How Ordering of Assignments Can Influence Beliefs About the Self and How These Beliefs Can Impact on Student Class Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research examines whether the ordering of the difficulty of exams can influence student beliefs about their academic abilities and the impact of these beliefs on their performance. The ordering of the difficulty of test items has shown to affect performance. Study One (n=91) examined college student differences in reaction to a difficult and an easy exam. Results suggest that the ordering of difficulty of exams may influence self-efficacy of students. Study Two (n = 178) examines whether this self-efficacy (and other beliefs about the self) can impact college student performance on actual exam scores over time. The results of this research suggest that the ordering of difficulty of assignments can affect student’s self-efficacy about the class. It finds that the impact on self-efficacy may affect overall performance early in the class but that this impact may not be long lasting. This is due to the positive evidence received later in the course that may contradict initial low performance and give confidence in the student’s ability to achieve high performance. The results have implications for segments of the student population that may be disproportionately impacted by self-perceptions such as the first generation student.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 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".