There has been much recent research examining online learning in universities, but two questions seem to have been largely overlooked in this context: (1) Which students voluntarily utilise web-based learning; and (2) Does this use influence their academic achievement? The current study aimed to determine whether the approaches to studying, ability, age, and gender of 110 undergraduates in the second year of a psychology degree predicted the extent to which they utilised online learning using Web Course Tools (WebCT) in support of a core Biological Psychology unit. Data were obtained from WebCT's student tracking system, Entwistle and Ramsden's 18-item Approaches to Studying Inventory (1983) and academic records. Multiple linear regressions and discriminant function analysis were used to examine whether individual differences predicted WebCT use, while analysis of covariance determined whether web use influenced academic achievement. The number of hits, length of access, and use of the bulletin board was predicted by age, with older students using WebCT more. These factors were also influenced by ability and achievement orientation. The degree of participation in self-assessment was not predicted by student variables, but, of those that repeated an online quiz, improvement was more likely in those with lower achievement orientation. Only bulletin board use influenced achievement, with those posting messages outperforming those not using, or passively using bulletin boards. However, because individual differences will determine the extent to which students utilise this facility, it is suggested that future research should focus on developing online learning environments that incorporate activities with both a beneficial influence on learning and appeal to a wide student population.

No abstract

There is a large gap in higher education attainment between different groups of society, especially along gender, class and ethnic dimensions. Reducing these gaps in attainment has been at the forefront of policy makers, not only in this country but also in most advanced economy with policies ranging from financial support to positive discrimination. However, policies can only be effective if the reasons behind these gaps are understood.Several explanations have been suggested to explain these gaps. Economists have focused on market failures and particularly that in the absence of collateral, students from some background may be unable -or unwilling -to finance their education by loan. This suggests that policies of grants should reduce the attainment gap; however evidence of the efficiency of these policies has been mixed.Another reason for not investing in higher education may be a lack of information on the costs and benefits of education. While they are some evidence that individuals from lower social class underestimate the benefit and over-estimate the costs, it is unclear whether this could fully account for the observed gap.This research explores another reason why individuals from specific group do not invest in higher education. We postulate that they may have misbelieves in their own ability and under estimate their chance of success.To test this hypothesis we rely on two datasets. The first is the 2003 PISA which surveyed 15 year old, and administered a comprehensive test in mathematics. Pupils were also asked whether they expected to attend higher education. In this survey, we did not find any evidence that individuals from lower social class are less confident in their mathematical ability.However, we estimate that mathematical efficacy (and to a lower extend, self-evaluation) has a positive effect on the prospect of going to higher education. An increase in one standard deviation in self-efficacy increases the probability of expecting to go to university by ½ the amount of an increase in one standard deviation in test score.The second dataset is based on an online survey of first year students in two British universities. We find that males overestimate their own performance in math and English, as well as their position in the score distribution. Relative to students with the most favourable background, working class students under-estimate their performance in math and white students under-estimate their relative position in both math and English. . The gender and class gaps are especially large in numeracy, at around 20% of the average score.Self-perception also correlates with educational confidence in general but the effect is small.The effect of self-perception on the decision to participate in higher education does not seem to work through its effect on risk aversion and the returns to higher education, because selfperception is only weakly correlated with these factors.Policies that raise academic self-confidence in schools are, unsurprisingly, likely to raise participation rates but are u...

No abstract

Research in schools has shown that those who hold Incremental Theories of Intelligence (i.e. intelligence can grow and improve) generally outperform those who hold Entity Theories of Intelligence (i.e. intelligence is 'fixed' and cannot improve). Recently, there have been attempts to establish a stronger theoretical explanation for individual differences in educational success, by relating the Big Five's Conscientiousness to higher school attainment. In this study, we aimed to demonstrate further relationships between Implicit Theories of Intelligence and a well-known neurologically based theory of personality, namely Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST). A sample of 319 adults completed personality measures of RST, the Big Five and Implicit Theories of Intelligence, as well as a proxy measure for educational persistence (highest academic qualification achieved). The results showed that participants who hold an Incremental (growth) Theory of Intelligence score higher on the RST Behavioural Approach System traits oriented toward future reward and the Big Five's Conscientiousness. Those that hold an Entity (fixed) Theory of Intelligence score higher on RST Behavioural Inhibition System and the Big Five Neuroticism measure. The paper discusses the implications of these relationships and explores the benefits of the simultaneous use of both theoretically underpinned and applied measures of individual differences.