High Self-Reported Student Confidence: Reassuring Signal, or ‘False Positive’?

A new survey shows student confidence is often fueled by self-sourced digital tools, raising big questions for institutional support.

GUEST COLUMN | by Chloe Barrett

YUTTHANA GAETGEAW

How can universities be sure their degree pathways are providing value to students?

This urgent question was highlighted in a 2025 report from Deloitte, which points out that concerns over the worth of a degree are causing traditional models to give way to alternative, cost-effective pathways like apprenticeships.

There are very real consequences at play here: when degrees are being seen as less financially viable, the whole of post-secondary education is on the line. And if students feel that a degree program isn’t worth their money, they’re clearly prepared to take that money elsewhere.

‘… if students feel that a degree program isn’t worth their money, they’re clearly prepared to take that money elsewhere.’

What this means, in practice, is that it’s as crucial as ever for institutions to keep an eye on the metrics that signpost student satisfaction. And in pursuit of those metrics, it might be tempting to assume that high student confidence scores indicate students believe they’re getting a good return on their education.

But what if self-reported confidence scores don’t reflect institutional efforts?

This was the surprising conclusion of a recent Immersify student survey, which suggests that these high scores can act as a ‘false positive’: strong confidence rates are sitting alongside a string of needs that aren’t being met at the institutional level, especially around student desires for learning technology.

The Confidence Paradox

According to our national survey of over 300 students, 86% agree or strongly agree that they feel confident in their understanding of core concepts.

At a glance, that’s good news. But once the survey probed a little bit deeper, asking students how they felt about the learning support they receive, a different story emerged. Over 90% of students feel that digital tools help them retain and apply knowledge and 86% want greater institutional investment in supplemental learning tools.

Clearly, there are two contradictory pictures here: one of a student body that’s confident in its knowledge and another of learners whose strong desire to be supported by the tools they know to be effective just isn’t being addressed.

This contradiction, which we’re calling ‘the confidence paradox’, poses a key question. If students lack key forms of learning support, where’s all this confidence coming from?

The Fragmented Learning Journey

When we asked participants what resources they rely on to study, those appetites for learning tech were pretty well represented. While traditional textbooks still play a key role, a little over 60% of responses pointed to various digital tools: flashcard apps, AI assistants, YouTube videos, and interactive platforms.

‘While traditional textbooks still play a key role, a little over 60% of responses pointed to various digital tools: flashcard apps, AI assistants, YouTube videos, and interactive platforms.’

These findings point to an answer for the confidence paradox: students are supplementing their learning with resources they find on their own time (and, potentially, their own dime).

What this suggests is that students are drawing at least a portion of their confidence from outside their institutions. That’s the crux of the issue: students’ self-reported confidence levels might not be the result of institutional efforts.

In other words: students might feel confident independently of their institutions, rather than wholly because of them.

The High Stakes of Misinterpreted Confidence

It’s not news that the technologies students use to self-supplement come with risks.

Video guides and AI assistance are absolutely helpful study aids, but when students have to curate these resources for themselves, they’re always going to face the risk that the information they’re supplied with is out of date, misaligned with curricula, or (in AI’s case) hallucinated.

‘…when students have to curate these resources for themselves, they’re always going to face the risk that the information they’re supplied with is out of date, misaligned with curricula, or (in AI’s case) hallucinated.’

And in a healthcare context, where confidence translates into clinical decision-making, that misalignment has higher stakes than misleading metrics alone. If student confidence is rooted in self-sourced resources, it’s hard to be sure that it’s fully justified.

In clinical settings with real patients, that kind of discrepancy could have real ramifications for quality of care and, for institutions, the trust their reputations depend on.

The Unmet Need Institutions Can’t Ignore

Regardless of how reliable students’ EdTech options are, the fact remains that, in our survey, those options weren’t being supplied by institutions: 86% of respondents wanted greater institutional investment in supplemental learning tools.

Combine this unmet need with the potential stress and expense that comes with sourcing their own digital tools, and you’re left with cohorts who may well feel the ROI of their learning is lessened, even if their confidence in their knowledge remains high.

This is dissatisfaction that could easily be hidden by headline confidence data, muddying the picture of student sentiment and denying institutions a valuable opportunity to identify the platforms they could use to improve the student experience and make sure satisfaction levels better match the metrics.

—

Chloe Barrett is the founder and CEO of Immersify Education, where she’s using AR and animation to make learning more engaging—starting with Dentistry. She is passionate about scaling innovation in education and helping students succeed worldwide. Connect with Chloe on LinkedIn.

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading…

Related