UK Engagement Survey 2014: Full report of the cognitive testing
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Recent work has stressed the important links between educational gain and the pedagogical practices undertaken within institutions (Gibbs 2010, 2012). This led to a Higher Education Academy (HEA)-funded two-year pilot project exploring the viability of using items derived from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) in the UK, as well as piloting new UK-specific items. NSSE aims to evaluate student engagement with activities likely to enhance their learning outcomes (Kuh 2001) and was established in 2000 in North America and 484,919 students completed NSSE in 2014. Items from NSSE have been cognitively tested (Kuh 2001; Ouimet et al. 2001), but not extensively in a UK context. NSSE has been adopted in many different international contexts, including Canada, Australia, South Africa, China and Ireland (Coates and McCormick 2014). This document reports on the cognitive testing of the 2014 pilot but draws extensively on the pilot project and cognitive testing from 2013. For the initial 2013 pilot HEA project, modifications were made to selected NSSE items to reflect the different national context, leading to the 14 items used in the first pilot of the UK Engagement Survey questionnaire. Cognitive testing was required to evaluate the robustness and validity of these items in the UK. A report provided an evaluation of student understanding and validity of the Student Engagement items derived from NSSE, across a range of institutional, subject and student characteristics. The results of the 2013 pilot are reported in Buckley (2013), which is available, with the full 2013 cognitive testing report as well as a set of case studies and other supporting resources, at: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/nss/engagement_for_enhancement Based on the review of the items, cognitive testing and user feedback, the questions from the 2013 pilot were modified for the 2014 pilot administration. An additional three scales drawn from NSSE were added (covering Reflective and Integrative Learning; Time Spent; and Skills Development). Two new scales were added on Engagement with Research and Formulating and Exploring Questions, leading to 50 items altogether that institutions could use in their own internal surveys (see Version 0 in Appendix 1). During the cognitive testing, an additional scale was piloted, on the theme of Students as Partners, leading to 54-56 items being tested during the cognitive review. During the testing, root questions, item wording, splitting and combining items, and adding new items were explored. The aim of this report is to inform development of the items, institutional understanding of results of the national pilot and to provide a broader context for students’ understanding and interest in student engagement surveys. For the results of the 2014 pilot of the UK Engagement Survey, and information about the sources of the items and scales used, please visit https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/consultancy-services/surveys/ukes/ukes-final-reports
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,048 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,018 | 0,019 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».