Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Chimica nella Scuola

Università, formazione docenti, orientamento, PLS

Vol. 1 No. 1 (2024): Chimica nella Scuola n. 1 2024

Perché gli studenti universitari decidono di abbandonare gli studi?

Submitted
8 April 2024
Published
10-04-2024

Abstract

In this paper, we investigated the self-assessment ability of first-year students in the Biology and Engineering degree programs engaged in chemistry and physics teaching, respectively, courses that students usually encounter in the first semester of their first year. Specifically, we investigated the correlations between students’ self-assessment ability and the likelihood that they would pass the final exam for the course. Our study shows that students who are more likely to pass the exam are the most calibrated while students who are less likely to pass the exam turn out to be typically over-confident. It also turns out that boys are on average more over-confident than girls.

References

  1. S. Wollscheid, B. Stensaker, B. Jongbloed, H. Vossensteyn, L. Cremonini, E. Hovdhaugen, F. Kaiser, A. Kottmann, Dropout and completion in higher education in Europe, Main report, 2015 (https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/826962)
  2. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD): Education at a glance 2021, OECD indicators; OECD Publishing.
  3. Agenzia Nazionale di Valutazione del Sistema Universitario e della Ricerca (ANVUR): Rapporto Biennale 2018; retrieved September, 2022 (https://www.anvur.it/rapporto-biennale/rapporto-biennale-2018/).
  4. M. Cannistrà, C. Masci, F. Ieva, T. Agasisti, A. M. Paganoni, Early-predicting dropout of university students: an application of innovative multilevel machine learning and statistical techniques, Studies in Higher Education, 2022, 47, 9, 1935-1956 (https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.2018415).
  5. J. M. Ortiz-Lozano, A. Rua-Vieites, P. Bilbao-Calabuig, M. Casadesús-Fa, University student retention: Best time and data to identify undergraduate students at risk of dropout, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 2018, 57(1), 74-85 (https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2018.1502090).
  6. J. Dalgety, R. K. Coll, The influence of first-year chemistry students’ learning experiences on their educational choices, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2006, 31(3), 303-328 (https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500352931).
  7. P. Vincent-Ruz, K. Binning, C. Schunn, J. Grabowski, The effect of math SAT on women’s chemistry competency beliefs, Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 2018, 19(1), 342-351 (https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RP00137A).
  8. Y. Boz, S. Yerdelen-Damar, N. Aydemir, M. Aydemir, Investigating the relationships among students’ self-efficacy beliefs, their perceptions of classroom learning environment, gender, and chemistry achievement through structural equation modelling, Research in Science & Technology Education, 2016, 34(3), 307-324 (https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2016.1174931).
  9. L. Stankov, J. Lee, W. Luo, D. J. Hogan, Confidence: A better predictor of academic achievement than self-efficacy, self-concept and anxiety? Learning and Individual Differences, 2012, 22(6), 747-758 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.05.013).
  10. J. R. Cordova, G. M. Sinatra, S. H. Jones, G. Taasoobshirazi, D. Lombardi, Confidence in prior knowledge, self-efficacy, interest and prior knowledge: Influences on conceptual change, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 2014, 39(2), 164-174 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.03.006).
  11. R. Grazziotin-Soares, C. Blue, R. Feraro, K. Tochor, T. M. Ardenghi, D. Curtis, D. M. Ardenghi, The interrelationship between confidence and correctness in a multiple-choice assessment: Pointing out misconceptions and assuring valuable questions, BDJ Open, 2021, 7, 10 (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41405-021-00067-4).
  12. L. Stankov, Noncognitive predictors of academic achievement and intelligence: An important role of self-confidence, Personal and Individual Differences, 2013, 60, S37 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.07.090).
  13. M. M. Chiu, R. M. Klassen, Relations of mathematics self-concept and its calibration with mathematics achievement: Cultural differences among fifteen-year-olds in 34 countries, Learning and Instruction, 2010, 20(1), 2-17 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.11.002).
  14. J. Dunlosky, K. Rawson, Overconfidence produces underachievement: Inaccurate self evaluations undermine students’ learning and retention, Learning and Instruction, 2012, 22(4), 271-280 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.003).
  15. L. Stankov, J. Lee, Confidence and cognitive test performance, Journal of Education Psychology, 2008, 100(4), 961-976 (https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012546).
  16. S. Beyer, E. M. Bowden, Gender differences in self-perceptions: Convergent evidence from three measures of accuracy and bias, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1997, 23(2), 157-172 (https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297232005).
  17. L. Bol, D. J. Hacker, P. O’Shea, D. Allen, The influence of overt practice, achievement level, and explanatory style on calibration accuracy and performance, The Journal of Experimental Education, 2005, 73(4), 269-290 (https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.73.4.269-290).
  18. P. Juslin, A. Winman, H. Olsson, Naive empiricism and dogmatism in confidence research: A critical examination of the hard–easy effect, Psychological Review, 2000, 107(2), 384-396 (https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.2.384).
  19. D. W. Griffin, A. Tversky, The weighing of evidence and the determinants of confidence, Cognitive Psychology, 1992, 24(3), 411-435 (https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(92)90013-R).
  20. A. Koriat, L. Sheffer, H. Ma’ayan, The intricate relationships between monitoring and control in metacognition: Lessons for the cause-andeffect relation between subjective experience and behavior, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2006, 135(1), 36-69 (https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.36).
  21. K. Y. Hoe, R. Subramaniam, On the prevalence of alternative conceptions on acid–base chemistry among secondary students: Insights from cognitive and confidence measures, Chemical Education Research and Practice, 2016, 17(2), 263-282 (https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00146C).
  22. B. Sreenivasulu, R. Subramaniam, University students’ understanding of chemical thermodynamics, International Journal of Science Education, 2013, 35(4), 601-635 (https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.683460).
  23. D. R. Mulford, W. R. Robinson, An inventory for alternate conceptions among first semester general chemistry students, Journal of Chemical Education, 2002, 79(6), 739-744 (https://doi.org/10.1021/ed079p739).
  24. M. Schultz, G. A. Lawrie, C. H. Bailey, S. B. Bedford, T. R. Dargaville, G. O’Brien, R. Tasker, C. D. Thompson, M. Williams, A. H. Wright, Evaluation of diagnostic tools that tertiary teachers can apply to profile their students’ conceptions, International Journal of Science Education, 2017, 39(5), 565-586 (https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1296980).
  25. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, G. Swackhamer, Force concept inventory, The Physics Teacher, 1992, 30(3), 141-158 (https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2343497).
  26. C. Singh, D. Rosengrant, Multiple-choice test of energy and momentum concepts, American Journal of Physics, 2003, 71(6), 607-617 (https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1571832).
  27. K. S. Taber, The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education, Research in Science Education, 2018, 48(6), 1273-1296 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2).