The early bird catches the worm! The impact of chronotype and learning style on academic success in university students.
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 high schools students, eveningness is a significant negative predictor of Grade Point Average (Preckel et al., 2013). Various explanations for this relationship have been proposed, including conflicting learning preferences between morning and evening types impacting ability to process and repeat lecture material (Diaz-Morales, 2007). These associations have yet to be established in a university population. This study investigates whether chronotype continues to influence academic success in first year university students and potential factors that may contribute to any academic contrast between morning types (Larks) and evening types (Owls). Data was gathered from students enrolled in Biological Concepts of Health at the University of Guelph, from 2011-2014. Students completed the modified Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (chronotype) and the VARK Questionnaire (learning style preferences). As predicted, self reported Owls earned significantly lower overall grades than Larks (76.9% vs. 80.0%, p<0.05). Surprisingly, lecture time (8:30am vs. 4:30pm) did not significantly impact grades in Larks or Owls. Larks also produced higher grades on both the midterm (76.7%, 70.2%, p<0.05) and exam (73.0%, 68.1%, p<0.05). In order to explain these relationships, the influence of varying learning styles was investigated. Larks indicated a preference for Read/Writing learning styles over Kinesthetic, Auditory, or Visual, while Owls preferred Kinesthetic learning. This research suggests that traditional instructional practice in higher education may favour the success of morning type individuals. Investigations into novel strategies to expand creative practices in the educational system could be beneficial in order to better address both dispositions.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 it