Research in Higher Education

, Volume 43, Issue 4, pp 483–501 | Cite as

College Students' Evaluations of Teaching and Grade Inflation

  • Charles F. Eiszler


This study investigated the question: Has the use of student evaluations of teaching effectiveness been a contributing factor to a trend of grade inflation in a mid-sized, public university in the upper midwest? Aggregating the data for 983,491 student evaluations of more than 37,000 course sections, this study examined the trends in the percentage of students expecting the grades of A or A− and students' composite ratings of teaching effectiveness in courses offered between 1980 and 1999. Statistically significant second order polynomial trends over 40 semesters were found for the percentage of A/A− grades and for students ratings of teaching effectiveness. The percentage of students expecting A/A− grades increased steadily by a total of more than 10 percentage points during the 1990s after remaining stable during the 1980s. Student ratings of teaching gradually, but steadily, increased by more than one-tenth of a point after remaining relatively stable during the first half of the 1980s. The predictive relationship between student ratings of teaching and expected grades was significant even after variables related to alternative explanations were statistically controlled. The conclusion that, although generally valid as measures of teaching effectiveness, college students' ratings of instruction may be used in ways that raise questions of consequential validity, specifically by encouraging grade inflation, was supported.

grade inflation student evaluations 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abrami, P. C. (1985). Dimensions of effective college instruction. Review of Higher Education 8: 211-228.Google Scholar
  2. Abrami, P. C., and d'Apollonia, S. (1990) The dimensionality of ratings and their use in personnel decisions. In M. Theall and J. Franklin (eds.), Student Ratings of Instruction: Issues for Improving Practice, pp. 97-111. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Adelman, C. (1995, May 17). A' aren't that easy. New York Times, p. A19.Google Scholar
  4. Arreola, R. A. (1995). Developing a Comprehensive Faculty Evaluation System. Bolton, MA: Anker.Google Scholar
  5. Basinger, D. (1997). Fighting grade inflation: a misguided effort? College Teaching 45(3): 88-91.Google Scholar
  6. Beaver, W. (July, 1997). Declining college standards: it' not the courses, it' the grades. The College Board Review 181:2-7.Google Scholar
  7. Braskamp, A., and Ory, J. C. (1994). Assessing Faculty Work: Enhancing Individual and Institutional Performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  8. Centra, J. A. (1993). Reflective Faculty Evaluation: Enhancing Teaching and Determining Faculty Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, P. A. (1981). Student ratings of instruction and student achievement: a metaanalysis of multisection validity studies. Review of Educational Research 51(3): 281-309.Google Scholar
  10. D'Apollonia, S., and Abrami, P. (1997). Navigating student ratings of instruction. American Psychologist 52(11): 1198-1208.Google Scholar
  11. Feldman, K. A. (1989). The association between student ratings of specific instructional dimensions and student achievement: refining and extending the synthesis of data from multisection validity studies. Research in Higher Education 30(6): 583-645.Google Scholar
  12. Foster, D., and Foster, E. (January-February 1998). It' a buyer' market: ‘disposable professors,’ grade inflation, and other problems. ACADEME 84(1): 28-31.Google Scholar
  13. Geisinger, K. F., and Rabinowitz, W. (1980). Individual differences among college faculty in grading. Journal of Instructional Psychology 7(1): 20-27.Google Scholar
  14. Goldman, L. (1985). The betrayal of the gatekeepers: grade inflation. The Journal of General Education 37(2): 97-121.Google Scholar
  15. Greenwald, A. (1997). Validity concerns and usefulness of student ratings of instruction. American Psychologist 52(11): 1182-1186.Google Scholar
  16. Greenwald, A. G., and Gillmore, G. M. (1997). Grading leniency is a removable contaminant of student ratings. American Psychologist 52(11): 1209-1217.Google Scholar
  17. Indiana University (1998). The Expanded Context Transcript. Bloomington, IN: Office of the Registrar. Retrieved M15, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.indiana. edu/_registra/Services/contexttranscript.htmlGoogle Scholar
  18. Juola, A. E. (April 1976). Grade Inflation in Higher Education: What Can or Should We Do? National Council on Measurement in Education Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No 129 917)Google Scholar
  19. Juola, A.E. (March 1980). Grade Inflation in Higher Education-1979: Is it Over? Learning and Evaluation Service, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No 189 129)Google Scholar
  20. Lanning, W., and Perkins, P. (1995). Grade inflation: a consideration of additional causes. Journal of Instructional Psychology 22(2): 163-168.Google Scholar
  21. Marsh, H.W. (1982). SEEQ: A reliable, valid, and useful instrument for collecting students’ evaluations of university teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology 52(1): 77-95.Google Scholar
  22. Marsh, H. W. (1984). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases, and utility. Journal of Educational Psychology 76(5): 707-754.Google Scholar
  23. Marsh, H. W., and Hocevar, D. (1991). Students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness: the stability of mean ratings of the same teachers over a 13-year period. Teaching & Teacher Education 7(4): 303-314.Google Scholar
  24. Marsh, H. W., and Roche, L. A. (2000). Effects of grading leniency and low workload on students’ evaluations of teaching: popular myth, bias, validity, or innocent bystanders? Journal of Educational Psychology 92(1): 202-228.Google Scholar
  25. McConahay, M., and Coté, R. (1998). The expanded grade context record at Indiana University. Cause/Effect 21(4): 47-48, 60.Google Scholar
  26. Olsen, D. R. (May 18-21, 1997). Grade Inflation: Reality or Myth? Student Preparation Level vs. Grades at Brigham Young University 1975-1994. Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum, Orlando, Florida. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 410 880)Google Scholar
  27. SAS Institute (1998). StatView 5 for Macintosh and Windows. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.Google Scholar
  28. Shapiro, E. G. (April, 1994). Factors Affecting Scores on Central Michigan University' Student Opinion Survey. Mt. Pleasant, MI: Office of Institutional Research, Central Michigan.Google Scholar
  29. Stone, J. E. (1995). Inflated grades, inflated enrollment, and inflated budgets: an analysis and call for review at the state level. Education Policy Analysis Archives 3(11). Retrieved October 29, 1999 from the World Wide Web: arch.htmlGoogle Scholar
  30. Suslow, S. (March 1977). Grade inflation: end of a trend? Change 9(3): 44-45.Google Scholar
  31. Wachtel, H. K. (1998). Student evaluations of college teaching effectiveness: a brief review. Assessment and Evaluation Higher Education 23(2): 191-211.Google Scholar
  32. Weller, L. D. (1986). Attitude toward grade inflation: a random survey of American colleges of arts and sciences and colleges of education. College and University 61(2): 118-127.Google Scholar
  33. Zirkel, P. A. (1999). Grade inflation: a leadership opportunity for schools of education? Teachers College Record 101(2): 247-260.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Teacher EducationCentral Michigan UniversityMt. Pleasant

Personalised recommendations