The analysis of performance criteria defining course grades as a determinant of college student academic performance.

Jenkins et al. (1973) worked with college students in a regular class. They set a clear rule: you must hit a minimum score on each unit before you can move on.

The rule acted like a token gate. If your grade was too low, you stayed on the same unit until you met the bar.

As soon as the minimum rule started, student mastery jumped. The change was large and immediate.

When the rule was lifted, scores dropped back. Bringing the rule back raised scores again.

Flory et al. (1974) ran a similar test one year later. Instead of grade gates they used hard deadlines plus warnings. Lesson completion tripled, showing the same theme: tie progress to a clear contingency and college students work faster.

Nava et al. (2019) looks like a clash at first. They added student-made videos to a college behavior course and saw no quiz gain. The key difference is Nava focused on fun content, not on a rule that blocks advancement. Without a gate, scores stayed flat, so the studies actually agree: contingencies drive mastery, flashy extras do not.

Glynn (1970) came before this paper and showed high-school girls learned more when they could pick their own token goals. M et al. moved the idea up to college and swapped student-chosen tokens for teacher-set grade gates, keeping the token-economy spirit alive.

If you teach older learners, set a non-negotiable floor for each topic. Make the floor public and tie it to moving forward. You will see quick gains without extra lectures or points. Try it on the next module: post the minimum score and hold the line.