Deze nieuwe meta-analyse die ik via Tim van der Zee ontdekte bekeek de relatie tussen lessen bijwonen en de resultaten. En het verband is groot, meer nog: het zou zowat de beste voorspeller zijn van de examenresultaten, beter dan eerdere studieresultaten, studiegewoontes of studievaardigheden. Verplichte aanwezigheid zou een kleine, positieve invloed hebben op de resultaten.
Maar is dit niet gewoon een correlatie en zitten er andere redenen achter? De onderzoekers nuanceren:
In aggregate, our findings that suggest that (a) attendance is strongly related to grades, (b) attendance is only weakly to moderately related to student characteristics, and (c) a mandatory attendance policy has a (small) positive effect on average grades provide strongest support for the unique effects model (Figure 1). The lack of evidence for student characteristics that are strongly related to both grades and attendance suggests that the mediated effects model is unlikely to be valid, whereas the positive effects of an attendance policy suggest that the attendance–grade relationship is unlikely to be an artifact of a common causal variable.
Wedden dat je dit straks aan je studenten vertelt?
Abstract van het onderzoek:
A meta-analysis of the relationship between class attendance in college and college grades reveals that attendance has strong relationships with both class grades (k = 69, N = 21,195, ρ = .44) and GPA (k = 33, N = 9,243, ρ = .41). These relationships make class attendance a better predictor of college grades than any other known predictor of academic performance, including scores on standardized admissions tests such as the SAT, high school GPA, study habits, and study skills. Results also show that class attendance explains large amounts of unique variance in college grades because of its relative independence from SAT scores and high school GPA and weak relationship with student characteristics such as conscientiousness and motivation. Mandatory attendance policies appear to have a small positive impact on average grades (k = 3, N = 1,421, d = .21). Implications for theoretical frameworks of student academic performance and educational policy are discussed.