Marathon, Hurdling, or Sprint? The Effects of Exam Scheduling on Academic Performance-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Marathon, Hurdling, or Sprint? The Effects of Exam Scheduling on Academic Performance

Published:2020-01-09 Issue:2 Volume:20 Page:
ISSN:1935-1682
Container-title:The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy
language:en
Short-container-title:

Author:

Goulas Sofoklis¹^ORCID,Megalokonomou Rigissa²

Affiliation:

1. Hoover Institution, Stanford University , 434 Galvez Street , Stanford , CA , USA

2. Department of Economics , University of Queensland , Brisbane , Queensland , Australia

Abstract

Abstract Would you prefer a tighter or a more prolonged exam schedule? Would you prefer to take an important exam first or last? We exploit quasi-random variation in exam schedules across cohorts, grades and subjects from a lottery to identify distinct effects of the number of days between exams, the number of days since the first exam, and the exam order on performance. Scheduling effects are more pronounced for STEM exams. We find a positive and a negative relationship between STEM scores and exam order (warm-up) and number of days since the first exam (fatigue), respectively. In STEM, warm-up is estimated to outweigh fatigue. Marginal exam productivity in STEM increases faster for boys than for girls. Higher-performing students exhibit higher warm-up and lower fatigue effects in STEM than lower-performing students. Optimizing the exam schedule can improve overall performance by as much as 0.02 standard deviations.

Publisher

Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Subject

Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous),Economics and Econometrics

Link

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/bejeap-2019-0177/pdf

Reference52 articles.

1. Aaronson, D., L. Barrow, and W. Sander. 2007. “Teachers and Student Achievement in the Chicago Public High Schools.” Journal of labor Economics 25 (1): 95–135.

2. Ablard, K. E., and R. E. Lipschultz. 1998. “Self-Regulated Learning in High-Achieving Students: Relations to Advanced Reasoning, Achievement Goals, and Gender.” Journal of Educational Psychology 90 (1): 94.

3. Ambrose, S. A., M. W. Bridges, M. DiPietro, M. C. Lovett, and M. K. Norman. 2010. How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching. Bringham: John Wiley & Sons. https://search.proquest.com/openview/86e61dd13a927ca84432570e1d8ec460/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=28962.

4. Askell-Williams, H., M. J. Lawson, and G. Skrzypiec. 2012. “Scaffolding Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategy Instruction in Regular Class Lessons.” Instructional Science 40 (2): 413–43.

5. Baddeley, A. 2003. “Working Memory: Looking Back and Looking Forward.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 4 (10): 829.

Cited by 6 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Effects of workload allocation per course on students’ academic outcomes: Evidence from STEM degrees;Labour Economics;2024-10

2. Forced to play too many matches? A deep-learning assessment of crowded schedule;Applied Economics;2022-12-29

3. The deleterious effects of fatigue on final exam performance;Economics of Education Review;2022-10

4. Declining Student Performance and Satisfaction following Back-to-Back Scheduling of Foundational Science Exams: Experience at a Large US Osteopathic Medical School;Education Sciences;2022-01-29

5. A student-based central exam scheduling model using A* algorithm;Open Computer Science;2022-01-01