywood University, PA Cathy Liddle, Marywood University, PA

Dr. Jane Strobino, Associate Professor School of Social Work teaches theory and practice courses, and her research focuses on issues of teaching and learning. Kimberlee Gravitz and Cathy Liddle are completing their MSW.