Accounting Students’ Planning, Writing, and Performance on a Time-Constrained Case Analysis: Effects of Self-Talk and Prior Achievement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When writing a case analysis, most students first allocate time to plan the content and structure of their response, and then proceed to write with differing degrees of urgency, the outcomes of which are case responses of differing quality. This study examines the extent to which planning time influences writing urgency and, ultimately, the quality of case responses in a time-constrained setting. It also investigates whether these behaviors and outcomes depend on students’ frame of mind, by experimentally inducing differing types of pre-examination self-talk. Analyses show that planning time was negatively associated with writing urgency; students who spent more time planning subsequently wrote with less urgency. Writing urgency was positively associated with case response quality and, after controlling for differences in writing urgency, planning time was positively associated with response quality. Results indicate that different planning and writing behaviors can be induced by different forms of self-talk prior to the writing task. Relative to interrogative self-talk (“Will I …?”), exclamatory self-talk (“I will …!”) caused higher-achieving students to spend more time planning, but then write with less urgency and subsequently produce lower-quality case responses. Conversely, after engaging in exclamatory rather than interrogative self-talk, lower-achieving students spent less time planning but then wrote with greater urgency and produced higher-quality responses. These results indicate that (i) planning significantly affects writing and performance, (ii) students can influence their own planning behavior through pre-task self-talk, but (iii) pre-task self-talk can be beneficial or detrimental depending on students’ prior achievement.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".