USING A MIDTERM WARNING SYSTEM TO IMPROVE STUDENT PERFORMANCE AND ENGAGEMENT IN AN INTRODUCTORY STATISTICS COURSE: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
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
This article reports on an evaluation the effectiveness of e-mailed grade “nudges” on students’ performance and engagement in an introductory statistics course for undergraduate health science students. In 2020–2021, 358 students were randomized to an e-mail (n = 178) or no e-mail (n = 180) group. The intervention e-mail contained information on each student’s predicted final grade (grade nudge). Using two-sample t-tests, the statistical analysis of final grades in the course showed a higher compatibility with a model of no mean difference for students in the e-mail (73.5%) vs. no e-mail (72.1%) group. Comparison of the distributions of final grades between the two groups, however, suggested the e-mailed nudges may be related to slight improvements in final grades. Specifically, the median final grade was higher in the e-mail group (74.6 vs. 72.4); the Q1 value in the e-mail group was also higher, and the interquartile range was similar: no e-mail group (15.8) vs. e-mail group (14.2). Students also completed the Scale of Student Engagement in Statistics (SSE-S). Total engagement, affective and cognitive subscale scores of the SSE-S were higher in the e-mail group, resulting in low compatibility with a model of no difference in engagement scores. Overall, the results showed there is potential for our midterm warning system to be used to improve outcomes, particularly given that it is simple to implement, cost-effective, and easily scalable.
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 | 0.032 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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