GENDER DIFFERENCES IN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF AND CONFIDENCE IN PROBLEM-SOLVING ABILITIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problem-solving skills are crucial components of an education for the 21st century, and confidence and self-efficacy have been shown to be critical to the development and practice of such skills. In a study of perceptions of and confidence in problem-solving abilities by students enrolled in a university course specifically focused on teaching problem-solving skills, we found significant gender differences in perceived confidence and ability. The average score for all students (male and female) on these indicators increased significantly from the pre-test to post-test. However, female students ranked themselves much lower in both confidence and abilities at the start of the course than male students, but also showed a remarkably larger increase in these indicators by the end of the course. This result confirms the necessity of and potential for helping female students develop confidence in their problem-solving abilities. Courses designed to improve problem-solving skills in university students can increase the confidence and abilities of both male and female students, while decreasing the gap between the genders.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".