Grade Negotiation Behaviours in Higher Education: Has the Pursuit for Good Grades pushed Learning to the Wayside?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction Allen (2017) describes a grade enquiry continuum (GEC) that seeks to characterize student's behaviours with instructors into four categories: grade neutral, grade enquiry, grade challenge, and grade‐grubbing. While the process of discussing grades may promote learning, the de‐emphasis of content mastery associated with the latter two categories may have detrimental effects. Concerningly, anecdotal reports suggest a high prevalence of grade challenging/grubbing attempts in higher education, and it remains unknown what motivates these adverse behaviours. Thus, this study aims to explore the prevalence of GEC behaviours in undergraduate medical science students, their perceptions about negotiating grades, and the factors that motivate grade challenging/grubbing attempts. Methods In our first objective, a survey was administered to 2,500 undergraduate medical sciences students (n=367 completed) at our institution to examine students’ self‐reported prevalence, perceptions and motivations for grade challenging/grubbing. To determine the validity of these reports, we also conducted an observational study with 31 students (n=4 completed) to explore if their self‐reported behaviours aligned with their observed behaviours. In our second objective, we explored whether the perception of losing versus earning grades influenced their propensity to grade challenge/grub through an experimental manipulation of how grades are presented on their learning management system (n=31). Focus groups were used in a follow‐up with participants to examine the reason for changed/unchanged behaviour or mindset. Results Our survey results indicated that 50% of students who had met with an instructor/teaching assistant before had also negotiated a grade (n=99). Furthermore, of the 40 students in their 4th year answering this question, 65% had negotiated a grade. In addition, results from our second study showed that ≥14 accounts of grade challenging and four accounts of grade grubbing were self‐reported over just the course of one semester (n=31). Qualitative findings suggest that many students within the study population are extrinsically driven by career goals and view their grades as a way to competitively distinguish themselves for post‐graduate programs. These motivational factors and perceptions towards grades may be influencing these adverse behaviours. Conclusions: This study was the first to quantify self‐reported grade negotiation behaviours at a program level. It was also the first to use an experimental design to document and observe these behaviours in a real classroom setting. Our findings clearly show that GEC behaviours are as prevalent as anecdotally suggested. This understanding is necessary moving forward to further investigate whether these behaviours are getting worse, what causes students to exhibit these behaviours and what interventions or actions can be implemented to deter these behaviours in the future.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,026 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».