Annique Smeding

Reducing the Socio-Economic Status Achievement Gap at University by Promoting Mastery-Oriented Assessment

In spite of official intentions to reduce inequalities at University, students’ socio-economic status (SES) is still a major determinant of academic success. The literature on the dual function of University suggests that University serves not only an educational function (i.e., to improve students’ learning), but also a selection function (i.e., to compare people, and orient them towards different positions in society). Because current assessment practices focus on the selection more than on the educational function, their characteristics fit better with norms and values shared by dominant high-status groups and may favour high-SES students over low-SES students in terms of performances. A focus on the educational function (i.e., mastery goals), instead, may support low-SES students’ achievement, but empirical evidence is currently lacking. The present research set out to provide such evidence and tested, in two field studies and a randomised field experiment, the hypothesis that focusing on University’s educational function rather than on its selection function may reduce the SES achievement gap. Results showed that a focus on learning, mastery-oriented goals in the assessment process reduced the SES achievement gap at University. For the first time, empirical data support the idea that low-SES students can perform as well as high-SES students if they are led to understand assessment as part of the learning process, a way to reach mastery goals, rather than as a way to compare students to each other and select the best of them, resulting in performance goals. This research thus provides a theoretical framework to understand the differential effects of assessment on the achievement of high and low-SES students, and paves the way toward the implementation of novel, theory-driven interventions to reduce the SES-based achievement gap at University.

Individual Differences in Working Memory Moderate Stereotype-Threat Effects

Research on stereotype threat has shown that negative stereotypes hinder stigmatized individuals’ performance on difficult tasks (Schmader, Johns, & Forbes, 2008; Steele & Aronson, 1995; for stereotype threat among children, see Huguet & Régner, 2007, 2009). Stereotype threat typically affects those who excel in—and are strongly identified with—the stereotyped domain being evaluated and who have much to lose by confirming the negative characterization of their group in this domain (Schmader et al., 2008; Steele, 1997; Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002; Walton & Cohen, 2003). This threat appears to lower performance by reducing working memory (WM) capacity (Beilock, Rydell, & McConnell, 2007; Rydell, McConnell, & Beilock, 2009; Schmader & Johns, 2003), an executive resource used to perform complex tasks (Kane, Conway, Hambrick, & Engle, 2007). Recently, Schmader et al. (2008) raised the crucial question of whether stigmatized individuals with a dispositionally high WM capacity resist stereotype threat. On the basis of the idea that WM involves an executive-control mechanism that is recruited to combat interference (Conway, Kane, & Engle, 2003), Schmader et al. (2008) suggested that high-WM individuals should therefore be better equipped to cope with stereotype threat than lowWM individuals are. Not only does this hypothesis remain untested, but it is challenged by research on “choking under pressure” (Beilock & Carr, 2005; Beilock & DeCaro, 2007; Gimmig, Huguet, Caverni, & Cury, 2006), in which suboptimal performance under strong evaluative pressure has been shown to be limited to high-WM individuals. It appears that pressure is likely to consume the resources that high-WM individuals rely on to achieve superior performance. To determine if stereotype threat is limited to either lowor high-WM individuals, we selected outstanding students in their last or second-to-last year (out of 5 years) at highly selective engineering schools. This selection criterion ensured that the participants’ identification with engineering and their intention to pursue an engineering career were unquestionable. In a pretest (consisting of self-assessments and importance ratings) on a group of students similar to those participating in the experiment, we confirmed that logical reasoning is an ability with which engineers identify strongly. Because women are typically assumed to reason less well than men (Davies, Spencer, Quinn, & Gerhardstein, 2002), we thought that women might experience stereotype threat in this domain. The question here is whether women with a high WM capacity are more able than their low-WM counterparts to resist stereotype threat.

First-generation students' underperformance at university: the impact of the function of selection

According to recent research, university not only has the role to educate and train students, it also has the role to select the best students. We argue that this function of selection disadvantages first-generation students, in comparison with continuing-generation students. Thus, the mere activation of the function of selection should be sufficient to produce achievement differences between first-generation and continuing-generation students in a novel academic task. Furthermore, we propose that when the function of selection is salient, first-generation students would be more vigilant to a cue that may confirm their inferiority, which should explain their underperformance. In the present experiment, participants were asked to complete an arithmetic modular task under two conditions, which either made the function of selection salient or reduced its importance. Participants’ vigilance to a threatening cue (i.e., their performance relative to others) was measured through an eye-tracking technique. The results confirmed that first-generation students performed more poorly compared to continuing-generation students only when the function of selection was salient while no differences appeared in the no-selection condition. Regarding vigilance, the results did not confirm our hypothesis; thus, mediation path could not be tested. However, results indicated that at a high level of initial performance, first-generation students looked more often at the threatening cue. In others words, these students seemed more concerned about whether they were performing more poorly than others compared to their continuing-generation counterparts. Some methodological issues are discussed, notably regarding the measure of vigilance.

Improving Low Achievers’ Academic Performance at University by Changing the Social Value of Mastery Goals

Recent research has shown that, in a university context, mastery goals are highly valued and that students may endorse these goals either because they believe in their utility (i.e., social utility), in which case mastery goals are positively linked to achievement, or to create a positive image of themselves (i.e., social desirability), in which case mastery goals do not predict academic achievement. The present two experiments induced high versus neutral levels of mastery goals’ social utility and social desirability. Results confirmed that mastery goals predicted performance only when these goals were presented as socially useful but not presented as socially desirable, especially among low achievers, those who need mastery goals the most to succeed.

Striving for Excellence Sometimes Hinders High Achievers: Performance-Approach Goals Deplete Arithmetical Performance in Students with High Working Memory Capacity

We tested whether the goal to attain normative superiority over other students, referred to as performance-approach goals, is particularly distractive for high-Working Memory Capacity (WMC) students—that is, those who are used to being high achievers. Indeed, WMC is positively related to high-order cognitive performance and academic success, a record of success that confers benefits on high-WMC as compared to low-WMC students. We tested whether such benefits may turn out to be a burden under performance-approach goal pursuit. Indeed, for high achievers, aiming to rise above others may represent an opportunity to reaffirm their positive status—a stake susceptible to trigger disruptive outcome concerns that interfere with task processing. Results revealed that with performance-approach goals—as compared to goals with no emphasis on social comparison—the higher the students’ WMC, the lower their performance at a complex arithmetic task (Experiment 1). Crucially, this pattern appeared to be driven by uncertainty regarding the chances to outclass others (Experiment 2). Moreover, an accessibility measure suggested the mediational role played by status-related concerns in the observed disruption of performance. We discuss why high-stake situations can paradoxically lead high-achievers to sub-optimally perform when high-order cognitive performance is at play.