Students with lower baseline self-efficacy achieved greater learning gains in both practice formats, though the relationship varied with favorability toward each format¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Learning gain was significantly and negatively associated with baseline self-efficacy (t(98.40) = −2.14, p = .035). → Xinfei Cen 2026

Evidence¶

Xinfei Cen 2026¶

Xinfei Cen, Vincent Aleven, Kenneth R. Koedinger, Conrad Borchers, and Paulo F. Carvalho. (2026). Self-Efficacy and Favorability Shape Learning from Tutoring Systems and Paper Practice. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.17470 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.17470

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Same linear mixed-effects model of learning gains in the 54-student within-subject study. Baseline self-efficacy was a significant negative predictor: "t(98.40) =−2.14,p=.035". The practice format × baseline self-efficacy interaction was not significant (p = .681), but the three-way interaction with favorability was (t(99.8) = −2.58, p = .011), so the relationship varied with favorability and format. Baseline self-efficacy was measured, not assigned, so this is an association. No effect size is printed, so impact is coded i?; that is not a null finding.

"Learning gain was also significantly associated with students' baseline self-efficacy,t(98.40) =−2.14,p=.035, showing that students with lower initial self-efficacy showed greater improvement."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Motivation — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
• Self-Efficacy — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Learners' task-specific self-efficacy beliefs predict whether they initiate, persist through, and recover from difficulty on academic tasks. — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Among low baseline self-efficacy students, favorability toward a format moderated its benefit: tutor favorability favored tutor gains, paper unfavorability favored paper gains — related
• The effect of practice condition on learning gains was moderated by a three-way interaction of condition, baseline self-efficacy, and favorability — related
• Formative assessment shows gains in student self-efficacy and motivation and particular benefits for disadvantaged and low-achieving students — related
• ITS-based practice did not improve post-training self-efficacy relative to paper-based practice; baseline self-efficacy was the primary determinant — related
• Tutor-based practice produced greater learning gains than paper-based practice on matched problem sets — related
• Students with lower baseline performance (below the 50th percentile) showed significantly greater math achievement gains with ASSISTments than matched virtual peers — related