Examining the silence of academic disappointment: A typology of students' reasons for not discussing disappointing grades with instructors

Article Sidebar

PDF Response to Reviewers Tracked Changes Revision
Published: Aug 29, 2013
Keywords:
students’ communication with instructors, grades, feedback, student-teacher interaction

Main Article Content

Courtney N Wright
University of Tennessee

Abstract

Although student-teacher interactions about disappointing grades can be beneficial, students do not always engage in them. The objective of this study was to explore the domain of reasons undergraduate students report for not discussing disappointing grades with their instructors. The data analysis yielded six main categories of reasons: utility of grade conversations, judgment of the evaluation, understanding of grade cause(s), instructor/relational considerations, student characteristics, and situational factors. This study advances the first typology of students’ reasons for not discussing disappointing grades and offers implications for instructional practice, theory and research. Study limitations and future research directions are also discussed.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Wright, C. N. (2013). Examining the silence of academic disappointment: A typology of students’ reasons for not discussing disappointing grades with instructors. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(5), 46–60. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/josotl/article/view/3513
Issue
Volume 13, Number 5
Section
Articles
  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JoSoTL) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC-BY) 4.0 International, allowing others to share the work with proper acknowledgement and citation of the work's authorship and initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
     
  2. Authors are able to enter separate, additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.

  3. In pursuit of manuscripts of the highest quality, multiple opportunities for mentoring, and greater reach and citation of JoSoTL publications, JoSoTL encourages authors to share their drafts to seek feedback from relevant communities unless the manuscript is already under review or in the publication queue after being accepted. In other words, to be eligible for publication in JoSoTL, manuscripts should not be shared publicly (e.g., online), while under review (after being initially submitted, or after being revised and resubmitted for reconsideration), or upon notice of acceptance and before publication. Once published, authors are strongly encouraged to share the published version widely, with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
Author Biography

Courtney N Wright, University of Tennessee

Assistant Professor in the School of Communication Studies

References

Afifi, W. A., & Weiner, J. L. (2004). Toward a theory of motivated information management. Communication Theory, 14, 167-190.

Baxter, L.A., & Wilmot, W.W. (1984). “Secret tests:” Social strategies for acquiring information about the state of the relationship. Human Communication Research, 11, 171-201.

Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99-112.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245-281.

Chory-Assad, R., & Paulsel, M. (2004). Classroom justice: Student aggression and resistance as reactions to perceived unfairness. Communication Education, 53, 253–273.

Cloven, D. H., & Roloff, M. E. (1993). The chilling effect of aggressive potential on the expression of complaints in intimate relationships. Communication Monographs, 60, 199-219.

Cloven, D. H., & Roloff, M. E. (1994). A developmental model of decisions to withhold relational irritations in romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 1, 143-164.

Crocker, J., Karpinski, A., Quinn, D. M., & Chase, S. I. (2003). When grades determine selfworth: Consequences of contingent self-worth for male and female engineering and psychology majors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 507-516.

Docan-Morgan, T. (2011). “Everything changed:” Relational turning point events in college teacher-student relationships from teachers’ perspectives. Communication Education, 60, 20-50.

Docan-Morgan, T., & Manusov, V. (2009). Relational turning point events and their outcomes in college teacher-student relationships from students’ perspectives. Communication Education, 58, 155-188.

Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal relationship. Communication Education, 49, 207-219.

Goulden, N. R., & Griffin, C. J. (1995). The meaning of grades based on faculty and student metaphors. Communication Education, 44, 110-125.

Henningsen, M. L. M., Valde, K. S., Russell, G. A., & Russell, G. R. (2011). Student-faculty interactions about disappointing grades: Application of the goals-plans-actions model and the theory of planned behavior. Communication Education, 60, 174–190.

Horan, S. M., Chory, R. M., & Goodboy, A. K. (2010). Understanding students’ classroom justice experiences and responses. Communication Education, 59, 453 – 474.

Husman, J., Brem, S., & Duggan, M. A. (2005). Student goal orientation and formative assessment. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 9, 355-359.

Kerssen-Griep, J., Hess, J. A., & Tress, A. R. (2003). Sustaining the desire to learn: Dimensions of perceived instructional facework related to student involvement and motivation to learn. Western Journal of Communication, 67, 357–381.

Kerssen-Griep, J., Tress, A. R., & Hess, J. A. (2008). Attentive facework during instructional feedback: Key to perceiving mentorship and an optimal learning environment. Communication Education, 57, 312-332.

Kerssen-Griep, J., & Witt, P. L. (2012). Instructional feedback II: How do instructor immediacy cues and facework tactics interact to predict student motivation and fairness perceptions? Communication Studies, 63, 498-517.

Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). Effects of feedback intervention on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254-284.

Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2008). Feedback on assessment: Students’ perceptions of quality and effectiveness. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33, 263-275.

Makoul, G., & Roloff, M. E. (1998). The role of efficacy and outcome expectations in the decision to withhold relational complaints. Communication Research, 25, 5-29.

Martin, M. M., Myers, S. A., & Mottet, T. P. (1999). Students’ motives for communication with their instructors. Communication Education, 48, 155-164.

Myers, S. A. (1995). Student perceptions of teacher affinity-seeking and classroom climate. Communication Research Reports, 12, 192-199.

Myers, S. A. (2004). The relationship between perceived instructor credibility and college students in-class and out-of-class communication. Communication Reports, 17, 129-137.

Roloff, M. E., & Solomon, D. H. (2002). Conditions under which relational commitment leads to expressing relational complaints. International Journal for Conflict Management, 13, 276-391.

Sabee, C. M., & Wilson, S. R. (2005). Students’ primary goals, attributions, and facework during conversations about disappointing grades. Communication Education, 54, 185–204.

Sanders, M. L., & Anderson, S. (2010). The dilemma of grades: Reconciling disappointing grades with feelings of personal success. Qualitative Research Reports 11, 51–56.

Simonds, C. J. (1997). Challenge behavior in the college classroom. Communication Research Reports, 14, 481–492.

Svinicki, M. D. (1998). Helping students understand grades. College Teaching, 46, 101–105. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.

Vuchinich, S., & Teachman, J. (1993). Influence on the duration of wars, strikes, riots, and family arguments. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 37, 544-568.

Witt, P. L., & Kerssen-Griep, J. (2011). Instructional feedback I: The interaction of facework and immediacy on students’ perceptions of instructor credibility. Communication Education, 60, 7594.

Wright, C. N. (2012). Educational orientation and upward influence: An examination of students’ conversations about disappointing grades. Communication Education, 61, 271-289.

Wright, C. N. (2013). Grades and learning about grading. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 17(3), 134-139.