On an absolute leaderboard, learning performance does not differ significantly across top, middle, and bottom ranked students¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · no dated study recorded · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Top, middle, and bottom ranked learners on an absolute leaderboard showed no statistically significant difference in final course performance, supporting H3a; equivalence was not tested. → Bai 2021

Evidence¶

Bai 2021¶

Bai, Shurui, Khe Foon Hew, Michael Sailer, and Chengyuan Jia. 2021. "From top to bottom: how positions on different types of leaderboard may affect fully online student learning performance, intrinsic motivation, and course engagement." Computers & Education 173: 104297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104297.

q2 · i? · causal · r1

In the 24-student absolute leaderboard quasi-experiment, prior knowledge did not differ across position groups (H (2) = 1.67, p = .212), and the Kruskal-Wallis test on post-test course grades (100 full mark) returned "a non-significant result" across the three position levels.

"Therefore, a Kruskal-Wallis H test was used to evaluate the impact of the three position levels on student learning performance, with a non-significant result, H (2) = 0.64, p = .727."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• On a relative leaderboard, top-ranked students achieve significantly higher learning performance than middle- and bottom-ranked students — reports the opposite
• On an absolute leaderboard, course engagement does not differ significantly across top, middle, and bottom ranked students — related