A Preliminary Study of Grade Forecasting by Students

Abstract

This experiment enabled undergraduate business students to better assess their progress in a course by quantitatively forecasting their own end-of-course grades. This innovation provided them with predictive feedback in addition to the outcome feedback they were already receiving. A total of 144 students forecast their grades using an instructorprepared spreadsheet, and then responded to a brief survey. Of these participants, 29% said the forecast grades were lower than expected, while 6% said they were higher. Subsequent to the forecast, 47% of the respondents said they were studying more than planned, while 3% said they were studying less. The relative difference between the students' forecast grades and their prior expectations showed no direct influence on subsequent motivation or studying effort. Instead, increased studying was reported by students who had experienced increased anxiety, increased motivation, or positive impressions subsequent to the forecasting experience, as well as by students who had received low absolute grade forecasts.

How Gaps between Target and Midcourse Grades Impact Undergraduates’ Studying Intentions and Grade Improvements*

“…For both parameters, the differences between participants and nonparticipants are statistically significant ( p = .000). As with previous research (e.g., Armstrong, 2013; Westerman, Perez‐Batres, Coffey, & Pouder, 2011), students with stronger academic performance were more likely to participate.…”

“…Our study also extends Armstrong and MacKenzie (2017) by considering how students’ academic abilities might moderate the way they respond to grade gaps. Previous research has shown that students with weaker academic performance tend to have worse predictive accuracy and are more prone to overestimating their grades (Armstrong, 2013; Kruger & Dunning, 1999). Since students with weaker ability are more prone to have grade gaps (Armstrong & MacKenzie, 2017), it is plausible they will also have more problems in responding effectively to such gaps.…”

Goals and guesses as reference points: a field experiment on student performance

“…This result is in line withPark and Santos-Pinto (2010) where players' ratings were used as a measure of their skill.36 Effectiveness of the joint action of self-chosen goals and real monetary incentives in higher education is shown in Herranz-Zarzoso and Sabater-Grande (2018).37 Examples areKruger and Dunning (1999),Grimes (2002),Falk and Knell (2004),Svanum and Bigatti (2006),Andrews et al (2007),Nowell and Alston (2007),Burns (2007),Jensen and Moore (2008),Khachikian et al (2011),Armstrong (2013), Tsigaris (2013, 2015),Sackett et al (2014)Query,Serra and DeMarree (2016),Sturges et al (2016), Foster et al (2017 andClark et al (2020).…”