Comparative Evaluation of Distance and On Campus Education: Is the Deck Stacked?.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluations of the effectiveness of distance education courses may be influenced by differences between students who choose to take distance versus on-campus courses. At Utah State University, surveys were completed by 28 students who were enrolled in or had completed distance-education courses in the Special Education program and 39 students enrolled in similar classes on campus. The most notable differences between the groups were in age and family composition. Mean average age was 22 on campus and 43 off campus. One-quarter of campus students were married, but only 2 had children; 89 percent of distance students were married, and 75 percent had children. Most students in both groups worked, but on-campus students were generally employed part-time. Over 85 percent of distance students worked full-time, and two-thirds worked in the public schools, primarily as teachers or paraprofessionals. Forty percent of the distance students and none of the campus students already had a bachelor's or master's degree. Almost all students were female and white. Implications for comparative evaluations are discussed. (SV) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. Comparative Evaluation of Distance and On Campus Education: Is the Deck Stacked?
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".