Claims

On a relative leaderboard, course engagement does not differ significantly across position levels

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

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.

q2 i? Top-, middle-, and bottom-ranked learners on a relative leaderboard demonstrated an equal level of course engagement, supporting H2b; 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

Post-intervention SCEQ in the 26-student relative leaderboard quasi-experiment. Descriptively bottom-ranked students perceived the highest engagement (M = 3.98, SD = 0.48), but the ANOVA found "no significant different in student course engagement among three groups".

"However, the result of a one-way ANOVA test suggested there is no significant different in student course engagement among three groups, F (2, 21) = 0.82, p = .454."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-29
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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