Some teachers, particularly in disciplines like STEM, give fewer A’s than others. Do differential grading practices persist if we take teachers out of their disciplinary context and give them a common assessment task? This question was studied using administrative data from a small liberal arts college, in which teachers engage in two assessment tasks: grading students in courses and scoring applicants in admission interviews. Results show that individual teacher tendencies persist across assessment contexts and shape student composition, course evaluations and perceptions of workload.

Background information

College grades vary systematically across disciplines. At least in part, these differences represent differences in grading standards. For example, high grades are generally harder to attain in STEM fields than in non-STEM fields. These grading differences lead to inequitable assessments of students and unfair distributions of scholarships, honors, and awards linked to GPA. Additionally, students may alter their course choices to avoid stricter grading, limiting their educational paths. Some universities view these issues as significant and introduce policies to correct them.

Project description

This project seeks to further the understanding of grading differences and their causes and effects. For this project, teachers from a small liberal arts and sciences college engaged in two distinct assessment tasks: grading students in courses and scoring applicants in admission interviews. This dual-assessment structure helps to identify consistent patterns in teacher grading behavior across discipline-specific and standardized assessments.

Aims

This project aims to answer the following research question:

• Do teachers who give high grades in courses also give high scores in admission interviews? 

Results & Conclusions

The first finding is that teachers who grade leniently in courses also score applicants leniently during admission interviews. This suggests that differential grading standards are driven by individual teacher tendencies rather than the nature of the assessment task itself. Such biases raise concerns, as students may receive different evaluations for comparable performance, depending on their evaluator. The second finding is that lenient grading is associated with weaker academic aptitude among students, higher course evaluation scores and lower perceived study load.

References

• Bachan, R. (2017). Grade inflation in UK higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 42(8), 1580–1600.
• Bailey, M. A., Rosenthal, J. S., & Yoon, A. H. (2016). Grades and incentives: assessing competing grade point average measures and postgraduate outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 41(9), 1548–1562.
• Godor, B. P. (2017). Revisiting differential grading standards anno 2014: an exploration in Dutch higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(4), 596–606.
• Gorry, D. (2017). The impact of grade ceilings on student grades and course evaluations: Evidence from a policy change. Economics of Education Review, 56, 133–140.
• Minaya, V. (2020). Do differential grading standards across fields matter for major choice? Evidence from a policy change in Florida. Research in Higher Education, 61(8), 943–965. Publisher: Springer.
• Rojstaczer, S., & Healy, C. (2011). Where A Is Ordinary: The Evolution of American College and University Grading, 1940–2009. Teachers College Record, 114(7), 1–23.
• Thompson, M. E. (2021). Grade Expectations: The Role of First-Year Grades in Predicting the Pursuit of STEM Majors for First-and Continuing-Generation Students. The Journal of Higher Education, 92(6), 961-985
• Witteveen, D., & Attewell, P. (2020). The STEM grading penalty: An alternative to the “leaky pipeline” hypothesis. Science Education, 104(4), 714–735.