出勤是工作的一半吗?学生出勤率、参与度与考试成绩的关系

Q3 Social Sciences College Teaching Pub Date : 2023-09-28 DOI:10.1080/87567555.2023.2262676
Phebe Lam, Sadie R. Pyne, Laura Cutler, Silvia von Kluge, Laszlo A. Erdodi
{"title":"出勤是工作的一半吗?学生出勤率、参与度与考试成绩的关系","authors":"Phebe Lam, Sadie R. Pyne, Laura Cutler, Silvia von Kluge, Laszlo A. Erdodi","doi":"10.1080/87567555.2023.2262676","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AbstractDifferentiating 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.Keywords: Attendanceeffortgrade inflationmotivationstudent engagement Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).","PeriodicalId":53429,"journal":{"name":"College Teaching","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is Showing Up Half the Work? The Relationship among Student Attendance, Engagement and Test Scores\",\"authors\":\"Phebe Lam, Sadie R. Pyne, Laura Cutler, Silvia von Kluge, Laszlo A. Erdodi\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/87567555.2023.2262676\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"AbstractDifferentiating 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.Keywords: Attendanceeffortgrade inflationmotivationstudent engagement Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).\",\"PeriodicalId\":53429,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"College Teaching\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"College Teaching\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2023.2262676\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"College Teaching","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2023.2262676","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要区分参与和出勤对于理解学术成就的预测因素是很重要的。在613名学生中,参与被心理测量化,而出勤率被定义为在课堂上的实际存在。成就被操作化为考试分数。敬业度与成就(0.26 - 0.43)、出勤率与成就(0.25 - 0.40)之间存在显著相关性。分布尾部相关系数增加(0.35 ~ 0.62)。与出勤率(16-28%)相比,敬业度解释了另外6-10%的成就差异(22-38%)。从不上课的学生在期末考试中得分在不及格的范围内。相比之下,每节课都上的学生在同一次考试中得分高出20%。出勤率高、参与度高的学生比出勤率高、参与度低的学生表现更好。完美投入提供了0.33-0.44科恩d单位的相对优势,高于完美出勤率。由于出勤率本身无法捕捉到预测学业成绩的学生行为的基本方面,开发衡量参与质量的工具有可能捕捉到学生参与的额外差异。让学生明白出勤和参与之间的区别可能具有教学价值。关键词:出勤率努力成绩通胀动机学生参与度披露声明作者未报告潜在利益冲突
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Is Showing Up Half the Work? The Relationship among Student Attendance, Engagement and Test Scores
AbstractDifferentiating 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.Keywords: Attendanceeffortgrade inflationmotivationstudent engagement Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
College Teaching
College Teaching Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: College Teaching provides an interdisciplinary academic forum on issues in teaching and learning at the undergraduate or graduate level. The journal publishes three kinds of articles. Regular, full-length articles of up to 5,000 words reporting scholarship on teaching methods, educational technologies, classroom management, assessment and evaluation, and other instructional practices that have significance beyond a single discipline. Full-length articles also describe innovative courses and curricula, faulty development programs, and contemporary developments. Quick Fix articles, up to 500 words, present techniques for addressing common classroom problems. Commentaries, up to 1,200 words, provide thoughtful reflections on teaching.
期刊最新文献
The Powerful Impact of Positive and Negative Interactions with STEM Faculty on Undergraduates, Especially Underrepresented and Transfer Students The Life Happens Pass: Use of a Flexible and Fair Assignment Extension Policy A Quick Fix for Promoting Reading Compliance and Improved Class Discussions: Quizgecko and Low-Stakes Quizzes Teaching Advanced Undergraduate Classes in a Problem-solving Context: The Cognitive Sherlock Approach Iteratively-Designed Exit Tickets Enhances Student Learning
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1