The effects of grades on course enjoyment
367
suspicion is that the underlying processes were largely constant. That is, we think the
primary determinant of how students reacted to grades was whether they believed that
their course grade would match or exceed their initial aspirations. As the course
progressed, and they received different forms of feedback about how they were doing,
their hopes of achieving their aspirations would have shifted, but we think it was this
hope that was the critical factor mediating the impact of grades.
NOTE
Note that our use of the term grade aspiration differs somewhat from that of Greenwald and
1
Gillmore (1997a). They define grade aspirations as students’ expectations of the grade
appropriate for their work, whereas we are defining it as the grade students hope to achieve.
Paraphrasing, Greenwald and Gillmore seem to view a grade aspiration as the grade a student
regards as fair, whereas we are treating it as the grade the student would like to achieve, whether
or not they view it as fair. Also, in our definition students may have grade aspirations even before
they have submitted any work.
References
Anderson, S., & Rodin, J. (1989). Is bad news always bad? Cue and feedback effects on intrinsic
motivation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19 (6), 449±467.
Baumeister, R.F., & Tice, D.M. (1985). Self-esteem and responses to success and failure:
Subsequent performance and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality, 53 (3), 450±467.
Blunt, A. (1981). The effects of anonymity and manipulated grades on student ratings of
instructors. Community College Review, 18, 48±54.
Chako, T.I. (1983). Students ratings of instruction: A function of grading standards. Educational
Research Quarterly, 8 (2), 341±351.
Deci, E.L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press.
Feldman, K.A. (1976). Grades and college students’ evaluations of their courses and teachers.
Research in Higher Education, 4, 69±111.
Greenwald, A.G., & Gillmore, G.M. (1997a). No pain, no gain? The importance of measuring
course workload in students’ ratings of instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 743±
751.
Greenwald, A.G., & Gillmore, G.M. (1997b). Grading leniency is a removable contaminant of
student ratings. American Psychologist, 52, 1209±1217.
Harackiewicz, J. (1979). The effects of reward contingency and performancefeedback on intrinsic
motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1024±1037.
Holmes, D.S. (1972). Effects of grades and disconfirmed grade expectancies on students’
evaluations of their instructors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 130±133.
Marsh, H.W., & Roche, L.A. (1997). Making students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness
effective: The critical issues of validity, bias and utility. American Psychologist, 52, 1187±1197.
Powell, R.W. (1977). Grades, learning and student evaluation of instruction. Research in Higher
Education, 7, 193±205.
Ryan, R.M., Mims, V., & Koestner, R. (1983). Relation of reward contingency and interpersonal
context to intrinsic motivation: A review and test using Cognitive Evaluation theory. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 736±770.
Ryan, R.M., Connell, J.P., & Plant, R.W. (1990). Emotions in non-directed text learning.
Learning and Individual Differences, 2 (1), 1±17.
Ryan, R.M., Koestner, R., & Deci, E.L. (1991). Ego-involved persistence: When free-choice
behaviour is not intrinsically motivated. Motivation and Emotion, 15, (3), 185±205.
Stumpf, S.A., & Freedman, R.D. (1979). Expected grade covariation with student ratings of
instruction: Individual vs. class effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 293±302.
Vasta, R., & Sarmiento, R.F. (1979). Liberal grading improves evaluations but not performance.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 207±211.