Is Showing Up Half the Work? The Relationship among Student Attendance, Engagement and Test Scores
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Differentiating engagement from attendance is important for understanding predictors of academic achievement. In 613 students, engagement was psychometrically operationalized, whereas attendance was defined as physical presence in the classroom. Achievement was operationalized as exam scores. Significant correlations emerged between engagement and achievement (.26–.43), and attendance and achievement (.25–.40). Correlation coefficients increased in the tails of the distribution (.35–.62). Engagement explained an additional 6–10% of the variance in achievement (22–38%) compared to attendance (16–28%). Students who never attended class scored in the failing range on the final exam. In contrast, students who attended every class scored 20% higher on the same exam. Students with perfect attendance and perfect engagement scores outperformed students with perfect attendance but less than perfect engagement on exams. Perfect engagement provided a relative advantage of 0.33–0.44 Cohen’s d units above and beyond perfect attendance. Since attendance alone fails to capture essential aspects of student behavior that predict academic achievement, developing instruments that measure the quality of engagement has the potential to capture additional variance in student participation. Making the difference between attendance and engagement explicit to students may have pedagogical value.
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.
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 | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it