The Role of Attributional Retraining and Elaborative Learning in College Students' Academic Development
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present longitudinal study, the authors examined the impact of attributional retraining (AR) techniques on academic motivation and achievement for college students who are either frequently or infrequently using elaborative learning strategies. During the 1st semester, 203 students completed an initial questionnaire assessing elaborative learning followed by 1 of 3 treatment conditions (No AR, Writing AR, Aptitude Test AR). Results indicated improvements in students' end-of-year perceptions of control, success, and emotions, as well as course-specific and overall academic performance for those receiving either AR format, with "high elaborators" showing higher levels on these measures than "low elaborators." The authors discussed the importance of elaborative and attributional processes underlying the effectiveness of the AR treatment and the potential utility of individualized AR techniques in the college classroom.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it