Commitment devices such as deadlines show demand but mixed effectiveness for student performance¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Students demand commitment devices, but exogenously set deadlines do not always improve task completion or performance. → Alexander Koch 2015

Evidence¶

Alexander Koch 2015¶

Alexander Koch, Julia Nafziger, Helena Skyt Nielsen. (2015). Behavioral economics of education. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 115 (2015) 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2014.09.005

q2 · i? · review · r2

The review's synthesis of deadline experiments: Ariely and Wertenbroch (2002) found self-imposed deadlines helped but 'performance is worse compared with the treatment where students are given evenly spread deadlines', while Burger et al. (2011) and Bisin and Hyndman (2014) found no improvement in completion rates.

"While there seems to be a clear demand for such devices, they do not always improve performance."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In examination weeks, students revisited prior topics and used exercises, whose deadlines had passed, as formative practice for the exams — related
• Students who use the ePSRL Management System meet the course completion deadline at a significantly higher rate than non-users — related
• Specific, difficult goals lead to higher performance than easy or vague \"do your best\" goals. — a broader claim this one bears on
• Students dynamically switched between Socratic Inquiry and Transactional Delegation as deadlines approached and task novelty changed (the Strategic Dance) — related