MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2952642245

Factors underpinning student perceptions of laboratory experiences

2017· article· en· W2952642245 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Samuel J. Priest, Simon M. Pyke

Notice bibliographique

RevueProceedings of The Australian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education (formerly UniServe Science Conference) · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueInnovative Teaching Methods
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRasch modelCategorical variableSample (material)Test (biology)Logistic regressionSet (abstract data type)PsychologyQuality (philosophy)PerceptionMathematics educationItem response theoryComputer scienceStatisticsMachine learningMathematicsPsychometrics
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background Survey data gathered as part of the Advancing Science by Enhancing Learning in the Laboratory (ASELL) project and its predecessors have been used previously to draw correlations between student perceptions of different aspects of laboratory-based activities and their perceived overall learning experience (Barrie, Bucat, Buntine, Burke da Silva, Crisp, George, Jamie, Kable, Lim, Pyke, Read, Sharma and Yeung, 2015). However, typical past analyses have involved the application of scoring techniques to ordered categorical response data, conflating student dependent and student independent contributions to student responses. Rasch modeling techniques provide an opportunity to control for the biases of individual students, revealing the more sample independent correlations in student perceptions which can be used to inform teaching practice. Particularly, the Linear Logistic Test Model (Fischer, 1995) is capable of expressing sample independent measures for each survey item as a linear combination of more basic factors of the experience. Aims The aim of this research was to derive a Linear Logistic Test Model for the ASELL Student Learning Experience (ASLE) survey, expressing “overall learning experience” as a linear combination of more basic factors of the learning experience. Methods A data set of 128,881 individual data points provided by over 9000 students in response to the ASLE survey, gathered from 29 practical activities run from 2011 to 2015 was input into a Rasch model, extracting student independent measures of quality for each experiment. These student independent measures were subjected to factor analysis, subsequently converting the results into a Linder Logistic Test Model of the ASLE survey data. Number of factors extracted was determined by balancing the parsimony of the model with the proportion of observed data variance explained, using the corrected Akaike Information Criterion (Burnham & Anderson, 2004). Results The final Linear Logistic Test Model reveals six major identifiable contributors to the laboratory learning experience. In descending order of impact on responses, these factors are the perceived connection to lecture theory, the quality of instructional material provided, understanding of theory through collaboration with others, the development of data interpretation skills, independent learning and the reliance on or appreciation for the demonstrator. A large component of “overall learning experience” appears to be due to aspects not addressed by ASLE survey items. The model yields equations for facets of the laboratory learning experience targeted by the ASLE survey, such as the equation for “overall learning experience” below (Equation 1). δ_(14 (overall learning experience)) = [■(-2@2@0@1@1@2@5)]⋅[■(〖 η〗_(theory focus)@〖 η〗_instructions@η_(collaborative understanding)@η_(data interpretation)@η_(independent learning)@η_demonstrators@η_(unexplained overall) )] (1) Similar equations are also obtained for other items of the survey, revealing models for fostering aspects of the experience such as student interest, increased understanding and development of technical skills. Conclusions Equations comprising the Linear logistic Test Model have a range of pedagogical implications for the structure of laboratory learning activities. Notably, increased understanding appears to be irrelevant to perceived “overall learning experience”, raising questions as to the consequential validity of using student response data to drive design of learning activities. A general theme of conflict between student preferences and attainment of learning objectives is recognized. References Barrie, S. C., R. B. Bucat, M. A. Buntine, K. Burke da Silva, G. T. Crisp, A. V. George, I. M. Jamie, S. H. Kable, K. F. Lim, S. M. Pyke, J. R. Read, M. D. Sharma & A. Yeung (2015). Development, Evaluation and Use of a Student Experience Survey in Undergraduate Science Laboratories: The Advancing Science by Enhancing Learning in the Laboratory Student Laboratory Learning Experience Survey. International Journal of Science Education, 37(11), 1795-1814. Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. (2004). Multimodel Inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in Model Selection. Sociological Methods & Research, 33(2), 261-304. Fischer, G. H. (1995). The linear logistic test model. Rasch models (pp. 131-155): Springer.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,005
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,028

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,028
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,163
Tête enseignante GPT0,452
Écart entre enseignants0,289 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2017
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueProceedings of The Australian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education (formerly UniServe Science Conference)Même sujetInnovative Teaching MethodsTravaux en français237 207