MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2993178168

Aptitude, Motivation, and Self-Regulation as Predictors of Achievement among Developmental College Students

2003· article· en· W2993178168 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marilyn L. Ray, Linda Garavalia, Tamera B. Murdock

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in the Teaching of Developmental Education · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAptitudeCourseworkPsychologyAcademic achievementVariance (accounting)Mathematics educationDevelopmental psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The primary purpose of the present study was to examine the validity generalization of aptitude as a predictor of achievement for developmental college students. A second purpose was to investigate students' motivational beliefs and perceived self-regulated learning skills as predictors of achievement. Results indicated a weak correlation between aptitude and achievement, accounting for only .52% of the variance in achievement. As such, developmental educators may be using a criterion for admission that accounts for less than 1% of the variance in achievement. Together, aptitude, self-regulated learning, and motivational beliefs explained approximately 15.2% of the variance in achievement. Implications for education are discussed. An estimated 650,000 students, or approximately one-third of the freshmen entering U.S. colleges and universities each year, are required to enroll in at least one developmental course in Reading, English, or Mathematics designed to prepare students to cope with college-level coursework (Boylan, Bonham, & Bliss, 1994). Measures of students' aptitude (ACT or SAT scores), their previous performance (high school grade point averages or class rank), or a combination of these factors traditionally have served as the basis for making decisions concerning admission and/or placement in developmental courses. Numerous studies have reported correlations between aptitude and academic performance in college coursework. Various researchers have studied the predictive validity of standardized measures of aptitude such as the ACT and SAT in content-area courses (Stallworth-Clark, Scott, & Nist, 1996), in undergraduate pre-service teachers' programs (Neal, Schaer, & Ley, 1990), and among female intercollegiate student-athletes (Petrie & Stoever, 1997). In these studies, SAT and ACT scores are predictive of course grades and semester grade-point-averages (GPAs). Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, and Elliot (2002) also reported that both aptitude and high school GPA were significant predictors of academic performance in college. The predictive value of aptitude with regard to college achievement varies across studies. For example, Cote and Levine (2000) reported that IQ accounted for only 0 - 4% of the variance in academic achievement among Canadian university students. Likewise, Wolfe and Johnson (1995) found that prior performance (high school GPA) accounted for 19% of the variance in GPA among students enrolled in a college introductory psychology course, a motivational variable accounted for 9% of the variance while SAT scores accounted for only 5% of the variance. Other studies reported low to moderate correlations between measures of aptitude and academic performance. Britton and Tesser (1991) reported low correlations (r = .20) between college students' SAT scores and their cumulative GPA during their first two years of college. Further, Wentzel (1991) reported that student GPAs and SAT scores were only moderately correlated (r = .42) and that many of the students in the top 12% of their high school class did not score in the top 12% on the SAT. Moreover, Meeker, Fox, and Whitley (1994) tested the predictive value of 26 variables, including SAT scores, for college students' GPA in psychology. SAT scores (aptitude) were not significant predictors of GPA in psychology (the students' major), with Math SAT scores accounting for only 3.6% of the variance. In another study, measures of aptitude were found to be either unrelated or negatively related to achievement in college students, while motivation appeared to be more predictive of achievement (Cote & Levine, 2000). With regard to developmental college students, a second potential limitation of prior research on the predictive validity of aptitude is the nature of the sample. Because these studies have been conducted with the general college student population, the generalizability of findings to developmental college student populations may be questionable. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.759

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.379 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch in the Teaching of Developmental EducationSame topicHigher Education Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207