On a relative leaderboard, top-ranked students achieve significantly higher learning performance than 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-ranked learners on a relative leaderboard performed significantly better than middle- and bottom-ranked learners in post-test performance, supporting H3b. → 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

One-way ANOVA on post-test grades in the 26-student relative leaderboard quasi-experiment was significant, F (2, 23) = 8.71, p = .002; top third M = 91.07 (SD = 7.28), middle M = 76.43 (SD = 10.91), bottom M = 68.75 (SD = 13.56). The "Scheffe post-hoc test suggested that the top-ranked students achieved significantly higher learning performance".

"A further Scheffe post-hoc test suggested that the top-ranked students achieved significantly higher learning performance than the middle third (p = .032) and bottom-ranked ones (p = .002) did."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• On an absolute leaderboard, learning performance does not differ significantly across top, middle, and bottom ranked students — reports the opposite
• On a relative leaderboard, intrinsic motivation is equal across top, middle, and bottom ranked students — related
• On a relative leaderboard, course engagement does not differ significantly across position levels — related