The impact of grades on student motivation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although research has explored how in-class pedagogical practices and narrative feedback affect student engagement and motivation, questions remain on the impact of grading systems (i.e. multi-interval grades vs pass/fail and narrative evaluation) on academic motivation. Here, we compared the motivation of students who received multi-interval grades to students who were evaluated with a pass/fail and end of course narrative evaluation. In addition, we compared academic motivation at institutions with different grading systems. Grades did not enhance academic motivation. Instead, grades enhanced anxiety and avoidance of challenging courses. In contrast, narrative evaluations supported basic psychological needs and enhanced motivation by providing actionable feedback, promoting trust between instructors and students and cooperation amongst students. Even when accounting for potential confounding factors, students in universities that used narrative evaluations experienced higher intrinsic and autonomous motivation compared to students who received multi-interval grades. Given the potential for grades to thwart basic psychological needs and academic motivation, institutions should re-evaluate when and in which programs grades may be appropriate or necessary.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it