- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Thematic analysis of students’ perceptions of grading practices in physics

J. Caleb Speirs*, W. Brian Lane†, and Naomi Laird

  • *Contact author: j.caleb.speirs@unf.edu
  • †Contact author: brian.lane@unf.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010115 – Published 5 February, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/pyvm-4s9t

Abstract

In the world of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education practice, alternative grading strategies have been implemented and disseminated with the goal of reinforcing student outcomes like productive reasoning, motivation to learn, and sense of identity. However, while PER has successfully improved these outcomes through reformed instructional strategies, much less work has investigated how grading practices influence these outcomes. This dearth leaves PER without a framework readily available to formulate or interpret studies of alternative grading practices. To help address this gap, we surveyed N=94 students from introductory algebra-based and calculus-based physics courses, asking free-response questions about their experiences with and perspectives on grading in physics. We thematically coded their responses to identify themes in what they said grades represent (such as their effort invested in the course or their mastery of course content) and what effects they said grades produce (such as stress or an adversarial relationship with the instructor). We conducted focus groups to member-check these themes with the students. For themes about what they said grades represent, we further identify whether the student framed this representation positively (“Grades should represent my effort”), negatively (“Grades should not represent the features of a particular assignment”), or neutrally or in mixed terms. We particularly attend to whether students indicated that grades produce an adversarial relationship with their instructor, finding that a greater percentage of these students positively spoke of grades as representing improvement in their performance than among students who did not mention an adversarial relationship. We discuss how these themes offer insights into how we might further research alternative grading strategies, how students’ perspectives on grades might influence the broader goals of PER, and implications for physics instruction.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (56)

  1. C. Henderson, E. Yerushalmi, V. H. Kuo, P. Heller, and K. Heller, Grading student problem solutions: The challenge of sending a consistent message, Am. J. Phys. 72, 164 (2004).
  2. C. Henderson, E. Marshman, R. Sayer, C. Singh, and E. Yerushalmi, Graduate teaching assistants use different criteria when grading introductory physics vs. quantum mechanics problems, arXiv:1701.01414.
  3. A. B. Simmons and A. F. Heckler, Grades, grade component weighting, and demographic disparities in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020125 (2020).
  4. D. J. Webb, C. A. Paul, and M. K. Chessey, Relative impacts of different grade scales on student success in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020114 (2020).
  5. J. M. Wachter, Labor-based grading practices in the physics classroom, Am. J. Phys. 92, 336 (2024).
  6. I. D. Beatty, Standards-based grading in introductory university physics, J. Scholar. Teach. Learn. 13, 1 (2013).
  7. S. Cwik and C. Singh, How perception of learning environment predicts male and female students’ grades and motivational outcomes in algebra-based introductory physics courses, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020143 (2021).
  8. C. Pulfrey, C. Darnon, and F. Butera, Autonomy and task performance: Explaining the impact of grades on intrinsic motivation, J. Educ. Psychol. 105, 39 (2013).
  9. A. Kohn, The case against grades, Educ. Lead. 69, 28 (2011), https://www.alfiekohn.org/article/case-grades/.
  10. S. Suresh and A. F. Heckler, Evolution of grades and social comparison concern within an introductory physics course, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010129 (2023).
  11. C. Pulfrey, C. Buchs, and F. Butera, Why grades engender performance-avoidance goals: The mediating role of autonomous motivation, J. Educ. Psychol. 103, 683 (2011).
  12. J. Condry, Enemies of exploration: Self-initiated versus other-initiated learning, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 35, 459 (1977).
  13. K. D. Hjelmstad and A. Baisley, A novel approach to mastery-based assessment in sophomore-level mechanics courses, in Proceedings of the 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access (2020), https://peer.asee.org/a-novel-approach-to-mastery-based-assessment-in-sophomore-level-mechanics-courses.
  14. J. Langdon, D. T. Botnaru, M. Wittenberg, A. J. Riggs, J. Mutchler, M. Syno, and M. C. Caciula, Examining the effects of different teaching strategies on metacognition and academic performance, Adv. Physiol. Educ. 43, 414 (2019).
  15. A. Moeller and C. Reschke, A second look at grading and classroom performance: Report of a research study, Mod. Lang. J. 77, 163 (1993).
  16. S. Page and L. R. Alexitch, Learning- and grade-orientation, sex, and prediction of self-reported academic performance, Psychol. Rep. 92, 320 (2003).
  17. M. Meloth and P. Deering, Effects of two cooperative conditions on peer-group discussions, reading comprehension, and metacognition, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 17, 175 (1992).
  18. A. Hayek, C. Toma, D. Oberle, and F. Butera, Grading hampers cooperative information sharing in group problem solving, Soc. Psychol. 46, 121 (2015).
  19. A.-S. Hayek, C. Toma, S. Guidotti, D. Oberlé, and F. Butera, Grades degrade group coordination: Deteriorated interactions and performance in a cooperative motor task, Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 32, 97 (2017).
  20. C. Turpen and N. D. Finkelstein, The construction of different classroom norms during peer instruction: Students perceive differences, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020123 (2010).
  21. E. Yerushalmi, C. Henderson, K. Heller, P. Heller, and V. Kuo, Physics faculty beliefs and values about the teaching and learning of problem solving. I. Mapping the common core, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020109 (2007).
  22. H. Pollio and H. Beck, When the tail wags the dog: Perceptions of learning and grade orientations in, and by, contemporary college students and faculty, J. Higher Educ. 71, 84 (2000).
  23. S. Blum, Ungrading: Why Rating Students Undermines Learning (and What to Do Instead) (West Virginia University Press, Morgantown, WV, 2020).
  24. A. Elby, Another reason that physics students learn by rote, Am. J. Phys. 67, S52 (1999).
  25. J. Tuminaro and E. F. Redish, Elements of a cognitive model of physics problem solving: Epistemic games, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020101 (2007).
  26. M. Dancy, C. Henderson, N. Apkarian, E. Johnson, M. Stains, J. R. Raker, and A. Lau, Physics instructors’ knowledge and use of active learning has increased over the last decade but most still lecture too much, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010119 (2024).
  27. S. Levy, A. Noga, and E. Yerushalmi, Long and winding road toward change in teachers’ goals and orientations in the instructional lab, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010145 (2025).
  28. A. Malespina and C. Singh, Gender differences in test anxiety and self-efficacy: Why instructors should emphasize low-stakes formative assessments in physics courses, Eur. J. Phys. 43, 035701 (2022).
  29. C. Paul and D. Webb, Percent grade scale amplifies racial or ethnic inequities, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020103 (2022).
  30. D. J. Webb and W. H. Potter, Gender-grade-gap zeroed out under a specific intro-physics assessment regime, arXiv:2102.10451.
  31. E. Hackerson, T. Slominski, N. Johnson, J. Buncher, S. Ismael, L. Singelmann, A. Leontyev, A. Knopps, A. McDarby, J. Nguyen, D. Condry, J. Nyachwaya, K. Wissman, W. Falkner, K. Grieger, L. Montplaisir, A. Hodgson, and J. Momsen, Alternative grading practices in undergraduate STEM education: A scoping review, Discip. Interdscip. Sci. Educ. Res. 6, 15 (2024).
  32. D. Muller, Designing Effective Multimedia for Physics Education (University of Sydney, Sydney 2008).
  33. A. V. Knaub, J. M. Aiken, and L. Ding, Two-phase study examining perspectives and use of quantitative methods in physics education research, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020102 (2019).
  34. T. O’Brien, W. B. Lane, J. C. Speirs, and N. Laird, Student preferences for grade weighting in introductory physics, presented at PER Conf. 2025, 10.1119/perc.2025.pr.Obrien.
  35. N. D. Finkelstein and S. J. Pollock, Replicating and understanding successful innovations: Implementing tutorials in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 1, 010101 (2005).
  36. L. C. McDermott, Oersted medal lecture 2001: Physics education research—The key to student learning, Am. J. Phys. 69, 1127 (2001).
  37. E. F. Redish, Oersted lecture 2013: How should we think about how our students think?, Am. J. Phys. 82, 537 (2014).
  38. Z. Hazari, G. Sonnert, P. M. Sadler, and M.-C. Shanahan, Connecting high school physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 47, 978 (2010).
  39. Z. Y. Kalender, E. Marshman, C. D. Schunn, T. J. Nokes-Malach, and C. Singh, Gendered patterns in the construction of physics identity from motivational factors, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020119 (2019).
  40. P. W. Irving, D. McPadden, and M. D. Caballero, Communities of practice as a curriculum design theory in an introductory physics class for engineers, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020143 (2020).
  41. N. M. Holincheck and T. M. Galanti, Applying a model of integrated STEM teacher identity to understand change in elementary teachers’ STEM self-efiicacy and career awareness, School Sci. Math. 123, 234 (2023).
  42. J. L. Rosenberg, N. Holincheck, K. Fernández, B. W. Dreyfus, F. Wardere, S. Stehle, and T. N. Butler, Role of mentorship, career conceptualization, and leadership in developing women’s physics identity and belonging, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010114 (2024).
  43. M. Kryjevskaia, P. R. L. Heron, and A. F. Heckler, Intuitive or rational? Students and experts need to be both, Phys. Today 74, No. 8, 28 (2021).
  44. D. McPadden, E. Brewe, C. Monsalve, and V. Sawtelle, Productive faculty resources activated by curricular materials: An example of epistemological beliefs in University Modeling Instruction, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020158 (2020).
  45. D. Hammer and A. Elby, Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics, J. Learn. Sci. 12, 53 (2003).
  46. A. J. Cavanagh, O. R. Aragón, X. Chen, B. A. Couch, M. F. Durham, A. Bobrownicki, D. I. Hanauer, and M. J. Graham, Student buy-in to active learning in a college science course, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 15, ar76 (2016).
  47. J. L. Docktor, J. Dornfeld, E. Frodermann, K. Heller, L. Hsu, K. A. Jackson, A. Mason, Q. X. Ryan, and J. Yang, Assessing student written problem solutions: A problem-solving rubric with application to introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010130 (2016).
  48. B. Gutmann and T. Stelzer, Values affirmation replication at the University of Illinois, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020121 (2021).
  49. A. Miyake, L. E. Kost-Smith, N. D. Finkelstein, S. J. Pollock, G. L. Cohen, and T. A. Ito, Reducing the gender achievement gap in college science: A classroom study of values affirmation, Science 330, 1234 (2010).
  50. R. Pekrun, The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 18, 315 (2006).
  51. T. Lê, V. Retzer, G. Deerwester, J. C. Speirs, and S. Erhlich, Student experiences with labor-based grading in physics, presented at PER Conf. 2025, Washington, DC, https://www.per-central.org/perc/2025/detail.cfm?ID=19503.
  52. B. Högberg, J. Lindgren, K. Johansson, M. Strandh, and S. Petersen, Consequences of school grading systems on adolescent health: Evidence from a Swedish school reform, J. Educ. Pol. 36, 84 (2021).
  53. A. Linder, M. Nordin, U.-G. Gerdtham, and G. Heckley, Grading bias and young adult mental health, Health Econ. 32, 675 (2023).
  54. A. Kjærgaard, J. Buhl-Wiggers, and E. N. Mikkelsen, Does gradeless learning affect students’ academic performance? A study of effects over time, Stud. Higher Educ. 49, 336 (2024).
  55. J. Radoff, L. Z. Jaber, and D. Hammer, “It’s scary but it’s also exciting”: Evidence of meta-affective learning in science, Cognit. Instr. 37, 73 (2019).
  56. J. Mezirow, An overview on transformative learning, in Lifelong Learning (Routledge, Oxfordshire, England, 2008), pp. 40–54.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010115– Published 5 February, 2026
  • Received 28 August 2025
  • Accepted 23 January 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation