Radical Pedagogy (2002)

ISSN: 1524-6345
An Analysis of the Study Time-Grade
Association
Orlando J. Olivares
Department of Psychology
Bridgewater State College
oolivares@bridgew.edu

Abstract
Our intuition, and perhaps our experience, suggests that study time should be positively
associated with grades. However, the study time-grade association literature has provided
inconsistent findings: some researchers have found a positive association, others a negative
association, and yet others no association between study time and grades. The present research
sought to better understand the nature of the study time-grade association by examining the
effects of student, teacher and course characteristics on study time, grades, and the study time-
grade association. Results show that study time and grades were inversely associated (r = -.19).
Regression analyses indicate that grade inflation was the best predictor of study time; that is, as
grade inflation increased study time decreased. Course difficulty was the best predictor of
grades; as perceptions of course difficulty increased expected grades decreased. And, course
difficulty, grade inflation and student cognitive ability moderated the study time-grade
association. Thus, data suggest that the study time-grade association may be spurious.
Implications for future research are discussed.

Keywords: study time-grade association, spurious, moderators, motivation, facilitating

conditions

Introduction
The study time-grade literature is scant (Rau & Durand, 2000) and inconsistent (Schuman,
Walsh, Olson, & Etheridge, 1985). Early research found a small to moderate positive association
between study time and grades (Allen, Lerner, & Hinrichsen, 1972, r = .23; Hinrichsen, 1972, r
= .32; Wagstaff & Mahmoudi, 1976, r = .31). More recently, Schuman et al. (1985), in a number
of studies conducted from 1973-1984 at the University of Michigan, found that study time was
not predictive of grade point average (GPA). Rau and Durand (2000) suggest that the null
findings of Schuman et al. (1985) can be attributed to the selectivity of the University of
Michigan “that conspires against prediction models” (p. 21). That is, highly selective institutions
have very capable student bodies with homogeneously high college GPAs and therefore a
restricted range on the criterion. The selectivity hypothesis, however, does not explain the
inverse study time-grade association found by Greenwald and Gillmore (1997). Greenwald and
Gillmore (1997), in a study of 594 courses across the 1993 - 1994 academic year at the
University of Washington, found an inverse association between study time and grades, r = - .15
(p < .005). However, Rau and Durand (2000), with a sample of 252 students at Illinois State
University in the spring of 1992, found a positive association between academic ethic and GPA,
r = .24. Academic ethic is a broad concept that includes study time, study habits, and academic
orientation. Thus, it is not clear whether study time or the other components of the academic
ethic are predictive of GPA.

In short, previous research has provided an inconsistent pattern of associations between study
time and grades, but little understanding of why these patterns exist. Although sample
differences may explain some of the differences in the findings, essentially three explanations
have been provided for why the differences exist. One explanation is that study time is, indeed,
positively associated with grades; that is, the association is genuine (e.g., Allen et al., 1972;
Hinrichsen, 1972; Rau & Durand, 2000; Wagstaff & Mahmoudi, 1976). Schuman et al. (1985)
suggest another explanation: “Hours studied may have little effect on grades for the simple
reason that most instructors may grade largely on the basis of the material they provide or at least
emphasize in lectures” (p. 962). Greenwald and Gillmore (1997) suggest a third explanation: The
inverse association between study time and grades can be explained by grade inflation.

Thus, some researchers suggest that the study time-grade association is genuine. Other
researchers suggest that the study time-grade association is potentially spurious; that is, there are
confounding variables that explain the association (e.g., Greenwald and Gillmore 1997; Schuman
et al., 1985). Greenwald and Gillmore (1997) and Schuman et al. (1985), for example, suggest
that the study time-grade association is moderated by teacher characteristics. In general, Baron
and Kenny (1986) suggest that moderator variables are most likely operating when there is an
unexpectedly weak or inconsistent association between a predictor (e.g., study time) and a
criterion (e.g., grades) or when an association holds in one setting but not another (e.g., non-
selective institutions vs. very selective institutions). The primary goal of the present research is
to reexamine the study time-grade association to better understand the nature of this relationship.
Central to this examination is an exploration of the predictors of study time and expected grades,
as well as the moderators of the study time-grade association.

PREDICTORS OF STUDY TIME AND

GRADES AND MODERATORS OF THE
STUDY TIME-GRADE ASSOCIATION
Overview
Rau and Durand (2000) lament that only a few small-scale studies have examined the role
students play in their academic work; nonetheless, student characteristics have been
acknowledged as the primary determinants of study time and grades. This stands to reason
considering the traditional model used to describe the study time-grade association: study
time---->grades. Thus, the traditional model is student-centered whereby study time has been
conceptualized as antecedent to, and a cause of, grades. Schuman et al. (1985) suggest that there
is a widespread and untested assumption that grades reflect study time; that is, academic success
is driven by laborious study.

Grades may reflect study time, but study time may also reflect grades. For example, minimal
study time met with relatively low grades would suggest that study efforts need to be increased.
Conversely, minimal study met with relatively high grades would suggest that there is little need
to increase study efforts. It is also possible that study time and grades may be a function of other
variables. For example, research suggests that students study more in difficult classes than easy
classes, and in classes where teachers are demanding as opposed to lenient (Greenwald &
Gillmore, 1997, 1998). Thus students may seek a satisfactory balance between study time and
grades, whereby study time and grades may be influenced not only by student characteristics
(e.g., cognitive ability), but also course (e.g., difficulty) and teacher charcteristics (e.g., grade
inflation and teacher effectiveness). In short, student, course and teacher characteristics are
expected to be predictive of study time and grades, and also moderate the study time-grade
association. In this article, a moderator will be defined in general terms; that is, a quantitative or
qualitative variable that affects the direction and/or strength of an association between an
independent and dependent variable (Baron & Kenny, 1986).

Student Variables
Cognitive ability. Cognitive ability (CA) consistently has been recognized as one of the best
predictors of academic performance (e.g., Kuncel, Hezlett, & Ones, 2001; Schuman et al., 1985;
Wolfe & Johnson, 1995). The relationship between CA and study time, however, is not so
obvious, nor is there an abundance of research to support any particular hypothesis. It could be
argued that students with a quick mind do not need to study much to get good grades and
therefore do not. For example, Rau and Durand (2000) found an inverse association between
ACT scores and study time, r = -.21, and concluded that students with quick minds are not
necessarily studious, nor do they have to be to be academically successful. Schuman et al.
(1985), however, found no association between study time and combined verbal and math SAT
scores (TSAT), r = -.03. Again, this lack of association may be due to the highly selective sample
at the University of Michigan and the subsequent range restriction on both study time and TSAT.
Considering the heterogeneous nature of the students in this study, it is expected that CA will be
inversely associated with study time, positively associated with grades, and moderate the study
time-grade association.

Student interest and reason for taking a course. As with CA, the relationship between student
interest and reason for taking a course and study time has to be inferred from the association
between these two variables and grades. Students tend to perform better in courses that interest
them than in courses in which they have little interest (Marsh, 1980, 1982). Also, students tend to
perform better in courses taken as a major elective or for general interest, as opposed to a general
education requirement or as a major requirement (Marsh, 1980, 1982). In general, however,
students tend to have more interest in electives, either inside or outside the major, as opposed to
major or general education requirements. Thus, it is expected that student interest would be
positively associated with study time and grades, and moderate the study time-grade association.
Further, it is expected that students would study more in a course taken as an elective than as a
requirement.

Course and Teacher Variables

Course difficulty. Greenwald and Gillmore (1997) found a positive correlation between student
study time and the intellectual challenge of a course (r = .36), and between student study time
and the amount of effort necessary to succeed in a course (r = .57). Student study time and effort
were, however, inversely associated with grades, r = - .15 and r = - .27, respectively. These data
suggest that students' study time is positively associated with students' perceptions of course
difficulty but inversely associated with academic performance. In short, students tend to study
more in difficult classes than easy classes and also expect lower grades in difficult classes than
the easy classes (Greenwald & Gillmore, 1997, p. 749). Students who expend considerable effort
in a class may do so because they are having difficulty understanding concepts and picking up
classroom material; therefore, increased study time may serve as a compensatory mechanism for
lack of academic aptitude or preparedness. It is expected that study time and course difficulty
will be positively associated, but study time and grades will be inversely associated. Also, it is
expected that course difficulty will moderate the study time-grade association.

Grade inflation. Grade inflation and course difficulty are inextricably intertwined. In general,
teachers of difficult courses, or courses in which students have to expend considerable effort to
earn satisfactory grades, are perceived by students as having stringent grading practices (e.g.,
Greenwald & Gillmore, 1997). However, teachers of difficult courses can moderate course
difficulty by inflating grades. Even in multi-section courses, when the same grading scale is used
(e.g., 100 to 90 = A, 89 to 80 = B, etc.), grades can be inflated a number of ways: 1) dropping the
lowest exam, 2) providing extra credit, and 3) providing points for attendance and effort. These
contextualizing strategies (Horn, 2000) tend to make classes easier and enhance perceptions of
grading inflation, while moderating perceptions of course difficulty. When teachers contextualize
performance they inflate grades, and students do not need to engage in effortful study to make
the grade. Greenwald and Gillmore (1998) suggest that lenient grading practices make it easier to
earn satisfactory grades, thereby reducing study behavior, and thereby reducing the amount that
students learn (p. 1228). It is expected, therefore, that study time and grading inflation will be
inversely associated, grading inflation and grades will be positively associated, and grading
inflation will moderate the study time-grade association.

Teacher effectiveness. There is a large literature that suggests that effective teachers increase
student learning (see The American Psychologist, November 1997 issue). It is suggested that
effective teachers are organized, articulate and fair, and have a comprehensive knowledge of the
subject they teach. Moreover, effective teachers are persuasive, able to heighten students' interest
in the subject matter, set high standards, and motivate students to attain these standards
(Friedrich & Douglass, 1998; Wright, 2001). It is expected, therefore, that effective teachers will
induce study behavior and academic performance; that is, students' ratings of teacher
effectiveness should be positively associated with study time and grades, and teacher
effectiveness should moderate the study time-grade association.

Summary And Hypotheses

In summary, the primary purpose of this paper is to better understand the nature of the study
time-grade association. This purpose will be realized through 1) an examination of predictors of
study time and grades and 2) the potential moderating effects of student, teacher and course
characteristics on the study time-grade association. As part of this exploration, the variables
study time and grades will realized as both independent and dependent variables. Further, study
time will be operationalized as self-reported study time and grades will be operationalized as
students' expected grades.

Summary of Hypotheses
 Hypothesis 1: CA will be inversely associated with study time and positively associated
with grades.
 Hypothesis 2: Student interest will be positively associated with study time and grades,
and students will study more in a course taken as an elective than as a requirement.
 Hypothesis 3: Study time and course difficulty will be positively associated; study time
and grades will be inversely associated.
 Hypothesis 4: Study time and grading inflation will be inversely associated; grade
inflation and grades will be positively associated.
 Hypothesis 5: Teacher effectiveness should be positively associated with study time and
grades.

It is also expected that one or more of the following variables may moderate the study time-grade
association: cognitive ability, student interest, reason for taking a course, course difficulty, grade
inflation, teacher effectiveness.

Method
Participants
Participants were 194 students enrolled in 5 sections of Introductory Psychology at a mid-size
northeastern state college. Four instructors taught the 5 sections; one instructor taught two
sections. Data were collected at two times during the semester, the first day (time 1) and the
fifteenth week (time 2). Seventy-two percent of the students (N = 140) provided data at both time
1 and time 2. Students provided the last four digits of their social security number so that data
from time 1 and time 2 could be matched.
Measures
Precourse Measure (Time 1). The precourse measure assessed the reason students are taking
Introductory Psychology, their interest in the course, and their academic aptitude.

Reason. Students were asked, “What is your reason for taking this course?” They were given the
following options from which to choose: major course requirement, general education
requirement, elective for major, elective for minor, general interest.

Precourse Interest (PCI). Student interest was assessed with the following statement, “My level
of interest in this course can be best described as:” 7 (Extremely Interested), 4 (Average
Interest), 1 (Not at all Interested).

Student Cognitive Ability (CA). Student academic aptitude was measured with the Wonderlic, a
50-item paper and pencil test of cognitive ability (see Wonderlic & Associates, 1992). Scores can
range from 0 to 50. The mean for college freshmen is 24 with a standard deviation of 6.4 (see
Wonderlic & Associates, 1992). The mean for this sample was 22.57 with a standard deviation of
5.01. The 95% confidence interval about the mean was 21.92 to 23.59. The reliability and
validity of the Wonderlic is well documented. Dodrill (1983), for example, found the
longitudinal reliability to be .94. The Wonderlic correlates very highly with the Wechsler full-
scale (r = .92); thus demonstrating its construct validity (e.g., Dodrill, 1981, 1983; Dodrill &
Warner, 1988).

End-of-Course Measure (Time 2). Students were asked to respond to 6 statements that assessed
study time, perceptions of course difficulty, teacher effectiveness, student expected grade,
student deserved grade, and grade inflation.

(1) Self-Reported Study Time (SRST). Students were asked “to estimate, on average, the number
of hours per week they spent studying for this course, outside of class, this includes reading,
reviewing notes, writing papers, doing assignments and any other course related work” (e.g,
Greenwald & Gillmore, 1997). Students were asked to write in their responses.

(2) Course Difficulty (CD). Students were asked to assess the difficulty of the class with the
following question: “Compared to all other college courses you have taken, how would you rate
the difficulty of this class.” Ratings were made on a 7 (Extremely Difficult), 4 (Average
Difficulty) and 1 (Not at All Difficult) scale.

(3) Teacher Effectiveness Ratings (TER). Students were asked to rate the effectiveness of the
teacher with the following statement: “Overall, how would you rate the quality of your
instruction, as it contributed to your learning” (from the Student Instructional Report II, item #
40). Ratings were made on a 7 (Very Effective) to 1 (Very Ineffective) scale.

(4) Student Expected Grade (SEG). Students' grades were operationalized as students' expected
grades. Students were asked to indicate the grade they expected to receive in the course by
choosing from one of 12 mutually exclusive options. Students at this institution are assigned a
grade that ranges from A to F, with corresponding pluses and minuses, excepting A+, F+ and F-.
(5) Student Deserved Grade (SDG). Students also were asked to indicate the grade they believed
they deserved by, again, choosing from one of 12 mutually exclusive options, as noted above.

(6) Grade Inflation (GI). Grading inflation was operationalized as the difference between
students' expected grade and the grade students believed they deserved. The operationalization of
grade inflation was derived from Lichtenstein, Fischhoff, & Phillips (1982) and Landrum (1999).
Lichtenstein et al. (1982) have consistently shown that students think that they know more than
they know. And Landrum (1999) found that students believed they deserved better grades (A or
B) than they had earned (C), even after they acknowledged the mediocrity of their work.
Together these two pieces of research suggest that students have an inflated and unwarranted
sense of knowing and entitlement. Further, these data are consistent with The UCLA Higher
Education Research Institute's Freshman Survey (2000) that suggests students are spending less
time studying yet expecting higher grades. Faculty who conform to inflated expectations of the
students inflate grades (Landrum, 1999). Thus an expected-deserved grade difference that is
positive suggests that students expect a grade that is higher than the grade they believe they
deserve. The positive difference is an indication of grading inflation.

Procedure
Five sections of an Introductory Psychology class were recruited to participate in this study.
Student participation was sought at the beginning of the first day of class, and prior to students
receiving the course syllabi. Students were told that data would be gathered at two times during
the semester: the first day of class (time 1) and during the 15th week of class (time 2). Students
were also informed that the study would require approximately 15 to 20 minutes of their time, at
each administration. All students agreed to participate.

Results
Power Analysis
Let us assume an H0 that suggests there is no association between study time and grades, and an
alternative hypothesis, H1, that suggests an association exists. Power is the probability of being
right in rejecting H0 given that H1 is true (Hays, 1988). Power was computed, using a sample
size of 140, an estimated effect size of r = .25 and p for a two-tailed test equal to .05, to be .84
(Howell, 1997). Thus the probability of rejecting the hypothesis of no association between study
time and grades, given an association exists, is .84.

Reason for taking a course was not included in any analysis because 82% of the students took
Introductory Psychology as a general education requirement and another 9% as a major
requirement; hence, only 9% of the students took the course as an elective. Thus meaningful
analysis with this variable were precluded.

Hypothesis Testing
Hypotheses 1-5 were tested using zero-order correlations. Table 1 provides the intercorrelations
of the study variables.

Hypothesis 1. Cognitive ability (CA) was inversely associated with self-reported study time
(SRST) (r = -.23, p < .01) and positively associated with student expected grades (SEG) (r = .28,
p < .001), thus confirming Hypothesis 1.

Hypothesis 2. As predicted, student precourse interest (PCI) was positively associated with
SRST, r = .14, p = .048 (one-tailed test).

Hypothesis 3. As hypothesized, course difficulty (CD) was positively associated with study time,
r = .14, p = .048 (one-tailed test); SRST and SEG were inversely associated, r = - .19, p < .05;
further, students expected lower grades as their perceptions of course difficulty increased, r =
-.39, p < .001; and, perceptions of course difficulty were inversely associated with cognitive
ability, r = -.21, p = .013.

Hypothesis 4. SRST and grade inflation (GI) were inversely associated, r = -.35, p < .001; that is,
students studied less when they expected higher grades than they believed they deserved. GI and
SEG were positively associated, r = .35, p < .001, thus confirming Hypothesis 4.

Hypothesis 5. As predicted, teacher effectiveness ratings (TER) were positively associated with
study time, r = .21, p = .014; However, TER were not, as predicted, positively associated with
SEG, r = .10, ns.

The zero-order correlations suggest that grade inflation may be the best predictor of study time, r
= -.35, p < .001. Course difficulty may be the best predictor of expected grade, r = -.39, p < .001.
Regression analysis will examine these possibilities, as well as moderator effects.

What variables best predict study time and expected grade?

Stepwise regression analyses were computed to identify the best predictors of study time.
Potential predictors of study time were PCI, CA, CD, SEG, TER, and GI. The F-to-enter a
predictor was set at 3.00; the F-to-remove a predictor was set at 2.00 (Pedhazur, 1997). Table 2
provides the regression results. GI was the best (accounted for the most variance) predictor of
study time: GI accounted for 12% of the variance in study time. TER provided 5% incremental
validity and CA provided 2% incremental validity. No other variables were predictive of study
time.

Table 2 also provides the results of the stepwise regression analysis that identified the best
predictors of student expected grade (SEG). Potential predictors of student expected grades were
SRST, PCI, CA, CD, TER, and GI. CD was the best predictor of SEG: CD accounted for 15% of
the variance in SEG. GI accounted for 8% of the variance in SEG; CA and TER each provided
3% incremental validity. No other variables were predictive of student expected grades.

What is the relationship between study time and expected grades when potential moderators are
controlled?
Stepwise regression analyses were computed with study time as the predictor and expected
grades as the criterion. Given the weak association between study time and grades study time (r
= -.19), the F-to-enter/remove criteria were relaxed so that study time would remain in the
equation when moderator variables were entered; hence, the association between study and
grades could be examined after controlling for the potential moderators. Table 3 provides the
results of these analyses. Course difficulty, grade inflation and cognitive ability moderated the
study time-grade association, rendering it non-significant; no other variables affected the study
time-grade association.

On average, how much time did students spend studying for Introductory Psychology and what
grade did they expect to receive? On average, students studied 3.01 (SD = 2.59) hours per week
(outside of class). For a 3-semester hour course, the Carnegie Foundation benchmark is 6 hours
of study per week outside the class (National Survey of Student Engagement, 2000). Thus, on
average, students in this sample studied 50% less than what is recommended by the Carnegie
Foundation. Table 4 provides more insight regarding study time, expected grade, and academic
aptitude. Fifty-two percent of the students studied 2 hours or less per week; 82% studied 4 hours
or less per week. Students' average expected grade, however, was a B. Students with the highest
academic aptitude studied the least but expected the highest grades; conversely, students with the
lowest academic aptitude studied the most but expected the lowest grades.

Discussion
The primary purpose of this study was to reexamine the study time-grade association to better
understand the nature of this relationship. Previous research has provided mixed results and
explanations for the existence of a particular empirical outcome. Traditionally, it has been
assumed that study time is predictive of grades; that is, study time is a primary determinant of
academic success. Schuman et al. (1985), however, suggested that the study time-grade
association is an untested assumption, and that hours studied may have little effect on grades
because teachers' grading practices may moderate the study-time grade association. Greenwald
and Gillmore (1997) also suggested that teachers' grading practices might help to explain the
study-time grade association. Thus, common to previous research were explanations that
suggested student and teacher characteristics affected the study time-grade association. The
results of this study suggest that course (course difficulty), teacher (grade inflation) and student
(cognitive ability) characteristics moderated the study-time grade association: these variables
reduced the study-grade association to zero. Hence, the inconsistent findings of previous research
may be due to the spurious nature of the study time- grade association. Future research should
seek to replicate this finding.

The nature of the study time-grade association can be better understood by examining the
predictors of study time and grades. The best predictors of study time were grade inflation,
students' perceptions of teacher effectiveness and student cognitive ability. Combined, these
three variables explained approximately 19% of the variance in study time: grading inflation
12%, teacher effectiveness 5% and academic aptitude 2%. Prior student interest in the course and
course difficulty did not explain additional variance. Thus, teacher characteristics were the
primary determinants of student study time. Teachers who inflated grades reduced student study
time (e.g., Greenwald and Gillmore, 1997, 1998). Teachers rated effective by students induced
study time (e.g., Friedrich & Douglass, 1998). And, high aptitude students studied less than low
aptitude students did (e.g., Rau & Durand, 2000).

The best predictors of expected grade were course difficulty, grade inflation, cognitive ability
and perceptions of teacher effectiveness. Combined, these four variables explained 29% of the
variance in expected grade: course difficulty 15%, grade inflation 8%, cognitive ability 3%, and
perceptions of teacher effectiveness 3%. Thus, course difficulty was the best predictor of
expected grade. When a course was perceived as difficult, students expected lower grades; when
teachers inflated grades students expected higher grades; students high in cognitive ability
expected higher grades than students low in cognitive ability; and students expected higher
grades when they perceived the teacher as effective. Moreover, ratings of teacher effectiveness
and grade inflation were independent variables.

Teacher effectiveness ratings and cognitive ability also help us to better understand study time
and expected grade. Students who rated teachers favorably studied more and expected higher
grades than students who rated teachers unfavorably. As explained above, however, 82% of the
students studied 33% less than what is recommended by the Carnegie Foundation; thus, students
in this sample did not engage in considerable study time, despite the predictive nature of teacher
effectiveness. In other words, teacher effectiveness plays a relatively minor role in inducing
study time and enhancing academic performance.

Cognitive ability was also predictive of study time and expected grade. Students high in
cognitive ability studied less and expected higher grades than students low in cognitive ability.
Further, the data suggest that students attempt to compensate for a lack of cognitive ability by
studying more. Students who studied the most, nine hours or more per week, had the lowest
cognitive ability scores (N = 7, M = 17.57, SD = 2.82) and expected the lowest grade, C (2.19).
Students who studied the least, 0 hours, had the highest cognitive ability scores (N = 6, M =
25.33, SD = 7.74) but expected a grade of B (3.23). More generally, there is an inverse linear
trend between study time and cognitive ability. This finding is consistent with Rau and Durand
(2000) who also found an inverse association between student effort and academic aptitude.

In summary, the results of this study suggest the study time-grade association may be spurious
and that course difficulty, grade inflation, teacher effectiveness, and student cognitive ability
help us to better understand both study time and grades. Further, this study sheds light on the
pervasive findings of student disengagement and grade inflation in higher education (e.g.,
Beaver, 1997; Juola, 1980; Landrum, 1999; McSpirit & Jones, 1999). Perhaps the contradictory
findings of previous study time-grade association literature are not contradictory; rather, they
may reflect real changes over time in how student performance is determined; that is, teachers
may be changing their behaviors in how they grades students (i.e., inflating grades). McSpirit
and Jones (1999), for example, suggest that “students have been graduating with consistently
higher grade point averages since 1983” (p. 2). Levine (1994) suggests that between 1969 and
1993 the number of A's given to students has quadrupled while the number of C's has dropped by
two-thirds. Moreover, McSpirit and Jones (1999) found that the rate of grade inflation was
higher for low aptitude students than other aptitude subgroups; and, today colleges are
represented by an inordinate number of ill-prepared students (Beaver, 1997). Beaver (1997)
suggests that, because of the intense competition for students, no more than 15% of the nation's
colleges can be considered selective; hence, most colleges accept most of the students that apply.
Thus, the changing study time-grade associations, from 1972-1992, may reflect real changes in
teachers' behaviors over time, whereby teachers have tried to accommodate changing student
demographics and the competitive nature of higher education by inflating grades. There was a
time when student effort and aptitude were the primary determinants of academic performance;
this study suggests that may no longer be the case.

Implications for Future Research

In the present study, study time is a central variable of interest. Further, study time is a behavior
from which motivation can be inferred; that is, study time can be considered a motivational
variable. Thus one way future research could explore factors related to the study time-grade
association is to use motivation theory as a guiding framework. Weiner (1990), writing on the
history of motivation in education, suggested that motivation is a work-related concept. More
recently, Pinder (1998) offered this definition: Work motivation can be defined as “a set of
energetic forces that originate both within as well as beyond an individual's being, to initiate
work-related behavior, and to determine its form, direction, intensity, and duration (p. 11).
Simply, motivation can be thought of as how hard students are willing to work to make the
grade, given their ability and the influences of environmental factors. Hence, from a motivational
framework, the study time-grade association could be conceptualized as follows: Grades are a
function of ability X motivation X facilitating conditions. Facilitating conditions are
environmental factors and opportunities that facilitate or retard behavior, (and ultimately
performance) (e.g., Hinkley & McInerney, 1998). In this study, environmental factors were grade
inflation, course difficulty, and teacher effectiveness. Future research could consider other
environmental factors (e.g., peers and academic culture), the interface between environmental
factors and motivational elements, and the effects on the study time-grade association.

Goal setting (Locke & Latham, 1990) and expectancy theory (Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996;
Vroom, 1964) are two related motivational theories, supported by empirical research, that may
help us to better understand the study time-grade association in the context of environmental
factors. Expectancy theory, for example, suggests that if students do not value high grades they
will not be motivated to achieve high grades, even if they believe they have the ability to earn
high grades and they believe their efforts will result in high grades. Similarly, students who are
in college for the primary purpose of being credentialled would probably have little interest in
extending considerable effort on academic pursuits; that is, these students would be relatively
indifferent to grades. Goal setting would suggest a similar outcome. In other words, if the
student's goal is simply to graduate, then a 2.0 GPA will suffice. But consider students who plan
to pursue medical school or a doctoral degree, for example. Will they engage in considerable
study, even if they can make the grade with minimal effort? If students believe that there is little
or no relationship between effort and performance, then there will be little pressure on the
student to exert considerable effort to obtain the desired grade. Under these circumstances, will
students who value education, high grades, and have higher educational goals, engage in
considerable study time? What facilitating conditions will have the greatest influence on student
academic goals and values, motivation, study behavior and grades: grade inflation, course
difficulty, teacher effectiveness, peers, academic cultural, parental influences? As one reviewer
of this paper suggested, future research should consider goal setting, elements of expectancy
theory, and environmental factors as moderators of the study-time grade association.

Table 1

Table 2
Table 3

Table 4
References
Allen, G. J., Lerner, W. M., & Hinrichsen, J. J. (1972). Study behaviors and their relationships to
test anxiety and academic performance. Psychological Reports, 30, 407-410.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.

Beaver, W. (1997). Declining college standards, it's not in the course, it's in the grades. The
College Board Review, 181, 2-7

Clark, B., & Trow, M. (1966). The Organizational Context. In Newcomb, T., and Wilson, E.
(Eds.) College Peer Group: Problems and Prospects for Research. Chicago: Aldine, 17-70.

Cohen, J. (1983). Applied regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Dodrill, C. B. (1981). An economic method for the evaluation of general intelligence in adults.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49(5), 668-73.
Dodrill, C. B. (1983). Long term reliability of the Wonderlic Personnel Test. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(2), 316-317.

Dodrill, C. B., & Warner, M. H. (1988). Further studies of the Wonderlic Personnel Test as a
brief measure of intelligence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 145-147.

Friedrich, F., & Douglass, D. (1998). Ethics and the persuasive enterprise of teaching
Psychology. American Psychologist, 53(5), 549-562.

Greenwald, A. G., & Gillmore, G. M. (1997). No pain, no gain? The importance of measuring
course workload in student ratings of instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4),
743-751.

Greenwald, A. G., & Gillmore, G. M. (1998). How useful are student ratings? Reactions to
Comments on the Current Issues Section. American Psychologist, 53, 1228-1229.

Hays, W. L. (1988). Statistics. NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Hinkley, J. & McInerney, D. M. (1998). Facilitating conditions and academic achievement in a

cultural context. Eric Document Reproduction Service No. 419- 851.

Hinrichsen, J. J. (1974). Prediction of grade point average from estimated study behaviors,
Psychological Reports, 31, 974.

Horn, J. (2000). The lowest common denominator: The corrosive effects of egalitarianism in
colleges of education. Texas Education Review, 1(1), 27-46.

Howell, D. C. (1997). Statistical methods for Psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Juola, A. (1980). Grade inflation in higher education--1979: Is it over? ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. 189-129.

Kuncel, N. R., Hezlett, S. A., & Ones, D. S. (2001). A comprehensive meta-analysis of the
predictive validity of the gradate record examinations: Implications for graduate student
selection and performance. Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 162- 181.

Landrum, E. R. (1999). Student expectations of grade inflation. Journal of Research and

Development in Education, 32(2), 124-128.

Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., & Phillips, L. D. (1982). Calibration of probabilities: The state of
the art to 1980. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.). Judgment under uncertainty:
Heuristics and biases (pp. 307-334). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Marsh, H. W. (1980). The influence of student, course, and instructor characteristics in
evaluations of university teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 17(1), 219-237.

Marsh, H. W. (1982). SEEQ: A reliable, valid, and useful instrument for collecting students'
evaluations of university teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 52, 77-95.

McSpirit, S., & Jones, K. E. (1999). Grade inflation rates among different ability groups,
controlling for other factors. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7 (30), 1-13. [On-line].
Available: http//epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n30.html.

National Survey of Student Engagement (2000). The NSSE 2000 Report: National Benchmarks
of Effective Educational Practice [On-line]. Available: http://www.indiana.edu/~nsse/

Pinder, C. C. (1998). Work motivation in organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.

Rau, W. & Durand, A. (2000). The academic ethic and college grades: Does hard work help
students to “make the grade”? Sociology of Education, 73(January), 19-38.

Schuman, H., Walsh, E., Olson, C., & Etheridge, B. (1985). Effort and reward: The assumption
that college grades are affected by quantity of study. Social Forces, 63, 945-966.

The UCLA Higher Education Research Institute's Freshman Survey (2000). The American
Freshman: 2000 Executive Summary. [On-line]. Available:
http:/www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/00_exec_summary.htm

Van Eerde, W., & Thierry, H. (1996). Vroom's expectancy models and work-related criteria: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 575-586.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

Wagstaff, R., & Mahmoudi, H. (1976). Relation of study behaviors and employment to academic
performance. Psychological Reports, 38, 380-382.

Weiner, B. (1990). History of motivational research in education. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 82(4), 616-622.

Wolf, R. N., & Johnson, S. D. (1995). Personality as a predictor of college performance.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(2), 177-185.

Wonderlic & Associates. (1992). Wonderlic Personnel Manual. Northfield, IL: Author.

Wright, W. A., (2001). Presenting the effective teacher! NEA Higher Education Advocate,18(6),
5-8.
© Radical Pedagogy