To Curve or Not to Curve? The Effect of College Science Grading Policies on Implicit Theories of Intelligence, Perceived Classroom Goal Structures, and Self-efficacy

Abstract

There is currently a shortage of students graduating with STEM (science, technology, engineering, or mathematics) degrees, particularly women and students of color. Approximately half of students who begin a STEM major eventually switch out. Many switchers cite the competitiveness, grading curves, and weed-out culture of introductory STEM classes as reasons for the switch. Variables known to influence resilience include a student's implicit theory of intelligence and achievement goal orientation. Incremental theory (belief that intelligence is malleable) and mastery goals (pursuit of increased competence) are more adaptive in challenging classroom contexts. This dissertation investigates the role that college science grading policies and messages about the importance of effort play in shaping both implicit theories and achievement goal orientation. College students (N = 425) were randomly assigned to read one of three grading scenarios: (1) a "mastery" scenario, which used criterion-referenced grading, permitted tests to be retaken, and included a strong effort message; (2) a "norm" scenario, which used norm-referenced grading (grading on the curve); or (3) an "effort" scenario, which combined a strong effort message with the norm-referenced policies. The dependent variables included implicit theories of intelligence, perceived classroom goal structure, and self-efficacy. A different sample of students (N = 15) were randomly assigned a scenario to read, asked to verbalize their thoughts, and responded to questions in a semi-structured interview. Results showed that students reading the mastery scenario were more likely to endorse an incremental theory of intelligence, perceived greater mastery goal structure, and had higher self-efficacy. The effort message had no effect on self-efficacy, implicit theory, and most of the goal structure measures. The interviews revealed that it was the retake policy in the mastery scenario and the competitive atmosphere in the norm-referenced scenarios that were likely driving the results. Competitive grading policies appear to be incompatible with mastery goals, cooperative learning, and a belief in the efficacy of effort. Implications for college STEM instruction are discussed.