Factors related to the likelihood of grade inflation at community colleges
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A number of studies have documented a trend of higher grades awarded by postsecondary institutions in both the United States and Canada over the last two decades. Grade inflation in higher education is a potentially costly problem for a variety of reasons, but little empirical research about the causes of grade inflation has been conducted. This study investigated multiple potential factors related to the likelihood of grade inflation by faculty members at community colleges. These factors included perceptions of student evaluations of teaching (SETs), perceptions of job security, perceptions of student complaints, experience with grading practices, perceptions of student nuisance, and instructors’ empathy with students. Additionally, the possibility that factors related to the likelihood of grade inflation influence adjunct and full-time instructors differently was tested. An electronically-distributed survey was employed to measure the perspectives of 336 instructors at seven community colleges in three states. Complex models did not predict likelihood of grade inflation, but differences were found between some factors for instructors in high and low likelihood of grade inflation groups. Instructors in the low likelihood group perceived higher levels of both student complaints and student nuisance than instructors in the high likelihood group. Faculty status was found to affect the influence of perceptions of student evaluations of teaching (SETs), perceptions of job security, perceptions of student complaints, and experience with grading practices on likelihood of grade inflation. The results of this study suggest that additional research should elucidate the potential connections between instructors’ perceptions of student nuisance and student complaints and the phenomenon of grade inflation. Furthermore, additional work is needed to determine what effects SETs have on instructors’ careers and the perceptions of instructors regarding those effects. The results of this study potentially inform the practice of using faculty professional development to educate instructors about the process of grading. Specifically, institutions should explicitly define the intended functions of grades prior to establishing a system for determining grades. These institutions should also provide guidance to instructors so that all agents in the grading process are using these symbols of student performance in a consistent manner. Faculty should engage in the conversation about appropriate functions of grades and more consistent methods for determining grades. Finally, administrators should exercise caution in the interpretation of feedback from students in the forms of student evaluations of teaching and student complaints, particularly as used in the supervision of adjunct instructors.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».