Instructors often use a point-based system for grading students (e.g., 100 or 1000 total points). This system can impact student outcomes.
Objective
The purpose of this research was to examine the implications of different point value courses for student emotions, perceptions of courses, and classroom performance.
Method
The lab-based study used an experimental design to gather student responses to a hypothetical course with one of three potential total point values (100, 1,000, or 100,000 points). The classroom-based study examined student responses to different point values in 12 actual courses in which students were enrolled (with either 100 or 1000 total points).
Results
In the lab-based study, courses with greater total point values (i.e., 1000 and 100,000) had greater emotional impact than a course with 100 total points. Participants in these conditions also preferred a course that featured a pass/fail scheme. In the classroom-based study, students in the 100-point condition (vs. 1000-point condition) missed more assignments, and as a consequence, performed more poorly in their course.
Conclusion
Higher total point values in courses may have a more significant impact on students’ emotions, and as a consequence, they may miss less work, and perform better in the course overall.
ArmierD. D.ShepherdC. E.SkrabutS. (2016). Using game elements to increase student engagement in course assignments. College Teaching, 64(2), 64-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2015.1094439
2.
AtkinsonJ. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64(6Pt. 1), 359-372. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043445
3.
CarverC. S.WhiteT. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 319-333. https://doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319
4.
CervoneD.PeakeP. K. (1986). Anchoring, efficacy, and action: The influence of judgmental heuristics on self-efficacy judgments and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 492-501. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.492
5.
ClarkD. B.Tanner-SmithE. E.KillingsworthS. S. (2016). Digital games, design, and learning. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 79-122. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582065
6.
ColeJ. S.BerginD. A.WhittakerT. A. (2008). Predicting student achievement for low stakes tests with effort and task value. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 609-624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.10.002
7.
DunloskyJ. (2013). Strengthened the student toolbox: Study strategies to boost learning. American Educator, 37(3), 12-21
8.
ElbowP. (1997). High stakes and low stakes in assigning and responding to writing. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1997, 5-13. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.6901
9.
ElliotA. J.ThrashT. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(5), 804-818. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.804
FoushéeR. D. (2018). Breaking free: The benefits of non-expository, low-stakes writing assignments in psychology courses. In KutherT. L. (Ed.), Integrating writing into the college classroom: Strategies for promoting student skills. Retrieved from the Society for the Teaching of Psychologyhttp://teachpsych.org/ebooks
12.
GerendM. A.ShepherdM. A. (2016). When different message frames motivate different routes to the same health outcome. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 50(2), 319-329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-015-9757-5
13.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
14.
HeinzenT. E.SalazarA.ShipwayB.AgrustiT.KimT. (2015). Fat points and game mechanics (when the points don’t matter, they really do). In Presented at: 2nd annual CUNY games Festival. https://doi.org/0.13140/2.1.3710.4967
15.
HigginsE. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 1-46). Academic Press.
16.
LakensD. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(863), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
17.
MayerR. E. (2014). Computer games for learning: An evidence-based approach. MIT University Press.
18.
MeerN. M.ChapmanA. (2014). Assessment for confidence: Exploring the impact that low-stakes assessment design has on student retention. The International Journal of Management Education, 12(2), 186-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2014.01.003
19.
MorrowJ. (2002). Demonstrating the anchoring-adjustment heuristic and the power of the situation. Teaching of Psychology, 29(2), 129-132. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP2902_11
20.
QuattroneG. A. (1982). Overattribution and unit formation: When behavior engulfs the person. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(4), 593-607. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.4.593
21.
PintrichP. R.SchunkD. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.). Prentice-Hall.
22.
PintrichP. R.ZushoA. (2007). Student motivation and self-regulated learning in the college classroom. In PerryR. P.SmartJ. C. (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 731-810). Springer.
23.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptomatic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research methods, 40(3), 879-891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
24.
RosenthalG. T.GranierK. T.StoutL. J.SoignierD.St. PierreB.SoperB. (2017). The grading survey. College Student Journal, 53(3), 369-375.
25.
SambellK.HubbardA. (2004). The role of formative ‘low-stakes’ assessment in supporting non-traditional students’ retention and progression in higher education: Student perspectives. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 6(2), 25-36.
26.
SieglerR. S.Lortie-ForguesH. (2017). Hard lessons: Why rational number arithmetic is so difficult for so many people. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(4), 346-351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417700129
27.
SwerdzewskiP. J.HarmesJ. C.FinneyS. J. (2011). Two approaches for identifying low-motivated students in a low-stakes assessment context. Applied Measurement in Education, 24(2), 162-188. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2011.555217
UpdegraffJ. A.RothmanA. J. (2013). Health message framing: Moderators, mediators, and mysteries. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(9), 668-679. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12056
31.
Wilson-DoengesG.TroisiJ. D.BartschR. A. (2016). Exemplars of the gold standard in SoTL for psychology. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 2(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000050
32.
WiseS. L.DeMarsC. E. (2005). Low examinee effort in low-stakes assessment: Problems and potential solutions. Educational Assessment, 10(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea1001_1
33.
YamagishiK. (1997). Upward versus downward anchoring in frequency judgments of social facts. Japanese Psychological Research, 39(2), 124-129. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5884.00046
