L’effet de la personnalité sur la performance des étudiants universitaires en sciences de l’administration à l’examen écrit, au test à choix multiple et aux travaux pratiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plusieurs programmes universitaires en sciences de l’administration au Canada ont implanté des réformes majeures, suite aux demandes des organismes d’agrément tels que l’Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). Conséquemment, de plus en plus de méthodes d’évaluation des apprentissages sont utilisées. Toutefois, l’introduction de ces méthodes dans les programmes d’études pourrait engendrer des biais aux résultats de l’évaluation des apprentissages. L’étude des facteurs pouvant avoir un effet sur la performance des étudiants aux différentes méthodes d’évaluation devient pertinente dans ce contexte. Ainsi, l’objectif de cette étude consiste à vérifier si la personnalité telle que définie par le modèle des cinq facteurs influence la performance à l’examen écrit, au test à choix multiples et aux travaux pratiques. Deux variables contrôle, le genre et l’âge, sont inclus dans les analyses. Un échantillon de 378 étudiants inscrits à un cours de premier cycle universitaire en sciences de l’administration a répondu à un questionnaire en ligne. Les résultats des analyses des régressions linéaires multiples indiquent que ce ne sont pas toujours les mêmes facteurs de la personnalité qui sont sollicités d’une méthode d’évaluation à l’autre, indiquant l’existence potentielle de biais à l’évaluation des apprentissages. Ces résultats sont discutés au regard de la littérature plus large dans le domaine et touchant à d’autres programmes d’études universitaires. In Canada, a number of university programs in business administration have imbedded major reforms, following requests from accreditation bodies such as the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). Consequently, more and more learning assessment methods are used. However, the introduction of these methods in curricula could lead to bias to the results of learning assessment. In this context, it becomes pertinent to study the factors that could affect student performance with the various assessment methods. Thus, the aim of this study is to verify if personality, as defined by the five-factor model, impacts the performance on written exams, multiple-choice exams, and practical exercises. Two control variables, gender and age, are included in the analyses. A sample of 378 students in an undergraduate business administration course responded to an online questionnaire. The results of analyses of multiple linear regressions shows that not always the same personality factors are solicited from one assessment method to the next, which indicates the potential existence of bias to the learning assessment. These results are discussed against the broader literature in the field and in other university programs.
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 | 0.031 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".