Does exam performance correlate with perception of readiness or pretest quizzes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested the hypothesis that student's perceived readiness for examinations was not correlated to exam performance as has been previously reported. In a population of 615 undergraduate nursing, midwifery, baccalaureate health sciences (BHSc) and engineering students in a required human anatomy and physiology course perceived readiness for examinations was surveyed prior to the beginning of the midterm exam. Perceived readiness was weakly correlated with exam performance (r=0.21, p=0.05). Performance on fortnightly quizzes administered in the lab was more strongly correlated with exam performance (r=0.34, p<0.005) than perceived readiness. Though perceived readiness had a small significant correlation for most students groups the BHSc students, who have the highest course average of 84%, showed no correlation (r=0.15, n = 211). The quiz performance was most strongly correlated with the midterm exam performance in the midwifery students (r=0.61, p<0.005, n=22) and the nursing students (r=0.46, p<0.005, n= 322). This research confirms that students are only poorly able to judge exam preparedness and quantitative measures on structured tests are the most useful predictor of student success.
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 | 0.022 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".