Student Grade Expectations at Technical College,2-,and 4-Year Institutions

Abstract

Although students’ final course grade expectations have been the focus of several studies, none have looked systematically at students’ expectations for grade distributions for the whole class across institutional types, student year in school, and course levels. This study examined such differences as a function of gender, course level, and year in school at a university, community college, and technical college. Participants indicated average grades students should receive in first-year, sophomore and, for university students, junior and senior level courses. Technical and community college students expected higher grades than university students, and university students expected higher grades for lower level courses as their years in school increased. Expected grades typically increased with course level, and women expected higher grades than did men.

Keywords

student expectations grading grade expectations grade inflation

Students' beliefs and expectations about grading are an important concern for both students and instructors, not only in regard to the student’s own grade but the grade distribution the whole class should expect as well. Instructors typically feel the grades they assign accurately reflect student performance and mastery of the material, but students often find that the grade they actually earn falls short of their expectations (Perlman & McCann, 2007; Prohaska, 1994; Wendorf, 2002). Svanum and Bigatti (2006) found that the majority of students overestimated their final course grade by an average of one letter grade, and men predict higher grades for themselves than do women (Cole & King, 1977). Such students may feel they did not receive the grade they expected because they often believe effort should count more toward grades, and that a superior effort requires fewer hours of work, than do faculty (Adams, 2005). This may occur because grading practices and grade inflation in secondary schools cause an expectation that attendance and effort should be sufficient to earn a good grade (Landrum, 1999).

Although students typically overestimate the grade they will receive, they may have more accurate expectations for grade distributions for the whole class (Cann, 2005). Gaultney and Cann (2001) reported that students felt B should be the modal grade, with 30% of the class getting As, 30% Bs, and 30% Cs. Instructors may expect, or at least hope, that all of their students want to achieve an “A,” but Perlman and McCann (2007) found the average student “desired” a grade of A/B, and 27% a B or lower. Similarly, while the average student would be “satisfied” with a B, 35% would be “satisfied” with a B/C or lower.

Students’ grade experiences at different types of institutions might influence their grade expectations. Strauss and Volkwein (2002) studied sophomore students at several 2- and 4-year campuses in the State University of New York System. They found high school rank, being a woman, and being at a 2-year campus were positive predictors of student grade point average (GPA), and that students at 2-year campuses received higher grades than those at 4-year institutions. Student effort was a better grade predictor at 2-year than 4-year schools, whereas classroom experiences and high school rank were better predictors at 4-year schools.

Although we have some information on students’ ideas regarding their own grades and class grade distributions, it is not clear whether such expectations for a whole class change or become more accurate as students’ years in school progress, or how they might vary with the level of the course in question or differ with type of institution attended. Advisors may find it useful to have such information to help understand and clarify student expectations regarding grading practices, especially for first semester students and classes, and instructors might use such information to create more realistic grade expectations for their students during initial class meetings. The current study examined student grade expectations for classes taught at first-year, sophomore, junior, and senior levels as a function of gender and year in school at three types of institutions.

Method

Participants

Five hundred eighty-four psychology students were surveyed. Usable responses were obtained from 386 (145 men, 241 women) students from a regional university (41 first-year, 35 sophomores, 48 juniors, 58 seniors); a community (2-year) college (59 first-year, 35 sophomores); and a technical college (87 first-year, 23 sophomores). The three institutions were located in the midwest, within 20 miles of each other. Mean student age for technical college students was 26.10 (n = 109, SD = 9.55) and mean credits earned 18.38 (n = 109, SD = 14.08), for the community college 21.43 years (n = 94, SD = 4.66) and 25.51 credits (n = 94, SD = 14.23), and for the university 21.30 years (n = 181, SD = 4.09) and 68.03 credits (n = 182, SD = 40.39). No ethnic or citizenship information was obtained.

Procedure and Questionnaire

Participants were first-year and sophomore students from all institutions and junior and senior university students. They received a summary information sheet about participation and were assured responses would be anonymous, then voluntarily completed a brief questionnaire (no extra credit was given). Participants provided demographic information and “indicated the percentages of students you believe should receive grades of A, B, C, D, or F in college courses taught at each of the following levels [freshman level course (1st year in college), sophomore level (2nd year), junior (3rd year), and senior (4th year)].” They indicated the percentages of each grade in columns labeled freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior. The research was approved by the institutional review board at each institution.

Results and Discussion

Our dependent variable was the GPA (A = 4.0, B = 3.0, etc.) for each course level that each participant provided (see Tables 1 and 2). For example, a participant who felt 100% of students in a first-year level course should receive as expected a 4.0 GPA for that course level. We compared responses across all institutions for first-year and sophomore level courses, and responses of first-year through senior university students for all four course levels.

Table 1.

Overall Expected Average Grade Point Average (GPA) at Different Institutions by Course Level.

	Course Level
	First-Year	Sophomore	Total
All students	2.60 (280, .55)	2.70 (280, .52)	2.65 (280, .52)
Men	2.53 (110, .55)	2.60 (110, .53)	2.57 (110, .53)
Women	2.64 (170, .55)	2.76 (170, .51)	2.70 (170, .51)
Technical college first-years	2.69 (87, .56)	2.81 (87, .52)	2.75 (87, .53)
Technical college sophomores	2.61 (23, .59)	2.68 (23, .59)	2.64 (23, .59)
Community college first-years	2.67 (59, .50)	2.77 (59, .49)	2.72 (59, .49)
Community college sophomores	2.66 (35, .56)	2.68 (35, .53)	2.67 (35, .54)
University first-years	2.35 (41, .53)	2.51 (41, .50)	2.43 (41, .49)
University sophomores	2.46 (35, .49)	2.54 (35, .48)	2.50 (35, .47)

Note. N = 280.

Values reflect expected GPA on a 4.0 (A = 4, F = 0) scale: M (n, SD).

Table 2.

Overall Expected Average Grade Point Average (GPA) for Different Course Levels (Ratings by University Students).

	Course Level
	First-Year	Sophomore	Junior	Senior	Total
All students	2.52 (182, .52)	2.59 (182, .50)	2.68 (182, .50)	2.75 (182, .54)	2.64 (182, .48)
Men	2.38 (66, .41)	2.40 (66, .43)	2.48 (66, .43)	2.53 (66, .48)	2.45 (66, .40)
Women	2.60 (116, .56)	2.69 (116, .50)	2.80 (116, .50)	2.87 (116, .53)	2.74 (116, .48)
First-years	2.35 (41, .53)	2.51 (41, .50)	2.67 (41, .51)	2.74 (41, .57)	2.57 (41, .48)
Sophomores	2.46 (35, .49)	2.54 (35, .48)	2.63 (35, .55)	2.73 (35, .58)	2.59 (35, .49)
Juniors	2.58 (48, .53)	2.61 (48, .52)	2.72 (48, .47)	2.81 (48, .53)	2.68 (48, .47)
Seniors	2.63 (58, .51)	2.65 (58, .49)	2.69 (58, .50)	2.71 (58, .50)	2.67 (58, .48)

Note. N = 182.

Values reflect expected GPA on a 4.0 (A = 4, F = 0) scale: M (n, SD).

Analysis Across Institutions (First-Year/Sophomore Course Levels)

To compare student opinions on grade distributions across institutions, we conducted a 2 × 2 × 2 × 3 Course Level (first-year/sophomore) × Gender × Year in School (first-years/sophomores) × Institution (technical, community, university) mixed factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) for expected grade distributions (GPA) with repeated measures over course level. First-year and sophomore students were categorized by credits earned (<30 and <60 credits, respectively). The ANOVA resulted in a significant four-way interaction, F(2, 268) = 3.44, p < .03, η_p ² = .03. Examination of the means suggested an interplay between the year in school and institution variables caused the interaction. In an effort to interpret this interaction, the ANOVA was repeated using a new variable (student status) combining institution and year in school.

The 2 × 2 × 6 Course Level (first-year/sophomore) × Gender × Student Status (technical college first-years, technical college sophomores, community college first-years, community college sophomores, university first-years, university sophomores) mixed factorial ANOVA (see Table 1 for means) resulted in a nonsignificant three-way interaction F(5, 268) = 1.97, p = .08, η_p ² = .04, suggesting that interplay of institution and year in school had driven the four-way interaction. The course level, F(1, 268) = 32.98, p < .001, η _p ² = .11, and student status, F(5, 268) = 2.94, p < .01, η _p ² = .05, main effects were significant, with the course level effect qualified by a significant course level by gender interaction, F(1, 268) = 5.03, p = .03, η _p ² = .02. No other effects were significant.

Post hoc analyses on the course level by gender interaction used the Bonferroni-corrected α level of .013. Both men (p = .001) and women (p < .001) expected significantly higher grades for sophomore than first-year courses (see Figure 1). There were no gender effects in grades expected for first-year courses (p = .13), but women expected significantly higher grades for sophomore level courses than did men (p = .013).

Figure 1.

Course level by gender interaction for expected average grade point average (GPA). Across three institutions, both genders suggested higher grades for sophomore than first-year level courses, and women expected higher GPAs for sophomore courses than did men.

For the student status main effect (see Figure 2), first-year and sophomore university students expected GPAs that appeared lower than those expected by technical and community college students. To test that apparent pattern, targeted contrasts were conducted using a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (corrected α = .017). Repeated-measures ANOVAs found no significant main effect of student status, F(3, 200) = .38, p = .77, η_p ² = .01, among first-year and sophomore students from the technical and community colleges, or between university first-year and sophomore students, F(1, 75) = .77, p = .38, η_p ² = .01, indicating the GPAs expected by technical and community college students cluster together, as do those of university students. A contrast test indicated that the GPAs expected by technical and community college first-year and sophomore students do differ significantly from those expected by university first-years and sophomores (p = .001).

Figure 2.

Average expected grade point average (GPA) by institution and year in school. University first-years and sophomores expect lower GPAs than those from technical or community colleges.

Examination of the means indicates that students at all institutions and years in school expected higher grades for sophomore than first-year level courses, although university students expected much lower grades for both than did students at the other institutions. Women on average expected higher grades than men.

Analysis Across Four Course Levels (University Students Only)

Using university data, we conducted a 4 × 2 × 4 (course level × gender × year in school) mixed factorial ANOVA with repeated measures over course level to assess expected GPAs. Year in school was categorized by credits earned (<30, <60, <90, and >89, see Table 2 for means). The gender main effect was significant, F(1, 174) = 14.33, p < .001, η _p ² = .08, with women indicating higher grades for all course levels than men.

Mauchly’s test indicated violation of the sphericity assumption, χ²(5) = 280.74, p < .001, for the within-subject factors. Therefore, degrees of freedom were corrected using Greenhouse–Geisser estimates of sphericity (∊ = .50). The course level main effect, F(1.49, 258.57) = 36.57, p < .001, η _p ² = .17, was significant, but qualified by a significant course level by year in school interaction, F(4.46, 258.57) = 3.43, p = .01, η _p ² = .06 (see Figure 3). No other effects were significant.

Figure 3.

Course level by year in school interaction for expected average grade point average (GPA). As years in school increases, university students generally expect higher GPAs for first-year and sophomore level courses and more similar GPAs across course levels.

The course level by year interaction graph suggests that as years in school increased, grades suggested for the four course levels became more similar. Targeted comparisons were conducted using a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (corrected α = .013). Repeated measures ANOVAs investigated these differences for each year in school. Degrees of freedom were corrected using Greenhouse–Geisser estimates of sphericity. The ANOVAs for first-years, F(1.56, 62.20) = 22.71, p < .001, η_p ² = .36, sophomores, F(1.42, 48.35) = 10.43, p < .001, η_p ² = .24, and juniors, F(1.42, 48.35) = 9.91, p < .001, η_p ² = .17, were significant, but not the ANOVA for seniors F(1.35, 77.01) = 2.88, p = .08, η_p ² = .05. These results indicate, that expected GPAs do significantly differ by course level among first-years, sophomores, and juniors, but not seniors. Expected GPAs for the different course levels differ most for first-year students but continually decrease in size as years in school increase, to the point that seniors expect similar GPAs for each course level. Students across the 4 years in school indicate that the higher the level of the course, the higher the average class grade should be.

Conclusions and Future Research

For first-year students and sophomores across institutional types, both genders indicated significantly higher grades for sophomore than first-year level courses. Whereas Cole and King (1977) found that men predicted higher grades for themselves than did women, in the current study investigating grades for the whole class there were no gender differences in expected grades for first-year level courses but women expected significantly higher grades for sophomores than men, and Tables 1 and 2 indicate that women generally expected higher grades for all course levels than did men. Because girls and women typically earn higher grades than boys and men in K–12 (Duckworth & Seligman, 2006) and college (Willingham & Cole, 1997), this might suggest that women’s personal grade experiences lead to their expecting higher grades, or they may feel that students deserve higher grades (Gaultney & Cann, 2001) or be more optimistic about class grade distributions. Further research might clarify the specific reasons for this pattern.

Because the great majority of participants were graduates of K–12 educations in the same state, it is interesting that university first-year students and sophomores generally suggested grades so much lower than those at the technical and community colleges. Further study might reveal whether this difference is a consequence of different grades experienced by individual students in their K–12 educations or in the general life experiences that lead them to attend different institutions, if it is a reflection of different grading policies at the different institutions (Strauss & Volkwein, 2002), or if it is simply unique to this sample.

Although the increase in expected GPAs with the level of the course was not surprising, given typical grading practices, the fact that they become more similar across course levels as a student’s years at the university increase was unexpected. It would be useful to know if these patterns occur because students experience higher grades at the university than they initially expect, causing their expectations to change, or if they conclude that lower-level survey courses are equally as difficult for first- and second-year students as are the more specialized upper-level classes that are more relevant to their career choices. It would also be interesting to know how the attrition of students who do not remain in school to become juniors and seniors might contribute to this change in grade expectations for lower level classes. Future research also might consider how grade expectations differ for undergraduate and graduate students.

Given these differences in student expectations for grade distributions at different course levels and institutions, it might be helpful for instructors to provide students with information about previous grade distributions for a class at the beginning of the semester. This could be done in the course syllabus or at the first class meeting. This may be especially useful for new or transfer students who may have come from institutions with different grading practices, and helpful to instructors in creating better student understanding of grading criteria and practices, and thus more realistic grade expectations and a more positive learning environment. Early and frequent grade feedback would be a further step toward this goal.

Advisors might wish to consider these results in preparing new students to properly anticipate the grading environment they will encounter during their first semester. First-year or transfer students may be uncertain regarding the performance expectations at their new institution. Providing information on typical grade distributions and the average grades given in classes at various levels should create more accurate performance and grading expectations and encourage students to adjust their study habits as the semester begins, rather than after a disappointing grade in their first exams.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Adams

J. B.

(2005). What makes the grade? Faculty and student perceptions. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 21–24. doi:10.1207/s15328023top3201_5

Cann

(2005). Predicting course grades: Accurate for others but biased for self. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 242–244.

Cole

King

(1977). Grade expectations as a function of sex, academic discipline, and sex of instructor. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1, 380–385. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1977.tb00563.x

Duckworth

A. L.

Seligman

M. E. P.

(2006). Self-discipline gives girls the edge: Gender in self-discipline, grades, and achievement test scores. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 198–208. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.198

Gaultney

J. F.

Cann

(2001). Grade expectations. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 84–87. doi:10.1207/S15328023TOP2802_01

Landrum

R. E.

(1999). Student expectations of grade inflation. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 32, 124–128.

Perlman

McCann

L. I.

(2007). Students desired grades and behaviors to earn such grades. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the National Institute on the Teaching of Psychology, St. Petersburg, FL. doi:10.1080/00986280701700284

Prohaska

(1994). “I know I’ll get an A”: Confident overestimation of final course grades. Teaching of Psychology, 21, 141–143. doi:10.1207/s15328023top2103_2

Strauss

L. C.

Volkwein

J. F.

(2002). Comparing student performance and growth in 2- and 4-year institutions. Research in Higher Education, 43, 133–161. doi:10.1023/A:1014495823183

10.

Svanum

Bigatti

(2006). Grade expectations: Informed or uninformed optimism, or both? Teaching of Psychology, 33, 14–18. doi:10.1207/s15328023top3301_4

11.

Wendorf

C. A.

(2002). Grade point average and changes in (great) grade expectations. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 136–138.

12.

Willingham

Cole

(1997). Gender and fair assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.