Student Anxiety and Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increased prevalence and severity of academic-related distress is of significant concern on college campuses. Of particular relevance to instructors is the anxiety relating to classroom teaching and evaluation practices. Sources of evaluation anxiety include student uncertainty about the nature of the expected demands as well as their ability to meet these demands. This report presents work from a pilot study investigating correlations between evaluation anxiety and perceived evaluation fidelity for different evaluation techniques across four different disciplines. We also examined the potential mediating role of academic self-efficacy in the relationship between anxiety and expected grade. Our results provide insight into methods to reduce anxiety and increase performance: should instructors focus their efforts on modifying their evaluation tools or increasing academic self-efficacy? La prévalence et la gravité accrues de la détresse liée aux études sont une préoccupation importante sur les campus universitaires. L'angoisse liée aux pratiques d'enseignement et d'évaluation en classe est particulièrement importante pour les instructeurs. Les sources d'angoisse de l'évaluation comprennent l'incertitude des étudiants quant à la nature des demandes attendues ainsi que leur capacité à répondre à ces demandes. Ce rapport présente les résultats d'une étude pilote portant sur les corrélations entre l'anxiété de l'évaluation et la fidélité à l'évaluation perçue pour différentes techniques d'évaluation dans quatre disciplines différentes. Nous avons également examiné le rôle médiateur potentiel de l'auto-efficacité académique dans la relation entre l'anxiété et le grade attendu. Nos résultats donnent un aperçu des méthodes permettant de réduire l’anxiété et d’augmenter les performances: les instructeurs devraient-ils concentrer leurs efforts sur la modification de leurs outils d’évaluation ou sur l’amélioration de leur efficacité personnelle?
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 | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".