Grade Expectations: The Motivational Consequences of Performance Feedback

• In Event: Feedback to the Future: Impacts of a Venerable Construct on 21st-Century Motivation and Learning

Abstract

The prevalence and consequences of feedback students receive on their academic performance have led to widespread interest in assessment outcomes. However, a clear picture of how performance feedback influences academic motivation has not yet emerged. One reason for this unclear narrative arguably stems from a design confound: many studies first have students complete an assessment, deliver different forms of performance feedback, and finally measure motivation. However, doing so conflates the effect of feedback form (e.g., grade) with its valence (e.g., “A”) (Butler, 2006). Recent studies have partially addressed this limitation by measuring motivation after students anticipate a form of feedback (Pulfrey et al., 2013), but none measure it across multiple stages. A failure to do so has prevented the form and valence of performance feedback from being entirely disentangled and an understanding of the motivational fluctuations that may occur across an assessment event. To address these topical questions, the current study investigated the impact of grades, comments, their combination, and their absence on self-efficacy, goal orientations, and intrinsic motivation. Hypotheses were developed by drawing from three perspectives: social cognitive, achievement goal, and self-determination theories.

A cluster randomized experimental design was implemented with seventh through ninth grade students (n = 161) in math or science classes (N = 13) from an all-female school randomly assigned to one of the following conditions: grades, comments, grades and comments, and no feedback. Motivation was measured on three occasions to capture its fluctuations during a high-stakes assessment event: baseline, after teachers announced what form of feedback students would receive (i.e., anticipation stage), and after students received their feedback (i.e., receipt stage).

Results from multilevel analyses revealed a series of complex interactions between feedback stage and form. Notably, only students in the grades accompanied by comments condition experienced a decline in self-efficacy from anticipation to receipt of feedback [γ = -0.29, p <.01]. However, students also reported an increase in mastery goal orientation [γ = .25, p <.01] and intrinsic motivation [γ = 0.39, p = .01] upon the receipt of this feedback. Students in the comments condition experienced a similar increase in intrinsic motivation [γ = .47, p = .04]. Finally, those in the no feedback and comments conditions reported a greater performance-approach goal orientation when they received feedback (or lack thereof) compared to when they anticipated it [γ = 0.32, p <.01; γ = 0.23, p = .08].

Taken together, results consistently indicated that the stage of an assessment event matters and that motivation should be measured multiple times during a feedback process in order to most accurately understand its effects. Furthermore, it is worthwhile for educators to accompany grades with comments, but the decline in self-efficacy suggests that more feedback is not always better. Finally, abolishing grades, as some recommend (Kohn, 1999), is not a panacea. While removing grades altogether might result in greater motivational benefits if students never experienced their consequences, withholding grades within a broader summative assessment context may do more harm than good.

Author

• Alison C. Koenka, The Ohio State University