Claims

Student perceptions of understanding correlated poorly with actual exam performance across concepts

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

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? Students rated their understanding of the volume-pressure relationship highest (88.3% favorable) but performed worst on it, and rated disease understanding lowest (69.1% favorable) while performing best on it. → Wolf et al. 2015

Evidence

Wolf et al. 2015

Alex M. Wolf, Carlos Liachovitzky & Abass S. Abdullahi. (2015). Active Learning Improves Student Performance in a Respiratory Physiology Lab. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 4(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/jct.v4n1p19

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Comparison of survey favorability ratings against midterm performance per concept in the test sections. "88.3% favorable response" for volume-pressure understanding contrasted with the lowest performance, while "69.1% favorable response" for disease understanding accompanied the highest performance.

"On one hand, students thought they understood the relation between volume and pressure very well (88.3% favorable response), but had the lowest performance on this concept. On the other hand, they weren't as confident with their perceptions of pulmonary disease understanding (69.1% favorable response) but had the highest performance on this concept."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.