Bimodal Inverted Bell Grade Distribution: Implications for Instruction and Student Retention

Abstract

College student attrition rates remain constant despite institution level efforts. This retrospective archival study examined how individual instructors at the course level might impact academic success and retention by acting on a real time at risk warning system. Five semesters of scores on the first exam in an undergraduate psychology course revealed a bimodal inverted bell grade distribution in which the majority of students, and nearly equal proportion, performed high (earned A or B) or low (earned D or F). Study 1 (N = 310) distinguished early high performers from low performers by examining academic major, academic level, early attendance, and early quiz performance. Study 2 (N = 158) distinguished those early low performers who ultimately succeeded in the course from those who did not by also examining optional opportunities for success built into the syllabus. Findings informed five specific recommendations within the control of the instructor.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

ACT, Inc. (2010). 2010 retention/completion summary tables. Retrieved from http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/10retain_trends.pdf.

Berger

J. B.

& Lyon

S. C.

(2005). Past to present: A historical look at retention. In Seidman

(Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success (pp. 1–30). Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger.

Cabrera

A. F.

Castaneda

M. B.

Nora

& Hengstler

(1992). The convergence between two theories of college persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 63(2), 143–164.

Clump

M. A.

Bauer

& Whiteleather

(2003). To attend or not to attend: Is that a good question? Journal of Instructional Psychology, 30(3), 220–224.

Durden

G. C.

& Ellis

L. V.

(1995). The effects of attendance on student learning in principles of economics. Better Learning from Better Management, 85(2), 343–346.

Habley

W. R.

& McClanahan

(2004). What works in student retention? All survey colleges. Retrieved from ACT, Inc.: http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/droptables/AllColleges.pdf.

Haynes-Stewart

T. L.

Clifton

R. A.

Daniels

L. M.

Perry

R. P.

Chipperfield

J. G.

& Ruthig

J. C.

(2011). Attributional retraining: Reducing the likelihood of failure. Social Psychology Education, 14, 75–92. doi: 10.1007/s11218-010-9130-2

Hurtado

Sax

L. J.

Saenz

Harper

C. E.

Oseguera

Curley

(2007). Findings from the 2005 administration of Your First College Year (YFCY): National aggregates. Retrieved from Higher Education Research Institute, University of California, Los Angeles website: http://hen.ucla.edu/PDFs/2005_YFCY_REPORT_FINAL.pdf.

Jones

C. H.

(1984). Interaction of absences and grades in a college course. The Journal of Psychology, 116, 133–136.

10.

Lipsey

M. W.

& Wilson

D. B.

(1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 48(12), 1181–1209.

11.

McGrath

M. M.

& Braunstein

(1997). The prediction of freshmen attrition: An examination of the importance of certain demographic, academic, financial, and social factors. College Student Journal, 31(3), 396–408.

12.

Norcross

J. C.

Dooley

H. S.

& Stevenson

J. F.

(1993). Faculty use and justification of extra credit: No middle ground? Teaching of Psychology, 20(4), 240–242.

13.

Robbins

S. B.

Lauver

Davis

Langley

& Carlstrom

(2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130(2), 261–288. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261

14.

Tinto

(2005). Epilogue: Moving from theory to action. In Seidman

(Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success (pp. 317–333). Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger.