No abstract

The economic decline of the Great Recession has increased the need for a univer-

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.

In spite of many barriers facing women's enrollment in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), some women are successful in these counterstereotypic disciplines. The present research extended work primarily conducted in the United States by investigating implicit gender-STEM stereotypes-and their relation to performance-among female and male engineering and humanities students in Southern France. In study 1 (N055), we tested whether implicit gender-math stereotypes-as measured by the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald et al. 1998)-would be weaker among female engineering students as compared to female humanities, male engineering and male humanities students. In study 2 (N0201), we tested whether this same results pattern would be observed with implicit gender-reasoning stereotypes (using a newly created IAT) and, in addition, whether implicit genderreasoning stereotypes would be more strongly (and negatively) related to math grades for female humanities students as compared to the three other groups. Results showed that female engineering students held weaker implicit gendermath and gender-reasoning stereotypes than female humanities, male engineering and male humanities students. Moreover, implicit stereotyping was more negatively related to math grades for female humanities students than for the three other groups. Together, findings demonstrate that female engineering students hold weaker implicit gender-STEM stereotypes than other groups of students and, in addition, that these stereotypes are not necessarily negatively associated with math performance for all women. Discussion emphasizes how the present research helps refine previous findings and their importance for women's experience in STEM.

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.