STEM courses are harder: evaluating inter-course grading disparities with a calibrated GPA model

Abstract Background Grades in college and university STEM courses are an important determinant of student persistence in STEM fields. Recent studies have used the grade offset/grade penalty method to explore why students have lower grades in STEM courses than their GPAs would predict. The results of...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jonathan H. Tomkin, Matthew West
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SpringerOpen 2022-03-01
Series:International Journal of STEM Education
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00343-1
_version_ 1818315302080872448
author Jonathan H. Tomkin
Matthew West
author_facet Jonathan H. Tomkin
Matthew West
author_sort Jonathan H. Tomkin
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Background Grades in college and university STEM courses are an important determinant of student persistence in STEM fields. Recent studies have used the grade offset/grade penalty method to explore why students have lower grades in STEM courses than their GPAs would predict. The results of these studies are in doubt; however, as they use GPA as a reliable measure of academic performance, which is a disputed assumption. Using a predictive model of student performance, it is possible to produce a more accurate measure of academic performance than the observed GPA and discover if STEM courses are graded more stringently, and under which circumstances. Results A weighted logistic model of GPA better predicts academic performance than the observed GPA. Using this calibrated GPA it is found that the grade offset method predicts that STEM courses, departments, and programs grade significantly more stringently than non-STEM courses. The average grade difference between STEM and non-STEM course grades and GPAs is around four tenths of a grade point. An exception is general education courses offered by STEM departments, which are graded with the same leniency as non-STEM courses. Grade offset calculations that use the observed GPA systematically underestimate the negative offset in STEM grading relative to calculations that use the calibrated GPA. The calibrated GPA is much more highly correlated with standardized tests such as the ACT (r = 0.49) than the observed GPA is (r = 0.25). Conclusion Observed GPA is a systematically biased measure of academic performance, and should not be used as a basis for determining the presence of grading inequity. Logistic models of GPA provide a more reliable measure of academic performance. When comparing otherwise academically similar students, we find that STEM students have substantially lower grades and GPAs, and that this is the consequence of harder (more stringent) grading in STEM courses.
first_indexed 2024-12-13T09:03:22Z
format Article
id doaj.art-8249bfcd098642698bc37d16ee8f519e
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2196-7822
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-13T09:03:22Z
publishDate 2022-03-01
publisher SpringerOpen
record_format Article
series International Journal of STEM Education
spelling doaj.art-8249bfcd098642698bc37d16ee8f519e2022-12-21T23:53:07ZengSpringerOpenInternational Journal of STEM Education2196-78222022-03-019111710.1186/s40594-022-00343-1STEM courses are harder: evaluating inter-course grading disparities with a calibrated GPA modelJonathan H. Tomkin0Matthew West1School of Earth, Society, and the Environment, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignAbstract Background Grades in college and university STEM courses are an important determinant of student persistence in STEM fields. Recent studies have used the grade offset/grade penalty method to explore why students have lower grades in STEM courses than their GPAs would predict. The results of these studies are in doubt; however, as they use GPA as a reliable measure of academic performance, which is a disputed assumption. Using a predictive model of student performance, it is possible to produce a more accurate measure of academic performance than the observed GPA and discover if STEM courses are graded more stringently, and under which circumstances. Results A weighted logistic model of GPA better predicts academic performance than the observed GPA. Using this calibrated GPA it is found that the grade offset method predicts that STEM courses, departments, and programs grade significantly more stringently than non-STEM courses. The average grade difference between STEM and non-STEM course grades and GPAs is around four tenths of a grade point. An exception is general education courses offered by STEM departments, which are graded with the same leniency as non-STEM courses. Grade offset calculations that use the observed GPA systematically underestimate the negative offset in STEM grading relative to calculations that use the calibrated GPA. The calibrated GPA is much more highly correlated with standardized tests such as the ACT (r = 0.49) than the observed GPA is (r = 0.25). Conclusion Observed GPA is a systematically biased measure of academic performance, and should not be used as a basis for determining the presence of grading inequity. Logistic models of GPA provide a more reliable measure of academic performance. When comparing otherwise academically similar students, we find that STEM students have substantially lower grades and GPAs, and that this is the consequence of harder (more stringent) grading in STEM courses.https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00343-1STEM educationStandardized testsGPAGrade offsetGrade penalty
spellingShingle Jonathan H. Tomkin
Matthew West
STEM courses are harder: evaluating inter-course grading disparities with a calibrated GPA model
International Journal of STEM Education
STEM education
Standardized tests
GPA
Grade offset
Grade penalty
title STEM courses are harder: evaluating inter-course grading disparities with a calibrated GPA model
title_full STEM courses are harder: evaluating inter-course grading disparities with a calibrated GPA model
title_fullStr STEM courses are harder: evaluating inter-course grading disparities with a calibrated GPA model
title_full_unstemmed STEM courses are harder: evaluating inter-course grading disparities with a calibrated GPA model
title_short STEM courses are harder: evaluating inter-course grading disparities with a calibrated GPA model
title_sort stem courses are harder evaluating inter course grading disparities with a calibrated gpa model
topic STEM education
Standardized tests
GPA
Grade offset
Grade penalty
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00343-1
work_keys_str_mv AT jonathanhtomkin stemcoursesareharderevaluatingintercoursegradingdisparitieswithacalibratedgpamodel
AT matthewwest stemcoursesareharderevaluatingintercoursegradingdisparitieswithacalibratedgpamodel