IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/101193.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Poor peer work does not boost student confidence

Author

Listed:
  • Kappes, Heather Barry
  • Fasolo, Barbara
  • Han, Wenjie
  • Barnes, Jessica
  • Ter Meer, Janna

Abstract

Students' low confidence, particularly in numerical topics, is thought to be a barrier to keeping them engaged with education. We studied the effects on confidence of exposure to a peer's work of varying quality (very good or bad) and neatness (messy or neat). Previous research underpinned our hypothesis that a peer's bad-quality work—which students rarely see—might boost student confidence more than very good work. We also predicted that a peer's very good work—which students are often shown—might be less discouraging if it were messy, suggesting it required effort and struggle. However, in experiments with university students and low-educated adults, these hypotheses were not supported, and all participants decreased in confidence after seeing any peer work. The failure to find support for these hypotheses can inform future research into social comparison effects on self-confidence in numerical topics. These results also have practical implications for teachers and managers who are expected to provide examples of peer work.

Suggested Citation

  • Kappes, Heather Barry & Fasolo, Barbara & Han, Wenjie & Barnes, Jessica & Ter Meer, Janna, 2020. "Poor peer work does not boost student confidence," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 101193, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:101193
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/101193/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    confidence; learning; social comparison; peer comparison; self-concept of ability; numeracy;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J50 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor-Management Relations, Trade Unions, and Collective Bargaining - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:101193. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.