Panic and Hope, Pressure and Redemption: College Students’ Motivational Responses to Course Grade Policies

• In Event: Course Grade Policies: What are the Consequences for Motivation, Achievement, and Equity?

Abstract

Objectives
This study examines the motivational effects of common college course grade policies, extending two prior quantitative studies (Authors, 2025) by adding qualitative data about students’ preferences, psychological processes and prior experiences.

Theoretical Framework
Instructors play an influential role in creating the classroom motivational context, yet few studies have investigated specific instructional practices, such as common course grade policies, and their motivational effects (Authors, under review). Policies that determine how a student’s final grade for a course is calculated, however, have particular significance for students. Achievement goal research recognizes that school contexts, including evaluation practices, can encourage either a mastery or performance goal orientation through classroom goal structures. Growth mindset research has similarly shown that when students report higher perceived instructor fixed mindset beliefs, which can be signaled by grading practices, they also report lower motivation and less adaptive behaviors. These contextual factors are also theorized to affect students’ motivation, particularly their expectancies for success and subjective task values.

Methods
College students (N = 188) were recruited from Prolific to take a survey (Mage = 28.3; 57% cis women; 13% Asian, 14% Black; 13% Latino/a/e, 53% White, 3% Other). Participants were randomly assigned either to examine three “grade weight” policies (with exams weighed 90%, 70%, or 50% relative to homework and participation; n = 87) or three “grade recovery” policies (a no-recovery option, a grade-drop option, or a retake option for exams; n = 88) for a statistics course syllabus (see Appendix). After selecting a preferred policy, participants answered questions about which policies would best support a) positive perceptions of the course and instructor, b) adaptive expectancies for success and subjective task values; and c) adaptive behaviors. For each question, they provided written explanations of the thinking behind their responses. Qualitative data were analyzed using Robinson’s (2022) structured-tabulated thematic analysis (ST-TA) method for analyzing brief texts.

Results
Responses to the policies coalesced around 5 themes: a) emotional experiences, including feelings of discouragement, overwhelm, nervousness, and even panic, as well as hope, comfort, and redemption; b) concerns about time, including both the quantity of time required for coursework but also how the policy affected students’ ability to structure their time in desirable ways; c) perceptions of the instructor, including whether instructor policies signaled care for student success or challenges; d) focus on learning implications, including how policies shaped students’ engagement with learning and whether the policy supported learning activities valued by the student; and e) concerns about whether the policies would help them succeed at earning a desired grade.

Generally, students reported more adaptive responses to policies that reduced exam weights or offered opportunities to recover from a poor exam performance, although many recognized that the time costs would go up with policies that placed more weight on homework or allowed retakes. In addition, many students admitted that re-take policies could increase procrastination.

Significance
These qualitative findings refined an emerging theoretical model of how grade policies shape student motivation and behaviors, with implications for instructional practice.

Authors

• Julie Sievers, University of Texas at Austin

• Katherine M. Muenks, University of Texas at Austin